Jump to content
Ford Transit Connect Forum
   

4.6L V8


2013TransitConnect
 Share

Recommended Posts

   

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...