3/4 ton mpg empty?

[C4Ranch]

I haven't ruled out diesel but I was kinda interested in what 3/4 ton gasser milage folks were getting.

I've seen diesel as much as 90 cents more than gas per gal (~30%).

 

[dakotagun]

I have an F250 SD 2009 with a 6.8 v10 gasser. I get maybe 13.5 at best hwy empty, with a topper. Push it to 73, mileage goes down to 12. I had a 5er I would pull occasionally, and run an 8' Boss plow on my road/driveway in winter so didn't feel I needed a diesel.

 

[setxjd]

" Newer" is the key word here. All the latest have DEF and all kinds of garbage emissions systems robbing mileage. I had an 05 Dodge 2500 cummins before social security bankrupted me. LOL. Mine was 2 wd, i had a bully dog programmer. Most driving was highway, 100 mile round trip to work. I ran the **** out of it for 250,000 miles, empty at 70 mpg averaged 20-21 mpg. And yet regularly pulled 8-10k pounds and got 12-15 mpg. Point is, youre not gonna get even close to that 07 and up, any brand,especially if you need 4wd. As far as gas vs diesel, it's all about torque, low end pull. The drivers around here don't mind taking 5 miles to get to 50mph, but i sure do. Hate to say it, but the big toyota tundra would be my next trial. AAAAAAgggghhhhh

 

[yelbike]

I have tried the commenter car route twice. Both times it didn't save me a dime over a 3 year period each. Time you figure in insurance, Maintaince, tags, ect. Only thing it did was save miles on my trucks.

Chris

Well darn it.... I agree with DP...aka Chris.

I haven't done the commuter car thing but you have to put a whole lot of miles to really justify it.

BTW Chris, I've read many of your posts. One misunderstood thing I think is, the newer 1/2 tow capacities have gotten to the same limits as where the older one tons used to be. The one tons have gotten high too. Don't quote me but aren't the dodge one ton capacity at 27000 lbs? And newer 1/2 ton trucks are generally around the 10000 lbs mark. If you look back 5,10 and 20 years ago, the numbers were way lower.

My point, when dp says the Eco boost is as good as a one ton, he MAY actually be right. BUT given the way the capacities rose over the years, its not fair to compare a mid 90s one ton to a new half ton. The capacities are almost close.

BTW Chris you could lay off the brand bashing a little bit! Lol

Popcorn anyone?

 

[Diamondpilot]

Well darn it.... I agree with DP...aka Chris. I haven't done the commuter car thing but you have to put a whole lot of miles to really justify it. BTW Chris, I've read many of your posts. One misunderstood thing I think is, the newer 1/2 tow capacities have gotten to the same limits as where the older one tons used to be. The one tons have gotten high too. Don't quote me but aren't the dodge one ton capacity at 27000 lbs? And newer 1/2 ton trucks are generally around the 10000 lbs mark. If you look back 5,10 and 20 years ago, the numbers were way lower. My point, when dp says the Eco boost is as good as a one ton, he MAY actually be right. BUT given the way the capacities rose over the years, its not fair to compare a mid 90s one ton to a new half ton. The capacities are almost close. BTW Chris you could lay off the brand bashing a little bit! Lol Popcorn anyone?

Yes, and if you go back and read my original statement I said my 2012 Eco Boost will out work and out tow my 99 Power Stroke.

There is a lot of technology giving these new truck the power and performance we could have only dreamed of 15 years ago.

Chris

 

[not2old]

Choosing the right axle ratio is important. I tow a basic 25' 5th. with my 1990 F250HD 460 motor, E4OD trans., 4x4 with4:10 gears. I installed a Gear Vendors overdrive and found I can pull double overdrive on flat ground just fine. I get an extra 50KM.(30 miles) from each of the two tanks and possibly a bit more when empty.

 

[Hughman]

2015 F-250 4x4, 3.73 axle, 6.2L gas. I'm still on my first tank of gas but if you believe the computer thingie on the dash, I'm getting 12.5 around town.

 

[OHVarmntr]

I have a 2001 Ram 2500, 4x4, 5.9 HO Cummins, NV5600 6-spd manual trans, 4.10s, regular cab, long bed pickup. It is carried on 35" BFG All-Terrain T/A KOs and also has a Quadzilla programmer and an AFE filter.

Unloaded I'm averaging 21mpg, with 22.4mpg being my absolute best. That's all hand calculated with a pencil at the pump, with mileage being adjusted for the tires. I recently took a trip to pick up my tractor, and I averaged 17.5mpg with my 6200lb tractor on a 2k trailer (yes I know the trailer was overloaded and it's not something I had planned on).

Believe it or not, bigger tires may not degrade fuel mileage, depending upon the vehicle and any mods. The amount of torque that diesel engines have, coupled with programmers, creates scenarios where larger tires can be used without robbing power (reducing fuel mileage). It helped the fuel mileage on my truck because it reduced engine RPMs at highway speed. ~1800rpm at 75mph makes for some good fuel mileage so long as boost stays at acceptable levels. The engine still has plenty of power with the 4.10s to maintain speeds without building too much boost and degrading mileage.

Anywho, I realize folks are very compassionate about brands. We just need to remember that compassion can cause real world numbers to become inflated. Besides, I'm not sure how sane anyone can be if they believe Ford didn't partake on any of the bailout funds that were thrown around lol

 

[yelbike]

I'm not sure how sane anyone can be if they believe Ford didn't partake on any of the bailout funds that were thrown around lol

I heard/read that ford restructured 2007 just before the "crash". Was it luck or good forecasting, who knows. But ford could easily have been in the same boat.

And to those who hate the dodge or gm for the bailouts, just try and imagine the economy without both those companies and the massive spin off business.

To the OP, sorry for the hijacked tread. I followed it closely at first, I have the same concern about fuel consumption.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I heard/read that ford restructured 2007 just before the "crash". Was it luck or good forecasting, who knows. But ford could easily have been in the same boat.

And to those who hate the dodge or gm for the bailouts, just try and imagine the economy without both those companies and the massive spin off business.

To the OP, sorry for the hijacked tread. I followed it closely at first, I have the same concern about fuel consumption.

Ford got lucky but luck is usually made with tough decisions and smart planning.

As for the world coming to a end that's what the liberal media wants you to believe. Just like Michael Brown, the kid killed in St Louis, is a good kid. He robbed a convenient store the day of his death and is also a primary suspect in a murder investigation. But none of thats really got reported.

Same thing with the bailout of GM. GM is not currently or has never been a top 100 US company. The would have simply declared bankruptcy like everyone else, sold off some assets while they were still worth something, and went back to business. Now we are stuck with the same old same old.

Dodge is a much better situation. They were in trouble, asked for help, then sold themselves to Fiat to take care of their financial obligations. I applaud them. Not to mention they are being innovative and increase market share while GM is going the other direction.

Believe whatever you want but the truth is never told by the media that leans left. Companies like the one I was with for 13.5 years whom supplied parts to GM and got $.03 on the dollar are still open. It put a hurting on us. We closed 3 of or 17 facilities and those of us who did keep our jobs were salary locked for 39 months but luck to still be working.

Chris

 

[OHVarmntr]

Ford took nearly six billion dollars of bailout money in 09, but they didn't use it to stay afloat and restructure their business model. They used it to retool plants to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. Notice in the past 5 years the influx of fuel-efficient Ford vehicles to the market? It all happened after the bailout. They could have done it themselves, but it was too easy for them to get money from the .gov. They had it set up to get up to nine billion if they wanted it. Heck, they were even one of the biggest supporters of the cash for clunkers program. Don't get me wrong I'd support Ford before anything GM, and Chrysler/Fiat before Ford, but they're all guilty.

I realize the impact that losing the American automakers would have had upon our economy, but the way our .gov handled it was an open invitation for them to do it again. GM was the scapegoat and their transactions were made the most public, but they also were involved the most. I worked for non-union a GM supplier that went from 160+ workers to around 70 after GM pulled the plug on us. We barely stayed afloat then I left.

Anywho, sorry to derail, we could make another thread I guess.

 

[JJZ 109]

Although we're way off topic from the original post, here's a little something I picked up from Government Bailout of Ford GM Chrysler and the Auto Industry
Note the last line in the paragraph. But I'm sure there will be a rebuttal here.

"Ford's Bailout Proposal

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. It pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than the other two because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout."

 

[Soundguy]

semi related topic.

This past week ive drivel up and down the state.

Never before have i seen so much trailer hauling by under sized and under powered vehicles!

I've neen nearly kileld 2x by someone pulling a trailer and wagging all over the road trying to do it with the wrong tow vehicle. And i'm not talking all clunkers. I'm talking even NEW small crossover and micro suv type vehicles. small econo cars and small ( 1/4) pickup trucks.. pulling an array of trailers, including horse trailers.

no pull ouit power.

no weight,

apparently not enough brakes

not enough rear suspension either.

i blame some of this on the push to 'outlaw' large 'gashog' type vehicles, and the general anti-big evil suv/truck stuff that was goig on a lil while back.

thanks to that we now have people trying to pull a 6'-20' landscape trailer that has 2 big ztr's and a ton of mulch using some lil got to school cross over vehicle that swerves all over the road! Or lil 'focus' sized car pulling a single axle box trailer loaded with gosh-knows what, bumper an inch fromt he road, headlamps pointing up into trees.. pulling out into traffic.. ladder on a side rack on the trailer.. so some guy is doing contracting work with a econo car he bought when he sold his evil pickup truck...

 

[fordmantpw]

Ford took nearly six billion dollars of bailout money in 09, but they didn't use it to stay afloat and restructure their business model.

Ford's money was not bailout money, it was a loan, that Ford is paying back (or has paid back) with interest. The loans were made available to many automakers to increase fuel economy in their product line. The govt made money on those deals. The GM bailout was money that the govt. lost. Period. It cost all of us 10.4B to keep GM afloat. It is all lined out in the link JJZ 109 posted. The important snippet on the bailout for GM is below:

In total, Treasury spent $51.03 billion in GM bailouts, but it wound up only costing $10.4 billion.

Some people can't understand the difference between a bailout (handout) and a loan. GM took a handout. Ford (and others) took a loan.

Although we're way off topic from the original post, here's a little something I picked up from Government Bailout of Ford GM Chrysler and the Auto Industry
Note the last line in the paragraph. But I'm sure there will be a rebuttal here.

"Ford's Bailout Proposal

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. It pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than the other two because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout."

 

[sparc]

2012 F-350. 6.7 diesel, 38000 miles. Over 95 % of this miles are unloaded/no trailer and my average commute one way is 19 miles with few stops and almost no traffic in the morning since its so early. I've been getting 20-22 mpg for the last 7000 miles. Overall since mile one about 19 which includes about 1500 miles towing.

 

[yelbike]

2012 F-350. 6.7 diesel, 38000 miles. Over 95 % of this miles are unloaded/no trailer and my average commute one way is 19 miles with few stops and almost no traffic in the morning since its so early. I've been getting 20-22 mpg for the last 7000 miles. Overall since mile one about 19 which includes about 1500 miles towing.

<img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=388827"/>

What speed do you drive generally? Would you consider yourself a fuel miser type of driver or just average with no major regard for fuel consumption.

Reason I ask is I'm impressed with your mileage.

 

[fordmantpw]

What speed do you drive generally? Would you consider yourself a fuel miser type of driver or just average with no major regard for fuel consumption.

Reason I ask is I'm impressed with your mileage.

My dad had very similar mileage with his '11 F250 6.7L. And he ain't no fuel miser!

 

[yelbike]

And here I am averaging 12-14 mpg with my 2007 mark Lt. That's mixed very light towing a 5x10 wedge nose cargo trailer, city and highway driving. Mileage actually goes down in winter due to cold and more idling. I think its time to change trucks.

 

[fordmantpw]

And here I am averaging 12-14 mpg with my 2007 mark Lt. That's mixed very light towing a 5x10 wedge nose cargo trailer, city and highway driving. Mileage actually goes down in winter due to cold and more idling. I think its time to change trucks.

Not sure about Canada, but here, diesel fuel costs 10-30% higher than gasoline. So that negates a lot of the fuel savings. With mixed city and highway, you probably wouldn't pick up enough to make up the difference in fuel costs. And that doesn't count the $8k additional upfront cost, plus the $100 oil changes.

I average 12 MPG in my everyday driving with my '08 diesel. Highway can reach 21 in easy driving at 60 MPH, but any stop lights or traffic or higher speeds sends it plummeting...quickly. Then, the regen kicks in and it plummets some more. I love towing with my diesel, but it's just not as economical as it was in the pre-emissions days and when diesel fuel was cheaper than gasoline.

 

[Garandman]

First, you need to know that men will lie about three things:
Their *** life.
Their hunting dogs.
Their MPG.

I once asked two guys with identical Suburbans what they got for mpg. The first said, "18mpg" the second said "Best ever on highway 18, 12-15 around town."

OP, fuelly.com has actual observed mpg. You can select powertrain and body style.