99 Ford Explorer Gas mileage

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:03:00 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> wrote:

(snip)

>In the meantime, the manufacturers are busy trying to perfect both the
>hybrid and the CVT transmission. Both are a unique driving experience but
>neither is suitable for my lifestyle and/or demographics.

I don't expect dramatic improvements from the CVT but of course in
societal terms a 5% increase would be worthwhile. I like the idea of
the hybrids very much but wonder about the cost factor.
>
>Bottom line..... if we drive the kind of vehicle we want/need to drive, we
>shall have to pay the piper. If fuels costs have us tossing and turning at
>night, we should use public transit. My best suggestion is to put down the
>pad and pencil, turn off the calculator and simply enjoy driving our chosen
>rides....

Yes. My relatively old Explorer continues to be a wonder to me. I
keep vehicles for a long time, and my previous ride was a '84
Chevrolet S-10. There was a quantum leap in automobile engineering
between '84 and '98. My Explorer has 52,000 miles on it and still
runs as well as the day I bought it. Well, except for the readout on
the #$%$# radio.

My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up. Relatively few
people know how to calculate fuel mileage. That is why fuel tanks are
sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO.
I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........

(BTW, I think I double posted an empty reply, the first time I've
done THAT, apologies)

Soames



"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"

You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16 US
gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel
tanks are cheap to build and fit in the available space.... unless, of
course, you would have the manufacturer delete the back seat and install a
ruddy great metal or plastic box in it's place....

What is it with this They did "this" for nefarious purposes and they did
"that" with subterfuge in mind????? Why stop at a 4.0 litre motor??? Why
didn't they build it bigger? Why don't the back windows go all the way
down??? More subterfuge...????

Indeed, pump island shock will remain no matter what the fuel tank size. If
your 98 is a 4 door, the fuel tank holds 21 US gallons of fuel when filled
to the proper level (might hold 24 US gallons if you're goofy enough to
try) - small? I think NOT.
"Hemlock Soames" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:03:00 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> > wrote:
>
"

Jim Warman > wrote:
> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16 US
> gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel

No Jim, *you* must be a young'un...

On the 1974-1976 Bel Air, Caprice, and Impala (except station wagons)
the tank was >26< US gallons. My first car was a 1966 Bel Air, and
it had a 20 gallon tank. 20 gallon tanks were not at all uncommon on
normal sized cars. A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
gallon tank on the Chevy II.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:02:59 GMT, Hemlock Soames >
wrote:

> My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
>the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up. Relatively few
>people know how to calculate fuel mileage. That is why fuel tanks are
>sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO.
>I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........

Mty Expedition has a 30 gal (nominal) tank.
That's the *smallest* they could fit?
My 91 F-250 had two 30 gallon tanks. That was the *smallest* they
could fit?
These are stock setups.
I think your opinion doesn't fit the facts.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

I'll have to stand corrected.... all my early cars were intermediates and
compacts. My '60 Falcon featured a 10 Imperial gallon tank.... as did many
others I owned (smallish cars were my norm - I wasn't he kind of boy you
wanted your daughter riding with).

I would have been working on your BelAir when it was just off warranty.



"Mark Olson" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Warman > wrote:
>> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
>> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16
>> US
>> gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel
>
> No Jim, *you* must be a young'un...
>
> On the 1974-1976 Bel Air, Caprice, and Impala (except station wagons)
> the tank was >26< US gallons. My first car was a 1966 Bel Air, and
> it had a 20 gallon tank. 20 gallon tanks were not at all uncommon on
> normal sized cars. A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
> gallon tank on the Chevy II.
>

Jim Warman > wrote:
[top posting fixed]
> "Mark Olson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Warman > wrote:
>>> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
>>> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16
>>> US
>>> gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel
>>
>> No Jim, *you* must be a young'un...
>>
>> On the 1974-1976 Bel Air, Caprice, and Impala (except station wagons)
>> the tank was >26< US gallons. My first car was a 1966 Bel Air, and
>> it had a 20 gallon tank. 20 gallon tanks were not at all uncommon on
>> normal sized cars. A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
>> gallon tank on the Chevy II.

> I'll have to stand corrected.... all my early cars were intermediates and
> compacts. My '60 Falcon featured a 10 Imperial gallon tank.... as did many
> others I owned (smallish cars were my norm - I wasn't he kind of boy you
> wanted your daughter riding with).

I also owned two MGBs, a VW beetle, a Plymouth Champ, a Plymouth (yes I
know) Colt, a Pinto (my worst car ever, absolutely no question) etc. so
I've had my share of little cars too.

> I would have been working on your BelAir when it was just off warranty.

When I owned it the only one to ever touch it (for anything other than
tire changes, etc.) was me, which is true of almost every car I've owned
since then, with a few exceptions.

Before I finally traded off my 93 F150, our gas had breached 75 cents/litre.
Already used to spendy fill ups, I still wasn't ready for one gas bar
operator in Edmonton (who obviously didn't see many real size vehicles) who
looked at my $75CA fill tab and said..... "Wow.... I've never seen that
before..... you can have that cup of coffee for FREE!!!". whooppee..... did
I win a prize or what?

Now my SuperCrew has a tank about the same size as yours..... A SuperDuty
with single rears can have a tank up to almost 40 gallons - with dual rears,
you can get two tanks combined at near 60 gallons. I've work on the odd
Chevy pick-up with tanks that never seem to end.

To add to Bills statement... the size of the tank is limited only by the
space available to put it. There isn't one single manufacturer out there
that wouldn't love the bragging rights to "goes further between fill
ups...".


"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:02:59 GMT, Hemlock Soames >
> wrote:
>
>> My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
>>the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up. Relatively few
>>people know how to calculate fuel mileage. That is why fuel tanks are
>>sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO.
>>I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........
>
> Mty Expedition has a 30 gal (nominal) tank.
> That's the *smallest* they could fit?
> My 91 F-250 had two 30 gallon tanks. That was the *smallest* they
> could fit?
> These are stock setups.
> I think your opinion doesn't fit the facts.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"