Keeping the 3.0's revs "up in the happy zone" killing my city MPGs!!

[fixizin]

Yeah, I hear what you RKIs are saying about the torque PEAK being 3750RPM for this engine, but what does the whole CURVE look like, 'cause it seems to be coming on pretty good at 3000, and it certainly doesn't seem to be "lugging" at 2400, at least when truck is UNladen.

So I did 2 tanks of fuel in "rev" mode, where I'm doing the boulevards @ 45-54MPH in *3rd* gear, and staying out of 5th on the freeway... yeah, it sounds manly, but my town mileage dropped from 19MPG to about 16.5... no thanks... I'll just "lug" along as usual, 24-25MPG Hwy, 18-19 city.

PS: Seriously, does anyone have a factory or dyno chart of torque curve @ rear wheels for Vulcan with M5R1?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Unloaded your better off lugging it around a little.

Now if you were pulling a 4000lb trailer everwhere and lugging it you wouldnoitce an increse by keeping it in its powerband.

later,
Dustin

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

2 tanks is hardly a conclusive test. i gain several MPG everytime i skip 5th for highway usage and turn about 3K (my gearing is too tall for my tires, which doesnt help matters).

the 3.0 does pretty good in the torque curve department for an OHV. heres a stock '04 3.0:

as you can see, anything from about 3300-4K is within the "happy zone".

 

[ccrunner1]

not to tread jack but it tried keeping in the "happy zone" on 94 extcab 3.0 with an auto i hit 13 mpg(2.5mile from school and back in the cold) 15-16 norm

my question is with the auto at 25mph i just kept in 1st and my rpm was around 3200. and when i let off the gas lots of engine breaking would that cause my engine to get worse mpg's instead of a manual where you just push the clutch in to coast and then break when you need to. (god i wish i had a manual)

p.s. my truck does sound sweet at 3200 rpm but (im sure my neighbors didn't like it when i came home from work at 11pm

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

coasting when you need to slow down instead of braking (engine brake or survice brake) will always result in better fuel economy.

 

[thegoat4]

I only rev mine up when I need speedier acceleration or I'm hauling a load uphill. The rest of the time I drive it in the lower RPMs. Exception being the the 1->2 shift. I always wind that one up since it shifts smoother at 3k+. If I'm in no hurry I'll get into OD by 40MPH and just ease on up to highway speed. About 20 city MPG, and 24 or better highway.

 

[fixizin]

coasting when you need to slow down instead of braking (engine brake or survice brake) will always result in better fuel economy.

Err, I thought the Vulcan/PCM had "coast-cutoff", and used even less fuel than idle when being "driven" by momentum...?

 

[fixizin]

2 tanks is hardly a conclusive test.

Sure it is. What indicates otherwise?

(my gearing is too tall for my tires, which doesnt help matters).

Well I still have the OEM-sized 15-inch P235s and 3.73 LSDiff, and at 71MPH (indicated) in 5th IIRC I'm turning ~2800 and MPGs approach 25, and that's w/ 4WD dead-weight and fender flares w/ built-in "stiffy" mud flaps, lol.

the 3.0 does pretty good in the torque curve department for an OHV. heres a stock '04 3.0:

THANKS for the chart!... pretty accurately confirms what the seat of my khakis tells me... i.e. it's fine at 2500RPM... and a lot quiter.

PS: I see on the 2008 Ranger, the 3.0's torque peak moved all the way up to 3950RPM! This is NOT an "improvement", especially in a truck, WTH?

 

[oldbaldy454]

Wicked-S

Thanks for posting the torque curves...been looking for performance data on the 3.0. HP looks a little low for a factory rated 150 HP.

Anyone have charts for 98-00 3.0?

My Torque feels to be more peaky around 3200 or so, but sure notice the happy zone.
Think it has to do with upper air intake tuning and change in 2001 to a smoother plastic upper manifold.

Holiday Cheers.
JB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

that chart is from a chassis dyno. thats RWHP. the 150HP factory HP rating is from the flywheel. the 26 HP difference is consistant with 15% or so drivetrane losses. that chart also shows an '04, which has the same plastic plenum that you have...your truck would look very similar to that on the dyno.

fixizin, touche...i didnt take into consideration that ford cuts the fuel above 1500RPM if the TPS is closed. in that case, engine braking MIGHT be more efficient than coasting. either would be more efficient then service braking.

i dont think 2 tanks is a conclusive test because it just isnt enough time. there could be a multitude of other factors causing the lower fuel economy...or it could just be a normal variance in mileage. im not calling you a liar, i just think its too soon to be so sure

 

[shadetree]

To get even close on mpg measurements, it is recommended the tank be filled from the same pump, at the same ambient temperature at each fill-up for at least three tanks. If this cannont be done, more than three tanks to give anywhere close to a somewhat accurate reading.

Torque curves should be flat. The flatter the better. Sludge's is close to that. Dyno readings are also variable from one run to another, one engine to another even if they are the same configuration.

Anytime the throttle plates are open for whatever reason, keeping rpm up, engine under load, etc., mileage will decrease.shady

 

[fixizin]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply controlled variables and white labcoats... I think I just don't want to crank the stereo up so far, lol...

i dont think 2 tanks is a conclusive test because it just isnt enough time. there could be a multitude of other factors causing the lower fuel economy...or it could just be a normal variance in mileage. im not calling you a liar, i just think its too soon to be so sure

OK, you got me there, especially since:

a) Low-use vehicle at this time, so there's WEATHER changes over 2 tanks, even in So-Fla... (density altitude, TIRE pressure, etc.)

b) "They" been sneakin' 10% ETHANOL into the brew... sometimes posted, sometimes not... not sure if it's a seasonal state or EPA thing or WTH... need to do some checking... even though I'm Flex-ready, I'd prefer the option of %100 petrol.

 

[oldbaldy454]

Yep... here in sunny southern Minnesota, every pump has 10% Ethanol.
We have a co-op station here that puts 89 grade in every pump even though
some are marked with only 87 reg according to the station mgr
(all with 10 % ethanol)...never know what you get for sure.

Mileage goes down 2-3 mpg compared to using "ethanol free" gas available
at a few pumps in Wisconsin. Iowa and MN are hell bent on raising corn
for combating the imported oil, however, lately some Ethanol plants
have now gone bankrupt with the lower prices for gas. YIPPEE!!

The best I've done is 24 mpg taking it easy on a two lane road going 55-60,
otherwise I usually have my foot in it and like to race around too much.

It also depends how much time you take to fill your tank...some pumps will
click off too soon and you think it is full, but it is not...so when I'm in a hurry,
I think I get better mileage those times because the tank does not get filled to the brim.

With E-85 in the winter with 4wd engagaged, I've got as low as 8 mpg...
All depends how and where you drive, up and down hills in town,
stop and starting a lot or just get'er going on the flat straight away,
does the best.

Humidity will certainly change mpg as well, as I can remember in my miltary days in So CAL
that we added water injection kits to some carbs in the high and dry desert areas.
I rebuilt many Holley, Rochester and Carter carbs back in ye old younger
days, before catalytic converters were required to reduce the LA smog.

Southern Florida should give some good mpgs....
I have a brother in Ft Myers area that rebuilds Jaguars.
Great place for fine cars.

Holdiay Cheers !!

JB

 

[inferno94]

Err, I thought the Vulcan/PCM had "coast-cutoff", and used even less fuel than idle when being "driven" by momentum...?

It does you can feel it start injecting fuel again at 1500 rpm, at least in a mtx truck you can.

 

[AllanD]

Who told you the 3.0's torque peak is at 3750rpm?

It's at 3000rpm.
The newer ones slightly lower.
2750 might be right for a 99-up 3.0

Yeah, I hear what you RKIs are saying about the torque PEAK being 3750RPM for this engine, but what does the whole CURVE look like, 'cause it seems to be coming on pretty good at 3000, and it certainly doesn't seem to be "lugging" at 2400, at least when truck is UNladen.

So I did 2 tanks of fuel in "rev" mode, where I'm doing the boulevards @ 45-54MPH in *3rd* gear, and staying out of 5th on the freeway... yeah, it sounds manly, but my town mileage dropped from 19MPG to about 16.5... no thanks... I'll just "lug" along as usual, 24-25MPG Hwy, 18-19 city.

PS: Seriously, does anyone have a factory or dyno chart of torque curve @ rear wheels for Vulcan with M5R1?