Horrible Fuel Economy

[anupaum]

We've had a 2004 Explorer Sport Trac for about a month now. It's a comfortable ride, but I've never owned a vehicle that has had such lousy fuel economy. I took my son 4 wheeling today. We climbed two mountains (and coasted down both of them), driving a total of 100 kilometers before we fueled up this evening. Total time spent in 4 wheel drive was probably less than 10% overall. We burned 23 liters of fuel. For those of you who are metrically challenged, that's 10 mpg . . .

Okay, so it was a little unusual today. The previous tank, however, wasn't much better at 17 liters per 100 km, or about 14 mpg.

Is this in line with other people who have the 4 liter 4X4?

 

[Lost Bushman]

A friend of my neighbor's has a Sport Trac, it's 2WD, but he incessantly complains about the fuel economy in that thing. I get better mpg in my Avalanche with a V8 that he does with a V6.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

 

[wildbill23c]

The 4.0L V6 engines are gas hogs, plain and simple. My grandfather's 93 Ford Ranger never got better than 18mpg on the open highway. My 1984 Ford Bronco 2 I get 17mpg in town in stop and go traffic and that's with a 2.8L V6. Yep, don't expect any miraculous fuel economy feats with these engines.

 

[martin]

If you drive it like a grandpa they do a little better, but not much.

 

[Slammin Sam]

While I've never had a Sport Trac, I owned a 95 Explorer XLT 4.0 auto, 4wd for 6 years from 03 until 08. I constantly averaged 20+ mpg on a mix of city and highway drive. Best I ever got was just over 23 on a 3500 mile trip back to visit family in Ohio. Granted 95% of the 75,000 miles I drove were in 2wd, but I'm surprised the same drive train does so poorly in the Sport Trac. Are they full time 4wd?

 

[Spede Demn]

I bought a new '94 Ranger 4l 4x4 in the spring of '95, drove it nearly 20 years, consistantly got 20+ on the highway even when pulling a small utility trailer full of camping gear and the canoe on the truck canopy, it would drop under 20 on windy days but when it was empty I got 24-25mpg with it, and of course off road it used alot more fuel.

My B2 2.8l gets better mileage than the Ranger did, it will go 500 miles on a 20 gallon tank of fuel.

If you guys have oversized tires or have swapped the rear gears that would explain at least some of the excessive fuel.

..and I am a 'grandpa' so maybe my driving helps, but I still have fun so not 'that' much

 

[anupaum]

In general, I'm pretty careful with the way I drive. Prior to owning this vehicle, I had a '93 Ranger with a supercharged 2.3. That little truck used half the fuel of our Sport Trac as long as I was driving. (But I had to use 92 octane gas, otherwise it would ping like mad!)

From what I've read online, it looks like the AVERAGE 4X4 Sport Trac gets 16 mpg in combined highway / city driving. I suppose I'll have to live with the lousy fuel economy. We paid for this truck outright and the heaviest of its depreciation has already occurred. We can buy a LOT of gasoline for the difference between what we paid for this truck and what a new, fuel-efficient car would cost us. And I also have to take into account that this truck can go places where my old Ranger would have been stuck.

Oh well . . .

 

[Dune Runner]

Make sure the thermostat is of the correct heat range. A stuck one or one that is to cold will hurt your MPG.

 

[70roadrunner]

my 84 w/2.8 5speed got about 20-22mpg on the highway, and my dads 2.8/auto got around 14mpg. the manual trans and driving habits play a big part in fuel economy, as well as overall gear ratio. also, if you were in the mountains, you probably spent very little time in high gear, which also affects economy.

 

[anupaum]

Make sure the thermostat is of the correct heat range. A stuck one or one that is to cold will hurt your MPG.

I'll have a look at that. Thank you!