TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone know why their is a difference in MPG for the 94 and 95 4.6l tbirds?

Of course, I was looking into doing the cash for clunkers, but my 94 doesn't qualify. It has 19 combined mpg (per this website). However, the 1995 tbird does (at 18 mpg). Just wondering what the difference is since they are pretty much interchangable parts. Thanks

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
 

·
WOT Junkie and avid corn burner
Joined
·
3,734 Posts
Wow, their rating for highway mileage is off quite a bit. I actually get 27 mpg on the highway. Silly estimations.
Fuel mileage between a '94 and '95 should be about the same. IIRC, They are essentially the same car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
That's a testament to the government's rating system...
Identical cars+ different model year= similar, but not identical mileage ratings???

Anyhow, is the '94 you have that much of a pos that you want to submit it to the crusher? You are aware that you are on an mn-12 enthusiast forum aren't you? No offense intended.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,245 Posts
1994 n/a cars do indeed have a 4R70W; it was part of the refresh along with the new design and engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Anyhow, is the '94 you have that much of a pos that you want to submit it to the crusher? You are aware that you are on an mn-12 enthusiast forum aren't you? No offense intended.
Yeah, I have tried selling my car on here. But it just didn't work out. So I was looking into parting it out (for the aftermarket parts I have) and then do that program which would give me 4500 towards a new commuter car since I have a nice screw 150 now. I went back and forth for a long time on deciding if I should get rid of it since I've had it since I was 15. But in the end, its a car and an investment. Had A LOT of great times in it and learned a lot about cars by fixing everything myself. But even if it was in perfect stock condition, there just is no way I would get 4500 for it. Besides, house payments don't allow me to waste money on it anymore.


The bird was just turning into more of a money pit on repairs and every weekend I had off I would end up fixing something on it. So after sitting in my garage for almost a year, it's gotta go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,966 Posts
remember, the tax credit is valid for a vehicle with an increase in mileage rating and even then you may not get the fullest amount. the tax credit may only work when you file your taxes, so you most likely wont see that money until april.....i would rather part out the car before sending it to the crusher. the cash for clunkers law forbids recycling of the engine block and drivetrain, also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Actually, its not a tax credit. It is suppose to be a payment directly to the dealership that is participating in the program (which would take that amount directly off of the car). As long as I get 10 mpg or better, then I will get the whole 4500. (which doesn't look like it will happen since I don't qualify bc its over 18 mpg). I was looking at a car that gets 33, which would save me a ton and commuting to work everyday.

So as a result, I will be parting it out.
 

·
Trumpeter Extraordinaire
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
FWIW, I noticed that discrepancy, and wrote to the fuel economy website:


I was reading about the "Cash for Clunkers" program on your site, and began to run comparisons and view updated window stickers. I found an interesting discrepancy I would like to get an answer to.

The cars in question are the 1994 Ford Thunderbird LX with a 4.6L 8 cylinder engine, and a 1995 Ford Thunderbird LX with a 4.6L 8 cylinder engine.

Both cars are essentially identical, same engine, series, sensors, etc. The engine did not change in this model until 1996. I would like to know why the 1994 model has a 19mpg combined rating, while the 1995 model has just an 18mpg combined rating. I attached a copy of the 'window stickers' to aid in your review.

This discrepancy makes it so an owner of a 1994 4.6L Thunderbird, an essentially identical car to the 1995 4.6L Thunderbird, cannot participate in the voucher program, although an owner of a 1995 model Thunderbird can.

Please explain the difference in ratings, as I cannot participate in this program based on this discrepancy.

Thank you.


Their reply:

Thank you for your email. We do not have sufficient information about the test vehicles here at www.fueleconomy.gov to provide a definitive answer to this question. It may be helpful to review the original test car data that can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testdata.htm

It is not common but it does happen that you find vehicles that are seemingly identical based on the information we have but with slightly different fuel economies. From the test vehicle data you can look at vehicle test weights and other factors that may account for the difference.

www.fueleconomy.gov





It was fun thinking about getting a $4500 voucher for a car with almost 387,000 miles on it, until the ratings were posted :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,638 Posts
The standards that the Imperial Federal Government uses for mileage change on a regular basis. There was probably a change in the standards in '95 making identical cars look different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
are you crazy sending a real honest to god vehicle rear drive / 'merican car off ?????? no sheople mobiles here !!!!!!!!! my truck { 53 ford flathead } gets 8 mpg , take that tree huggers !!! and the newly purchased bird gets around 18-20 in town with me driving , and i have gotten an average of 28 on the road , and this car , a 95 lx with a 4.6 , has some issues . i am a believer in a persons driving style has a lot to do with it . 99% of the time i drive like i have an egg under the gas pedal , and can take anything i , the wife or kids own and get better results than they . i can't see why besides some one sniffing something they shouldn't be , they're would be such a discrepancy . i find it hard to believe the figures some of you are quoting .... 19 mpg , as i said is in town for me , in traffic . i wouldn't buy any of the new stuff { the wife has an 08 , the two oldest daughters 06 and 05 stuff } as they are UGLY , poorly designed , and i refuse to pay that kind of money for a wrong wheel drive , underpowered , overcomplicated , plastic piece of junk . sorry all you guys making a living at the auto plants but your bosses dropped the ball a long time ago .................. now anyway , i get 12 -14 out of a 06 international 9 ton mail truck i drive , so why would your bird be doing so poorly ??????????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Where there any ECU differences between the two years? A similar example is with the 03/04 Mach 1's. The original windows sticker rated the M5's 25 in 03 but 26 in 04. My only educated guess for the difference had to do with the ECU on the Cobra's. Ford wanted to drop the guzzler tax which the Cobra's carried in 03 so either a different ECU unit was used or the tune was changed for 04. The Mach’s didn’t use the same ECU as the 03/04 Cobra’s but I wonder if something was also changed to increase their fuel economy (in fact I'm pretty sure the ECU is different between the two years).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
I'm sure the site will be updated many more times; c'mon, this is the government....they created the DMV! I'm sad to see anyone letting an MN12 go to this program.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,974 Posts
I'm sure the site will be updated many more times; c'mon, this is the government....they created the DMV! I'm sad to see anyone letting an MN12 go to this program.
It is sad.

Just think, billions of dollars and years of development were invested into this platform from ford, now the government rules them as "clunkers" and are ordered to be destroyed in favor for a korean econobox that cost $0.13 and a lunch break to develop.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top