You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans Post Your Van Gas Mileage Here

Post Your Van Gas Mileage Here

1837 messages,  Last post on Sep 12, 2009 at 12:19 AM

You are in the Vans & Minivans Forum. Your Host is Karens

What is this discussion about? Mazda MPV, Nissan Quest, Kia Sedona, Chrysler Town and Country, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, Van

#61 of 1837 by maxima Jan 11, 2000 (9:16 pm)
PM did a road test on pontiac montana they got 6mpg traveling 115mph the car lasted 125miles then fill up... then again....... must be cool!!
#62 of 1837 2000 Windstar- Octane by Pinkfloyd Jan 31, 2000 (3:57 am)
I've got a 2000 Windstar LX in Canada. Anyone own a 1999/2000 Windstar and use anything above 87 Octane(Regular) with noticeable differences ? Owner manual advises to use 87 Octane only. Manual also said higher octane levels could cause the engine to ping. I put in a tank of Octane 95, didn't see any difference in performance. Did notice the gas goes a bit faster.
#63 of 1837 1997 Chevy Venture by greg32 Feb 08, 2000 (2:29 pm)
I get around 17 mpg in city driving. Highway ranges from 21 mpg to 27 mpg depending on conditions. 21 mpg in mountains doing 75 mph. 27 mpg on flat highway doing 65 mph.
#64 of 1837 Seinna 2000 LE by lynne29 Feb 10, 2000 (1:48 pm)
We always use 93 Octane, as per Owners manual's "91 or over" recommendation. During first 2,000 miles mpg was 19/20, mostly driving under 30 minutes each trip and not at any speed for too long. Now, at 3,000 total miles, averages 20-22. We are taking longer trips, since gentle break-in is over.
#65 of 1837 Hondas by rac8 Feb 17, 2000 (5:10 pm)
99 Odyssey LX: 16 - 20 mpg around town; 22-24 on the freeways (65 - 75 mph) 89 Accord LX 5-speed: 28 - 30. Use 87 octane gas in both.
#66 of 1837 Chevy Conversion Van by jjackson43 Feb 24, 2000 (2:49 pm)
1989 Chevy Van G20 5.7 V8 getting approx 16MPG running 70 MPH, and pulling 8,000 Lb RV get 10 - 11 mpg running 60. Replies to this message: stev0 (Jan 22, 2008 7:59 am)
#67 of 1837 Grand DC 3.8ltr better mpg than 3.3ltr..? by owncav01 Mar 01, 2000 (4:09 pm)
I have a 2000 Grand Caravan SE and have just hit the 3,000-mile mark. It has the 3.3ltr V6 engine. I have been calculating fuel mileage since day one when I drive it off the lot with 7 miles on the odom. Over the course of 1 1/2 months it has avg. 19-21 mpg highway, and with the little bit of city driving it has an avg. of 16-18 mpg around town. My real question to any one that might know is why the 3.8ltr V6 coupled with the same 4 speed tranny (hopefully, a better refined transmission for the 2000 year) averaging 2-3 mpg better than the 3.3ltr V6? You would think that a "bigger" engine with more torque & horsepower the gas mileage would be less. In fact, the manufacturer even rates the 3.8ltr with better mileage than the 3.3ltr...go figure.. Could this be because of the fuel injection system, the camshaft, or valve train design between the two? Someone HELP ME HERE!!! ;-0 With all the darn homework I did before I made this purchase, I over looked this vital statistic...They both have good reliability and are trustworthy engines. But if you were in the market for a Grand CV, it would be an inexpensive upgrade to get the 3.8 instead of the 3.3. With only a 20 gal tank (hope that the 2001 will have a 25gal upgrade) an extra 40-60 mile cruising range on a tank can add up to some great gas savings...especially with today's fuel prices!!
#68 of 1837 GRAND CARAVAN MILIAGE by jjackson43 Mar 02, 2000 (5:12 pm)
It might be that the 3.8 has different gearing, coupled with more hp, perhaps meaning less effort to move the vehicle, might add up to improved fuel effeciency..? I know my full sized Chevy van got improved miliage when I put a lower rear gear in it, meaning I'm actually turning the motor a little faster, but with less effort in moving the 5,500 Lbs through the air. John
#69 of 1837 That sounds about right jj... by owncav01 Mar 03, 2000 (1:25 pm)
Interesting scenario jjackson. Thanks for the response. It makes sense that different rear gearing for a rear wheel drive vehicle will directly effect the rpm of the engine thus increasing or decreasing the actual fuel mileage even when the transmission remains the same. I'm still a bit confused on this issue when it comes to a front wheel drive vehicle. If the engine is directly coupled to the transmission drive train, and from there to the drive shafts, then to the wheels with no other gearing in between as there is with rear wheel drive....? Could there be a difference in the size of the lock-up torque converter between the two engines....fly wheel size....? Maybe it's because the 3.3ltr just has a higher rpm speed overall than the 3.8ltr at acceleration and during cruising speeds and takes more effort to maintain the speeds.... However, it does make sense to me that a higher hp engine will move a 4000lb van with allot less effort, which can equate to improved mpg. So many factors play on the end solution!! Why the hell am I complaining for anyway...I have friends who have recently purchased SUV's with V8 engines and boy are they hating life with these outrageous gas prices!!
#70 of 1837 1999 Nissan Quest by jkrolak Mar 18, 2000 (7:32 pm)
I get about 16-17 in heavy city driving and 21-24 on highway at 70-75 MPH. The difference between driving 70 instaed of 50 is about 20% (so sayeth Consumers Guide).

You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans Post Your Van Gas Mileage Here