2013TransitConnect Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I've owned two Crown Victoria's and both got around 25 mpg on the road. My TC only gets 29 with an underpowered I-4 and it weighs much less. Why can't they make an engine for it that is bigger and gets better mileage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windguy Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 in combination with the weight is the body style. not sure which contributes more. the van wouldn't be as aerodynamic as some passenger cars so I'm guess that's the main reason for the reduced gas mileage. I'm sure others would have a better analysis of this. I'd like to see a little better gas mileage too, in the 30's, but not sure how realistic that is given the size of the van. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnyguy Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 in combination with the weight is the body style. not sure which contributes more. the van wouldn't be as aerodynamic as some passenger cars so I'm guess that's the main reason for the reduced gas mileage. I'm sure others would have a better analysis of this. I'd like to see a little better gas mileage too, in the 30's, but not sure how realistic that is given the size of the van. The 2013 model is underpowered the 2014 model has more power over the older model its a big change according to reviews , but at the same time very similar mpg which is good news the 2.5 litter engine is not the latest technology been around at least for 5 years don't have direct injection which would improve mpg.,but it is a proven reliable engine. The 4.6L engine gets that 25 on a highway and at what speed ? I assume not in the city, the aerodynamics plays a part too the oldert model is more boxy while the newer one has a better shape but got a bigger engine so that's evens it out. my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2013TransitConnect Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 The 2013 model is underpowered the 2014 model has more power over the older model its a big change according to reviews , but at the same time very similar mpg which is good news the 2.5 litter engine is not the latest technology been around at least for 5 years don't have direct injection which would improve mpg.,but it is a proven reliable engine. The 4.6L engine gets that 25 on a highway and at what speed ? I assume not in the city, the aerodynamics plays a part too the oldert model is more boxy while the newer one has a better shape but got a bigger engine so that's evens it out. my 2 cents. I had a 1992 and a 2001 Crown Vic and they both got around 25 mpg at 60 mph with the 4.6L engine. And they had a lot more power. My 2013 TC only gets 29 mpg at 55 mph. At the same 60 mph it gets about 27 mpg. Don't get me wrong as I love the TC as it does things the CV wouldn't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnyguy Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I had a 1992 and a 2001 Crown Vic and they both got around 25 mpg at 60 mph with the 4.6L engine. And they had a lot more power. My 2013 TC only gets 29 mpg at 55 mph. At the same 60 mph it gets about 27 mpg. Don't get me wrong as I love the TC as it does things the CV wouldn't do. my guess is a V6 or V8 engine is very efficient on a highway, im sure you get better mpg with the TC in the city than the crown victoria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2013TransitConnect Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 my guess is a V6 or V8 engine is very efficient on a highway, im sure you get better mpg with the TC in the city than the crown victoria. I got around 18 mpg with the CV and 21 mpg with the TC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnyguy Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) I got around 18 mpg with the CV and 21 mpg with the TC. compared to the v8 the TC should have better mpg in city than that but it's not. still not bad. Edited September 1, 2014 by Johnyguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2013TransitConnect Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 compared to the v8 the TC should have better mpg in city than that but it's not. still not bad. My mileage with the TC has been right at the advertised mileage. On the recent trip to Spokane I got 30 mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 30 mpg is about as high as I have ever obtained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtn Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 You should really force Ford to consider a diesel in the US. I've been getting 40 mpg of diesel in urban driving most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2013TransitConnect Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 You should really force Ford to consider a diesel in the US. I've been getting 40 mpg of diesel in urban driving most of the time. A stick shift would be nice too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnyguy Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 A stick shift would be nice too. well yes stick would give better MPG but im driving in the city alot and it would kill me on the long term. my other car is a stick for pleasure and i don't mind a (coupe) . a diesel would be great i would love that option but the money hungry government wont allow that unfortunately for now at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.