99 Ford Explorer Gas mileage

I own a 99 ford explorer V6. I want to know whats the average mileage I should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jhonny wrote:

You didn't specify what conditions that you drive under.
All freeway, all city, a mixture of freeway and city driving, infrequent short trips, mostly long trips, high speed, low speed, hot climate, cold climate, a light foot on the accelerator, a stoplight dragster, or what?
It all makes a _lot_ of difference.
Oh, and do you use gasohol or straight gasoline? That matters, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mostly my driving is a mixture of city and freeway, mostly long trips and on the highway speed is usually 75 mph, I am in VA so the climate is not that bad and I would say I am not too heavy on the accelerator. I just use the regular gasoline (87).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
THats about right, What octane are you running? 87 then thats about what I am getting with my 97. I can go 318 miles before my check gauge lights comes on. If I drive out to the mountains (all highway) then I can get 350 per tank. I have BF Goodrich AT KO's with auto AWD 4.0 V6.
Searcher1

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let me get this math correct here first. 330 miles for 21 gallons of gas is around 15 mpg. I get on the average of 20 mpg. I have a 1999 soc 6 banger, and burn 87 octane gas, and do mostly highway mixed with a little city driving. I'm running 35psi for tire pressure. Maybe it's my light foot on the gas that makes the difference.
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:42:16 GMT, "Searcher"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what I used to get too. about 20 for highway driving with a sohc v6 and 4.10 diff. For mixed driving (I have a light foot) I got around 17. I think mileage has gone down since gasohol but it's tough to check it out since my driving is mainly stop and go now.
Ben
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The worst way to try and guage gas mileage is miles/tank. The only sure way is to compute miles travelled for gallons pumped... http://www.dkcpa.com/calc/java_mpg.html looks pretty good though I haven't used it. I can assure you that if fuel consumption were an issue, I would NOT have a driveway full of 4X4s.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 05:32:23 GMT, "Jim Warman"

I have a 98 Sport with the 4 liter OHV V-6. I drive 21 miles to work each day and 90% of this is on an Interstate highway. I average 19 miles per gallon, carefully measured. Sometimes a tad more or less, depending largely on how much driving around town I do on the weekend - usually not much.
I drive 60-65 on the Interstate to keep up with traffic. Recently I decided to drive for a week while taking pains to conserve fuel by limiting acceleration and braking and keeping to a 55 mph limit. I was able to closely follow this regimen.
I picked up about 1 mile per gallon. One of these days I plan to try the experiment again with a speed limit of 60 and see if that improves matters. As it stands it appears that the attempt to improve mileage by varying the driving style produces only a minor improvement. Disappointing.
Soames
"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think you may see larger gains in the 55 mph range as well as using your gentle throttle technique. The Ex has the drag coefficient of a shapely brick and the power required to move the wind out of the way increases exponentially with speed.
Whenever we set out to check our fuel consumption, we are setting ourselves up for a disappointment. The EPA rating on the showroom sticker has little to do with what we will realize in real world driving - it is simply a measure taken in closely controlled circumstances (dynamometer, air temp, etc.) so that we can compare to other vehicles. Even though our gas prices have been over 80 cents per litre (over $3 per US gallon), fuel consumption is the very last thing on my mind when selecting a vehicle. This shows in my preference for full sized, 4WD pick-ups.
Others will view gas mileage with varying degrees of importance, though I admit to being amused by those suffering "pump island shock" after moving up from an econo-box. If we have no identifiable running concerns - and - if the CEL works but is not illuminated - and - if we have no external fuel leaks - and - if the evaporative emissions system hasn't been breached, we are very likely getting the best fuel mileage we can (dictated by our driving style, of course).
Extended idling is one of the biggest fuel mileage killers..... stopping down the block to talk to a neighbour..... sitting in a running car waiting for our blushing brides to come out of the store with a quart of milk and a six pack..... letting the defroster take care of that morning frost instead of scraping..... I'm reminded of a cusomer from many years ago.... In the dead of winter he was dis-satisfied with his gas mileage.... looking out the window, his truck is running with the heater on full blast. I told him it was "the weather". Come summer, he once again complained about his mileage... looking out the window, I see his truck running with the AC on full blast. Maintaining ones vehicle properly helps in the fuel mileage wars, but nothing will make the same difference as losing old habits.
In the meantime, the manufacturers are busy trying to perfect both the hybrid and the CVT transmission. Both are a unique driving experience but neither is suitable for my lifestyle and/or demographics.
Bottom line..... if we drive the kind of vehicle we want/need to drive, we shall have to pay the piper. If fuels costs have us tossing and turning at night, we should use public transit. My best suggestion is to put down the pad and pencil, turn off the calculator and simply enjoy driving our chosen rides....
, visualize using your turn signal"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:03:00 GMT, "Jim Warman"

"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:03:00 GMT, "Jim Warman"
(snip)

I don't expect dramatic improvements from the CVT but of course in societal terms a 5% increase would be worthwhile. I like the idea of the hybrids very much but wonder about the cost factor.

Yes. My relatively old Explorer continues to be a wonder to me. I keep vehicles for a long time, and my previous ride was a '84 Chevrolet S-10. There was a quantum leap in automobile engineering between '84 and '98. My Explorer has 52,000 miles on it and still runs as well as the day I bought it. Well, except for the readout on the #$%$# radio.
My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up. Relatively few people know how to calculate fuel mileage. That is why fuel tanks are sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO. I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........
(BTW, I think I double posted an empty reply, the first time I've done THAT, apologies)
Soames
"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16 US gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel tanks are cheap to build and fit in the available space.... unless, of course, you would have the manufacturer delete the back seat and install a ruddy great metal or plastic box in it's place....
What is it with this They did "this" for nefarious purposes and they did "that" with subterfuge in mind????? Why stop at a 4.0 litre motor??? Why didn't they build it bigger? Why don't the back windows go all the way down??? More subterfuge...????
Indeed, pump island shock will remain no matter what the fuel tank size. If your 98 is a 4 door, the fuel tank holds 21 US gallons of fuel when filled to the proper level (might hold 24 US gallons if you're goofy enough to try) - small? I think NOT.
wrote:

"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No Jim, *you* must be a young'un...
On the 1974-1976 Bel Air, Caprice, and Impala (except station wagons) the tank was >26< US gallons. My first car was a 1966 Bel Air, and it had a 20 gallon tank. 20 gallon tanks were not at all uncommon on normal sized cars. A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16 gallon tank on the Chevy II.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'll have to stand corrected.... all my early cars were intermediates and compacts. My '60 Falcon featured a 10 Imperial gallon tank.... as did many others I owned (smallish cars were my norm - I wasn't he kind of boy you wanted your daughter riding with).
I would have been working on your BelAir when it was just off warranty.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[top posting fixed]

I also owned two MGBs, a VW beetle, a Plymouth Champ, a Plymouth (yes I know) Colt, a Pinto (my worst car ever, absolutely no question) etc. so I've had my share of little cars too.

When I owned it the only one to ever touch it (for anything other than tire changes, etc.) was me, which is true of almost every car I've owned since then, with a few exceptions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Mty Expedition has a 30 gal (nominal) tank. That's the *smallest* they could fit? My 91 F-250 had two 30 gallon tanks. That was the *smallest* they could fit? These are stock setups. I think your opinion doesn't fit the facts.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Before I finally traded off my 93 F150, our gas had breached 75 cents/litre. Already used to spendy fill ups, I still wasn't ready for one gas bar operator in Edmonton (who obviously didn't see many real size vehicles) who looked at my $75CA fill tab and said..... "Wow.... I've never seen that before..... you can have that cup of coffee for FREE!!!". whooppee..... did I win a prize or what?
Now my SuperCrew has a tank about the same size as yours..... A SuperDuty with single rears can have a tank up to almost 40 gallons - with dual rears, you can get two tanks combined at near 60 gallons. I've work on the odd Chevy pick-up with tanks that never seem to end.
To add to Bills statement... the size of the tank is limited only by the space available to put it. There isn't one single manufacturer out there that wouldn't love the bragging rights to "goes further between fill ups...".

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.