Ford Freestyle Maintenance and Repair

coldcranker

Excellent explanation. Although you'd think it would keep the car in top gear and there wouldn't be the fluctuations.

reppep

This is another site for TBS's. It's a Ford 500 forum but a lot of the TBS's are also for Freestyles. http://www.myford500.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=27

ideafix

I've done this as well, and that's exactly the result I've had.

Here is my guess (from a non-CVT-savy-nor-even-basic-mechanics-knowledge-guy)

Let's say you are driving on flat ground, stable speed. You will notice that the CVT makes your RPM go to 1.5k.
Now, if you start going downhill, two things can happen, depending in part on how you react and how steep is the hill.

Either

- The effort made by the CVT to mantain your speed will be less, thus reducing the RPMs (~1k) and potentially increasing speed. I've particularly noticed that this happens if you do not change the pressure in the gas pedal.

or

- If the hill is too steep, or you take your pressure off the gas pedal, the CVT will foresee that your speed would increase too much, and thus will start stopping with the engine... you will notice your RPMs go to 2k. This will mantain your speed, although it will cause you to consume more fuel.

(Ironicly enough, this is one odd situation: If you slightly press the gas pedal when going downhill you will actually consume LESS fuel that if you release the gas pedal. I often do this if it is a small hill and/or if there is an uphill just afterwards. If it is too long of a downhill it would be dangerous to keep pressing on the gas pedal, though).

Anyway.

Apparently, when in 'N', the freebie doesn't realize this and tries to use this same logic. The reason why it does not stay on ~2k is probably because it is programmed to whenever it is more than ~1k, the CVT tries to adjust itself to maximum fuel economy.

Thus, you probably are not hearing / seeing a lot, but your engine it is in fact dancing and your CVT is moving back and forth... Not sure if it is harmful but at least it would be more stressful than driving normally. Maybe if you switch to 'N' when going downhill and press the gas pedal, you would stop that engine dancing at around ~1.5 RPM???

I would imagine that Ford engineers should know better and let the CVT recognize that you are driving in 'N'... not sure on the reasoning behind this.

Anyway, in summary, this shows another odd behavior: When going downhill, switching to 'N' actually consumes MORE fuel than driving in 'D' with the gas pedal slightly pressed on. Well defeating the purpose (which I guess was to increase mpg).

So... just don't do it.

My 2 cents.

passat_2002

I'm afraid several misconceptions are at work here. In the first place, one should understand that in the Freestyle there is no direct mechanical linkage between the accelerator pedal and engine throttle. It's called "Drive-By-Wire" and it means that your foot inputs are fed to a computer that decides what you (the driver) is asking for and how best to achieve it. It's a more precise way of controlling engine inputs and does actually save fuel.

If you take your foot off the gas pedal when going downhill, the computer reckons that you don't want to go faster than you already are, so it will reduce fuel flow to the engine and signal the CVT to allow the engine to be used as a braking force in an effort to prevent excessive speed build-up. The higher engine RPM's you're noticing in this case are a direct result of the engine being "used" for this purpose and are thus simply caused by gravity, not by more fuel being fed to the engine.

In contrast, when you keep a steady pressure on the accelerator pedal when going downhill, the computer will interpret your input as an OK to let gravity do it's thing and will allow the vehicle to accelerate, sometimes considerably depending upon he steepness and length of the hill you're descending. The reason you see RPM's actually decrease in this situation is because the engine is having to do "less work" (gravity is doing it instead) and because the CVT has the freedom to adjust itself accordingly which will in this case reduce engine RPM.

Transmission in neutral going downhill is a whole different ballgame altogether. I personally like to do this on a hill near where I live where there is never any other traffic around. Engine RPM will, as you have said, increase as your speed increases going downhill despite the fact that you are indeed in "neutral". This is (I believe) a preventative measure to pre-match Engine RPM with your actual vehicle speed so that there is no "shock" when you eventually re-engage the transmission. It is instead a smooth and seamless transition. This also prevents the sudden braking force that would otherwise occur that might cause loss of vehicle control on slick surfaces. The additional fuel used to accomplish this is truly a minuscule amount.

bruneau1

A very good explanation. My advice, drive the vehicle the way it is designed to be driven- keep it in drive.

coldcranker

Good points. One thing everybody who has a FreeStyle should be aware is the "engine braking" feature to hold a steady speed going downhill. I personally don't like that, since you could gain some of the energy going downhill if the car would let you coast instead of applying the engine used as a brake. If the Ford engineers would just let us tune the powertrain control logic a little, I'd have some fun!

ideafix

Hi Passat.

--------------
...so it will reduce fuel flow to the engine and signal the CVT to allow the engine to be used as a braking force in an effort to prevent excessive speed build-up. The higher engine RPM's you're noticing in this case are a direct result of the engine being "used" for this purpose and are thus simply caused by gravity, not by more fuel being fed to the engine
------------

Ok...
As you say, maybe is a capital misconception here.
But I believe the main indicator on your fuel consumption is the tacometer: RPMs.

So what you are telling me... is that a freestyle going downhill at ~2.5k RPM (engine braking) is consuming LESS fuel than a freestyle going downhill with the gas pedal slightly pressed, at 1k RPM.

I understand that the cause of going at 2.5k RPM is not the fact that you are asking for more gas, but the gravity. But I think the cause is not important because nevertheless, your engine is reved up, hence consuming more fuel... even if you don't want to.

But again, I'm not expert on this thing.
In my mind an engine going at 1.5 RPMs is consuming the same gas whether you are going uphill or downhill. Of course, if you are going uphill, with 1.5 RPMs you will definitely see your speed going down and potentially, at some point you'll stop... and when downhill the speed will be going up. But the gas that you consume will be determined by RPMs and the time you hold those RPM.

In my mind, the valvles that allow the fuel enter the engine do not vary size or fuel input ratio at different rpms. 1 rpm will always spend the same gas because the cilinders fill to the same capacity with every revolution and consume the same fuel in every cycle.

And in my mind, a 'forced RPM' (A revolution that is caused by external factors, let's say you cause that revolution manually, not with gas), will still consume the same fuel as a normal rpm (caused by the fuel combustion), because fuel is anyway being input into the cilinders, the spark is ignited anyway, and the combustion is taking place anyway.

If I'm totally wrong in this (which apparently I am) I'd love (and truly appreciate) if you let me know where is my mistake.

....

By the way, I forgot to add another way to avoid the engine going into 'engine braking mode'... and it is to slightly press the brake.
I had experimented this before... if you start going downhill, you'll see the rpms go down (lets say to 1k rpm)... and then after a few seconds, if the hill continues, it will start increasing rpms till ~2.2K, and that's where it will be engine braking.

But if you slightly press the brake during those 1K rpm seconds, I guess the computer will recognize this and won't go into engine braking mode... it will coast down the hill at 1K rpm... although I wouldn't recommend this... you probably will be spending more in brakes that what you will be saving in fuel. (And that's if my theory of 2.5K Rpms mpg > 1K Rpms mpg is correct...)

Cheers, all.

passat_2002

"So what you are telling me... is that a freestyle going downhill at ~2.5k RPM (engine braking) is consuming LESS fuel than a freestyle going downhill with the gas pedal slightly pressed, at 1k RPM."

Yes.

jmas80

I have a 2005 SEL FWD, purchased in August last year. I've read through the forums and offer an overview of my experience with the car. Currently approaching 9K miles. Last fall, I had a "surging" problem when using the cruise control. I could hear and feel the engine rev up, then back off. This was a verified by the tach. This cycle took about 15 seconds. The first fix was to reprogram the CVT. That helped, but on my next trip on flat interstate with the cruise set at 70 mph, the tach would "float" around the 2K mark. No change in engine sound and no perception of an increase in speed or RPM. Back to the dealer and they were stumped. They called Ford for advice and were told to replace the CVT, which resolved the problem. I do business with a small town dealer and this is why - they could have tried to pass off the surging and floating as normal for the CVT. Instead, they called the factory and got it right.

MPG is right at 23, according to the computer, on the highway. In town it's in the high teens. I haven't done the math to see if the computer is accurate.

No other issues. Purchased this car after reading everything I could find about it. Love the smooth power and the lack of transmission shifts. Love the versatility and the looks of the car - Redfire Metallic with the grey interior. I plan to keep it for a long time.

tidester

In my mind an engine going at 1.5 RPMs is consuming the same gas whether you are going uphill or downhill.

That would be true if the same amount of fuel were injected in each cycle independent of load.

tidester, host

coldcranker

" "So what you are telling me... is that a freestyle going downhill at ~2.5k RPM (engine braking) is consuming LESS fuel than a freestyle going downhill with the gas pedal slightly pressed, at 1k RPM."

Yes. "

Reply: But remember the 2500 rpm downhill ride is soaking up the potential energy that would have gone into kinetic energy, so your speed is lower at the bottom of the hill than if the engine didn't go into braking mode. Therefore, a light throttle applied will get it out of braking mode, allowing a higher speed at the bottom of the hill, saving you gas overall.

nitromax

I understand that the cause of going at 2.5k RPM is not the fact that you are asking for more gas, but the gravity. But I think the cause is not important because nevertheless, your engine is reved up, hence consuming more fuel... even if you don't want to.


Another way to look at it. Dodge makes some of their engines capable of shutting off cylinders to increase fuel economy.
So when their engine is running at 3000 rpms with 4 cylinders opersating instead of 8 cylinders, is the engine still consuming the same amount of fuel?

The engine may be rotating at 2000 rpms, but it may not necessarily be consuming fuel while it rotates.
Also, I've monitored my mpg gauge while coasting down a hill and I've seen mpg numbers around 70-80 mpg while going downhill.
:-)

blue05

This is something that was not mention in the other post ,its that most computer controlled vehicles have a device called a TSP (Throttle Position Sensor ) . When you step on the gas a voltage signal output is increased as the throttle is opened . The cars computer process this info and controls many things like idle speed ,fuel delivery , spark advance, trans shifting etc.

vicenac

Well, I'm glad I sparked such an interesting discussion. I'm not switching to N only going downhill. Sometimes I do that on a flat road too. And I would have considered it as normal behavior if the engine would just rev up and stay like that to match the tranny (I would program the tranny to match the idling speed of the engine, but that's me). I was puzzled by the fact that it is changing RPMs rapidly, describing a never-ending wave. It does that as long as it is in N and the car is motion. If I break and it stops, then the needle sets slowly down. It does look like the computer is confused. I guess the designers missed that possibility and did not take it into account when programming. Also they might of seen that it was too expensive to tell the computer that the lever is in N.

rick2456

I have a new 2005 AWD SEL Freestyle. One thing I noticed is that on the highway, I get a bit of vibration. Almost as though I was driving on slightly rough pavement. I stopped by the dealer and the SM thought maybe the tires were out of round from being on the lot a while and give it a 1000 miles and if the vibration was still present, bring it back.

Based on my experienced, I am leaning toward out of balance tires and/or alignment. Anybody else ever have similar symptoms? Thanks.

Rick in Hotlanta

bruneau1

Is the vibration in the steering wheel? Do you feel it in the seats? Does the body shake? Tire balance is usually the culprit, but the Continental tires, while plush feeling on smooth surfaces, do transmit vibration on rough surfaces. Ours have gotten better with time. Also, check your tire pressure while cold. no more than 32 in the front and 34 in the back. Too much air makes for a rough ride. Since we never carry heavy loads in the back, I use 32 there also, and some of the thumpiness is reduced and the ride is nicer. Don't let anyone convince to go beyond the recommended pressures. If your steering wheel is straight while traveling on flat highways and there is no pull or drift to one side, i wouldn't suspect alignment.

rick2456

Yes, I feel the vibration in both the steering wheel and the seats. Tires are at 32psi and the vehicle does not pull much, but does not seem to track very well. Thus, is why I suspect balance and alignment. Thanks for the feedback.

bruneau1

Take it to your dealer and describe the symptoms clearly. Alignment is tricky and some dealers are good at it and some aren't. On a flat surface, and that's sometimes hard to find, the steering wheel should be perfectly aligned and no pull or drift to either side. The Freestyle is a smooth riding vehicle and has no vibrations unless the road is really rough. if it's doing it all the time, there's a problem.

tacomaguy

What am I to do when I have to go over a mountain pass and the news says that "traction devices are REQUIRED"? If I am not supposed to put anything on my AWD Freestyle Limited's 18 inch Pirelli's, is the car still safe? (This isn't just around-town driving in the snow.) A Ford salesman said he bought a set of chains and just carries them in the car, doesn't put them on. The parts dept guy said that a local tire dealer may have something that attaches to the tires but is not as thick as a cable chain. Also, with AWD vehicles, don't all four tires have to be "chained up". I live in Oregon so maybe some of you guys from up North or back East can enlighten me.

elibruno

unless driving through a blizzard, your AWD has more than enough capability as is.

ideafix

Hey y'all

Question for you guys.
I got my 2006 SE FWD this month. Overall I'm very happy with it (in spite of the 17.6 MPG I'm currently getting )
However, when doing my first MPG measure, I realized that there was a message.. "CHANGE OIL". And the Oil Monitor says 0%.
Now, from what I've seen in these forums, you need to reset the monitor manually after an oil change.

BUT THE FIRST TIME?

I'm kind of confused and kind of upset. I remember seen the monitor at 80% shortly after getting the freebie, while playing with the controls.

I've driven it mostly town, very conservative driving, and only 837 miles. I got it less than a month ago.

What should I do?
Should I go with the dealer and ask for a free oil change? Should I return it with a :lemon: sticker? Or should I believe that the monitor si simply wrong or wasn't reset properly when I picked it up?

I assume the dealer is going to just say "Oh the monitor was not reset"... but I want to ask you guys if there's a reason for concern or if I should put up some fight for that oil change.

Advices appreciated

coldcranker

I got my '05 SE FWD Freestyle last summer. I love it and have had no problems. I get 25 mpg (averaged over many tankfuls for accuracy) in 30% city, the rest highway driving, and thats at an altitude of 5,500 ft above sea level, where that alone costs you about 1 or 2 mpg just for being in the thin air.

The 17 mpg may be OK for around town, but you should see at least 25 mpg on highway driving of around 55 to 65 mph cruising. The 837 mile oil life monitor is unusual, and I wouldn't pay any attention to it. Just change oil with Mobil 1 synthetic (to be sure, spare performance there) 5w-20 every 6 months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes first.

passat_2002

The Freestyle's Oil Life Monitor looks at more than just mileage. It also considers length of time the oil's been in the crankcase, and the length of trips driven. Your Freestyle was probably built about 5 or 6 months ago, hence it's recommendation to change the oil with only 837 miles on the odometer. If I were you.. I would just reset it to 100% now and then change your "break-in" oil at about 2,500 miles. Reset it to 100% again at that time and then follow it's schedule after that.

salyersbull

I just bought a new 2005 SE FWD that was sitting in a dealership lot for longer than they wanted. I got too good of a deal to go ahead with the 2006 as I had planned. My "change oil" light came on at about 200 miles and I changed the oil at 400 miles because of some research that I did on breaking in a new engine. I changed at 400 miles, will again at about 1500 miles then pick up a normal pace from there. Will use synthetic oil and change once every 6 months regardless of mileage but it will probably be about 7500 miles. I think the "time in engine" factor for the oil is probably right. Yours has been in there a while and the light just came on.

vwcarcrazy

I used to live in Oregon. It is required in Oregon to have a set (Pair) of tire chains in your car if you drive in the mountain areas. These areas are well marked, including I-5 at several locations from the California border up to mid-State. These areas are marked, and are posted during heavy snow - requiring you to install the chains (not just carry them). There are pull-offs at the bottom of mountain passes that are marked chain-installation areas. I would visit your local auto parts store. They should be able to fit you with a set of cables (vs chains) that are much thinner and should fit the 18" tires. Your other option is to avoid the mountain passes when heavy snow is forecast. Low-profile tires, like the 18" on the FS, are really not a M&S design for heavy snow use. You really do not want to be traversing high elevation freeway mountain passes without the proper equipment. With cables and chains, you need to stay at low speeds or risk separation or breakage - which can cause significant body damage to your vehicle. It is too bad that even the new style (to minimize road damage and stud wear) studded tires are banned in most US states, including Oregon. They are much preferrable to cables and chains. By the way, you can get away with a pair of cables on an AWD vs all 4 tires. On the FS, you should put them on the front tires (the tires with the higher % body weight distribution). Best luck.

vwcarcrazy

It appears that the dealer did not follow the Ford Factory provided pre-delivery check list. One of the items is for the dealer to reset the oil monitor at delivery, because the car computer calculates oil life on several factors - including miles driven and calendar time. This would make me ask the dealer if they did any of the checklist items. Some dealers try to save a few bucks by just removing the plastic from the seats and carpet, window sticker and washing the car before delivery. Some do not even pop the hood. You can reset the oil monitor at any time. Ford recommends the 1st oil change at 5000 miles (which is what the oil monitor will use also), many do the 1st at 2500 miles and then 2500-5000 miles thereafter. You will want to make sure that whoever does the oil change has 5W-20 synthetic oil available. Our local dealer did not have any when I did my 1st change, and I had to look around to find it. I actually provided the oil for the 1st change myself. Some WalMart's and Autozone's carry it. The oil filter is readily available. Both the Motorcraft 5W-20 SynBlend oil and Motorcraft oil filter are highly rated, so I am sticking with them. They are also reasonably priced (unlike other brands, like Mobil 1, etc). You will find that some Freestyle - specific parts are not stocked (like the air filters), so you might want to order a little in advance of any maintenance work. Best luck.

stevedebi

"I get 25 mpg (averaged over many tankfuls for accuracy) in 30% city, the rest highway driving, and thats at an altitude of 5,500 ft above sea level, where that alone costs you about 1 or 2 mpg just for being in the thin air."

Actually, I have found the exact opposite to be true. I live in LA, and the best MPG I have ever gotten is at altitudes above 4000 feet.

stevedebi

"I would visit your local auto parts store. They should be able to fit you with a set of cables (vs chains) that are much thinner and should fit the 18" tires"

Chains should not be used on any FS; the owner's manual is very clear that only cables can be used on the 17" wheels, and no cables at all can be used on the 18" wheels.

I have no idea what people are supposed to do with the FS AWD Limited in mountains, where chains are often required.

tidester

highway driving, and thats at an altitude of 5,500 ft above sea level

Incidentally, airplanes fly at altitude. Cars drive at elevation.

tidester, host

coldcranker

"Actually, I have found the exact opposite to be true. I live in LA, and the best MPG I have ever gotten is at altitudes above 4000 feet."

Thats possible. Driving style can overcome the lower gas mileage due to the lower barometric pressure at high altitudes.

coldcranker

"I changed at 400 miles, will again at about 1500 miles then pick up a normal pace from there. Will use synthetic oil and change once every 6 months regardless of mileage but it will probably be about 7500 miles."

I always change my break-in oil between 500 and 1000 miles similar to what you did. There are more small metal particles running around inside new engines, and some of the metal is smaller than about 20 microns, which is about the smallest an oil filter can catch. I've used Motorcraft FL820S (the 'S' stands for silicon anti-drainback valve, which is exceptional), but I think Mobil's new EP Oil Filter may be slightly better.

coldcranker

"Both the Motorcraft 5W-20 SynBlend oil and Motorcraft oil filter are highly rated, so I am sticking with them."

I wonder if most people know that the Motorcraft SynBlend is not a full synthetic oil. Its not a bad oil, but the best is a full synthetic (Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc.). The full synthetics prevent some start-up wear when its very cold, as they don't thicken up as much. They actually exceed the 5w-20 viscosity specs when cold, so they really are better cold, and probably a bit better hot. About the oil filter, I like the Motorcraft, too, due to its silicon anti-drainback valve. However, the http://www.oilfilterstudy.com website shows a low flow rate at 70 deg and 10 psi differential pressure, which shows some extra resistance to flow. I'm guessing the new Mobil EP oil filter is better, so I'll use that from now on. Actually, the Excel spreadsheet showing the flow rates is at http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/Grease%20Oil%20Filter%20Study.xls and you'll notice the Motorcraft filter didn't really filter all that well and didn't flow all that well. Purolator PremPlus is a better alternative for cheap, and the new (not on the spreadsheet) Mobil EP filter might be better.

coldcranker

"Low-profile tires, like the 18" on the FS, are really not a M&S design for heavy snow use."

The "M+S" designation is really a weak indicator of snow/ice performance. Its an old designation and not based on actual traction tests. For the 17" crowd, with OEM 215/65-17 tires, we have the new option of using Goodyear TripleTred 225/65-17 tires that have the "snowflake-on-the-mountain" rating, in an all-season tire, no less! That is an impressive rating for winter driving, as its our only all-season tire choice that performs about as well as a snow-tire. Not bad. I can't wait for my Conti's to wear down a little more. I've got 10,000 on them and they show little signs of wear.

stever

Its not a bad oil, but the best is a full synthetic

Best for what though? Some of us (ok, me anyway) think the expensive stuff is overkill for the typical family grocery getter.

This is the point where I duck and run and refer the rebuttal to the oil wars discussions.

Engine Oil - A slippery subject Part 2

Synthetic motor oil

Steve, Host

coldcranker

"Best for what though? Some of us (ok, me anyway) think the expensive stuff is overkill for the typical family grocery getter."

The synthetics do cut engine wear somewhat because they flow quicker cold at start-up. And for towing or spirited driving, they are likely better. Otherwise, they are overkill like you say. But, for a $20,000+ vehicle, is the price difference all that significant? Six quarts of Mobil 1 full synth 5w-20 is about $30, vs. $12 for Motorcraft 5w-20, not much difference. And, besides, many of us are perfectionists when we can afford it....

coldcranker

"...change once every 6 months regardless of mileage but it will probably be about 7500 miles."

Ford's warranty doesn't let you exceed 5,000 miles, but I've heard that you could go up to 5,999 miles without voiding the warranty on internally lubricated parts. Similarly, the 6 month interval can be extended to almost 7 months without voiding the warranty.

stever

lol, don't get me started. I lived in Anchorage for 20 years without a garage and dead dino did fine, often on extended intervals, and I didn't use my block heaters all that often.

I drive them forever, so at $18 a year, I saved at least $300 on the '82 Tercel that I used for 17 years. I haven't found it worth my time or money to do more than the manufacturer's recommendations.

My experience is all anecdotal, but I don't know of any double-blind tests out there, other than the Consumer Reports taxi test years ago.

The next new car I buy better have its hood welded shut.... :shades:

Steve, Host

coldcranker

When the Freestyle is off warranty, I'll probably go to the new Mobil 1 EP synth oil and only change once a year, actually saving time and money. Thats the real worth of synthetics, though Ford's warranty requirements don't allow for that, and require 6months/5000mile intervals.

Ford ought to come out and say, if you use a full synthetic 5w-20, you can go a couple of extra thousand miles at least, just to save people's time and labor.

bobw3

When has anyone heard of anybody having engine problems due to the lack of oil changes? Makes me wonder the real affect. My brother had a subaru with over 200K and barely changed the oil once a year. I've never heard of anyone with a siezed engine or any engine problems where the root caused ended up being the lack of oil changes or using the wrong oil. Maybe I'm wrong, but if someone can find one post in all of Edmunds discussing an engine problem caused by using the wrong oil or from lack of frequent oil changes I'd be surprised...even if the engine oil was just a contributing factor.

coldcranker

bobw3,
I basically agree. I don't know why Ford specifies such frequent oil changes (6 months / 5000 miles) for our Freestyle when they could easily go to 1 year / 15,000 miles if they specify a good full synthetic (Mobil 1 EP, for example) and maybe call for a larger oil filter (lengthen it an inch). Do people like changing oil? I don't. It is toxic waste.

Frequent oil changes are actually detrimental to wear rates. Its been shown that oil with some particles suspended in it (slightly dirty oil) actually lowers the wear rate, so people who change their oil too often are really increasing the wear rate. (SAE study and other tests show this.) The point is not to change often, but to go longer with a synthetic to avoid excessive cost / mess / labor.

stever

I think the sludge discussion is lost in the archives at the moment, but some Toyotas had sludge issues not too long ago related to a too long oil change frequency. Toyota lessened the change frequency on some models (Sienna, etc.) and took some lumps in the press.

One example post:

joj, "Toyota Sienna Owners: Problems & Solutions (2003 earlier)" #3473, 17 Jan 2006 4:36 pm

Steve, Host

coldcranker

The sludge issue with Toyotas was really due to internal engine thermal problems, many engineers think. P-38 Lightning fighters in WWII had the same problem when their cooling systems worked too well, causing the pilots to lose oil pressure in one of their twin engines over Europe (with an ME-109 on their tail!) due to sludge formation. Synthetic oils don't jelly-up as much as conventional oils, since there is far less wax compounds in synthetics, so there is a solution that might work; just switch to synthetics. A 5-minute engine flush solvent might help as well.

coldcranker

The Freestyle 6 month / 5000 mile time and mileage limitation of oil changes is on page 46 of: Maint. Schedule which is a document that came with your vehicle. Page 46 states the Normal, and also 'dusty' condition change intervals.

In addition, its on page 16 and 86 of the owner's manual. Its at: Owners Manual

Actually, those links above don't work so go here: Glove Box Manual look-up

passat_2002

Yes, thank you coldcrank. I had deleted my question after I discovered this for myself.

It's 6 month intervals for me then. The Message Center is programmed this way as well, regardless of mileage.

bobw3

Personally I change oil in every car I've owned about every 5000 miles, and the same with the Freestyle using 5W-20. The shop tops off the windshield fluid and checks the other fluids, so for $25 it's pretty good. I've had my Freestyle for over a year at 26K miles, and I think I've lifted the hood two times...that's the way I like my cars! The Message Center clocks down from 100% to 0% at around 5000K miles for me...nothing to do with time, just mileage, since the Message Center has had me change the oil 5 times in 14 months. So I do change the oil, but I don't see what's there to discuss about it. Yeah in the extreme cold climates if you don't change your oil in 5 years you'll probably have some problems, but for the average guy changing it every 5000-10,000 miles, he'll probably never have an engine problem related to oil changes.

coldcranker

"Actually, I have found the exact opposite to be true. I live in LA, and the best MPG I have ever gotten is at altitudes above 4000 feet."

Thats possible. Driving style can overcome the lower gas mileage due to the lower barometric pressure at high altitudes.

Its been such a long time since I've had thermodynamics, I had to look up why higher altitudes (lower barometric pressure) produce lower fuel economy. It can be explained in terms of: Lower baro pressure produces lower volumetric efficiency, which increases pumping losses, so each power stroke must burn more fuel to compensate, since the car still needs the same power to run at 65 mph at any altitude (neglecting the slight break you get from lower drag in thinner air at high altitude).

Still, sedate driving at 4,000 ft can produce better fuel economy than more stop-and-go style driving at sea level, since driving style has the biggest effect on fuel economy.

coldcranker

"...The shop tops off the windshield fluid and checks the other fluids"

I see your viewpoint. We engineers are more fanatical when it comes to internal wear rates. I think you get this way when you read the testing they put oils through to earn, say, the european ACEA A3/B3 designation. The main point is that we shouldn't change oil too often because its bad for the environment and $$$. Synthetics allow longer intervals, and its frustrating Ford doesn't just allow for that in our Freestyle manuals to continue our warranty.

stevedebi

"Thats possible. Driving style can overcome the lower gas mileage due to the lower barometric pressure at high altitudes."

Driving style has nothing to do with it. I get better MPG on the highway at 5000 feet than I do at 100 feet here at home. Both local and high altitude was highway.

stevedebi

"Its been such a long time since I've had thermodynamics, I had to look up why higher altitudes (lower barometric pressure) produce lower fuel economy. It can be explained in terms of: Lower baro pressure produces lower volumetric efficiency, which increases pumping losses, so each power stroke must burn more fuel to compensate, since the car still needs the same power to run at 65 mph at any altitude (neglecting the slight break you get from lower drag in thinner air at high altitude)."

Well, I haven't looked anything up. I just know what I found when I filled up the vehicle - LA highway MPG = 25, Santa Fe highway MPG = 31. The Santa Fe MPG was 1/2 uphill and 1/2 downhill. This was not a FS, BTW, it was a 2003 CR-V, my last car. I suspect it has to do with the way the engine CPU is programmed - for lower emissions at sea level.

While browsing the forums, I have seen several people post better MPG at high altitudes, for various vehicles, so I don't think my experience is unusual.

coldcranker

stevedebi,
You are comparing apples to oranges. High altitude driving does NOT create better gas mileage. Actually, though, I've heard the Freestyle gets better gas mileage driving underwater, so you must be right!