Are you shopping for a new vehicle and having trouble finding one, or have you been waiting a long time for a factory order? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Tues. 5/11 for more details.

Gas Mileage

BobbdBobbd Member Posts: 1
I have a 1993 Ford F-150 Supercab. The best
vehicle I've ever owned. It is comfortable, goes
in the snow, hauls with no problem, and I think it
looks great. Truck owners, I'm sure don't expect
to get good gas mileage, but 10 mpg is getting old.
I justify it by realizing it is a heavy truck,
the 302 isn't the best truck motor, and there is a
price to pay for driving something like that. I
have always done more than the expected prevenative
maintenance and was just curious if anyone else
had better luck with economy than I am having. The
last set of plugs I put in are platinum (no
improvement); if anything it is worse.


  • kirkpamakirkpama Member Posts: 64

    I have a 90 F250 with the 302 and I have been getting 10 to 11 mpg from day one. I have 56,000 miles on it now. I believe that this engine is too small for this size truck and it has to work harder and the mpg suffers. Just a guess. I can't wait until my V-10 arrives.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I had a feeling that might be it. It's one of those things that has never been mentioned in some of the other topic areas when we've talked about getting a big enough engine and suspension for the job you plan to do. The main arguments for the bigger engine have been that the smaller engine will work harder and may not last as long. It never really occured to me that it might not get much better gas mileage from the start. If that's the case, I'm wondering if the people who are getting the new F-150s with the smaller V-8 will encounter the same thing? I'm looking forward to the V-10 as well, although I can't complain about the 351.
  • thegoinkerthegoinker Member Posts: 8
      I just turned 2K on my 3.9L V6 Dakota short bed-(Auto). In town, I have calculated 13.5 mpg. Is this figure in line with what this engine should be performing? I have not been on a road trip so far, so no mpg for hyway. The factory sticker in the window had it at 16city/21hwy mpg. I do no towing or hauling, moderate idling and am mostly on side streets for delivering. Also, while sitting at a stop light, it stinks to high heaven. (that catalytic converter stink) Being that the truck was built in Warren, Michigan would it have been tuned for a higher altitude than here in West Central Florida? I just do not know how these modern "brain" systems work as far as what is "normal" performance. Makes one long for the old time engines one could tune-up with a plug wrench, matchbook and a screwdriver!!
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I think it will be hard to tell if the gas mileage is getting close to the specs until you get it out on a highway trip for a few hundred miles. City mileage can vary significantly based on driving conditions. Highway mileage is more uniform, especially if you have cruise control.
  • AirCatAirCat Member Posts: 16
    I am currently towing my boat with a Blazer with a 350 in it and my father is towing his boat with a 96 CHEVK2500 PU with a 350, both of us get 11 mpg when towing but I get 15 to his 14 highway when were not towing, I expect to beat the socks off of him towing a heavier load when my new V10 finally arrives. I think being just a little underpowered hurts milage a lot.
  • reset9reset9 Member Posts: 7
    "...and am mostly on side streets for delivering."
    Stop and go driving reduces mileage.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110

    You expect to get better mileage with a V10? that v10 will probably get 11 or 12 not pulling. You've got to realize that due to the torque curves of gas motors, they are not going to get good mileage pulling. One reason you get such a drop off is because of your gear ratio. I suspect you have a 3.42 rear end from your mileage. That is a highway rearend, not towing.
    The engine is working pretty hard, no matter what you pull. I have a chev 350 in a '94 pickup with a 3.42 gear. i get 18-19 highway, but pulling around my 3500 lb boat, i only get 10-11. I could get a 3.73, like in my mom's suburban, and i would get about 16 highway, and 13 pulling. so thats the trade off. if you had a lower gear, you would get slightly less driving mileage, but better pulling mileage. it all depends on what the majority of your driving is. By getting v10, you will have great power, but bad gas mileage all the way around (compared to your 350), probably less than 10 when you pull, depending on your gear ratio.

    i will say one thing about new engines from ford and chevy (i haven't seen the torque curves from dodge) and that is they have almost 90% of their torque at 2000rpms, which is kinda the same property that makes diesels great pullers. So i might be in for a surprise when you write in later and report on the performance. but gas motors are almost at the end of their refinement. In non-engineering terms, they are pretty much as good as their ever going to get. so don't expect to beat the pants of anybody in a mileage contest with a V10.

  • AirCatAirCat Member Posts: 16
    The inventory co next door to where I work have the same Ford V10 in their 15 pass van. They tow a trailer loaded with their equip. and claim to get over 15 mpg with it., I really believe underpowering is as bad for milage as overpowering or worse. You dont have to mash the pedal all day to get there with a bigger motor.
  • rite3rite3 Member Posts: 69
    I have heard this kind of mileage with the V10 also. The guys who have motorhomes built on the van chassis with the 6.8 say they are getting 13. I can only imagine what the pickups will get, I hope its all true. I know my 460 dousnt get far enough from the pump to get that mpg.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Don't subscribe to the attitude that gas engines have reached their peak in refinement. The last time, Iaccoa cried that Americans could only build fat monsters and wouldn't be able to build a small car. I think mileage will improve when the industry is forced to by market changes.
    Back to actual topic:Bought our 12th truck and I bought a "topper".Roofing lingo for a crew truck of three guys just doing easy jobs like shingling over existing roofs. We only needed a light truck for these quick jobs so we got an F-150 with the 4.2 six. The plan is to use this truck for estimates and lots of driving without load. Waiting for mileage results.
    Funny though, we have three 95 Chevy's bought at the same time(same engines) and two get 14-16 mpg whereas the other gets 11-13. I never could explain this especially after ruling out some clowns that work for us who drive them. All three get routine maintenance at the same time. I would love insight to this situation.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110

    what size engine did those chevy's have in them? Don't be to surprised about the bad mileage. A diesel service company i used to work for had several chev Z71's for errand and part delivery. The trucks used to be driven by the owner, and then he would buy a new one and make the old one a company truck. whenever employees drive a company truck, it is usually with the foot mashed to the floor at all times, because it's not their truck and not their gas. one of the trucks that got 15 mpg with the owner, was getting about 9 or 10 the next year when driven by the various hands.

    I will take back my comment on how gasoline engines are close to their refinement. I am a senior Mechanical engineering student, and i know that all it takes is some guy in a lab somewhere to make some amazing discovery to push ahead technology. but through my schoolwork and research, we are at a point right now where we are seeing close to the highest effieciency out of gas that the current engine designs can pull. did you know about 60% of the energy in gas is dissipated through the engines lubrication and cooling. engines today burn cleaner than ever. carbuerated engines emitted unburned fuel in the exhaust. todays engines get as much fire out of every drop of fuel. but there is still room for improvement. i think it's going to take a long time if ever though.

    To Aircat,

    the mileage is impressive in the vans. I did not know those numbers. Those vans are pretty heavy. i drove one with a 351 in it, and it got terrible mileage and was slow as a turtle. Ford may have tuned this thing just right to carry around those big trucks. i've never been impressed with the V10 concept because generally you are making more pistons that are smaller in displacement, which translates into more horse's and less torque. 410 ft lbs ain't the best in the truck world, but if gets better mileage than chevy's 454 and dodge's v10 (shouldn't have no prob beating dodge's), then I would say it is a good truck motor. can't wait to hear ya'lls report when you get your trucks.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    The Dodge V-10 generates 450 lb-ft of torque, which I think is second only to the 500 lb-ft generated by the Ford Powerstroke diesel. The Ford V-10 generates 25 less hp and 40 lb-ft torque less than the Dodge V-10, but should get better gas mileage because it's a more efficient engine. We won't know if that's true until we get some data on the Ford V-10s. In another post, someone said that we should not expect the same gas mileage in the Superduty trucks as Ford is getting with the V-10 in the vans.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    All have the small block 305(5.0)V-8 engines. I understand about workers not caring about the treatment of these trucks. What I can't figure out is the one truck being so different than the others. All three have less than 50k on them to boot! The Rear is the same. The job duties of the three is virtually the same also.
    I just don't get it.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    that is strange. i have heard of really simple things making that happen, like an oxygen sensor that is malfunctioning or maybe it got damaged during maintenance (employees are very good in that department either.) They are quite a few little sensors all over those Chevy's, and sometimes all it takes is one to confuse Mr. Computer and make gas mileage plummit. You should be able to (no guarantees) take it to the dealer, have them plug in their diagnostic computer, and if anything is not functioning properly, it's SUPPOSED to show up right away on the read out. maybe worth a try
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    And you are rotating drivers? And the tire size is the same? I'm sure you know both of these so it's actually insulting that I mention it, but I was surprised at the difference the tire size makes. Same trucks, same axle ratios, same engines, same style. You're right, it's strange, same workload.....It's not like it's Ford to Dodge to Chevy. If nothing at all is different, it's strange.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    Since Brutus made mention, here are the current torque monsters in order:

    Ford/Navistar 7.3L diesel 500 lb-ft
    Dodge/Cummins 5.9L diesel 460 lb-ft (5 spd)
    Dodge 8.0L V10 450 lb-ft (fed)
    Dodge 8.0L V10 440 lb-ft (emission)
    Chevy 6.5L diesel 440 lb-ft (98 rating)
    Dodge/Cummins 5.9L diesel 420 lb-ft (auto)
    Ford 6.8L V10 410 lb-ft
    Chevy 7.4L V8 410 lb-ft

    Just remember - eight years ago, there was only one engine that made 400 - the Dodge/Cummins. Now we have a complete selection of engines that run cleaner and get better mileage while providing tree-stump-pulling grunt right from the factory.

    This is simply a trend throughout the aotomotive industry. Remember the original Escort in 1981? A planned 1.3L fourbanger was ditched just before intro, because it was way underpowered. Now Escorts, Neons, Sentras, etc. are all mini sports cars that still get mpgs well in the 30s, just like the old ones.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    cdean--yeah we even tried the computer to no avail. It baffled our mechanic also.
    Brutus---Actually, tires were a consideration for about a minute until I quickly took a gander at the great deal on Goodyear's we popped on the three and a Ford. It is a good suggestion, not an insult at all.
    I guess our truck is from the Twilight Zone!
    The only thing left to check is the spark plugs. We probably have the same but I refuse to let this go. Thanks all for the ideas.
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    I just scanned through all of the above looking for info about axle ratios on the the three. Brutus mentioned it, but I didn't see any specifics. You have approximately 25 percent worse fuel economy with one, but a lot of that could be accounted for if it had a much higher number for an axle ratio than the other two. Funny thing about axle ratios though, is that it's not obvious what it is. If you want to check out an engine's size and HP, all you have to do is pop the hood. I don't really know how you can check out what the vehicle's axle ratio actually is. It seems to me that there's not much of a cost difference during manufacture, and it might very well be the case that the vehicle came off the assembly line with a higher axle ratio than the buyer thought he was getting.
  • fredwoodfredwood Member Posts: 79
    Change the thermostat, its sticking. You may not notice a few degrees on your gauges but the computer will.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    You can find the code for the rear end in the vin#. The owners manual should tell you what the code translates to.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Good suggestion but we confirmed that all three have 3.08 rear-axle ratios. We changed the thermostat yesterday and put new plugs in so I'll be waiting for the results. Thanks
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    mharde2. I appreciate that info, and I wish it were the case, but I don't think it is. There certainly is no explanation of the VIN in my owners manual, but from what I can remember the VIN contains encrypted information that identifies only the vehicle model, the model year, the assembly-plant code, and the vehicle's serial number. However, nowadays, they put the VIN in a couple of places including on a label inside the driver's door jamb, and on that label is a lot of other data including one that gives "axle" and a number. In my case, it's "18". How that translates to 3.08, which is what I should have, is beyond me. But the point I was trying to make is even if you did have the translations, how do you know that's what's really in your truck? With the engine, you can count the cylinders to at least know whether you got a 6 or an 8, and there's usually other ways of identifying whether you got the engine you paid for. But with an axle ratio, the only thing I can think of is to jack up the rear wheels and count the number of needed drive-shaft turns to make the back wheels turn once. Hey, in one of the other topics, someone said his father ordered a Chevy truck and when it came in, it had some GMC trim on it (or maybe it was the other way around). If the factory can make that kind of a goof, putting in an axle that's different from what's marked on a lablel seems entirely possible........especially when the fuel economy is 25 percent worse than it should be and there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for this situation.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110

    tell me what rpm the engine turns at 60 or 70 mph and what size tire is on that truck, and i might be able to tell you your rearend.
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    Sorry everyone, but I answered my own question regarding the axle ratio. I crawled under my pickup with a flashlight a few minutes ago, and there's a tag on the differential with a long number that starts with 3.08. That's what my sales receipt said I have for an axle ratio, so I guess the unit is marked after all.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    funny you mentioned it lwf---we did today also!
    We confirmed that all three have a 3.08 rear.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    ooh, i don't like the 3.08s. except maybe for small regular cab trucks, this gear is just to tall, and doesn't give any better mileage in a truck that used for hauling, or a truck that does any town driving. I bet a 3.73 would get just as good mileage and run better. especially since you have a 305 which is not as torquey as the 350. fords and dodges may differ, but when buying a chevy, my feeling is get the 350 instead of the 305. In an extended cab truck or longbed, the 305 is going to be working just a little too hard, and you won't see any significant mileage increase by going with a 305. 1, maybe 2 mpg. the 350 will get good mileage and be a much more enjoyable drive. the only problem with the new chevys is the $800 difference between the 350 and the 305.

    does anyone know the mileage differences between the Ram's 318 and 360. the 360 runs great, but i know it likes to drink gas to the tune of 12 and 16. (town and highway).

    what about the new modular fords? (4.6 vs 5.4)

    just curious.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    I don't think your diesel will be getting 5 mpg better than the v10. The only guy i know with a '99 powerstroke says it gets worse mileage than his old 454 which he got 12-13 with. the trucks were both crew cab 4X4s. But, he drives like a bat out of hell, and his math may not be very good. i'm waiting to hear other new powerstroke reports before i put all my eggs in that basket.

    still, the powerstroke in the past has never any major fuel consumption advantage to justify the $4500. except i guess if you only looked at ford and you're comparing it to the 460, which was a thirsty beast.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Yes,you're exactly correct on the rears for our three 305 Chevys. We kicked that around but I couldn't let a great deal for these trucks slip by. We needed to buy two and these three were on the lot after a landscaper buisness ordered them but for some reason, that sale didn't go through. The dealer was stuck with them and I had to jump at it. It was a little over two years ago and I got them for roughly 15k each.
    I was wondering if it was feasable to change the rears in these trucks. Does anyone have any insight to this?
    Thanks for information cdean.
  • mharde2mharde2 Member Posts: 278
    Jim2, I am getting 17 in town, 21 hwy, 14 towing 6500 lb 5th wheel, with Cummins 24V. It only has 4000 mi on it so it should improve. I usualy drive 70-75 solo, and 60-65 towing.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    it's probably going to cost at least $200 to change out rearends. that just an estimate off the top of my head. you may want to check in to it, i don't know if your benefits will be worth the time and the money. the trucks will run better, but i don't know the type driving these trucks go through, and i'm not sure you will gain enough mileage to justify it. i have heard of people with a 305 and 3.42 rear getting 20 mpg highway. the 3.42 is still not a good rear in my opinion if there is going to be even moderate pulling or heavy loads. i think it is the best rearend for empty driving.
  • jim2jim2 Member Posts: 43
    I talked to a guy yesterday 5/10/98 who had a new Ford Super Duty F250 Crew Cab Short Box with auto, 7.3 Diesel, 4x4 with 3.73 gears. He pulls a 24 foot pull trailer loaded at approx. 6,500 lbs and says he is getting 10 MPG driving 65-70 MPH. He has not been able to check his mileage empty yet.
  • gltglt Member Posts: 6
    I had an 88 GMC pickup that was supposed to have the 3.08 rear end in it. Everything on the truck said it was a 3.08. Mileage was poor and the speedo was off. I finally convinced the dealer to actually check the ration (count the rotations) and found out it had something like a 2.73 rear end. It was much too tall for the truck (305 engine 5 speed). After changing it (under warranty) mileage, acceleration and overall drivablility all improved. My suggestion is to physically count the driveshaft rotations per wheel rotation and not trust all the labels.
    My 99 250 Superduty (crew cab, four wheel drive) with the 7.3 diesel is getting 18.5 or better on the highway.
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    You are serious!?? What was the explanation on that kind of mixup? I've never even heard of that ratio in a regular,full-size truck. Good information and if the truck doesn't improve with the new repair, then I will check the ratio.
    I'm not much of a follower but if an axle has a stamp on it, I tend to believe it. Can I trust anything in this world?
  • gltglt Member Posts: 6
    No explanation given. What caused me to question the ratio was the speedo being off. It would indicate 55 and I would actually be going 67 or so. It took several trips to the dealer. They first tried reprogramming the EPROM to calibrate the speedo. It didn't work. The dealer didn't really believe anything was wrong until he drove my pickup while I followed in his car. He then realized the speedo was off. They put it on the lift, pulled the differential housing and sure enough, wrong rear end (it may have been a 2.78?). I don't know how it happened, but it did. You may want to drive two trucks at the same time and compare speeds. Hand signals should work for comparing speed. Hope this helps.
  • jim2jim2 Member Posts: 43
    When I see a 1999 Ford Superduty, I stop and talk to the owner. Latest results:
    1. 1999 Superduty V10 Long Box,ext. cab, auto, 3.73, 2X4 = 12MPG city/highway combined

    2. 1999 Superduty 7.3 Diesel, auto, 3.73, Crew Cab
    Short box, 4X4, F250. He drove 85 mph on a highway trip with no load and got 15 MPG. Gets 10 MPG towing a 20,000 pull behind trailer. He likes the power he has when towing.

    It is sounding realistic to expect to get 5-8 mpg better with the 7.3 diesel over the V10 gas for highway mileage with no load, but mileage when towing is inconclusive yet as the V10 owners I have talked to have not done any heaving towing yet with their V10's. Anyone out there with a V10 1999 Ford Super Duty that has done some heavy towing?
  • MotormouthMotormouth Member Posts: 99
    Not to be picky, but in your example above, if the "Combined city and highway mileage" was 12 mpg (for the V-10), that would mean that in order to average out to 12mpg you quote, the highway mileage would be higher than the city mileage (which is always the lower of the two).

    That given, let's say the city mileage was 10. That would mean the highway driving for the V-10 would have to give about 14 mpg... and that's only One mpg less than what you are claiming for the diesel (which you gave as highway miles only).

    Given your over/under adjustment, that's statistically just about a dead heat.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    Motormouth - not necessarily true. An average or "combined" mpg is a weighted average. If you get 10 mpg city for 300 miles, and 47 mpg highway for 5 miles, your overall average is still pretty close to 10 -- 10.13 to be exact. It works the other way as well. If the owner Jim spoke to did mostly highway, say 12.5 mpg for 300 miles, and only 20 miles city at say 8 mpg, the combined would be around 12.

    A diesel doing 85 mph is also WAY out of its most efficient rpm. I can get 22 mpg out of my Cummins Ram at an average speed of 55, but at 67 mph, it drops to 19.5.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802

    My vote goes with motormouth.
    City/highway mpg "averages" are generally based on EPA standards not your "weighted averages." If I did mostly city miles, say 300, and only 5 highway miles, I would not add up those two measures to assume an "average" for both city and highway miles. In your example: the above city miles are 98% of overall miles, therefore, I'd "average" it out as city miles. If we arbitrarily calculated "weighted averages" as you've described, we'd end up with a multitude of different mpg's, and wouldn't really have any "averages" at all. Nor would we have any EPA mileage estimates, which are based on pretty much a 50/50 split. Obviously in the real world, we may never drive our vehicles that way; but for the sake of communication, that's what the understanding is when we referring to average mpg for both city and highway miles.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516

    You almost argued your own point when you said:
    "If we arbitrarily calculated "weighted averages" as you've described, we'd end up with a multitude of different mpg's"
    That's exactly what occurs in real life. Each person will get their own mpg average based on how THEY drive. I can get better mileage out of my dad's Thunderbird than he can because I drive it differently.

    EPA averages are FAR from a 50/50 split. They're not even close to a 50/50. In fact, the manufacturers use a different set of numbers than what you see on the sticker.

    Since HD trucks (over 8500 GVWR) are NOT rated by the EPA, the owner Jim spoke to HAD to have given a weighted average - it's what *he* had been getting with his truck based on *his* mix of city and highway driving. Unless you drive exactly half a tank city and half a tank highway, a 50/50 average, whether real or calculated, is unlikely if not impossible. I'm not saying your assumption is without merit - in regular conversation, you can usually get away with it - but if someone tells me they average 12 mpg city AND highway, my first question would be how much of each type of driving is that average derived from.

    If you want me to post or e-mail the EPA mpg formula, let me know.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802

    No argument here in respects to "individual" mpg's; I wasn't denying that we do not end up with our own different averages, given our individual driving habits; Nor do I have an exact knowledge of the EPA formula. And in "regular conversation" I wouldn't be trying to "get away" with any kind of blanket general statement.

    However, it was my understanding that Jim was not talking about the gas mileage he personally was getting with his own truck. At least judging from his all his former posts: charts, averages, and questions (read above). Seemed like he was trying to make a decision partly based on the overall "average" gas mpg of two different Ford Super Duty truck types (7.5 Diesal and V10) and, the cost effectiveness based on the savings of the gas of the diesal truck, versus the extra cost... If we are going to make a statement about average gas mileage of a these trucks at large, as I perceived Jim2 was doing, one can only assume he was making assumptions of 12 mpg city/highway based on some kind of 50/50 split of highway and city miles. He seemed to be aiming for a general scientific conclusion. Which is how we make a lot of our decisions... based upon specific postulates. At least some of us, anyway.

    And also, if I were just discussing what gas mpg's "averages" were with an individual friend, not sure I would choose to be so philosophical about this subject. BTW, you must ask your friends a lot of questions. ;-)
  • RoclesRocles Member Posts: 982
    Averages are not the true measure of applications. You guys need to figure out the MEAN of these figures. Mean is true middle as opposed to "average". If one guy makes a million versus nine guys earning 20k--then the average would be everyone is making 118,000k a year! This is obviously not a correct way of measure. The mean would throw out the highs and lows and come to a more accurate rate.
  • richflynnrichflynn Member Posts: 147
    I don't know where you got your 7.3 L mileage numbers.

    Mine is a 4x2 '92 and non-turbo with an auto trans and 3.73 positraction rear end. It has AVERAGED well over 17 MPG for the total of 128,900 miles. And that's total miles divided by gallons consumed. A mixture of open highway and freeway traffic. Frequently, on highway trips, mileage would be over 18, but I was flying low too. One of the many reasons I love a diesel! I'm very anxious to see what my new '99 will get in fuel mileage.

    My 4x2 '86 6.9 L was not as good but still a respectable 14-15 MPG. (Also a 3.73 but not positraction.) The auto trans was not the E4OD but a C6 (?) and only 3 speeds.
  • jim2jim2 Member Posts: 43
    My casual surveys are not scientific at all but based on my gut feel of the conversation. Kcram makes the point when he says he can get 22 mpg at 55 mph with his cummins. How many of us are willing to drive 55. How you drive and what you tow makes all the difference.

    In my conversations with pickup owners, I try to get a feel for how they drive and how much they tow. I'm sure there is some exerations by some while others pay close attention to their mpg.

    Generally, people I talk to seem to drive their pickups hard. It seems they only spend 5% of their miles on the freeway going a steady speed. The majority of the time they are doing "city driving", stop and go with alot of short trips. My guess is that the guy I talked to with the V10 probably is getting 9-10 mpg per tank and only gets 12 or maybe 14 mpg when driving on the freeway at a steady 70 mph. But this is just a guess.

    A friend of mine with a new F250 Super Duty 4x2, ext. cab, long box with auto and 3.73 got 10 mpg on his first tank and 9.5 on the second tank. He is exclusively doing city driving empty and says he drives this truck hard. My sons teacher drives a '96 F250 Heavy Duty Ford ext. cab long box auto with a 7.3 Power Stroke 4x4 with 3.73 and says she gets 12 or 13 mpg driving city miles with alot of stop and go and she says she drives hard. She also says she doesn't pay much attention to the mileage she gets but really likes the power of the diesel.

    All the people I know with pickups spend 80-90% of their miles doing city driving. That is what I also do so highway mileage is really not signifant in the big picture for me. Maybe I am just looking for a way to justify the price of the diesel. I just hate the thought of getting 10 or less mpg. People with the V10 love it and the fact that it is quiet. The 7.3 diesel owners also are enthusiastic with their engines and love the power. Some are disappointed with the mileage they are getting.

    Cummins owners love their Ram's and all I talked with are very happy with their fuel mileage no matter how they drive their trucks.

    I want the new Chevy 3/4 ton crew cab with the 4x4 short box with a cummins but it doesn't exist. The Chevy with the new 6 liter motor looks good but is unproven and unavailable. The V10 Ford will get about 10 mpg the way I drive and the Ford 7.3 diesel will probably get about 12 mpg for me.

    If I'm going to spend $35K for a truck, I want it all. Guess I'll just have to wait for Dodge to come out with a crew cab and a stronger transmission. In the mean time, I'll keep the conversation going with new Super Duty owners and see how it averages out.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    City miles vary even more than just your driving habits. My city mileage when I lived in Anchorage Alaska was better than my city mileage when I lived in Southern CA or here in Dallas. The only way to truly get a comparison of mileage is probably on the highway on cruise control. Then I guess you could adjust downward to estimate city mileage.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    Thought this might be of interest to you or any one else here. Today's headline feature at is on the 1999 F-250 Superduty.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516

    Like Jim, yeah, when I drop 35 big bills, I _DO_ ask a lot of questions :-)


    The Ram club that I'm a member of has a pretty even consensus "dream truck" for the 2500HD and 3500 Cummins owners:

    - suspension, chassis, brakes, and transmission from the Ford Super Duty
    - Dodge Ram cab and box
    - the REAL Cummins 5.9L engine (250/520 rating)

    I too am looking forward to a Ram Crew Cab, whenever it may get here. I also look forward to see how Dodge will respond to the Super Duty componentry.

    Interesting how none of us seem to be mentioning Chevy or GMC in discussing heavy duty diesel pickups. Their next HD truck better be a real winner, or it's gonna be Blue Oval and Bighorn Sheep cornering the market.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    Sure, when I drop a lot of money, I do too; I probably ask too many questions. There's a time and place for everything...
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516

    and you know what? Asking a lot pays off. When I go to auto shows, I _NEVER_ listen to the model on the turntable - I go find the techie who's usually wandering around, or stationed next to an engine cutaway. At the 1998 NY show last month, I found a guy from Cummins' engineering department hanging out in the Dodge Truck area. Picked his brain for a good 15 minutes, and learned not so much about the 24 valve engine that was just released, but rather the NEXT Cummins engine that will be released to Dodge in the summer of 2002. Like the rest of us, Cummins wants stronger trannies from Chrysler too. He even said he likes the competition from the upgraded Navistar/Powerstroke, because it makes Cummins want to do more.

    In the end, we have two diesel trucks that get excellent mileage and match the pulling power of the gasoline V10s. My Cummins Ram averages (ooo, that word again) what my 302-powered F150 could only get on a pure highway run, and the Ram weighs over 2200 pounds more.

    I certainly appreciate and respect anyone who over-questions a car or truck purchase, because the one who buys under pressure (be it dealers or commercials) will never be happy with his or her wheels.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJMember Posts: 3,516
    oops - misspelled your name Poca - shame on me
  • jim2jim2 Member Posts: 43
    Since I can't have the pickup of my dreams yet and I don't mind waiting, I went out last weekend and bought a '98 Mastercraft ski boat with a 350 Chevy Vortec 308 HP fuel injected motor. On the trailer loaded, fueled and ready to tow it weighs about 4,000 lbs. including the double axle trailer.

    I tow it but not with a strong and capable pickup with diesel grunt but with my not too old reliable '93 Toyota Previa minivan which has a 2.4L fuel injected inline four. The trusty Previa did surprisingly well as I nervously negotiated the two lane road and fairly steep grades and lanching ramp. I didn't go over 60 mph and kept it between 50 and 60 mph. No problem pulling the grades or pulling it up the ramp. I drove 120 miles and filled up with the boat on the back and filled up again without unhooking. I got 14.2 MPG. 95% of the driving was flat land.

    The Previa is rated for 3,500 lbs so I took it easy. This is a temporary situation until I can decide on which pickup to get but it will get me by for now. I was very nervous pulling this kind of load with my van but the more I drove the more comfortable I felt. I think the Previa can take it if I take it easy and am careful.

    In 1984 I had a similar size boat I towed with a 1984 Ford Bronco II 4x4 with a V6 and 5 spd. It towed well for over a year with no problems before I sold the boat.

    I don't know how much torque my new boat has but it popped my 260 lb. brother in law right out of the water. This boat is a torque monster and I don't have to go to truck stops to fill it up. It looks like it will burn 3-4 gallons per hour when towing skiers but I haven't had enough hours on it to be sure.

    Does anyone know if there is a similar web site for boat owners like this site?
This discussion has been closed.