93 5L bronco MPG issues

Ok, I don't see what the big deal is. MPG is all about efficiency. Either make the package lighter, or the power plant more efficient. There's not much to remove that I would be okay with not having, so efficiency it is. 20 miles per gallon is about 6.4 ounces of fuel, or about 1.64KW/hr of energy. I REFUSE to believe that is not enough available energy to move 5000 lbs 5280ft. ESPECIALLY considering that with newer technology, similar weight vehicles (like the camaro, which is what now, 12,000 lbs? :P )can EASILY hit 30mpg on a 70mph cruise with an available 430hp. I understand that the 5.0L is ages old, and the technology bolted to it int much newer, but STILL, if my 95 250 with ZERO mods can hit 16 all day, this stupid box on wheels should be able to at least match it.

And my desires for the outcome are not alone, i frequent a forum called fullsizebronco, and those boys rock 22-25 in 5.0L 2x4 f-150's all day, and ive even spoken to a few members with 5.8L broncos with 33's and lift kits getting 15-17MPG. Its doable, and i'm gonna get it done.

-J0N

Buy a car for your commute. If you think 17mpg is awesome, you'd freak if you could get 30mpg from a $1000 car.

Ps. I drive my '95 f150 less than 50 miles a month. It gets 12mpg and Im ok with it.

My 95 F150 gets 12 mpg. I've come to the conclusion that it won't change. That's why I bought an old Ranger. Or was that to crack the head. I cant remember.

Although no one else has mentioned it, I think the sunvisor you referred to can certainly make a difference. i know a lot of guys that lost 1-2 mpg when they put on a safari rack, and that visor catches more air.

Could you swap to an electric fan? Supposedly running a Taurus-sourced junkyard electric fan on my 302 Explorer would net me a couple MPG by removing the clutch fan. Maybe you could do a similar swap.

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: gears are both 3.55's. both run 31 10.50's. at about 70mph, im turning right at 2k in the bronco, same for the 250.

I hate to say it, but there's a big portion of your problem. I know from experience* these trucks are aerodynamic BRICKS and when you get above 60 mph gas mileage drops drastically. Remember, these trucks were designed during the 55 mph national speed limit era.

I'd still check things like the coolant sensor, and make sure tire pressure is correct (if not a bit on the high side), but no matter what don't expect a big improvement.

*past vehicles:

'78 F150 4x4 w/ 351M & 4 spd - would get 10 mpg held at a steady 60 mph; this was considered "good" by others with similar trucks. I could practically watch the gas gauge drop if I held it above 60 mph for long. The engine was bone stock and I was told I'd see a MPG improvement with headers, dual exhaust and a 650 vacuum secondary 4V carb in place of the stock 2V.

'90 E150 raised roof onversion van w/ 5.0 and AOD - would usually get 15 mpg at 65 mph, but more if I could go 60 mph without being too much of a rolling chicane. Best ever was 17 mpg on down-hill return trip from the Catskills (I mainly drove the van when I was racing mtn bikes, so they were usually long hwy trips). Like the F150, mileage would drop drastically if I tried to keep up with traffic, so I became accustomed to sitting in the right lane and enjoying the scenery. Fortunately, a conversion van is a comfortable place to spend time...

I was going to chime in on speed as well. The difference between 65mph and 80 mph in my Volvo is 28+ Vs 26MPG

[URL=http://s265.photobucket.com/user/derekrichardson/media/DSCN0244.jpg.html][/URL]

I guess it's possible!

In reply to ebonyandivory:

That was before the NTSB (or whoever) actually checked.

Visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml That highway rating of 19mpg is over a simulated 10.26mile rout with an average speed of 48mph and a max speed of 60mph

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml That highway rating of 19mpg is over a simulated 10.26mile rout with an average speed of 48mph and a max speed of 60mph

Yup. The "corrected" ratings under the new system are 12 city, 17 highway.

OP, I hope you are able to sort out any running issues with the truck, but you are a fool to choose a 5.0 Bronco to commute to work 20K miles/year if MPG is a concern.

I'm voting ProDarwin in this general Bronco election.

I just filled up my 2006 F150 with the 5.4 3 Valve and got just under 15 mpg on 87 octane winter blend. Almost all of the tank was straight 70 mph with the cruise.

You know... you could buy my Accent and it would pay for itself in 3 months.

to address a few comments:

2002-no room in garage or my life for any more damn cars. BUT, i need to keep a solid winter capable 4x4 with room for 4 and the ability to pull a van out of a ditch. dont ask.

clyde - yeah, ive decided to remove the visor. and ive already done the elec fan swap. (see original post)

prodarwin - 17 id be happy with, BEFORE my modifications. is 20 REALLY so much to ask? and im stuck with the truck. i understand it is what it is, but id be PLENTY satisifed with it if i can get what other 5000lb vehicles get.

zilla - no, i couldnt. glad your more aware of my situation and circumstances, though, thanks...

I know it's obvious but remember that it isn't just the weight; full sized trucks have to punch a big ol' hole in the air. I can tell you from personal experience that with a Hemi powered Ram 2500 4X4 (6,000#+) the difference between 60 MPH and 70 MPH is 3 miles per gallon.

Jeff

maybe you could ask one of these guys.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/emgarage.php?make=&model=bronco&year=

No need to be a prick. I was merely making a joke. Sorry you have no sense of humor.

JKleiner wrote: full sized trucks have to punch a big ol' hole in the air.

That guy from Popular Mechanics says the Mellenials want the hole to be smaller.

Well im sorry, bob, but cmon... no smiley, no lol, this is the internet dude. sarcasm doesnt have font, so how the hell should i know? Try this: re-read your statement in the most "holier than thou", "your a moron for even asking this question" voice. Sounds like your being a d!ck, doesnt it? The only way i could know you were pokin fun is if you let me know with some additional text...

and i know its a box. i know its a tank. im fully aware that its not going to average 800mi per tank. BUT, i started this thread cause i think its capable of more than friggin 13. i THOUGHT being a group of engineers, car people, designers, and generally intelligent all around (hence the nick name 'GRM brain trust'), i THOUGHT i would get helpful suggestions and hints. not 'it sucks its life get over it'...

sorry for askin, i guess.

-J0N

In all honesty, all of my friends that have had that body bronco's were solidly in the 12-14mpg range when they were much much much newer. (mid-late 90's). I just can't see it getting better with a lot more mileage and age to be honest.

But if you want, I can run the numbers.... at 400 miles per week, @ $4/gallon the accent would run you $40 in gas. That's $160/ 4-week month for 13 months. That's $240/month that you would save in gas. For the 13 months that would equal $3120 in savings for a $1200 car. So technically it would take 4.5 months to pay off the accent in fuel savings. Keep that car for 2 years and you could bank $5k in fuel savings to spend on whatever you wanted.

and thats a fair statement. however, if a 200,000 mile geo metro that got, what, 35, 40? from the factory, can be eco-modded and driven different to get 65-70, (increase of ~60%), then should it really be so damn difficult to get a 15-25% increase out of a similar vintage vehicle, with VASTLY more aftermarket support?

Im no longer asking at this point, i'm telling. the answer is NO, its not that difficult, and to everyone reading this with a 90's era ford truck, PAY attention, cause i WILL find a 20mpg bronco in this thing, and when i do, ill be more than happy to share with you all how i've done it. im not sure if this was your intent, but you have inspired me, no, even better, you have DARED me to continue my research and tinkering with this thing until i get the result I'm after.

Thanks, guys, i REALLY appreciate the stick-poke! :D

[see the smiley? thats how you know im kiddin...]

-J0N

It's not rocket science: make the rolling resistance as low as possible and make the hole you're punching through the air as small as possible. And drive slower so you're not trying to punch that air so hard. Yes, pull off anything that is disrupting the air flow over/around the truck. Big, huge towing mirrors? Dump 'em.

After that, it's basic stuff: make sure the drivetrain is in good tune. Full tune-up, fresh gear oil, no binding u-joints, etc. Make sure the alignment is spot-on. Does it have manual or automatic hubs? Make sure they're working properly so you're not needlessly turning the front axle. Pretty much anything that may be increasing resistance will require more gas to overcome.

If you want to start spending money, then look at taller gearing and/or ways to make the engine more efficient (free-flowing exhaust, etc).

No one thing will make a big difference, but everything combined may get you what you're looking for.

Right on. I'd love to see someone pull more miles out of a 95 5.0, but you just may spend more money trying than anything else.

Keep in mind, the hyper-milers go as far as shutting the vehicle down at every chance given and pop-starting it. That's how a 93 Accord can get 60 mpg.

Along the lines of better efficiency, if you don't want the time/hassel/money of lowering it, what about a front air damn? You could make one from flexible plastic you can get from stock car parts companies. Make a removable airdamn that keeps air out fron under the car.

Over air the tires.

Zero toe

Grill cover to get less air going through the engine bay, probably not an issue from a cooling point at this time of the year

Heck, you could try clear packing tape on the hood seams to reduce drag

Remove mud flaps if you have them

Remove the external radio antenna and just use an iPod

Hot air intake for winter use?

Can you remove the belt to the AC or use a shorter one to bypass it.

Couple of questions:

Is the rich cylinders via pulling the plugs one bank or the entire engine?

There's no question that it's running rich, it's matter of figuring out why. While you are getting good temp at idle, once you are moving, it's possible that the engine temp is dropping, which does alter things- if you get cold enough, it will decide to go back out of closed loop fuel. Then it's kind of on it's own So is it possible to record the engine while you are driving?

If the rich is bank specific, I would narrow my search down to hardware on that bank- but that can be looked at later.

The other important thing that stands out is the bad PRNDL (trans shifter location) information. Since you are getting an error with that, it's also quite possible that an error there is causing the torque converter to never lock up- which throws away a significant improvement in fuel economy. Or choose the wrong gear.

In another car of ours, we had problems with the throttle position sensor- which drove the trans totally nuts. Up until later electronic throttles, all auto trans' were controlled via the throttle position. If that gets wanky, it will at least do odd things with the torque converter.

Once you get the engine running RIGHT then we can talk about more eco minded ideas- like advancing the spark, and grill block offs, and whatnot. None of those will help if the engine isn't willing to go along.