new peeps including me. who will leave next
09-19-2011, 02:06 PM
#91
Yes.
Tire inflation 50-60 if possible.
Keep your boost down from 0 to 5 lb. (if possible)
Dont drive it like you stole it.
Ill give you my scenerio. 93 W250 4x4 , 5 sp. oversize tires with 3.5 gearing. Tires are only 285/75/16. The sweet spot that I continue to find myself driving at is 63-65 mph. It just seems to purr right along at that speed with little to no boost. The only fuel additive I run is 16 oz per tank of ashless 2 stroke oil.
You have to remember that back when these trucks were built, the speed limit (here in pa) was only 55 mph. I dont believe the factory took all that into consideration at the time of the increase in mph that was to come, (65mph) Point in case is the fact that NOW, you cant get any gearing any lower than the 3.73. These trucks came with as low as 3.07's.
IMO, that is the Big 3 way of increasing fuel consumption. My reason for thinking along these lines is.....why are the new trucks only getting LESS mileage than the trucks that were built 20 years ago. Emissions could be one reason, but I am not buying it.
Tire inflation 50-60 if possible.
Keep your boost down from 0 to 5 lb. (if possible)
Dont drive it like you stole it.
Ill give you my scenerio. 93 W250 4x4 , 5 sp. oversize tires with 3.5 gearing. Tires are only 285/75/16. The sweet spot that I continue to find myself driving at is 63-65 mph. It just seems to purr right along at that speed with little to no boost. The only fuel additive I run is 16 oz per tank of ashless 2 stroke oil.
You have to remember that back when these trucks were built, the speed limit (here in pa) was only 55 mph. I dont believe the factory took all that into consideration at the time of the increase in mph that was to come, (65mph) Point in case is the fact that NOW, you cant get any gearing any lower than the 3.73. These trucks came with as low as 3.07's.
IMO, that is the Big 3 way of increasing fuel consumption. My reason for thinking along these lines is.....why are the new trucks only getting LESS mileage than the trucks that were built 20 years ago. Emissions could be one reason, but I am not buying it.
09-19-2011, 04:11 PM
#92
Registered User
Take your truck, add another 400 ft lbs of torque (through fueling and turbo upgrades), and add another 1500-2000 lbs of crap to your truck and see what mileage you get. Then add the emission equipment and see you mileage.
It is REALLY impressive what they get for what they lug around. The new Ford 6.7L's, once deleted of the emission garbage, is getting 20mpg average. That is a crew cab, long bed, 4x4 tipping the scales at 8k+. 3.73 gearing and some models have 3.42 like Dodge.
09-19-2011, 10:27 PM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a person really needs 800 Ft lbs of torque to get through their daily truck usage tasks then great. The new diesels fit the bill for these people. Does 400 or 500 ft lbs of torque adequately meet the needs of most truck owning consumers, of course it does. I would like to see the automakers offer a modern diesel option with a smaller displacement and say, 500 lbs of torque but can get 25 mph plus. Put it in a half ton, lighter truck and it would meet the needs of the masses and save big on fuel. I would say 25 to 28 mpg would be easily achievable with a modern smaller displacement turbo diesel, in a lighter half ton truck and power levels geared for towing typical half ton truck capacities.
09-19-2011, 10:45 PM
#95
Registered User
I keep thinking i could put half the money of a new truck into mine and have a better than new classic. Of course that doesn't fly with my wife. So i put on tires and change the oil and drive the wheels off of it.
09-20-2011, 12:07 AM
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-20-2011, 05:24 AM
#97
If a person really needs 800 Ft lbs of torque to get through their daily truck usage tasks then great. The new diesels fit the bill for these people. Does 400 or 500 ft lbs of torque adequately meet the needs of most truck owning consumers, of course it does. I would like to see the automakers offer a modern diesel option with a smaller displacement and say, 500 lbs of torque but can get 25 mph plus. Put it in a half ton, lighter truck and it would meet the needs of the masses and save big on fuel. I would say 25 to 28 mpg would be easily achievable with a modern smaller displacement turbo diesel, in a lighter half ton truck and power levels geared for towing typical half ton truck capacities.
A 4BT would serve me quite well. I wish I could discover how easy it is to drop the 6BT in favour of the smaller one. That would leave me capable of near 30 mpg I suspect and let me quit worrying about bits of the drivetrain.As far as needing so much power, check out what the big trucks get away with. Scale it on a hp/weight ratio and I suspect we'd be left with an IDI VW motor making 48 or perhaps 52 hp...heh-heh-heh.
cheers,
Douglas
09-20-2011, 05:55 AM
#98
Registered User
09-20-2011, 09:44 AM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a person really needs 800 Ft lbs of torque to get through their daily truck usage tasks then great. The new diesels fit the bill for these people. Does 400 or 500 ft lbs of torque adequately meet the needs of most truck owning consumers, of course it does. I would like to see the automakers offer a modern diesel option with a smaller displacement and say, 500 lbs of torque but can get 25 mph plus. Put it in a half ton, lighter truck and it would meet the needs of the masses and save big on fuel. I would say 25 to 28 mpg would be easily achievable with a modern smaller displacement turbo diesel, in a lighter half ton truck and power levels geared for towing typical half ton truck capacities.
09-20-2011, 09:51 AM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cummins actually has a great smaller engine available for exactly that purpose but Chrysler makes too much $$ on the 3/4 & 1 ton & doesn't want to undermine their large truck sales with a diesel 1/2 ton , even the older 4 BT would fit the bill for 1/2 / lighter truck sales
09-20-2011, 10:06 AM
#101
cheers,
Douglas
