fuel economy? Better than 6.0L? - Diesel Forum

RRose · 10-10-2006, 01:41 PM

I'm curious what the fuel economy on this new motor is going to be. My 6.0L has never gotten better than 15...... what pisses me off is that my dads d-max gets 19-20 all day long!

paperyankee · 10-10-2006, 04:10 PM

if your dad drives like mine it's no suprize he gets better mileage. they can all get great mileage it all depends on your right foot.

wendit · 10-10-2006, 04:21 PM

A good frind of mine bought a new 04' D-Max with an allison and he tells me that he has never gotten better than 15mpg

**KINGTUT** · 10-10-2006, 04:25 PM

I kinda doubt it, from what I know I don't see anything about the new vehicle that would cause it unless the new injector system somehow increases mileage.

jschira · 10-10-2006, 04:46 PM

The particulate filter has a flow sensor in it that tells the ECM when the filter is getting clogged. The ECM causes the engine to run rich (hot) for a while to burn up the contents of the filter and restore flow.

Plus, to keep NOX down, they need to burn a little cooler.

I'm not saying that with all the new injectors and electronics, they can't squeeze a few more MPGs out of these smogged diesels, but I have to believe that MPGs will go down. I think that I read 10%-15%, but I can't point to a document right now.

Dave Whitmer · 10-10-2006, 05:31 PM

I doubt this new engine will get the MPG the 6.0 does. The 6.4 has this barrier filter that will impose a back pressure and make the engine less efficient. Thank you EPA.

frobozz · 10-10-2006, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this new engine will get the MPG the 6.0 does. The 6.4 has this barrier filter that will impose a back pressure and make the engine less efficient. Thank you EPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't I answer this same statement in another thread? If you read up on the DPF technologies, they actually don't add appreciable backpressure. One of the strategies for determining when to regenerate the DPF is to measure backpressure. When it starts to rise, regenerate, and then there's no backpressure again until the next time it's getting full.

So if all goes as designed (admittedly a big if, perhaps even bigger with Ford's track record!!) you shouldn't be paying any MPG penalty for the DPF. You may well pay a MPG penalty for any number of other emissions-related reasons, but not that one.

Duncan

49369 · 10-10-2006, 07:01 PM

All the new diesels get less mileage then the previous. An theres also 7.3s that get poor mileage also. Traveling the interstate the last few months I find it hard to believe people are interested in fuel mileage the way people drive. I drove 70 MPH an everybody blew by me like I was standing still going 80 plus. If people would drive 10 mph slower an slow accelerate up to speed my bet is they will get better mileage then they get now. What Ive seen people are driving like ambulance drivers rushing a person to the hospital. trouble is theres no emergency. These diesel have great power but they will take fuel. Cant have your cake an eat it too as the saying goes.

The question should be how do you drive?

Mike Lewis · 10-10-2006, 07:40 PM

Don't count on it. Emissions trim seems to be lowering mpg according to most folks I've talked to/read of.

068467, BINGO!! Driving style has SO much to do with mileage. I won't even pull at 75 on the interstate. I stick at 70 if not 65, where my particular truck hits a breakpoint where mpg goes downhill. Let the hot rodders or the folks with something to prove pass... speed costs REAL MONEY.

Now I *will* take advantage of an occasional romp out of the gate on base with the Dodge, but that's about all the speedy stuff I'll do.

Another case in point... driving my '01 Impala LS as a commuter, I was getting 23-24mpg under normal to moderate acceleration from all stop signs/lights. When I backed off the throttle I saw a CONSISTENT 28mpg in mixed driving with the car. Added DAYS to how often I had to fill up.

Mike

jas10 · 10-10-2006, 07:42 PM

Unless it your cake is a 12-valve Cummins. Then you can have big big power and great fuel economy... that's a simple fact.

When the 2003 Ram came out with the new common rail design, it did pretty well on fuel economy - may drivers including myself managed to get 20+ MPG. In 2004.5, they changed the programming and added an extra injection event for emmissions to cool the cylinders slights and this took a big dent out of the Cummins fuel economy.

I'll be very surprised if the 6.4 gets as good as the 6.0.

-john

corylee · 10-10-2006, 09:14 PM

Alright, I'm 0 for 3ish so far with the Ford rep I talked to at the Lawn and Garden expo, but I asked his about the fuel economy and he said to expect about 2 mpg better than a 6.0. He did admit that with this increase the average that he would expect would still be around 16 or 17, which to me, is low for a diesel. I think I'll stick with spark plugs.
Cory

jgoff78 · 10-11-2006, 03:08 AM

when i started looking at the 6.0 they told me it should get 2 mpg better than the 7.3 and i never saw that

JimJoe · 10-11-2006, 06:50 AM

Yeah, they said 8 % better. Or was it up to 8 % better? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/phoney.gif[/img]

Jim

jschira · 10-11-2006, 07:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
when i started looking at the 6.0 they told me it should get 2 mpg better than the 7.3 and i never saw that

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people did with the original factory tune. Of course, that tune did not meet emissions specs.

Later reflashes fixed the emissions, but MPGs suffered.

Those of you who are old enough remember what MPGs did in the mid-70s with the new EPA rules that were imposed at that time. MPGs eventually went back up, but it took a long time.

Smokewagun · 10-11-2006, 08:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
...they can all get great mileage it all depends on your right foot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish that was true. I can baby my 6.0l, and the best to date (including 50% highway)is about 17.2mpg. That's keeping it under 2000 R's.