4 ms·

But does the Explorer get the same MPG as a Taurus with the same fuel efficiency technology? That's the comparison that people should be making if they care abo

But does the Explorer get the same MPG as a Taurus with the same fuel efficiency technology? That's the comparison that people should be making if they care about gas mileage. The Taurus is rated 18/27mpg, the similarly sized Honda Accord is rated 30/38. (though with less horsepower with a 4 cylinder than the Taurus's V6 -- but that's the problem with lax fuel economy standards, manufacturers will sell horsepower over mileage... until the next fuel crisis, then they'll whine that no one wants to buy their cars)

TylerE 9y ago
It actually does, slightly better. The only Taurus trim with the 3.5 Ecoboost is the SHO. It's rated at 16/22. The Explorers are actually slightly BETTER at 17/24. The SHO is a performance oriented model that has grippy (draggy) stock tires though. But basically to your point - yes. Modern areodynamics have come a long way from the brick SUVs of the 70s.
lowbloodsugar 9y ago
Car companies sell what people buy. We replaced a 35mpg Kia Rio with a V6 AWD Explorer. That was my choice. It wasn't because Ford don't make a hybrid focus or efficient fiesta. My mustang gets about 11mpg also, and race gas is $10/gallon. Something that is stupid though, is that I would prefer to use E85 in my mustang, but it would be illegal in california for me to modify the car to be able to do so. Bigger fuel injectors and a tune, costs about $500 to do, but nope, illegal.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  Which is my point -- people, by nature, are selfish, and don't mind using up scarce resources and continue to kick the environmental disaster tin can down the road. E85 in this country is a farmer subsidy, it's not a more environmentally friendly choice. If you were taxed by engine displacement and/or were paying $6/gallon for gas, you might make a different choice. And when most of the cars on the road were smaller, more fuel efficient cars, you wouldn't feel like you need to buy a big car for defense against the other large cars on the roads.
  - lowbloodsugar 9y ago
    I agree that government disincentives would reduce gas use, and also that people are selfish. You, for example, are using electricity, the manufacturing and commerce systems that produced your computer, and all the infrastructure of the internet to make a post on a little known website for hackers, that will ultimately have zero impact on the result of things. Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia. Yet you don't. Nobody does. Either we will figure out how to control climate change with world-scale engineering, or we will cease to exist as a species. My Mustang, my neighbors 7000lb hybrid truck (lol), they aren't going to make the difference. So yeah, I'm having fun while Rome burns. Probably going to drive the V6 up to mammoth for the weekend too, and the ski lift will consume energy to lift my fat ass to the top just so that I can slide down a hill going "wooohoooo".
    - Johnny555 9y ago
      Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia. I wonder if that's true? My household energy consumption is around 250KWh/month, which is around the amount of energy in 8 gallons of gasoline. My laptop can run for nearly 3 months on the amount of energy in a single gallon of gasoline. Of course, the difference is that living in a cave is a huge difference in lifestyle, but is switching to smaller/lighter more energy efficient cars really a significant change in lifestyle? I've lied in countries where small cars are the norm, yet people seem to get by.

TylerE 9y ago

It actually does, slightly better. The only Taurus trim with the 3.5 Ecoboost is the SHO. It's rated at 16/22. The Explorers are actually slightly BETTER at 17/24. The SHO is a performance oriented model that has grippy (draggy) stock tires though. But basically to your point - yes. Modern areodynamics have come a long way from the brick SUVs of the 70s.

lowbloodsugar 9y ago

Car companies sell what people buy. We replaced a 35mpg Kia Rio with a V6 AWD Explorer. That was my choice. It wasn't because Ford don't make a hybrid focus or efficient fiesta. My mustang gets about 11mpg also, and race gas is $10/gallon. Something that is stupid though, is that I would prefer to use E85 in my mustang, but it would be illegal in california for me to modify the car to be able to do so. Bigger fuel injectors and a tune, costs about $500 to do, but nope, illegal.

Johnny555 9y ago
Which is my point -- people, by nature, are selfish, and don't mind using up scarce resources and continue to kick the environmental disaster tin can down the road. E85 in this country is a farmer subsidy, it's not a more environmentally friendly choice. If you were taxed by engine displacement and/or were paying $6/gallon for gas, you might make a different choice. And when most of the cars on the road were smaller, more fuel efficient cars, you wouldn't feel like you need to buy a big car for defense against the other large cars on the roads.
- lowbloodsugar 9y ago
  I agree that government disincentives would reduce gas use, and also that people are selfish. You, for example, are using electricity, the manufacturing and commerce systems that produced your computer, and all the infrastructure of the internet to make a post on a little known website for hackers, that will ultimately have zero impact on the result of things. Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia. Yet you don't. Nobody does. Either we will figure out how to control climate change with world-scale engineering, or we will cease to exist as a species. My Mustang, my neighbors 7000lb hybrid truck (lol), they aren't going to make the difference. So yeah, I'm having fun while Rome burns. Probably going to drive the V6 up to mammoth for the weekend too, and the ski lift will consume energy to lift my fat ass to the top just so that I can slide down a hill going "wooohoooo".
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia. I wonder if that's true? My household energy consumption is around 250KWh/month, which is around the amount of energy in 8 gallons of gasoline. My laptop can run for nearly 3 months on the amount of energy in a single gallon of gasoline. Of course, the difference is that living in a cave is a huge difference in lifestyle, but is switching to smaller/lighter more energy efficient cars really a significant change in lifestyle? I've lied in countries where small cars are the norm, yet people seem to get by.