Wow, neat to find this forum, but I think my eyeballs are burnt from reading just about all the posts in this topic. I'd appreciate additional thoughts and advice. I'm getting ready to order either a Ford or Chevy van "cutaway" for my business, and have a "cube" mounted on the back of it. So it's a van in the front and a box in the back. I'll be getting the E350 Single Rear Wheel (SRW) chassis, and the box will be no wider than a regular van, and about the same length. However, it will be taller, by about 20 inches, so that I can stand up inside of the thing. There will also be a fiberglass wind fairing going from the cab to the top of the box, for improved aerodynamics.
I'm wondering about axle ratios and gas mileage. On the Chevy, I have the choice of 3.73 or 4.10 with the 5.7L engine. Ford only offers the 4.10 with the 5.4L. I'm thinking the 4.10 is a bit much for my intended use. I'll be driving almost entirely on highway/interstate in the midwest and southern states, so no big mountains. And my cargo will normally weigh around 1800-2200 lbs, including me and the stuff. (The "cube" itself weighs about 1200 lbs.)
Will there be a significant drop in gas mileage with the 4.10? Do you think the fairing and taller box will cause enough drag that I will need it? I won't be towing anything with this rig either, just basically hauling around my artwork to display at various art shows. Sure don't need any stump pulling torque.
It seems strange to me that on Ford's E350 cargo and passenger vans, they offer either a 3.55 or a 4.10 rear end, but just the 4.10 on their "cutaway", even the SRW. I guess they figure most end users will be either some big motorhome or big commercial delivery type box. If you loaded up a 15 passenger E350 to the hilt it would be a lot more load than what I'll be carrying, yet a 3.55 can be ordered on the passenger van.
I didn't see any discussions at all in the Van conference about axle ratios, and about 95% of the posts are about minivans anyway. I was hoping some of the folks here could help me out because they seem to really know there stuff, what with formulas for determining engine RPM's and all. And besides, the rig I'm buying is much more a truck than a van, just not exactly a "pick-up".
So if anybody has any opinions on my axle ratio question, other than collecting beanie babies on road trips (which is what I found in the Vans gas mileage conference), I'd still appreciate it.
A 4.10 axle will get significantly less mpg than the 3.55, how much I don't know. The E350 SRW frame (I believe) is very similar to the F350 SRW frame. E350, SRW, 5.4L and 3.55 vs. 4.10. Try going to topic 1356 - Ford Superduty IV. You are talking about a variation of the same thing many of them use and they should be able to help you better. Just as a note, I have the 5.4L in my F-150, very powerful engine. I get 14-19 mpg with 3.73 gears (City-Hwy).
most of the HP made by the motor is consumed by wind drag. And your's will have far moew than a 15 psgr van. I think 4.10/5.4 is just about the right match for your application although I would go V10 with 3.73 if available......
I had to make a trip across the country just before Christmas. (I-10 all the way.)
'99 F-250 SD SC PSD 3.73 LS.
Using cruise control and at about 77 to 80 MPH the mileage was right on 17 MPG.
Before the Radar detector died, running 85 to 91 MPH and no cruise control it ranged from 15.2 to about 15.6 MPG. In west Texas you have to do at least 85 if you don't want to get run over by a semi.
An interesting side note, I saw the largest variety of vehicles being used by the bears. (Suburbans, Explorers, Blazers, one F-150, unmarked and marked Crown Vic's.)
I need to know real world numbers for mileage for the Dodge Ram. My 1999 Ram Quad Cab, 2500, long bed, 5.9L V-8 with Auto O/D and 2WD gets a pathetic 10.7MPG highway. It has 13,500 miles on it so far. I have a cab height cap on it and only carry about 400lbs of tools. I drive 65 MPH for 104 miles each day and the fuel costs are killing me. I fill up twice a week at $42 per fill-up. I have had it to two different dealers on three occasions and they keep telling me nothing is wrong. Is this really true, do Dodge trucks really suck this much gas??? Is this a design flaw? The computer shows no fault codes and the tail pipe sniffer says it's in spec. This is my first Dodge pick-up, my last was a Chevy and it got 20MPG all day long with a similar config. Help, do you get similar mileage? Thanks.
I'm a general contractor in the Twin Cities. Last year I bought a new 1998 F150 6 cyl 4.2, 5 speed, 3.55 limited slip axle. I currently have 14k on it. I bought this truck because I needed a basic full size work truck, with good mpg.
This truck has been a total disappointment. The truck required a complete transmission rebuild at 4500 miles. It currently uses at least 1 quart of oil between every oil change. But the biggest problem is the mpg. This vehicle comes with a rating of 15 city/20 highway. My last tank I only got 12.1 mpg (mostly 10 mile highway trips). I drive with a very light foot and most of my driving is highway to and from job sites. I rarely have more than 400lbs tools and cargo.
Two Ford dealerships have put this truck on the computer a total of 5 times with always the same results. The diagnostics show that the truck is getting 17 city/ 22 highway. This truck has never gotten better than 15.5 on a straight highway drive, without any cargo. Fords' response has been , "Too bad! We don't warranty mpg".
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has had a similar experience with a Ford truck or with anyone who has actually gotten Ford to admit that poor mpg is a problem.
*** Just a note. At 12000 miles/yr each reduced mpg costs $75.00 /yr @ $1.30/gal. This vehicle is currently going to cost my business $3500-$4000 (gas @ 1.30/gal) more over the time I planned to keep it than Ford claimed it would, at the time of purchase.
My '97 K1500 Z71 with a 5.7L Vortec and over 80K miles gets 17+ mpg on the highway doing 70+ mph. The truck weights 5400 lbs empty. Either Chevy makes a better V8 or you guys got a problem.
Chadc777 the mpg calcs are done using an overall avg mpg of 17.5 (15city/20highway) since the majority of my use is non rush hour highway driving. That comes out to over $4000 in extra fuel costs over 100,000 miles at 1.30/gal. Ford's own diagnostic equipment says that I should be getting an average of 19.5 mpg a far cry from reality.
The best mpg I have ever gotten was 15.75 on a straight highway drive at 65 - 70mph. (summer 1999) *** never duplicated to date
In winter I let the vehicle warm up for 4-5 minutes when it's below 20 degrees (only once in the morning). The cold does seem to affect this truck in that my average mpg goes from 14mpg in the summer to 12mpg when it is consistently below freezing.
Stevek I know a couple other K1500 v8 owners who are getting better mpg than I am.
After owning 6 trucks (all but 1, new) over the past 23 years this is my first Ford truck, though not my first Ford vehicle. It is unlikely that I will own another. Not that I think Fords are made any worse than any other vehicle. But, if there is a problem, Ford is very difficult to deal with.
Chevy V-8s have always got about 1-2mpg better than the Ford V-8s. The guys with the 5.4s in their F-150s are recording mpg within that range compared to what Steve reports on straight hwy. If mpg is your only factor, then the Chevy should be your choice, or even the Tundra. Obviously, other factors also impact most people's decisions such as tow ratings, GVWR, torque, torque curves, etc. There are also preferences of appearance, available options, comfort, etc. Chevy and Ford owners can all make strong arguments for their manufacturer of choice in these categories.
As far as dealing with Ford, maybe it's the luck of the draw. I had several job transfers in the past seven years, so I've been to many different dealers. I bought my 92 F-250 in Alaska and transferred to Southern CA in 1993. I had routine maintenance done on it at several dealerships. Each time, they found warranty work that I didn't even know were problems and a couple of times they did recall work that I didn't know about. This was all without asking and all at no cost.
On one occasion, after my warranty expired, I drove through some very deep water after torrential rains had caused alot of flooding. I should have had the truck lubed after I did that, but I didn't. About a month later, the caliper slide locked up. Although the warranty had run out about 5,000 miles earlier, Ford "goodwilled" the parts, so all I paid was labor, which wasn't very much.
On my move from CA to Dallas in 1997, my "Check Engine" light came on as I was leaving the Grand Canyon. I took it to a dealership in Albuquerque, where he was up front about needing to charge me $65 to run a diagonositic. This was a busy dealership and I was an ideal candidate to be gouged since I was passing through and couldn't afford to wait long. He got me out of there the same morning with a total cost of less than $100, including the diagnostic tests.
On my current truck, I bought it in Oklahoma in late 1998 and then moved back to Alaska. I had an engine problem at 9,300 miles. Turns out that it was a factory error. Rather than let the dealership tear the engine apart, Ford replaced the engine. That's the only major problem I've had with either of my trucks, and I certainly can't complain about the response from Ford.
Like I said, maybe it's the luck of the draw, but the numerous dealerships I have been to have afforded me very acceptable service without me having to nag them about it.
Getting back to the mpg, personally, I think a V-6 is a little underpowered for a full-size truck. That's just my opinion. They have to work harder to do the same work. That's not a big issue in lighter vehicles, but I think, if nothing else, ithe V-6 will have a shorter engine life in the heavier full size trucks than the V-8 since the engine is pushing harder. It's not uncommon for the smaller engines to get the same, or only slightly better mpg, than a little larger engine in a heavier vehicle.
The mpg of the V-10 with the 3.73 in the Superduty is similar to what you appear to be getting with the six cylinder. They are consistently reporting 11ish for city and 13.5-14.5 hwy. There are some getting more and some less. The 2000 trucks appear to be getting a little better than the 1999s. I probably have the lowest mpg setup for a Superduty. I've got a 99 F-350 Superduty 4x4 dually with the 4.30 axle ratio. The 4x4, duallys and 4.30 axle ratio cost me about 1-2 mpg. I average 9.5ish in a city/hwy mix and 11.5-12 hwy. With my 4,000+ pound Bigfoot slide-in truck camper in the bed, I get 8.5-9 hwy and can get close to 10 on flat hwy if I keep the speed in the 55mph range (doesn't happen often).
I lose 1-1.5 mpg in the winter. It's a combination of things. First, my truck is not garaged, so I let it idle and warm up the interior before I jump in and hit the road. Another factor is that I drive in 4wd quite a bit. The final factor is that we have winter fuel up here. Many cold weather states do. I filled up with gas and made a 200 mile roundtrip in December and got a little more than 1mpg less than when I made exact same trip in August. Both trips were done in 2wd.
I am in the market for a f150, sc, 4x2. I desire the limited slip rear end which I am told is only available with 3.55 gears. I prefer an automatic trans. I'd like some comments on whether I should get one with the 4.2 6-cyl or the 4.6 V8. What kind of mileage can I realitically get with those two engines. I might consider a GM extended cab but I just got out of a 97 Tahoe because all of the repairs (front axel bearing, rear end rebuild, new master cyl.) and kind of fearful of another GM product. The Tahoe only had 43K on it.
I have a 1998 F-150 with the 4.6 liter V-8 and consistently only get around 13 mpg. The best I got was about 16 mpg a month or two after I bought the vehicle and this was on a highway trip. Friends with similar trucks have said to switch gas, get a computer chip (aftermarket), better air filter, etc, etc. Does anyone have a similar situation or found anything that has helped improve their mileage. I generally drive about 72-75 on the interstate and try not to be too heavy on the pedal around town (even worse mpg in town, 10-12!) All of this is disheartening as I consistently hear that the 5.4 v-8 gets better mileage. I like my truck and an increase of 3-4 mpg would make it perfect. Any response would be appreciated. Thanks. muelleca@stlukes.org
My husband has a 1998 F150 (2 wheel drive) with the same engine - automatic - limited slip rear. This is a company truck and he keeps good records on gas mileage. I guess most of his driving is combined city/highway - we live about 30 miles out of town, but at nearly 7,500 foot elevation. He averages 16+ mpg all the time - and I promise, he is not easy on the throttle. My 1999 F150 (with 4X4) the 5.4 engine (late 1999 manufacture) and 3.73 gears/automatic extended cab, off-road package will get almost the same mileage. Now this truck is more affected by wind (due to its height) and I drive easier than my husband except on our rural interstates where I set the cruise at about 82 mph which I consider closing in on its very stable handling limit. I don't like hammering the trucks around town - but they run awful nice and fast on the freeway. Like I said - maybe there is something wrong.
I would like to ask a question in this mix on engines and mileage. I am getting ready to retire and want to spend time surf fishing the atlantic and doing some travelling into the rockies. I think I need 3/4 ton 4x4 extended cab ,automatic. Now the big question..gas or diesel? I intend to keep this truck until the wheels fall off or it gets stuck in the surf. Do I gain by spending the 4 grand for a diesel or can I get by with gas. At times this truck will have a small camper on board. any suggestions will be appreciated.
I haven't seen any topics on compact truck mileage. There may be some listed in this topic if you feel like going through them all. I've seen some people list in the 24-27 range for the highway mileage of the 4-cylinders. The V6's mileage drops dramatically, though. Some of them don't even get as good mileage as the full-sized ones. -powerisfun
I, too, have an F-150 getting 9mpg on the V-6 5-speed (1997). Ordered new and have been totally disappointed with the truck and all the recalls. When I contacted the Ford Zone Manager, his answer to this was that he has one of these trucks too and just doesn't drive it. Taken it in to Ford numerous times and they won't do anything since nothing is "broken." Went through the mediation board and --- what a joke! I am now getting rid of this truck and my wife is getting rid of her Taurus Wagon---full of problems too! I will never buy another Ford. I am getting a Dodge Ram 2500. Hope it is better!
Know plenty of folks that are happy with their Dodge trucks - also, know plenty of folks that are not. Sure would advise staying away from the Dodge V-6 - if you thought the Ford V-6 was bad, well just do some research (at least the Ford had a little punch to it for the poor gas mileage). At least go with old Magnum V-8 engine - it is a very old design and a bad gas guzzler. The Dakota now has the option of the new smaller over head cam V-8 - maybe the best engine Chrysler/Daimler/etc. - has produced in a long time. But, then again - you could upgrade to a very nice overhead cam Ford engine too. When it comes to pickup truck gas mileage - just make a choice you are happy with - none are all that great!
You'll get lost here if someone doesn't respond. In my opinion, you might very well need to look into the diesel. You might want to define "small camper" before I'll put my two cents in any further than below. But, I do have some serious drivetime behind a very good truck, but serious gas guzzler: Ford F250, 4X4, extended cab, 5-speed manual O/D transmission, 460 cid/efi and hauling a 9.5 foot Scamper self-contained camper. Let me tell you - the gas mileage is a concern and the camper is a pop-top. The truck pulls the camper anywhere you want to go and very well I might add (I can easily pass small cars on long uphill streches) - we live in the New Mexico Rockies and have been thru the Rockies of Colorado with the camper many times - not to speak of most of the ski areas plus some interesting gravel (close to 4X4) roads in Utah. Not complaining about the truck or the camper - but, if you are concerned about gas mileage and really intend to use a camper - you could pay for the diesel option in 100,000 miles. Now, don't ask me about diesel engine injectors/tune-ups, etc. - I understand they can really add up in a hurry. So, like the rest of us - how many miles do you intend to really use the engine hard?
Just my opinion, full size trucks really need V-8 engines. A smaller engine doesn't necessarily mean better mpg. A V-6 engine has to huff and puff alot harder to get a full size truck up the hill. A V-8 can do the same job with less effort.
If you're looking for the V-8 gas engine that gets the best mpg in a full size truck, you would want to be looking at Chevy. Ford is usually second, with Dodge 3rd. I don't know enough about the six cylinders to comment on any of the brands.
If you're getting 9mpg with a 1/2 ton six cylinder, I don't think there can be any doubt that the engine does not have enough power for the truck. I have one of the worst mpg setups:
99 F-350 Superduty V-10 dually 4x4 with 4.30 axle ratio.
I get 9.5 in a mix of city/hwy and 11.5-12 hwy. The guys who own the single rear wheel V-10 Superdutys with the 3.73 axle ratio are getting 2+ mpg better. With my Bigfoot camper in the bed (total weight of camper and truck is just under 12,000 pounds loaded for a trip), I get 8.5-9 hwy and can get 10mpg on flat hwy at 55. Like I said, the six cylinder just sounds like the wrong engine for the truck.
Opdos, check my post #436 before you buy that new Dodge 2500. The Magnum V-8's are not very fuel efficient (10mpg) either, in fact the V-10 gets better mileage (12.5mpg) in the 2500 and the Cummins (17mpg) tops them all. So if you want to get slightly better mileage for only a little more money then buy the V-10. It's more fun too. If you are into smelly, noisy, superman torque motors that get good mileage and will cost a left lung, buy the Cummins. I came from Chevy before my first Dodge Ram. I loved the Quad Cab and the styling. My Chevy's always got decent mileage (17-21MPG) but the styling was a yawner. Moral of the story, the prettiest girl doesn't always dance the best. I going back to Chevy. Good luck. Ramman7
My 2000 GMC ext cab shortbed 4x4 4.8 Litre,3.73 limited slip,automatic trans.is lucky to get 13 mpg combination city /hwy . it only has 22oo miles so hopefully it will improve as it gets broken in .
The 3.73 and 4x4 are probably costing you a little. Still, the guys with the 5.3 are quoting better than that.
Trailer Life magazine recently tested a 2000 3/4 ton Chevy 6.0L 4x4 with 4.10. They quote actual, real world mpg which is usually less than what you hear alot of owners claiming and definitely less than advertised. They managed 13.8 running empty in ideal hwy conditions. It dropped down to 9.5 towing.
Still, the 13.8 sounds a little higher than you are getting and it's quite a bit more engine. Then again, it was straight, flat hwy when they got that mpg. Like you said, hopefully it's just because you need to get some more miles on the truck, and not a situation of not enough engine for the truck. Sometimes an engine will continue to increase in mpg up until about 7,000 miles or so.
Thanks for the response. I'll be moving to virginia and hopefully spending time surf fishing at the Outer banks nc and Chingoteague va. I will need an automatic and want extra doors on the extended cab. If I go gas it will be GM as they don't diesel the extended cab with extra doors. Ford makes the configuration with the diesel. Too many of my friends are unhappy with the fit and finish of their Dodges, and a mechanic friend says that the automatic overheats on the pull on the beach. I'll be puting 25 to 35K a year on the truck. The camper will be a small slide in with toilet facilities. a concession to my better half fishing partner. I'll also be spongeing off my brother, fishing and hunting in idaho and utah. I hear pro and con about diesel and gas. Decision time is comming soon. thanks
5.4L 4WD F-150. Ext. cab, 3.73. Winter Fuel blend, cold starting, long idle for warm up, rather heavy footed-harder driving, all in- town stoplight sprint-type driving... still got 14.1 on last 20 gal fillup. Pretty happy with that although it is the lowest I have yet seen.
I agree, I was very pleased to see that. This last tank I think I was only in 4wd once though, the plows got there before I did and the salt turns the rest to slush so no need for 4wd. Still, I was expecting worse. I had been getting 15-16 in town this summer.
Brutus, I have a question for you. Sometimes, when running late, I don't have time to let it warm up. Is it better to leave it in lower gears and let it warm up quickly, or better to put it in higher gears with less rpm and let it warm slowly? I know it is best to have a warm engine, but forcing it to get warm quickly may put undue stress on the block/pistons. I have to get on a highway >1 mile from home so I usually leave it low, let it rev and try to get it warm before I have to be going 70. I was just wondering which would be best. You seem to know your truck well and you do live in a colder climate than I, so I thought you might know.
Somebody else may be able answer your question better. I think you're fine as long as you don't stomp on it. My truck is pulling much higher rpms just prior to shift from any gear than it is when it is cruising at 70, so I wouldn't think hwy speeds would hurt it anymore than driving slower. With EFI, the engine actually warms up pretty quick. Often, you can hear the engine idle down after a minute or two and you're ready to go.
If you don't have a block heater, I'd say it would be a good investment. It will cost you more than the factory option price, which I think was $35 or $40, but it's not too much more, definitely under $100. I'm pretty sure that the hardest thing on the engine related to cold weather is the actual starting of the engine, rather than the driving. Of course, a block heater won't help you at work, but I usually try to plug my truck in at home when the temp drops below 20. I still start the truck about 10 minutes before I'm ready to head out the door in the morning so the cab gets warm.
I see by your profile that you spent some time in LA. My job transferred me to Southern CA from 1993 to 1997. I worked in Chatsworth for about a year and Irvine for the rest of the time. I lived in Simi Valley, Newport Beach, Huntingon Beach, and Lake Forest while I was down there. A Southern CA coworker and good friend was from Eau Claire Wisconsin. He currently works for SBA in Seattle, but he trys to get back to Wisconsin as often as possible to do some hunting and fishing. He calls Wisconsin, "God's Country". Of course, being from Alaska, I disagreed. You flatlanders.....
I do have a block heater on my truck, unfortunately, the closest place I have found a plug in is about two hundred feet away. I am working with the management to put a plug in right inside the garage door I can't get my truck through. They already have a box used with the garage door, so it shouldn't be too hard, they just don't wanna do it. Apartment life has its ups and downs.
I was in LA from 94 to June 99. Lived in Westwood the whole time. Loved it, although my lungs could never get used to the smog. Anytime I left for two weeks or more I'd always have a throat infection when I came back which the doc said was caused by the smog. I guess its common. By my second year there the doc would give me a supply of antibiotics whenever I left so I could start them before I got back. I just think there is something wrong with being allergic to air. Never been to Alaska, although I really want to go there someday. I like Wisconsin, but I guess like LA, everywhere has its own "environmental hazards." LA has smog, Wisconsin has beer, cheese curds, bratwurst and AYCE fish fry Fridays. I think I like my chances with the smog better.
I've lived in both places. LA smog just doesn't hurt lungs, eyes also catch heck. Went to college in Inglewood. But as you said, weighing 175 moving to Wisc., and 6 mos later, upwards of 220 just isn't the way to go. Good beer, good cheese, good party goers, wow what a life.
We are experiencing some cold weather her in Ontario right now - around -20c / -4f. As a result of which they had various 'experts' on the radio telling people how to avoid car problems. They recommended block heaters (obviously) for around 1 - 1.5 hours, and said that this could be a valid alternative to idling the engine before starting. However they also gave the following advice which came as a bit of a surprise.
They said that the hardest thing on a vehicle in cold weather is demanding a big hit on the battery - and obviously turning the ignition is the hardest. They therefore suggested putting headlights on for 10-15 seconds BEFORE turning the vehicle over. Apparently this starts the chemical reactions in the battery and reduces the impact on the battery when the starter kicks in - who knew?
Slightly off topic, but valid at this time of year I think.
Anchorage has an ad campaign encouraging the use of block heaters. They try to emphasize the wear and tear on the vehicle related to cold starts, but the real reason behind the ad campaign is pollution. I hate to disappoint, but I plug my truck in and still idle it. The engine may be warm, but the cab of the truck is still cold and the windows are still iced.
gmc sierra 4x4 -4.8 - 3.73 -ext cab short bed 13.1 city / hwy 2400 miles thats as good as it gets....... pretty poor!!! not a stoplight bandit either.....
Saw enough rain in England, didn't have too much success racing dog sleds without snow either - kills the runners.
I don't mind the cold when I'm out in it - running dogs and wearing good quality gear keeps the chill away - problem is it's damn uncomfortable trying to drive in all that gear.
Weather warmer now - above 0f, just like a bit more snow.
Andy, I don't think I saw your name on the list of mushers for the Last Great Race (the Iditarod) up here in Alaska. 1,100+ miles from Anchorage to Nome. Record field this year with over 90 mushers signed up. There will be some scratches before race day, but they will start over 80 mushers. The winner gets over $50,000 and a new Dodge 4x4.
No Iditarod for me. Even if I'd wanted too (I don't) they wouldn't let me. I run Alaskan Malamutes and I think the Iditarod is only open to Northern Dogs - that strange mix of Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute and who knows what else. I may be wrong, they might let Siberians' in - but definitely no Malamutes.
To go even further off topic - it wouldn't make sense to put Mals through it anyway as they tend to be both stronger and slower than the other breeds. Although they will pull forever they would certainly lose on speed and the increased strength translates into fewer dogs and therefore less scope for dogs to drop out. I, and all responsible mushers, will never run dogs that aren't fit and rested enough.
Back to trucks - you'd have to pay me more than $50k and a Dodge to enter the Iditarod - even though I bleed Mopar.
I don't know what the restrictions are on dogs, but I don't think malamutes are a problem. A few years ago, a guy use to run a breed of poodle, but I think they made a rule against that. Speed is not the biggest factor in the Iditarod. We have sprint championships in February that are run on 25 mile courses. Occasionally one of the Iditarod mushers will enter the sprints, but they finish well back in the pack. The dogs are trained and bred differently. By the way, the winner of the sprints last year was from Europe and I know he raced spaniels. He won all three days (the best combined three day time over the 25 mile course wins), so he won pretty handily over the husky teams.
Getting back on topic, I'm not sure how much fuel an Iditarod dog needs per mile.....and I'm not sure how much it would cost to make me drive a Dodge....just kidding, of course.
Didn't realise that the Iditarod was open - may have to come for the sprints (for a laugh any way).
Fuel efficiency is awesome.
You have to make sure that you use the right fuel - high energy stuff that would blow most dogs away - about a 300 octane rating.
My guys get through around one bag per dog per month - around 4 cups a day maximum. A bag costs about C$45, call it $28-30. They also get soup, stock or broth occasionally in the winter instead of water.
For that I get about 8-10 miles a day when training - they would do more if I had the time. They need a minimum of 5 miles walking on that to keep the weight down (though its all relative). I have done around 35 miles in one day - and though the dogs slept well they would do more.
I have no idea how far some of the Iditarod dogs are capable of doing in a day.
Rest is the key in the Iditarod, so the dogs never go as far in a day as they could. I'd say the dogs rest at least 50% of the time. As the race gets beyond the first day, the dogs may mush for 6-8 hours before they rest for 4-8 hours. Even during those mushing stretches, they stop to eat and take breaks. The race also has three mandatory rest periods. All mushers have to take a 24 hour continuous stop at one point during the race. They also have six and eight hour mandatory stops at two stops near the end of the race. This is to ensure the dogs get enough rest especially at the end of the race when the dog and musher are most tired. Vets are also at each rest stop and have the authority to pull a dog or a team from the race. It's never necessary. Nobody cares abou the welfare of their dogs more than the mushers.
The fuel for the dogs on the trail is always warm food. The mushers get a lot less sleep than the dogs. The first thing they do at rest stops is lay down bedding (at checkpoints), melt snow for dog food, check paws, change dog booties, and often massage the dogs. Although there is some normal dog food, much of the dog's food has meat, especially salmon, for high protein. These dogs live to mush. At the start of the race, the mushers often carry an extra sled or person or other weight to slow the team down since the key is distance, not the short term rush.
I apologize for the off-subject post. This will be my last Iditarod post. The race starts the first week in March. You can usually find a link to track it on the local newspapers website at www.adn.com. I use to track it when I lived out of Alaska.
Did you order you truck or was it one that you selected from a dealer's lot?
I have a '00 Silverado X/C on order. I selected the 5.3 over the 4.8 engine. I took into consideration the 500+ extra for the extended cab & was told by my salesperson that the 5.3 will get close to the 4.8 in mpg.
I'm sure that the 4.8 is a good engine, but I think that the 5.3 should be standard on the extented cab.
I've a 99 4.8 l, ext. cab, 4x4, standard transmission, 4.10 rear end, and camper shell and get about 17 mpg mixed highway/city and almost 20 highway. The 4.8 seems to have plenty of power and I have no complaints about the gas mileage. The mileage that y2kgmc is getting is certainly on the low end for what I've seen reported for the 4.8.
Several posts from people at high altitude enjoying great mileage - this is normal, and results from having an engine that is effectively about 15-20% smaller than at sea level. I lived in Denver for 8 years and it took me a while to figure out why my mileage was so good up there.
Comments
I'm wondering about axle ratios and gas mileage. On the Chevy, I have the choice of 3.73 or 4.10 with the 5.7L engine. Ford only offers the 4.10 with the 5.4L. I'm thinking the 4.10 is a bit much for my intended use. I'll be driving almost entirely on highway/interstate in the midwest and southern states, so no big mountains. And my cargo will normally weigh around 1800-2200 lbs, including me and the stuff. (The "cube" itself weighs about 1200 lbs.)
Will there be a significant drop in gas mileage with the 4.10? Do you think the fairing and taller box will cause enough drag that I will need it? I won't be towing anything with this rig either, just basically hauling around my artwork to display at various art shows. Sure don't need any stump pulling torque.
It seems strange to me that on Ford's E350 cargo and passenger vans, they offer either a 3.55 or a 4.10 rear end, but just the 4.10 on their "cutaway", even the SRW. I guess they figure most end users will be either some big motorhome or big commercial delivery type box. If you loaded up a 15 passenger E350 to the hilt it would be a lot more load than what I'll be carrying, yet a 3.55 can be ordered on the passenger van.
Thanks very much for any ideas or info.
and repost. You are more likely to get a response there, than here in "Pickups".
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
So if anybody has any opinions on my axle ratio question, other than collecting beanie babies on road trips (which is what I found in the Vans gas mileage conference), I'd still appreciate it.
purtypitcher
'99 F-250 SD SC PSD 3.73 LS.
Using cruise control and at about 77 to 80 MPH the mileage was right on 17 MPG.
Before the Radar detector died, running 85 to 91 MPH and no cruise control it ranged from 15.2 to about 15.6 MPG. In west Texas you have to do at least 85 if you don't want to get run over by a semi.
An interesting side note, I saw the largest variety of vehicles being used by the bears. (Suburbans, Explorers, Blazers, one F-150, unmarked and marked Crown Vic's.)
Rich
I have had it to two different dealers on three occasions and they keep telling me nothing is wrong. Is this really true, do Dodge trucks really suck this much gas??? Is this a design flaw? The computer shows no fault codes and the tail pipe sniffer says it's in spec. This is my first Dodge pick-up, my last was a Chevy and it got 20MPG all day long with a similar config. Help, do you get similar mileage? Thanks.
This truck has been a total disappointment. The truck required a complete transmission rebuild at 4500 miles. It currently uses at least 1 quart of oil between every oil change. But the biggest problem is the mpg. This vehicle comes with a rating of 15 city/20 highway. My last tank I only got 12.1 mpg (mostly 10 mile highway trips). I drive with a very light foot and most of my driving is highway to and from job sites. I rarely have more than 400lbs tools and cargo.
Two Ford dealerships have put this truck on the computer a total of 5 times with always the same results. The diagnostics show that the truck is getting 17 city/ 22 highway. This truck has never gotten better than 15.5 on a straight highway drive, without any cargo. Fords' response has been , "Too bad! We don't warranty mpg".
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has had a similar experience with a Ford truck or with anyone who has actually gotten Ford to admit that poor mpg is a problem.
*** Just a note. At 12000 miles/yr each reduced mpg costs $75.00 /yr @ $1.30/gal. This vehicle is currently going to cost my business $3500-$4000 (gas @ 1.30/gal) more over the time I planned to keep it than Ford claimed it would, at the time of purchase.
The truck weights 5400 lbs empty. Either Chevy makes a better V8 or you guys got a problem.
The best mpg I have ever gotten was 15.75 on a straight highway drive at 65 - 70mph. (summer 1999) *** never duplicated to date
In winter I let the vehicle warm up for 4-5 minutes when it's below 20 degrees (only once in the morning). The cold does seem to affect this truck in that my average mpg goes from 14mpg in the summer to 12mpg when it is consistently below freezing.
Stevek I know a couple other K1500 v8 owners who are getting better mpg than I am.
After owning 6 trucks (all but 1, new) over the past 23 years this is my first Ford truck, though not my first Ford vehicle. It is unlikely that I will own another. Not that I think Fords are made any worse than any other vehicle. But, if there is a problem, Ford is very difficult to deal with.
As far as dealing with Ford, maybe it's the luck of the draw. I had several job transfers in the past seven years, so I've been to many different dealers. I bought my 92 F-250 in Alaska and transferred to Southern CA in 1993. I had routine maintenance done on it at several dealerships. Each time, they found warranty work that I didn't even know were problems and a couple of times they did recall work that I didn't know about. This was all without asking and all at no cost.
On one occasion, after my warranty expired, I drove through some very deep water after torrential rains had caused alot of flooding. I should have had the truck lubed after I did that, but I didn't. About a month later, the caliper slide locked up. Although the warranty had run out about 5,000 miles earlier, Ford "goodwilled" the parts, so all I paid was labor, which wasn't very much.
On my move from CA to Dallas in 1997, my "Check Engine" light came on as I was leaving the Grand Canyon. I took it to a dealership in Albuquerque, where he was up front about needing to charge me $65 to run a diagonositic. This was a busy dealership and I was an ideal candidate to be gouged since I was passing through and couldn't afford to wait long. He got me out of there the same morning with a total cost of less than $100, including the diagnostic tests.
On my current truck, I bought it in Oklahoma in late 1998 and then moved back to Alaska. I had an engine problem at 9,300 miles. Turns out that it was a factory error. Rather than let the dealership tear the engine apart, Ford replaced the engine. That's the only major problem I've had with either of my trucks, and I certainly can't complain about the response from Ford.
Like I said, maybe it's the luck of the draw, but the numerous dealerships I have been to have afforded me very acceptable service without me having to nag them about it.
Getting back to the mpg, personally, I think a V-6 is a little underpowered for a full-size truck. That's just my opinion. They have to work harder to do the same work. That's not a big issue in lighter vehicles, but I think, if nothing else, ithe V-6 will have a shorter engine life in the heavier full size trucks than the V-8 since the engine is pushing harder. It's not uncommon for the smaller engines to get the same, or only slightly better mpg, than a little larger engine in a heavier vehicle.
The mpg of the V-10 with the 3.73 in the Superduty is similar to what you appear to be getting with the six cylinder. They are consistently reporting 11ish for city and 13.5-14.5 hwy. There are some getting more and some less. The 2000 trucks appear to be getting a little better than the 1999s. I probably have the lowest mpg setup for a Superduty. I've got a 99 F-350 Superduty 4x4 dually with the 4.30 axle ratio. The 4x4, duallys and 4.30 axle ratio cost me about 1-2 mpg. I average 9.5ish in a city/hwy mix and 11.5-12 hwy. With my 4,000+ pound Bigfoot slide-in truck camper in the bed, I get 8.5-9 hwy and can get close to 10 on flat hwy if I keep the speed in the 55mph range (doesn't happen often).
I lose 1-1.5 mpg in the winter. It's a combination of things. First, my truck is not garaged, so I let it idle and warm up the interior before I jump in and hit the road. Another factor is that I drive in 4wd quite a bit. The final factor is that we have winter fuel up here. Many cold weather states do. I filled up with gas and made a 200 mile roundtrip in December and got a little more than 1mpg less than when I made exact same trip in August. Both trips were done in 2wd.
PS our '99 Silverado seems to be getting under 16 around town during Seattle winter driving.
highway mileage of the 4-cylinders. The V6's mileage drops dramatically, though. Some of them don't even get as good mileage as the full-sized ones.
-powerisfun
So, like the rest of us - how many miles do you intend to really use the engine hard?
If you're looking for the V-8 gas engine that gets the best mpg in a full size truck, you would want to be looking at Chevy. Ford is usually second, with Dodge 3rd. I don't know enough about the six cylinders to comment on any of the brands.
If you're getting 9mpg with a 1/2 ton six cylinder, I don't think there can be any doubt that the engine does not have enough power for the truck. I have one of the worst mpg setups:
99 F-350 Superduty V-10 dually 4x4 with 4.30 axle ratio.
I get 9.5 in a mix of city/hwy and 11.5-12 hwy. The guys who own the single rear wheel V-10 Superdutys with the 3.73 axle ratio are getting 2+ mpg better. With my Bigfoot camper in the bed (total weight of camper and truck is just under 12,000 pounds loaded for a trip), I get 8.5-9 hwy and can get 10mpg on flat hwy at 55. Like I said, the six cylinder just sounds like the wrong engine for the truck.
I came from Chevy before my first Dodge Ram. I loved the Quad Cab and the styling. My Chevy's always got decent mileage (17-21MPG) but the styling was a yawner.
Moral of the story, the prettiest girl doesn't always dance the best. I going back to Chevy.
Good luck.
Ramman7
Trailer Life magazine recently tested a 2000 3/4 ton Chevy 6.0L 4x4 with 4.10. They quote actual, real world mpg which is usually less than what you hear alot of owners claiming and definitely less than advertised. They managed 13.8 running empty in ideal hwy conditions. It dropped down to 9.5 towing.
Still, the 13.8 sounds a little higher than you are getting and it's quite a bit more engine. Then again, it was straight, flat hwy when they got that mpg. Like you said, hopefully it's just because you need to get some more miles on the truck, and not a situation of not enough engine for the truck. Sometimes an engine will continue to increase in mpg up until about 7,000 miles or so.
Brutus, I have a question for you. Sometimes, when running late, I don't have time to let it warm up. Is it better to leave it in lower gears and let it warm up quickly, or better to put it in higher gears with less rpm and let it warm slowly? I know it is best to have a warm engine, but forcing it to get warm quickly may put undue stress on the block/pistons. I have to get on a highway >1 mile from home so I usually leave it low, let it rev and try to get it warm before I have to be going 70. I was just wondering which would be best. You seem to know your truck well and you do live in a colder climate than I, so I thought you might know.
Thanks.
If you don't have a block heater, I'd say it would be a good investment. It will cost you more than the factory option price, which I think was $35 or $40, but it's not too much more, definitely under $100. I'm pretty sure that the hardest thing on the engine related to cold weather is the actual starting of the engine, rather than the driving. Of course, a block heater won't help you at work, but I usually try to plug my truck in at home when the temp drops below 20. I still start the truck about 10 minutes before I'm ready to head out the door in the morning so the cab gets warm.
I see by your profile that you spent some time in LA. My job transferred me to Southern CA from 1993 to 1997. I worked in Chatsworth for about a year and Irvine for the rest of the time. I lived in Simi Valley, Newport Beach, Huntingon Beach, and Lake Forest while I was down there. A Southern CA coworker and good friend was from Eau Claire Wisconsin. He currently works for SBA in Seattle, but he trys to get back to Wisconsin as often as possible to do some hunting and fishing. He calls Wisconsin, "God's Country". Of course, being from Alaska, I disagreed. You flatlanders.....
Coke and Brandy forever....
I was in LA from 94 to June 99. Lived in Westwood the whole time. Loved it, although my lungs could never get used to the smog. Anytime I left for two weeks or more I'd always have a throat infection when I came back which the doc said was caused by the smog. I guess its common. By my second year there the doc would give me a supply of antibiotics whenever I left so I could start them before I got back. I just think there is something wrong with being allergic to air. Never been to Alaska, although I really want to go there someday. I like Wisconsin, but I guess like LA, everywhere has its own "environmental hazards." LA has smog, Wisconsin has beer, cheese curds, bratwurst and AYCE fish fry Fridays. I think I like my chances with the smog better.
Have a nice day
Roger.
We are experiencing some cold weather her in Ontario right now - around -20c / -4f. As a result of which they had various 'experts' on the radio telling people how to avoid car problems. They recommended block heaters (obviously) for around 1 - 1.5 hours, and said that this could be a valid alternative to idling the engine before starting. However they also gave the following advice which came as a bit of a surprise.
They said that the hardest thing on a vehicle in cold weather is demanding a big hit on the battery - and obviously turning the ignition is the hardest. They therefore suggested putting headlights on for 10-15 seconds BEFORE turning the vehicle over. Apparently this starts the chemical reactions in the battery and reduces the impact on the battery when the starter kicks in - who knew?
Slightly off topic, but valid at this time of year I think.
That's the reason to get the heck out of Ontario & move to best part of the country. Enjoy the snow!!!
All I need is a good rain coat & hat!
13.1 city / hwy 2400 miles thats as good as it gets....... pretty poor!!! not a stoplight bandit either.....
Saw enough rain in England, didn't have too much success racing dog sleds without snow either - kills the runners.
I don't mind the cold when I'm out in it - running dogs and wearing good quality gear keeps the chill away - problem is it's damn uncomfortable trying to drive in all that gear.
Weather warmer now - above 0f, just like a bit more snow.
Apologies for being off topic.
To go even further off topic - it wouldn't make sense to put Mals through it anyway as they tend to be both stronger and slower than the other breeds. Although they will pull forever they would certainly lose on speed and the increased strength translates into fewer dogs and therefore less scope for dogs to drop out. I, and all responsible mushers, will never run dogs that aren't fit and rested enough.
Back to trucks - you'd have to pay me more than $50k and a Dodge to enter the Iditarod - even though I bleed Mopar.
Getting back on topic, I'm not sure how much fuel an Iditarod dog needs per mile.....and I'm not sure how much it would cost to make me drive a Dodge....just kidding, of course.
Fuel efficiency is awesome.
You have to make sure that you use the right fuel - high energy stuff that would blow most dogs away - about a 300 octane rating.
My guys get through around one bag per dog per month - around 4 cups a day maximum. A bag costs about C$45, call it $28-30. They also get soup, stock or broth occasionally in the winter instead of water.
For that I get about 8-10 miles a day when training - they would do more if I had the time. They need a minimum of 5 miles walking on that to keep the weight down (though its all relative). I have done around 35 miles in one day - and though the dogs slept well they would do more.
I have no idea how far some of the Iditarod dogs are capable of doing in a day.
The fuel for the dogs on the trail is always warm food. The mushers get a lot less sleep than the dogs. The first thing they do at rest stops is lay down bedding (at checkpoints), melt snow for dog food, check paws, change dog booties, and often massage the dogs. Although there is some normal dog food, much of the dog's food has meat, especially salmon, for high protein. These dogs live to mush. At the start of the race, the mushers often carry an extra sled or person or other weight to slow the team down since the key is distance, not the short term rush.
I apologize for the off-subject post. This will be my last Iditarod post. The race starts the first week in March. You can usually find a link to track it on the local newspapers website at www.adn.com. I use to track it when I lived out of Alaska.
I have a '00 Silverado X/C on order. I selected the 5.3 over the 4.8 engine. I took into consideration the 500+ extra for the extended cab & was told by my salesperson that the 5.3 will get close to the 4.8 in mpg.
I'm sure that the 4.8 is a good engine, but I think that the 5.3 should be standard on the extented cab.
Just my two cents worth!
AFS