Formulating arguement to explain my gas milage

Mike, I've never had a 'broken in' completely stock MM. I started modding around 2,500 miles which I've been told is well short of 'break-in'.

When I can pull all highway on a tank, I'll get about 25 MPG. My normal drive is roughly 1/2 'city' and 1/2 'highway' and I am getting about 18 MPG without trying to go easy on it. Spirited where possible, one might say.

I've been tracking the miles since my last fill up to the current one and dividing that by the gallons of gas from my last fill up to find my 'miles per gallon'. I am keeping a lifetime running average (18.7), the average of the last 3 tanks (17.9 - I had one tank where a good chunk was spent VERY spirited), and the the last tank.

I can't think of another way to do the math and want to see if that's how you are doing it.

There is a Pro Guard in my future and I will see if I have a rise in my mileage.
 
Last edited:
Agent M79 said:
I can't think of another way to do the math and want to see if that's how you are doing it.

There is a Pro Guard in my future and I will see if I have a rise in my mileage.
Click to expand...

Your method and mine are the same.

On the interstate runs, I only considered fuel economy between fill-ups when I got off the highway, filled up, then got back on and did it all over again. I did NOT consider, for instance, driving around Detroit, during our trip to MMVlll. And, for the experiments, made sure there was no off interstate driving during the tests.

Was it a example of what we can expect in usual every day driving? Of course not, and like the EPA estimates was skewed toward the absurd; but these were experiments to test the difference in fuel economy with and without the Pro-guard installed, and frankly, I couldn't think of a better way to do it. :D
 
One very important variable: actual road speed that is considered "highway".

At least we all are experiencing the same aerodynamics (if I can disregard air resistance due to height above sea level), so we don't have to worry about which speed is best for what car. The next trick is putting the engine at a speed where it's most efficient at propelling the car for a certain unit of fuel consumed.

In other words, an important variable in the comparison is to make sure the speeds remain identical between both examples.

The difference in fuel consumption between 68 mph and 75 mph on my car (constant speed cruising, same roads each time) is notable. I don't have PURE numbers but it's the type of difference that is visibly noticeable on the fuel gage at certain trip odometer points. For example, the difference between hitting the 3/4 notch when you've gone 155 km versus 125 km, etc. Very noticeable. Same with my other cars: my WS6 provided fuel mileage in the upper 27s at a cruise of 60 mph, but ballooned to 33 mpg at 70 mph.

So make sure you quote what your speed was during a controlled run.

Also, the longer the controlled run the better. Or, more specifically, the more fuel consumed, the better. Auto shutoffs at the station pumps are so inaccurate and the smaller the fillup, the greater percentage of error that deviation in fillup will produce. In other words, a 0.5 gallon slop is much less noticeable when filling up 20 gallons versus that same 0.5 gallon inaccuracy when filling up 5 gallons. Example: I've gone to fill the tank on my GTA for storage purposes when the tank was already "full" to begin with, from a fillup the day before. After what was essentially a 2 block drive to the gas station, I calculated that 'fillup' just for kicks. 9 mpg? I don't think so... obviously not a useful data point in my spreadsheet.
 
Being my other car is a 4cyl, lightly taping the gas on the mm is damn near half throttle on the 4cyl. only time I burn gas is when I enter "sprited driving" loop
 
I Have To Chime In!

For the record, all Marauders use the same processor (PCM as Society of Automotive Engineers has deemed it for all OBDII cars.). It is the EEC-V ("Eek-five" for you acrinomial geeks) Ford processor - the same one used in the late 90's in the Formula1 Cosworth Ford V-10 cars. Those cars had a three litre, N/A, which produced 850hp @ 14,500rpm (That's right, 180 cubes > 850 horses). They also were allowed to use Traction Control back then. Of course, that was tied into the PCM also. There was no reason for them to re-invent the wheel apparently!

Whereas the procession may differ between PCM's, they are all the same units. Obviously, a Mazda/Ford Escort of similar vintage would have the same PCM, yet different procession. My car probably has the same catch-code as half of your's, but the programming is obviously different. Both the EEC-IV and EEC-V are known to be ones of the, if not the best, most bullet-proof processors out there. Yes, better than any of the Euro or Asian stuff. I work for or with many of those Euro/Asian manufacturers but I am on my fifth Panther! And yes TTA, we are tied in big-time with General Motors, but I gave up on them when they quit building real cars. You possess an amazing amount of knowledge for a layman. Are you really a layman?

Great inputs in this thread, sorry to derail it [AGAIN]!

My car gets :censor: mileage also. I average in the 18's with mixed driving and have gotten 23.7mpg on my max, cruising @ 70mph w/o the A/C. My former Marquis would throw up just shy of 29mpg driving @ 85mph with the A/C on and some in town driving added in. What a let down this car has been in the fuel economy department. But I love the car and nobody teases me about their grannie's car being just like it! I'm going to have to get an SCT/PRP just so I can boost my mileage up - at least that's my story and I'm . . .

J
 
JMan said:
For the record, all Marauders use the same processor (PCM as Society of Automotive Engineers has deemed it for all OBDII cars.). It is the EEC-V ("Eek-five" for you acrinomial geeks) Ford processor - the same one used in the late 90's in the Formula1 Cosworth Ford V-10 cars.
Click to expand...
I'm reading this and wondering WTF? Then I page back and find my typo, I typed "IV" not "VI", which is correct. Beginning with MY 2003, all FMC products moved to the EEC-6, or, six, for us Roman numeral challenged. The Marauder had four software versions in 2003, FTSL, BMDO, CRD0 and CRD1, and one in 2004, MAV2. Actually, there were literally dozens of calibrations created, but only these five were put to use. Sorry for any inconveinence.
 
I am certainly not making any attempt to maximize my fuel economy. My fuel consumption has settled into a pattern and I only track it for diagonostic purposes and curiosity.

I don't seriously have an expectation that the Pro-Guard is going to alter my mileage, but if it does, I'll certainly post it here. I would guess I would be sensitive to a change over time as granular as 0.5 to 1.0 MPG change. I have no other mods planned for many more miles.

When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery?
 
Agent M79 said:
When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery?
Click to expand...
I've heard five to 30 minutes, and most of this advice was to insure that the memory indeed got cleaned out. However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?
 
Agent M79 said:
When you guys talk about the 'adaptive' aspect of the computer being wiped if the battery is disconnected long enough... does anyone know how long? Would a couple of minutes do it? Say, the time it takes to change a battery?
Click to expand...


In the old days it was as short as 30 seconds, but I don't know if newer PCMs keep a backup power source for short term power losses. I'm inclined to say charging a battery would take several hours, so it should be safe to say the settings are wiped.
 
SergntMac said:
I've heard five to 30 minutes, and most of this advice was to insure that the memory indeed got cleaned out. However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?
Click to expand...

Sarge, you're right-on on that. For all intents and purposes, you have five minutes to safely change a battery without supplemental voltage. You will lose memory in five minutes for radio, A/C, etc. though.

Now, on the EEC thing, if I can attach this info system doc to this, it shows the '03 Marauder diagnostic flow chart. It specifies EEC-V for this car. I don't have current enough s/w to show you '04. But I'm certain it's the same. Disregard the CNG/Flex Fuel title. That is Ford's blanket way of covering all "like" car lines (Read: Panthers) with the same diagnostic flow charts.

J


EEC-V small.jpg
 
SergntMac said:
However, if you want to preserve your settings while the battery is removed for any reason, just connect a 12v battery charger to the cables?
Click to expand...

YES! Simple and easy. (And I am still talking about batteries, not my dating habits.)
 
JMan said:
Now, on the EEC thing, if I can attach this info system doc to this, it shows the '03 Marauder diagnostic flow chart. It specifies EEC-V for this car. I don't have current enough s/w to show you '04. But I'm certain it's the same.
Click to expand...
I'm not a professional wrench, but my resources are credible. I'm just an owner who's learning curve has become really twisted since I bought a Marauder. I've been a sponge on everything, but it doesn't do me any good if it's not true, so, I'm always ready to change my mind when better 411 is at hand. I am not compelled to change my mind at the present time.

I'm going to ask you to return to the link I posted ^ there, and read down that page to where it identifies when EEC five was in use.

http://fordfuelinjection.com/?p=2

EEC-I
*1978
*Ignition timing, EGR, and Smog pump
EEC-II
*1979
*Carb (O2 feedback and fuel stepper motor), Ignition timing, EGR, and Smog pump
EEC-III
*1980
*Central Fuel Injection (no Self-Test functions)
EEC-IV
*1984
*OBD-I (covered in text below)
EEC-V v1.0
*1994
*OBD-II (covered in text below)
EEC-V v2.0
*1999
*Looks just like V but no J3 connector on the back, complete Flash Memory capable
EEC-VI
*2003
*Multiple connectors

The "J3" connector that's missing from EEC five is where we mounted our performance chip when we were started using chips to improve performance. EEC six, has the knock out panel for access to the J3 port. This 411 is good enough for me. If you wish to disagree again, please take it to the editors of the referrence page and tell them they are misleading students like me.

Furthermore, relative to PCM vs. EEC question, a long while back, I put this exact question to the man who knows EECs best, former Ford engineer Jerry Wroblewski, now with SCT tuning. His answer was one of those moments where I wish I had not asked, because my question exposed my lack of knowledge. With my EEC six in his hand, he looked up at me with that "assshat" look on his face and said "don't ask me stupid questions while I'm tuning your car, Mac, it tends to piss me off...It's eek". Therefore, this 411 is likewise good enough for me.

Folks, feel free to call it what you want, I really don't care. I had some 411 on the topic and I passed it along...Just my .02C, hoped it helped.
 
SergntMac said:
EEC-V v2.0
*1999
*Looks just like V but no J3 connector on the back, complete Flash Memory capable
EEC-VI
*2003
*Multiple connectors <<<<<<<<
Click to expand...

Sarge,
With all due respect,look at your quote above. The multiple connector is the give-away. Our's only have one big 104 pin connector. I'm not the argumentative type, I just wanted to set the record straight. That tends to keep all sounding informed when speaking to others. Once again, no offense was meant here. Thanks all for the info!
J
 
JMan said:
Sarge, With all due respect,look at your quote above. The multiple connector is the give-away. Our's only have one big 104 pin connector. I'm not the argumentative type, I just wanted to set the record straight.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to look at. The chart was snipped from the website I directed you to, and posted here unmolested. Neither have I misunderstood what it says, and I explained that clearly in my last post on this. One more time.

The missing connector is the J3 port on the PCB, inside the EEC. EEC-V, versions 1.0 (1994) and 2.0 (1999) did not have an access door on the case that could be twisted out by hand, to reveal or provide acces to the J3 port. Folks wanting to chip had to pull the EEC and take it apart to snip the case back. In fact, early directions we shared among ourselves back in '02, said to do that. But, once we pulled the EEC, and found a break out panel, job got done without pulling the EEC at all. Just get under the dash and peel back the twist out panel at the perforations, clean the contacts and plug in the chip.

The expression "multiple connectors" in the chart include this access door to the J3 port.
 
I just wanted to make a couple of quick points with out getting to technical about a couple of things and leave it at that. Although this is rather long…. Sorry.

One quick note about maximizing your gas mileage these days. If you really want to squeeze the best possible mileage out of any thing you drive, especially the larger vehicles like our MM’s and full size trucks, etc… The real trick especially in the city is you literally have to drive like the person who’s in front of you usually and really pisses you off when they take off from a light like they forgot which pedal is which… you know those drivers that take about six hours just to get up from 0 to 40mph from a busy street light. This and whole bunch of truly “little-old-lady” conservative driving is what it really takes. Things like long/extended warm up’s, not good. Even slowing down abruptly. It all adds up.

Remote starters are the worse on gas mileage because wimpy, warm blooded puzzy’s like me like to remote start while still getting dressed in the morning when its 25 degree Michigan weather out side and some times I’ll come out side and the remote starter time will have expired it’s 20 minute run timer and turn off the engine unless it sees the key inserted in the ignition. Cold starts and long warm ups are atroshis on MPG’s. If you live or drive in colder climates or conditions you will get worse mileage then lets say driving when its 75 degrees out. Reason for this is even though the computer uses the 02’s to keep the A/F at stoke or 14.7:1… its doing it with colder denser air. So in order to keep it at 14.7:1 in lets say 20 degree air, you will consume more fuel under the same loads and speeds as you would if it were 75 degrees out side.

My MM with the 4.10’s, Trilogy Blower, bigger back wheels and tires, 60ls injectors etc. Got almost 17 in town and 21-22 on the highway with the A/C on and the cruise set at 80mph!! I tested its City/Hwy MPG’s about three months ago when I decided to sell it to make sure who ever bought it didn’t come back on me if it was a pig on fuel because of all the mods I did to it. I drove it very conservatively with very slow take-off’s This is even with a forged heavier aftermarket piston and connecting rod assembly. Believe me though… when I drive it like I normally do which I’m sure lot of us do with and with out a blower, it will never get that kinda mileage cause it goes down the drain quick as soon as you start to drive spiritedly.

When it comes to the computers in the MM’s… their all pretty much the same. The ‘04s are slightly different in calibration because it supports two knock sensors and not just one. And a couple of other things like down shifts into 1st can occur higher rolling speeds then the '03s. The key thing though that can make an 04 MM get better mileage or slightly better feeling throttle response is that on the 04’s, they actually use the knock sensors to add a few degrees of timing under load. The 04’s don’t just use the knock sensors to pull timing in the event of knock. Even though the 03 MM’s don’t have dual knock sensors, I enable the knock sensors on my tunes to add a couple of degrees of timing under medium loads. This seems to work pretty good. But because I choose to make the converter not lock till 4th gear at about 63 mph, the MPG’s can go down a little, but what I do for the converter schedule makes a world of difference in performance in around town conditions.

One quick thing about adaptive on the modern Ford’s. First off I’m no a big fan of it on high end boosted or any boosted applications because it can take a lot of time and tuning to really make adaptive not do something you don’t want at WOT on a blower car. On real medium to serious efforts that I tune, I turn adaptive off. Adaptive is basically there to make adjustments to the fuel curve based on what the computer sees from the 02’s under conditions while in closed loop. Adaptive helps in adjusting or predicting what to do with fuel curves as things like injectors begin to wear or as the engine begins to get older and weaker or the MAF gets a little dirty, etc... I know that isn’t a super technical explanation of adaptive but its all I’ve got on that one. I’ve turned adaptive off on so many performance Ford’s I’ve tuned, I cant remember how many its been now. Turning off adaptive is in no way a sloppy or bad thing before you guys jump on me. It’s a requirement on the cars that I set up to run on leaded race fuels because the lead ruins the stock 02s in about 3-5 tanks full and then if the 02s and adaptive aren’t off ( or basically run in open loop full time) The A/F will really be off. But I take the time to try to keep them running at about a A/F of 15.2:1 or some times leaner at light loads and then richer at higher loads or WOT. This 15:1 or leaner open loop stuff I do really makes for some decent MPGs on these cars.

A lot of people aren’t aware of this but in 87-93 Ford produced a Mustang that got shipped to some where in the Middle Eastern part of the world. These mustangs literally had Off-Road exhaust pipes with no cats, and no 02s what so ever. They actually had little plugs or terminators plugged into the 02 harness’s where the 02s would normally be plugged in. They had a computer and a eec-4 box code that I figured out about 9 years ago when I used to use Auto-Logic software for custom tuning. Although I knew of these Opec Stangs much earlier becuase of friends that watched them get built in the late 80's at the plant.
This code that these Opec cars came with when tuning and burning chips worked on the popular A9L mustang eec-4 computers. I still to this day with SCT use this Opec file as a staring point when I do a custom tune on 93 and older Stangs. This tuning file has the EGR, Adaptive, Evap, Thermactor controls and both 02, and the 02 heaters turned off. On really built 5.0s where its really common to install big cams and aftermarket heads, turning off all of the above and doing the rest of the tune correctly is what can make for a stable and nice idle even with a big lumpy cam instead of a poor, surging crapy idle like usually happens with the 5.0s when major parts got changed, not just small bolt-ons. I apply a lot from what I learned on these older Opec codes to a lot of the newer stuff when needed these days.


Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Lidio. I respect your time and attention to this thread.

You add yet another volume of insight to this topic, and some "fresh air" to our discussion. Frankly, I'm done with this. I have exhausted all I know about it. I hope I have been helpful, at least as helpful as what Lidio shares with us.
 
Hey guys


As far as I know, the MM's are all considered eec-5. I've attached a pic of a computer right out of an 03 MM and you can see at least on this one its labeled as a eec-5.
As soon as I get an 04 MM here or a MAV2, I'll be sure to look at it as well.
All MMs also have the J-port too. They've all been chip-able to my knowledge. I've yet to see an 04 that would not take a chip as was stated on these forums a couple of years ago when the 04's started to hit the roads brand new.


Thanks
 

Attachments

  • eec-5.jpg
    eec-5.jpg
    70.7 KB · Views: 18
Iacobelli for President!

Thanks Lidio, it's an interesting topic, though unfortunately, I didn't get to do the ProGuard tests at the strip, last weekend, as planed. Obviously, anyone who's driving an MM and worrying about fuel economy is driving the wrong car. My interest was to test the skid plate to see if there was a difference in drag coefficient, which seemed likely; and long distance runs on interstates under controlled conditions seemed the best approach.

This thread has had numerous thoughtfully reasoned, responses, and I'm happy with the things I've learned from the experiment and tone of the posts. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experience.

BTW, I had a Feb build '88 LX 5.0 with some strange programing. ie: no rev limiter and some other stuff the guys at my dealership found very interesting.:)
 
Mike Poore said:
Obviously, anyone who's driving an MM and worrying about fuel economy is driving the wrong car.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with your comment as long as we're talking about absolute fuel economy. When I say absolute, I mean compared to EVERYTHING else out there, like a Toyota Echo or something like that.

Relative fuel economy (my term) relates to how much performance you get out of a certain overall package for a certain amount of fuel. In that regard, I'm certainly very happy with getting a mixed 20-21 mpg in varied driving situations in a 4500 lb luxury behemoth that ran 14.6s at the track one after another. It was in fact one of the criteria for choosing this class of automobile over an SUV (ie. performance AND good fuel mileage).

As interested as we are in performance, I doubt there's ANYONE on here who would turn his nose up at the possibility of improving their mileage a couple of points without sacrificing performance, especially with our gas prices of late.


I've gotten good results out of driving the way Lidio described to get good mileage... I think the magic RPM is 2000 or just under. In dense urban driving, having the converter flash to no more than 2000 seems to work well, letting the torque multiplication do its best. Takes some effort, but it seems to pay off with a 1 or 2 mpg improvement. Nice, when you go through 3 tankfuls a week. :(


The only downside to the MM's consumption is the apparent thirst at idle. My 2nd MM appears to behave similarly at idle. This is the only thing I find unacceptable for an engine this size and this 'high-tech', because at this point vehicle weight does not come into play.
 
PRO-GUARD SKID PLATE or FANCIFUL WIND-BREAKER?

If a simple modification like a Pro-Guard skid plate can gain over 10% increase in highway fuel mileage, I would like to pose 2 questions:Q. #1)-does Ford's wind-tunnel need a "tune-up" and Q. #2)- Should not all the Ford engineers working in the wind-tunnel be blown out the end of the tunnel and sent to the unemployment line at the MESC? To me this sounds like the old (and now discredited) idea of leaving the pick-up truck tailgate down and gaining 1 or 2 mpg on the highway. Skid plate-good idea-:up: , 10%+ gain in highway mpg-:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top