bannerd

I watched that ford ad the other day, looked pretty good but they started to brag about fuel economy. How 12-14 mpg was really good. That doesn't sound right, I just calculated my truck the other day with the new lift pump and wider banjo tube, I'm getting about 25mpg.

For some reason I was hoping to see a 30+mpg truck, what I heard makes no sense at all. Sounds like we're going backwards?

NJTman

Back in the early 90's my MIL had her 1988 honda accord getting somewhere in the 35-37 mpg. since then, the carburetor has gone the way of the do do bird, and the new accords get significantly less fuel mileage. Her car, which she still has now gets < 30 mpg and it only has 90K on the odometer. Obviously, something has changed....

Part of the reason is the alterations in fuel being sold to the public that the oil companies have done to comply with emissions, and I'm sure the other reasons have to do with making more profit for them as well. In NJ they put some kind kind of toxic chemical in our gasoline to "oxygenate" it, and supposedly get better emissions while poisoning our water shed system. It makes all of our vehicles get poor fuel economy, but I guess that's what they want so they can sell more fuel.

I'm under the impression that in Europe, specifically England, the same vehicles get much better fuel mileage due to the unalteration of the fuel being sold there. We're just lucky, I guess.

bannerd

Yeah, that is too bad. I didn't know that, good info.

93-12Smoke

Definitely a change in fuels and the way auto manufactures build the engines. More mpgs can be had but they don't do it. When i bought my tundra i had a good friend that work in the service department. After the first service he told me my mpgs would increase a bit. When they did i asked him what changed. He said they adjust the timing after the break in period. Now 1 mpg may not seem like a lot but I'm sure over the last 5 years its added up!

patdaly

You won't see it until you break the law, and unchoke the new trucks.

Even then, you won't see the same as you currently get, simply because they are so much more powerful.

I have read of some 6.7's getting a tick over 20 after removal and retrofit......

peckens

I agree this whole fuel economy problem today stumps me. My POS 1997 Dodge neon got 37.5mpg highway with a blown headgasket that leaked oil and coolant into the cylinders. I wonder how much better it would have been if I decided to replace the HG and fix all the darn electrical problems it had. My assumption is all the bells and whistles of todays cars really adds to the weight.

j_martin

Quite the opposite. The bells and whistles don't weigh much, and the plastic body parts don't either.

Statistics show that the mileage mandates translated to lighter vehicles are causing increased morbidity and mortality in traffic accidents.

haultruck

My little brother bought a 1976 Ford 1/2 ton when he was in high school ( his first rig) the guy he bought it from said he didn't know how many times the odometer had rolled over. Since then he's rolled almost 3 times(16 years ago) 360-c6-3:1 ratio 2 wheel. Never had a wrench on oil pan or valve cover. Still starts every time, and gets 17 mpg on today's fuel. It's definitely not a trailer puller, but still, where's the 40 years of technology? Until they quit making/selling parts, I'll keep driving my 70's Fords and first gen dodges. Screw those new ones.

BILTIT

I disagree with them not weighing more.

I think it is the HP race that they all get caught up in. I would be glad to give up 30-40hp to gain 5-8MPG.

TheMrAMack

It's all the restrictions on the intake and exhaust combined with today's fuel. I had a 72 Duster with a slant six that got 30+ mpg highway. My 93 gets 20+ while my dads 04.5 gets 17-18.

Mark Nixon

I don't understand how, in the case of the 6.7, using MORE fuel in the re-gen actually makes them "cleaner"?

I've been into the 6.7s and it's a fiasco in there.
From day 1 they are subjected to soot recirculated into the intake, until the day the DPF and EGRs are deleted, that engine is literally on a countdown to self destruction.
ANY diesel with DPF and EGR is, in fact.

Pull the intake horn on an 80,000 mile 6.7 and you'd swear there's some major oil leak into the intake, until you realize it's DRY SOOT you're seeing.

You'd think these moron EPA people would look at this, plus the obvious mileage loss it causes and figure out that it equates to MORE pollution by way of HIGHER consumption.

But then again, you can't use facts to reason with a tree hugger, so why try to show the EPA any hard facts, either?

Mark.

NJTman

MTBE

The Govt's point of view:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasoli...rams/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm


Then there's the "others" who claim that there is no substantiated risk of ...

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...pollution/mtbe



Here's a way of eliminating it from your water system

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1220010815.htm


The only thing I can tell you is that since they have been putting the stuff in our gasoline we've noticed a significant reduction in mileage in our gasoline powered vehicles.... I would NOT BE SURPRISED if there is something similar being put into diesel fuel as well that purposefully reduces fuel economy in diesel powered vehicles.

gyman98

Of all the trucks in my signature the 82 crew cab gets the best with a 92 ve engine at 27mpg, the 2011 gets 15mpg. These are imperial gallons.

That's progress, burn more fuel to pollute less. Perhaps they should come see how we pull this extra fuel from the ground it definitely isn't enviromentally friendly.

I would gladly buy a 2013 dodge 2500 with a 96-98 p pumped 12v

Chrisreyn

I dont know what you guys are doing different, but the best I get in my 93 is about 20, with a tail wind...
average is about 16-18 mixed hwy/city

NJTman

Believe it or not, the type / tread on your tires have more impact on your fuel mileage that you would believe.

I have two sets of rubbers for my truck. A set of mud terrain tires I use in the winter, and a set of summer highway tires I use for the rest of the year. With the mud tires on, I drop my fuel mileage almost 4 MPG, just because of their tread pattern. Since they're mudders, you can feel the rumbling when pulling away from a stoplight, that eventually goes away when you get moving. Rolling resistance plays a big role in your MPG's as when I put the summer tires back on, my mileage goes right back to 18-19 MPG.