GM Savanna/Express MPG

Backstory: I really want a new Ford Transit Connect. 28mpg highway. Drives like a car. 6' between rear of front seats and back doors. Perfect for a mini-RV. Could drive it daily if needed.

Downside: Cost. Can't find even a first generation Connect for less than $9000, and the difference between that an a used cargo van can buy a lot of gas.

I had my mind set on a 95-97 E150 with a 302 v8, but most say they get 20mpg tops, and most average 18 on the slab.

So, does the Savanna/Express with the 4.8 LS engine get any better highway fuel econom? I've also read that the 5.3L with active fuel management gets better MPG as well.

Where I work, they have 2 Transit Connect vans for the installers. They HATE them. No acceleration, not very good on the road. These vans are not overloaded. Pretty little things, though. Drive one before making a decision.

I've heard negative things about the first generation, but better things about the second.

Many of the folks who drive these things are used to work trucks or full size vans with big V8s. I'm sure they aren't any slower than a mid-90's Civic.

first gens have a 4 speed auto, not sure on power output but I think its around 140hp. think old ford focus power in a van you are asking to haul stuff.

2nd gens have more power and the 6 speed dual clutch automatic.

I have a Chevy 2500 express with the 4.8 and 6 speed auto. It gets roughly 14 - 15 mpg. Thankfully I don't buy fuel.

As you have noticed, initial purchase price is a much more important factor than mpg, especially with fuel prices the way they are. $5k buys a LOT of fuel, especially since the connect's don't get nearly as good of mpg as they should.

Having driven a 1500 gm van for 3 years as part of my former job, I would recommend against daily driving it if you live in a city. You won't get better than 15usmpg daily driving, and it will be a not very fun experience. They aren't awful, but unless you have an actual use for it and/or need a truck, I'd rather split the purchase price on a junker truck and a nice, high mpg daily driver of some sorts.

My question remains:

Do the later model Express/Savannas with the more sophisticated engine management get substantially better fuel efficiency?

I am going to go out on a limb and say, I seriously doubt it.

All these fancy new sophisticated trucks that get "good" fuel economy are touting mpg figures barely above 20mpg highway, I would not expect the vans to be substantially better if at all.

food for thought http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_GMC_Savana.shtml

when looking at older vans, the thought process i was told was ignore the 305. its going to get just as bad fuel economy as a 350, because its a smaller engine pulling around the same weight so it has to work harder. I bet the same negligible fuel economy difference applies to the newer vans too.

What about an older half ton chevy with the 6.5L Diesel. Those are basically worthless and if you find one that is well taken care of it should last a while. Diesel is pricey now but I bet in a year, gas will be too. My FIL has one and gets high teens with his and it has 400k miles, is loaded to the gils with drywall mud and equipment. One a little less weight, a little taller rear gear, and less miles might get you into the mid 20s on the highway.

I drove a 3500 with a Vortech 350 and 3.73 gears as a cargo van. Got about 14-15mpg combined. Dad had a 1500 350 vortech with 3.42 and got 18mpg at a steady 70mph.

PHeller wrote: I had my mind set on a 95-97 E150 with a 302 v8, but most say they get 20mpg tops, and most average 18 on the slab.

Who claims they can get 20mpg out of a 302 E150?! how?! Driving with the wind in a hurricane?

Some guys claim the old 223 straight 6 in a manual Econoline could get over 20 mpg highway.

Ah I don't know anything about that, but my 302 E150 has never seen better than 18, and that's driving on flat, straight WI roads while drafting a lot. I can't imagine how gutless it would be with a 223

PHeller wrote: My question remains: Do the later model Express/Savannas with the more sophisticated engine management get substantially better fuel efficiency?

No, because they are still saddled with the 4 speed auto. You only get the 6 speed (and apparently a holdover 4.8L v8 which is no longer available in the trucks and was never a combo available in the trucks) in the 2500's and it gets awful mpg.

Mazdax605 wrote: I have a Chevy 2500 express with the 4.8 and 6 speed auto. It gets roughly 14 - 15 mpg. Thankfully I don't buy fuel.

My pedovan is a a Chevy 2500 LWB with the 6L and 4sp auto(its an '03 IIRC) I get the same 14-15mpg as you.

I am also glad I don't pay for fuel, as its a great way to rack up speedway rewards points.

The 1500 express I drove before had the 4.3L v6 and 4sp auto and it could barely touch 18mpg at a steady 70mph.

If you want over 20mpg in a van it's pretty much going to have to be a minivan.

I'd like to have a "stealth" camper. Something I can sleep in, comfortably, anywhere.

While a Prius with a trailer would certainly make for a high MPG and comfortable sleeping situation, it isn't exactly stealth. It screams "I'm trying to sleep in here!"

A minivan would get better MPG, but it really sacrifices on space. Also working on a minivan can be a royal PITA.

I wonder if I could find a minivan with a topper.

PHeller wrote: I wonder if I could find a minivan with a topper.

I've never been enthralled with the Eurovan's reliability.

or their cost on the used market. good grief asking prices are astronomical.

Yea if they were TDI Eurovans I'd be interested, but not for a VR6 and its nightmares.

Yes, the Eurovans are "never ran, even when parked", but they're cool looking.

I'd say full size van is your best bet.

The short answer to your question is no.

Now the slightly longer version! I have owned a 99' express 1500 low top conversion, this had the vortec 350, 4l60 4spd trans, and a 3.42 rear gear ratio. The best I ever got cruising down the super slab was 21mpg. Next was a 2003 Express 1500 low top conversion. Had the 5.3 engine, 4l60 4spd trans, and 3.73 rear gears. It got 19mpg at best. Then followed a 200? Ford conversion with a 5.? triton and a 4spd trans, and 3.54 rear gears. That got 12mpg at most. Then on to two express 3500's with 6.0l engines. One was a standard length with 4.10 gears and the 4l80e monster 4spd. It got 10. Up hill, down hill, towing, hauling, it got 10! Last and current is an extended length express 3500 with a 6.0L, 4l80e 4spd, and 3.73 gears. It gets about 15 on the highway, and 12ish around town. If you really want a stealth camper, seriously consider a long wheel base chevy/gmc. I daily drive mine and once you get used to it, its no big deal. To get the best mileage really seems to depend on the trans and rear end ratio, more than engine size. I personally think this is because all of the available engines are really just loafing down the road while unloaded. The 4l60's 4 the gear ratio is 0.65 and the 4l80's is 0.7.

Once the weather breaks, I have a few aero mods I gonna due to mine. Full belly pan, partial grill block, and a few others. Might get something, might not...

I personally don't care much for the fords, mostly due to there issues with spitting spark plugs out. May not be a big deal on a truck, but its a VERY big deal to fix in a van. Mine never did that, but I got rid of it, mostly out of fear. It ran well enough though.

I bet you have, but if not, check youtube for "stealth van camping" and or "living in a van". Tons of info.

Our old Express were 4.3 vortecs and got 12-15 city. Our '14 Ram C/Vs get around the same mileage but are way more powerful.

Forgot to mention my van is a 2011 and I have had it since new. It now has 77k miles on it. Great van, but I wouldn't call it a gas saver.

Buy a Delica. Turbo-diesel 4wd minivan FTW!!