12 Valve Engine and Drivetrain Talk about the 12V engine and drivetrain here. This is for 1994-1998.5 engine and drivetrain discussion only.

Why Such A big Difference In Fuel Mileage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-21-2007 | 03:22 PM
  #16  
HOHN's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Originally Posted by DennisT
Well, I'm even more confused. RJ brought up a lot of good points and reminded me I should have given more information. He also brought up some questions....at least in my mind.

12valve vs 24valve vs "common rail," 3rd gen: I thought, generally, the old 12 valve (2nd gen in my case) was at least as fuel efficient as any of the rest and the newest Rams were the worst on mileage, but had more power from the factory, (which was the trade off). Am I wrong? Or do I have it backwards?
Dennis
You have it right. In general, the old 12V engines are best on mpg. Why?

First is emissions limitations. The "optimum" timing for mpg is much more advanced than the "optimum" for emissions, so guess which comes from the factory?

Second, is power output. The older 12V engines are simply a lot less powerful. Early models are only 160hp, with the later 12V maxing out at 215hp. Compare that to a common rail truck at 305-350--big difference.

Keep in mind that the 24V engines have twice as many valves, twice as many springs, and all that. IOW, the 12V should have less "turnover drag" or parasitic loss from the valvespring pressure and such.

IN addition, the 12V engines have more tq output at lower rpm. The smaller breathing area increases velocity at low and no boost conditions and you get more air in the cylinder at low rpm-- hence, you can burn more fuel at low RPM.

Finally, it takes a LOT of power to drive a common rail pump because of the high pressures. I've been told that the VP44 actually takes the least amount of power to drive, as the P-pump is pretty power hungry itself. So that one would seem to hurt 12V economy relative to later vp44 trucks.

Finally, as the RPM range of the trucks expanded, the engine becomes less optimized at any given RPM. In other words, the narrower the operating speed of the engine, the more I can optimize it for that engine speed. The Redline RPM of these engines has been raised higher and higher as the years passed-- and the peak HP gets higher and higher too. Early trucks made peak hp at lower rpm. Mine peaked at 2700rpm, factory. Newer trucks are at 2900 rpm. Up and up it goes, taking good mpg away with it.

Now, if the OEMs were free to apply the ultimate in HPCR technology to fuel economy alone, we'd have CTDs getting 28mpg regularly. But that would mean open exhaust and other things that are .


The final thing is keep in mind that the trucks keep getting bigger and heavier, laden with more features. This takes more fuel!

Given the handicap of a 4x4 that lacks CAD, I'm VERy happy with 16mpg bumming around town.

JH
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sgrooms
Fuels / BioDiesel / Diesel Prices
21
04-08-2008 11:17 AM
arroyojim
General Diesel Discussion
20
09-23-2006 12:05 PM
chaos24valve
Other
20
06-26-2006 09:29 PM
TXTad
3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007
8
01-11-2004 09:38 AM
BGDUMMY
Other
10
05-09-2003 06:59 PM



Quick Reply: Why Such A big Difference In Fuel Mileage



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.