05 to 06 whats different
01-30-2006 | 02:56 PM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: Omaha
I am getting about 12mpg towing, 16mpg hwy (72-75mph) and 12-13 city with 4000 miles on my 06.
I just put the Rokktech on, so this mileage does not include that mod. However, my truck is sitting in the garage with 3/8 tank left, and it has 420 miles on the overhead. So I think it's helping. The best tank I haven gotten to date was just at 500 miles.
I just put the Rokktech on, so this mileage does not include that mod. However, my truck is sitting in the garage with 3/8 tank left, and it has 420 miles on the overhead. So I think it's helping. The best tank I haven gotten to date was just at 500 miles.
01-30-2006 | 03:21 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Originally Posted by John_P
reecegr:
Welcome to the website!
A couple of changes have been made to the Cummins 5.9 Engine for 2006. One change was going from three (3) electrical connectors to the electronic injectors, down to two (2) for the 2006 model engine. In the 2006 model engines, the wiring harness to the injectors kind of goes through the valve cover gasket. On the 2006 engines the front electrical injector connector controls the front three injectors and the back connector controls the back three injectors. IMO, this was probably done for emissions reasons.
The injectors on the common rail engines are electronically controlled. For 2006 they now have three (3) separate "firing events" versus two (2) events (pre and post) on the pre-2006 models. The valve cover is also somewhat larger (deeper) on the 2006's.
Hope this helps you some.
-------
John_P
Welcome to the website!
A couple of changes have been made to the Cummins 5.9 Engine for 2006. One change was going from three (3) electrical connectors to the electronic injectors, down to two (2) for the 2006 model engine. In the 2006 model engines, the wiring harness to the injectors kind of goes through the valve cover gasket. On the 2006 engines the front electrical injector connector controls the front three injectors and the back connector controls the back three injectors. IMO, this was probably done for emissions reasons.
The injectors on the common rail engines are electronically controlled. For 2006 they now have three (3) separate "firing events" versus two (2) events (pre and post) on the pre-2006 models. The valve cover is also somewhat larger (deeper) on the 2006's.
Hope this helps you some.
-------
John_P
01-30-2006 | 03:29 PM
#19
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
the powertrains are the same from 2004.5 to 2006. There were no changes to 06's only as far as the engine goes. Any changes would be incorporated into a service cal that could be used for 04.5's and 05's.
The injector pass through connections being integrated into the valve cover was an MCM. No effect on emissions. Same emissions standards from 04.5 through 06 (no emissions changes until 2007.5 according to the EPA).
The APPS was on the pedal in 2005.
The real difference is in the interior (mentioned before) and the CAN-C electrical architecture. 2006 from a powertrain perspective was a "refresh" not a major redesign.
The injector pass through connections being integrated into the valve cover was an MCM. No effect on emissions. Same emissions standards from 04.5 through 06 (no emissions changes until 2007.5 according to the EPA).
The APPS was on the pedal in 2005.
The real difference is in the interior (mentioned before) and the CAN-C electrical architecture. 2006 from a powertrain perspective was a "refresh" not a major redesign.
01-30-2006 | 04:36 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
Is this disscusion a result of the electrical change?https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...ad.php?t=90617
Anymore MPG's results on a "06" 48re 3:73's? Thanks!
Anymore MPG's results on a "06" 48re 3:73's? Thanks!
01-30-2006 | 05:26 PM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa OK
I got 18.0 2 tanks ago with highway driving about 70% of that tank. I had the cruise set at 73 for 250 miles, the rest was intown. My last tank I got 14.6 but that was with 150 miles of highway, and the rest out hunting for 3 days in 4x4. So I didn't consider that bad mileage considering what I was doing. Lots of starts and stops..
01-30-2006 | 07:00 PM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
From: wi.
i have a 04.5, the average mile on the overhead can be reset, like if i were going down the highway i could reset it and in about 10 miles i would have numbers pretty close to the miles per gallon i would get at a certain speed,,,,question is,,,can the overhead on a 06 be reset in the same fashion???or are they different now?
01-30-2006 | 08:46 PM
#25
DTR Advertiser
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
From: Va Beach,Va
They are the same. If you reset it it shows current mpg at the speed you are going. I tried it tonight, reset it at 65mph cruise on and over about 10 mins it settled about 18 mpg. This with only 160 total miles on the truck. Avg for the 1st tank was about 15 before I reset it. This is mainly in town according to the ovhd. Tim
01-30-2006 | 09:12 PM
#27
Banned
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,502
Likes: 0
From: Cedar Grove, New Jersey
well I will toss this out there for the folks with new trucks, check the tire presure, mine came to me whith a whopping 42 lbs all around, sure it made for a softer test drive but wasn't low pressure one of the things that led to a lot of explorers flippin on their lids? also propperly inflated tires will net you better mpg.
01-30-2006 | 11:00 PM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
From: Denver
xyzer,
O.K. hear it is. I filled up and it came out to13.25 mpg. Ouch!
I expected a little better, but maby I did a lot more city driving than I thought. May also have put my foot in it a little more than I thought
Any way, went on a 280mi. Sunday (for me) drive with aprox. 50% interstate between 60 to 70 mph. and 50% Mountains at 35 to 60 mph. Gage went down 3/8's and over head read 18 mpg. Not sure I trust the over head.
Hope things improve with time and milage.
If anybody cares I pulled a Chevy up Crow hill out of Baily Co. and He tried real hard but just couldn't get er done. That didn't help the Mpg's I'm sure.
O.K. hear it is. I filled up and it came out to13.25 mpg. Ouch!
I expected a little better, but maby I did a lot more city driving than I thought. May also have put my foot in it a little more than I thought
Any way, went on a 280mi. Sunday (for me) drive with aprox. 50% interstate between 60 to 70 mph. and 50% Mountains at 35 to 60 mph. Gage went down 3/8's and over head read 18 mpg. Not sure I trust the over head.
Hope things improve with time and milage.
If anybody cares I pulled a Chevy up Crow hill out of Baily Co. and He tried real hard but just couldn't get er done. That didn't help the Mpg's I'm sure.
01-30-2006 | 11:01 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: College Station, Tx
im seeing 12.7 on the overhead right now with a lil less that 1/2 a tank left. My driving is strictly city though....stop and go constantly. So i know that is making it suffer. Im hoping it will get a little better soon maybe in the 15 range and ill be happy. I drive it easy...not much over 17-1800 rpms plus she only has 550 on the clock..Jason
02-01-2006 | 09:04 PM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: Alpena MI
My first tank full came in 16.9, around 60 mph, around town and short 9 mi runs averages around 14. Been light on the pedal MOST of the time. Other than the first tank, the rest has been winter fuel. Mich located so its been cold, on occasion the heater has been used. Not a believer in electronic comps but must say all my checks by hand comp come w/i 1 mile of the overhead. Stock tires and only about 1200 miles. I hope its gets better. Newbe to Diesels so sucking up all the info on the sites. Wont be a gasser (P/U) in my inventory any more.