looking at vans and i found a good deal on 95 e-150 with a 5.8,wondering what they will get for milage, what will the v-6 do? thanks

 

my 92 5.8 was about 14mpg

 

thanks for the reply

 

my 95 5.8L gets 12-13 in town , 15-16 on the highway...17 with a tail wind.

 

My '92 E150 with a 351 got 13~14 in town, and 16~18 on the highway.

 

If its a nice heavy van, a V6 might be worse, not to mention pretty gutless. I have a 5.0 liter and its pretty sluggish in a full length conversion van.

 

My 95 has always gotten anywhere from 11-14 mpg. Never more, never less. Towing, not towing, it don't matter.

 

My '94 Chateau with 351, E4OD and 3:55 got 10 mpg consistently, no matter what I did with it, highway, city and towing. I did a little work on it a while back in response to a problem it was having and my city mileage has improved to a fairly consistent 12 and I got nearly 17 on the highway recently, but the road, the traffic and the weather were all perfect.

The injection system changed at some point in '95 or maybe '96. If it has a mass airflow sensor, it has the newer system and is capable of getting a little better mileage than my '94.

Also take into account how the van is equipped and the intended purpose. A bare bones E150 service van might do better, that a Clubwagon. A conversion van will be heavier and the aerodynamics will likely be worse (if that is possible) and of course a cargo van will depend on how much load you carry in it.

Your mileage will definitely vary. I would stay away from the V6.

Gene

 

Actually the aerodynamics of a conversion van would be better, most sit lower to the ground. Not talking about the "high top" ones though.

 

They aren't any lower, they just have the hot pants kits on them that give them the appearance of being lower.

If they have fitted wheels and tires that are effectively smaller diameter, they may be marginally lower. I don't know if they are still running lower profile automotive tires on conversions like they did in the old days, but I wouldn't want one configured that way. If they lower the profile, they should increase the wheel diameter in a true +1 or +2 configuration, which would have no effect on ride height.

The front air dam is a two edged sword in that it diverts some of the air from going under the van and creating drag on the rough underside but also creates drag by presenting a larger front profile for the van. There may actually be some benefit to the lift generated by the air going under the stock van in the form of less rolling resistance.

The fender flairs and running boards would have to be all drag. I can see no aerodynamic benefit to them.

I think these items are more of a styling exercise than aero aides, which brings us back to the added weight that conversions carry. That's always a bad thing.

Gene

 

Hello There, Have a 1994 E-250, 351 EFI ,Auto Over Drive ,Hi Top. Gets 11 mpg around town and only slightly better on the Highway. Great motor (74K original miles) lots of torque. Also have a 1995 E-150 low top, 5.0 L EFI, Auto overdrive, (129 K miles), gets 16 mpg around town and 18-19 mpg on Highway.

 

Well, seeing that my 95 conversion van gets better mileage than your Chateau, that seems to blow your theory out of the water My mileage has never varied off the 11-14 mpg since new. Even after the switch from the stock wheels and tires to the ones I have now: 15x8.5's front, shod with 235/70'snd rear with 15x10's shod with 275/60's. It now sits about 1-2" lower with these than the 29" stockers. Handles a little better too with it's wider stance. Looks a damn sight better now that the tires fill up the fender flares.

 

baddad,

Antidotal evidence is fairly useless. If you look at the post in this thread alone, you will notice that individual results vary widely. I have seen claims in previous post for vans similar to mine as high a 18mpg. Some people will state the best mileage that they ever got as being the norm. I did not. Driving conditions and driving styles make a lot of difference in mpg as well.

You said you put on new tires and wheels that lowered the van 1" to 2", yet your mileage has "never varied off the 11-14 mark since new." That shoots your theory in the foot. Why didn't your mileage improve? Did you correct your speedometer to reflect the new tire diameters?

Some of the newer style high tops could improve airflow over the top. Maybe. You would be hard pressed to prove that any of the visual aides added around the lower edge of conversion vans has any positive effect on lowering drag numbers. Particularly at the speeds that vans operate at. I would like to see the claims of any manufacture that says they will lower drag.

Gene

 

I did nothing to the speedo after the tire/wheel change. But all in all, your arguements are no better than mine. The difference in mileage in all models is miniscule.. so it's pointless to say conversion vans get worse mileage than the others.