Gas Mileage
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.
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.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
"...and am mostly on side streets for delivering."
Stop and go driving reduces mileage.
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.
cdean
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.
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.
I just don't get it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We confirmed that all three have a 3.08 rear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cdean,
My 99 250 Superduty (crew cab, four wheel drive) with the 7.3 diesel is getting 18.5 or better on the highway.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
Thought this might be of interest to you or any one else here. Today's headline feature at
http://www.auto.com is on the 1999 F-250 Superduty.
Like Jim, yeah, when I drop 35 big bills, I _DO_ ask a lot of questions :-)
Jim,
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.
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.
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?