Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

What's your opinion of the Vulcan engine?


  • Total voters
    223
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 195 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
The MPG argument for the Vulcan engine doesn't hold water. A newer design w/ less friction and more efficient cyl. heads would do better and have more HP. Plus, its the mass of the car that determines most of the MPG. Ford was just a greedy, poorly run co. as were the other US marks. I've met some of the high execs. at F. and GM and I was totally underwhelmed. NWIH should these clowns be in the ranks of upper mgmnt. at a top-tier co.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Got a 94 GL here with 282,000 kms, still going, but could use some power. It's a decent engine for what it was made for, which is a family car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
I was satisfied with the power etc of the three Vulcan Taurus' I have owned (91 L wagon, 2000 and 2004 LX sedans). But the 2.3-liter four in my Fusion is more powerful and has more torque than a Vulcan. Gets better mileage too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Our family had one of the first 1986 Sables. Car was a TOTAL lemon except the Vulcan, it was the only thing that worked properly. Have a 2000 Taurus now and I find the Vulcan considerably quieter and smoother than the '86. As far as power goes, 90% of the time it is totally fine. The other 10% I keep saying to myself "at least its a durable motor" LOL
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
474 Posts
I was satisfied with the power etc of the three Vulcan Taurus' I have owned (91 L wagon, 2000 and 2004 LX sedans). But the 2.3-liter four in my Fusion is more powerful and has more torque than a Vulcan. Gets better mileage too.
I just sold my 09 Fusion with a 2.3. It may produce slightly more horsepower (15 to be exact) but it is also at a higher RPM. I found the 2.3 to have almost no torque until it was revved to 3000 RPM. The Fusion is also 200 lbs lighter than the 3rd Gen Taurus. If you put the Vulcan in a Fusion the weight difference alone would provide a different experience. I find the Vulcan to be adequate for the Taurus considering the weight of the car. Not to mention the 2.3 Duratec was buzzy and unrefined when pushed hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
i just bought a 96 wagon with the 3.0 i did the cps and shaft. put over 600 miles on it since i got it. b4 i did the sensor i was getting 12 mpg. now its fixed im waiting to see what it does. besides that mine seems to be really good. it isnt fast but its a fmaily car. i dont know why ppl expect it to be a race car. all in all its decent. mine has 175k
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,306 Posts
I'm indifferent, really. It gets me down the road.


There are some on this forum who claim to get 35mpg from their Vulcan. I can only laugh hysterically at them.
Laugh hysterically, then. I know it can be done. Babying it along on the highway it can pull 35mpg. It isn't easy and won't happen a lot. I did it by keeping a steady 70 on the freeway for 4 hours non stop. Had I actually passed a car or stopped it wouldn't be that.

Everything that's wrong with the car now, especially alignment I'm lucky to see 23.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
just got the car its a 2005 taurus se. went from an lt1 6 speed corvette to the vulcan so you can just imagine... I have to say though it works and performs fine for me....its a family car after all. By the way I was a police service aide for 5 years and I drove a 99 taurus so im pretty used to the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I had a vulcan in my old sable. It wasn't bad as far as power goes. plenty of torque on the get-go but then it drops off a-lot lol. It got better gas milage than the 'tec in the new sable. I could easily get 31mpg highway with the vulcan but i'm lucky if i get 25 with the 'tec. The 'tec has a lot more balls though and sounds awesome with a cold air intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
the vulcan is great

parts are available

easy to work on

and the best part!

after driving my wife's 96 vulcan wagon, it makes me appreciate the SHO that much more
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
^ your funny.

From going to duratec to vulcan I lost 50 hp and probably 10 mpg....


I get about 15-19 depending on driving maybe 23 highway with the vulcan. It's slow gets ****** mpg and sounds like garbage.

My Vulcan with no cat magnaflow resonator and straight pipe sounds like a ****** broken ford ranger until it's warm and then its stil sounds like crap till 3k. My Tec with the same setup sounded like a g35 and got an avergr of 8 mpg more.

Ok cool that it's bullet proof but there are plenty of other engine that make more power and have much better mpg that are way more realiable. If you guys never had a Vulcan you know that you wouldn't even know what it is or care about it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
That's odd, my Vulcan gets 22 mpg in the city and 27 on the highway doing 80 mph. While on leave I got a chance to drive my sister-in-law's Duratec Sable and I wasn't impressed. Yes it did have more power but compared to my Taurus, it was all at the top end. The power delivery felt peaky where as my Vulcan feels more linear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
"I just sold my 09 Fusion with a 2.3. It may produce slightly more horsepower (15 to be exact) but it is also at a higher RPM. I found the 2.3 to have almost no torque until it was revved to 3000 RPM. The Fusion is also 200 lbs lighter than the 3rd Gen Taurus. If you put the Vulcan in a Fusion the weight difference alone would provide a different experience. I find the Vulcan to be adequate for the Taurus considering the weight of the car. Not to mention the 2.3 Duratec was buzzy and unrefined when pushed hard."

This is EXACTLY my experience with my '06 2.3L MT Fusion. You might as well have a cubic yard of depleted uranium strapped to the Fusion roof until the 2.3 gets to about 3400rpm and it doesn't REALLY get going until 4600rpm. The Mazda 2.3 has to have the world's strangest torque curve. The Vulcan in my '93 LX bull was a much more tractable engine, all torque, all the time. It didn't have to row the gears half as much.

Took a road trip up to Canada this weekend and had the choice between taking the 60,000mi '06 Fusion and the 150,000mi '02 'tec bull. The Fusion sat in the garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I agree with some of the thoughts on the MT 2.3 Fusion. I test drove a 2011 example of the car. I thought it was a blast but then again I was wringing the crap out of that car, bouncing it off the rev limiter before I shifted. I made that little 4 banger work for every one of it's 175 horses. What to do with the 6th gear was a bit confusing though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,228 Posts
^ your funny.

From going to duratec to vulcan I lost 50 hp and probably 10 mpg....


I get about 15-19 depending on driving maybe 23 highway with the vulcan. It's slow gets ****** mpg and sounds like garbage.

My Vulcan with no cat magnaflow resonator and straight pipe sounds like a ****** broken ford ranger until it's warm and then its stil sounds like crap till 3k. My Tec with the same setup sounded like a g35 and got an avergr of 8 mpg more.

Ok cool that it's bullet proof but there are plenty of other engine that make more power and have much better mpg that are way more realiable. If you guys never had a Vulcan you know that you wouldn't even know what it is or care about it
You're doing it wrong, Knott.

Not surprising at all, though. You treat your cars like absolute **** and do all manner of poorly executed ricer mods to them. No wonder you've ****** up the fuel economy and exhaust system on your Vulcan.

For the record, I get 20-22 suburban with A/C, 28-32 expressway at 70+.

I agree with some of the thoughts on the MT 2.3 Fusion. I test drove a 2011 example of the car. I thought it was a blast but then again I was wringing the crap out of that car, bouncing it off the rev limiter before I shifted. I made that little 4 banger work for every one of it's 175 horses. What to do with the 6th gear was a bit confusing though.
The current-gen Fusion has a 2.5L I-4 with way more guts than the 2.3L had. It's pretty comparable to a Vulcan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
I think it's a decent engine for what it's designed to do, it's a mass produced engine for family/fleet sedans. I can't complain about the power because there are other higher power alternatives (duratec and sho). I can't complain about the fuel consumption because it's pretty typical for it's class (~26mpg). To say that my F150 has more torque or my Focus gets better mileage really isn't a fair comparison.

I've got 160K on mine with no major engine problems besides general maintenance (knock on wood) and I expect to get at least another 40 out of it.
 
21 - 40 of 195 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
About this Discussion
194 Replies
107 Participants
Ben
Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum
A forum community dedicated to the Ford Taurus and SHO models, Mercury Sable and Lincoln MKS. Join the discussions on EcoBoost, aftermarket performance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top