Air conditioning verses horse power

[Tractorman]

4 cyl will lose alot less. My expedition weighs a whole helluva lot more than your so any pull on the motor is intensified. My expe never got over 20 and that was at 55 mpg on the higway with windows up and nothing running and tires 5psi over. The same trip with same cicumstances only with air on I get 15 mpg. Its been double checked. When I run down the higway at 70 instead of 55 I dont get over 16 mpg. The bigger truck with 125k miles, it loses gas mileage real easy. The 17 ft trailer I pulled to knoxville recently I got 11 MPG.

What is it with peckerheads thinking I dont know what I am talking about tonight? I guess I dont know my own truck and should go back to eatin my bowl of stupid each day, that way I dont misinform you people.

Less than 20=19.x or lower in my book. 19.x-15=4.x. 4.x doesn't equal 5. If you know how to calculate your MPG, why is it only to whole numbers? I go to at least the first decimal point.

 

[feellnfroggy]

Double post, sorry.

 

[rockin86ranger]

I will say id deffinetly takes some h.p, try running your a/c while accelerating and then just turn it off their is a huge difference atleast their is in my F150. In fact it such a huge difference that i don't run a/c in town, because it drives that much better

 

[feellnfroggy]

I would doubt it running the AC that has caused that much of a drop in mileage, he's probable doing the math and everything else the same way. Probably some sensor or other problem not realated to the AC being on or off.
Dave

Its possible that the a/c compressor being 125k miles old was causing more drag than it should, however I can assure you that nothing else was wrong with the truck.

The laws of physics basically state that the C-5 should not be able to fly, it should be IMPOSSIBLE. Yet it does.

 

[feellnfroggy]

Less than 20=19.x or lower in my book. 19.x-15=4.x. 4.x doesn't equal 5. If you know how to calculate your MPG, why is it only to whole numbers? I go to at least the first decimal point.

LOL, I didnt say less than 20 I said never got over 20 just like you highlighted, which means I got 20 mpg but not over (20.x in anybodies book). Geez, if your gonna call me out, please try to do so accurately.

 

[scotts90ranger]

all he's saying is that a 4hp drop out of a 200hp+ engine is going to be a lot less noticeable than a 4hp loss on a 120hp engine, hence the less noticeable gas mileage decrease... I know you're saying you have different personal experience, but others are saying they have personal experience with less than 1mpg difference like it should theoretically be...

 

[Tractorman]

LOL, I didnt say less than 20 I said never got over 20 just like you highlighted, which means I got 20 mpg but not over (20.x in anybodies book). Geez, if your gonna call me out, please try to do so accurately.

You said not over 20. 20.1 is over 20. Pretty easy stuff.

How convenient that everything lands on whole numbers.

You've used terrible logic in your post. Your reasoning for why your MPG dropped is wrong, and I don't care if I don't have enough posts for you.

You're saying you lost 33% of your fuel economy due to the AC. Not buying it. At all.

But your paying for it, so I don't care that much anymore. I'm sure glad all vehicles I've ever owned/driven had only small effects from the AC being on.

 

[dirtsquirt]

Sorry about the flame war!!, was just wondering if someone knew the math on HP loss with AC belt in place! I know with the 2003 liberty we would get about 340k to a tank instead of the around 400k with ac running.

The AC belt broke on my 87 b2 and noticed it is got a little more pep in it's step, was the reason for the question.

I read a post about the age of the AC pump and that could be very well be why i have notice a little more pep, but the pulley rolls with out any restriction.

 

[feellnfroggy]

Sorry dirt, It just gets frustrating when people who have a wealth of knowledge about cars, think they know about other people experiences too. For the average bear most of the answers you were given were correct. I was not trying to confuse you, just offering an experience of mine that apparently noone else has had.

 

[dirtsquirt]

Sorry dirt, It just gets frustrating when people who have a wealth of knowledge about cars, think they know about other people experiences too. For the average bear most of the answers you were given were correct. I was not trying to confuse you, just offering an experience of mine that apparently noone else has had.

Hey all is cool, And i do thank you for your input, And that is whats make this site good, is the abundance of experience from alot of folks.

 

[fastpakr]

The laws of physics basically state that the C-5 should not be able to fly, it should be IMPOSSIBLE. Yet it does.

I'm just not sure what to say to this. The laws of physics say no such thing.

 

[feellnfroggy]

I'm just not sure what to say to this. The laws of physics say no such thing.

When the c-5 was originally designed on paper, they said it would never get off hte ground. Its what I was told by the flight guru's. Im not an engineer, I dont know. I was just proving a point, just cause some turd says it cant happen doesnt mean it won't.

 

[fastpakr]

I'd love to know who 'they' were, as they certainly didn't include anybody that understood physics, let alone qualified engineers.

Interesting choice of an example.

Losing 25% of your fuel economy by turning on the A/C is laughable. If you really are, there's something massively broken.

 

[feellnfroggy]

I'd love to know who 'they' were, as they certainly didn't include anybody that understood physics, let alone qualified engineers.

Interesting choice of an example.

Losing 25% of your fuel economy by turning on the A/C is laughable. If you really are, there's something massively broken.

"they" were some of the air force gurus when I first started jumping. I never questioned it, since every time one flew over the barracks it looked like it was gonna fall outta the sky.

As far as the fuel economy, I dont know what to tell you guys. Nothing is broken. Nothing is "majorly" wrong. My truck was kept in tip top shape. Whether or not you all feel it is right or correct or possible does not change the fact that it is. Thats why I have run without a/c for the last year. I get almost 100 more miles to a tank that way. The a/c worked fine though when I did run it. Ice cold.

Oh and laughable dont concern me, there is nothing I could do about it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Its possible that the a/c compressor being 125k miles old was causing more drag than it should, however I can assure you that nothing else was wrong with the truck.

The laws of physics basically state that the C-5 should not be able to fly, it should be IMPOSSIBLE. Yet it does.

My F-150 doesn't have that big of variations in fuel economy with the air on/off. Neither does my brother's '97 with the 4.6. Same basic running gear as a first generation Expedition.

Something wasn't right with either your truck or your calculator.