I have and older 93 cummins and want to know why with the better technology we have that we are not getting better fuel mileage??? My 93 stock got 17 intown and 20-21 on the highway, my 2003 gets 13 intown with 4" exhaust, and I am told that with intake programmer and ETC, that I might get up to these numbers. Doesn't make since to me, so shool way[dummy] Thanks

To quiet down the noise and make more power, the newer trucks have a 3rd injection event. It cuts down on fuel mileage.

You need to remember that the '93 was 160 hp and 400 ft. lbs. torque compared to new ones w/ 325 hp. and 600 tq. 100% more hp. and 50% more tq. needs more fuel, plus the extra weight of the quad cab.

You need to remember that the '93 was 160 hp and 400 ft. lbs. torque compared to new ones w/ 325 hp. and 600 tq. 100% more hp. and 50% more tq. needs more fuel, plus the extra weight of the quad cab.

Thats not entirely true on power vs. mileage...

My '97 12 valve, 5spd, made 433rwhp, 950ftlbs, and still knocked down 22mpg smoking people out to high heaven...
I have to baby my CR to 15-16mpg. Granted mine is a 4wd, quad cab, vs the '97 being a reg cab, 2wd, but still a pretty big difference, and my new truck is mostly stock.

To me, the 12valves were a much better engine, easier to play with and make some good power, only downside was the older truck wrapped around it....[redface]
If I could swap a 12v/nv4500 into my truck quick/cheap/easy, id do it in a heartbeat.

more horsepower!!!

I think if you look at the truck weights it will tell you something. If your 93 has the 3.07's you have much less gear reduction than the new trucks.

I think noise and emission controls are choking the newer trucks down. They also make lots more power.

It's the 3rd injection event. My understanding is that it's intended to keep the Cat hot and efficient. But it's quite wasteful. So let's see -- we'll waste fuel to save the environment.... Let's all process that one for a while....

One word. Emissions!!!!!! Darn EPA.

It's the 3rd injection event. My understanding is that it's intended to keep the Cat hot and efficient. But it's quite wasteful. So let's see -- we'll waste fuel to save the environment.... Let's all process that one for a while....

Nice[laugh].......... and true.

One word. Emissions!!!!!! Darn EPA.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

4:10s on the new truck?

i think the jobs people expect to do, and things they intend to haul, have gotten bigger and bigger, and we need the HP/TQ

and folks want more gee-gaws in the interior.

all equals weight in the truck = more power to move it = less MPG

i think the EPA is a crutch - comparing gas vehicles, a Japanese company with better technology can meet the EPA, get MPG and good HP/TQ, and no US manufacturers can. think a Honda vice a Escort

I'm getting a consistant 20.5 on my 07 5.9 on the way to work in Atlanta - a mix of mtn. highway and some stop n go traffic running 70-75 mph, but short shifting and taking it easy in traffic. It's bone stock and a 1 ton.

I'm getting a consistant 20.5 on my 07 5.9 on the way to work in Atlanta - a mix of mtn. highway and some stop n go traffic running 70-75 mph, but short shifting and taking it easy in traffic. It's bone stock and a 1 ton.

That's fantastic. I can't touch it. Is this on the overhead or is this a measured?

I think he said he has an '03, the '03's don't have a cat or the 3rd injection event. I get 15-16 around town with mine, and 19-20 on the hwy.

My dads stock 06 was getting the 15-16 and he was disappointed after having several 2nd gens that got better so he talked to his his buddy at the local dealership and they reflashed his ecm and it is getting 22-23 on highway unloaded now so don't know what all it changed but might work for you.

My dads stock 06 was getting the 15-16 and he was disappointed after having several 2nd gens that got better so he talked to his his buddy at the local dealership and they reflashed his ecm and it is getting 22-23 on highway unloaded now so don't know what all it changed but might work for you.

can you find out what month and year your dads truck was manufactured? mine was 5-06 and supposvely have this flash. If your dads was manufactured eariler that would make sense.

On Saturday I had a ton of rock in the bed and took a short 381.4-mile drive on state Hwy’s and even through several small towns (I wanted to clean up the injectors from slow driving this past winter) and the truck only used 19 gallons of fuel and that equals 20 mpg. Oh I did also pour in 16 oz of Lucas when I filled up so that may have helped the mileage some. In my truck when hauling or towing it gets its best mileage between 55 and 62 MPH.

I’m a firm believer that how an engine is broke in makes all the difference in how it will do later on in its life for mpg. If you load them up and run them either hauling or towing weight is the key. I put 1000 lbs in the bed of my truck when it only had 1150 miles on it and my wife and I drove it non stop for 33 hr’s except to fuel up. Semis do the same thing they load them up to 80,000 lbs and drive them; as it is the best way to break in a diesel engine, make them work hard.

JMHO

I agree with DBLR. I think alot has to do with how you brake-in your engine. My last fill up while running empty was showing 19-21 on the overhead. My hand caculations at the fuel pump divided by the mileage driven said I was getting 20 miles to the gallon. When we bought our truck in Saint Louis and we babied her until we got home. Then at work the next couple of weeks I loaded the box up with about #3000 of paper and made some copy paper deliverys since our paper suppliers truck could not get into the alleyways behind the stores due to construction. Later I pulled #10,000 trailers four or five times out to the local coal mines and my father in-laws #4000 house trailer to my grandparents house in North Dakota for a family reunion.

Any time you have more horsepower you are going to use more fuel. As it was said before our trucks are even heavier than some of our predeccesors due to the body design of the quad cab, the AAM axles, the supposidly beefier transmissions and the boxed hydro-form frame design. Gearing also has a lot to due with mileage and this is why I decided on a manual instead of a automatic. to which I have a closer shift spread while keeping the truck in the powerband while shifting. And yes, the so called third injection event is another reason. Even though the pre, main, and third injection event is one continuious injection and not three separate injections.

Another one that is hardly mention is the fact that when the US shifted to ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) the new refinery processes has lowered the BTU (British Thermal Unit) content of diesel fuel slightly. Even though they claim to have added an additive to raise the cetane rating.

I will be very suprised if a 2007 daily driver in city traffic with the particulate trap will deliver good mileage compared to a daily over the road truck or previous model years. Exspecialy since, the 07 in traffiic will idle up to increase exhaust temps to burn off hydrocarbon caught in the particulate trap. Which will result in more fuel being used.

I also think it has to do with the intake air volume. If you can get more fitered air into the engine the truck will have more power and use less fuel.

Shawn

I do not believe HP= poor MPG. My 01 was daily driven at ~450 RWHP and weighed ~8000 pounds. It would get 20-21 at 70 MPH. My 06 has a hard time getting 16 at 65 mph. It only has 4K on it right now so who knows if it will get better. I do know I'll be hooking up to my trailer with a loaded derby car on it and dragging that around for a while in hopes that it will lead to better MPG.

There's also a huge difference between G56 owners and NV5600 or 48RE owners. The final drive ratio on the highway has us G56 owners at a major deficit from the get-go. 2200 rpm's at 70 mph is gonna burn some diesel.

Also, the new fuel having less BTU's is an issue. Same thing with biodiesel. I've run B100 and lost 2 mpg! I've found that my mpg varies greatly on the batch of fuel I get (petro or bio). Cetane doesn't seem to help me much in regards to MPG. It helps in cold starting and and other cold running issues. "The cetane number of diesel fuel is an indication of how easily diesel fuel will ignite under compression." It lowers the flash point / increasing combustability but the amount of energy in a gallon of diesel is measured by BTU's as stated above. "A BTU (British Thermal Unit) is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water from 60° to 61°F at a constant pressure of one atmosphere." People confuse these. So basically the more BTU's, the better MPG you're gonna get.

Here's a staggering (slightly off topic) statistic:

"In 1966 the going price of a barrel of oil was approximately $3.25 while 40 years later the price is more than $60. During this forty year period, though, the price paid to farmers for a bushel of beans, soybeans that is, has only doubled."

I'm not convinced that break-in is the full answer. My truck's MPG went as follows:

1. Off the showroom floor: 13-14 MPG city, 19 HWY
2. Towed heavy after 500 miles to help break-in
3. After 8,000 miles: 15-16 MPG city, 20+ HWY
4. After February (ULSD came out, plus winter blend): 13-14 MPG city, 19 HWY

I'm right back to square one with this crappy fuel.

In my truck my best mpg with a load or towing is between 55 and 60 MPH and any time I go above 1750 RPM's I know my fuel mileage will start to drop. I've talked to several people who also get their best mileage at the same speeds as I do.

One other thing about breaking in your engine is to do drives that are 3 hours or longer along with the weight. When mine only had 125 miles on it I took it for several trips (empty) of 3 hours one way. The shortest drive time I took on my 33 hr break in trip was 2.5 and my longest was 6 hours in between stops for fuel. Also during my break in trip the engine was never off longer then 15 minutes so as to not let coolant cool off more then 20 degrees. IMHO it's a combination of weight and hours driven non stop that helps break in a diesel engine.

Hey All,

You all have it all WRONG! Here's the real scoop.

Kickbacks [tapdshut]

Back in the early to mid 90s diesel trucks where not as popular as today.
Some corp big shot sees trend, talks to oil producers, fattens his pocket by
having the computer engineers work the control code so they get less mpg.

Corp big shot now has 40,000sq ft home, private jet, and has retired early and is laughing his butt off [laugh]
Oh and he drives a Toyota hybrid!

Cheers

Sorry I just had to.
Actually my '07 is my first diesel, so I have nothing to compare to.
But it does get better mileage than my '05 F150 gas!

I do not believe HP= poor MPG. My 01 was daily driven at ~450 RWHP and weighed ~8000 pounds. It would get 20-21 at 70 MPH. My 06 has a hard time getting 16 at 65 mph. It only has 4K on it right now so who knows if it will get better. I do know I'll be hooking up to my trailer with a loaded derby car on it and dragging that around for a while in hopes that it will lead to better MPG.

It should get better. I just went past 16,000 on mine. Off the floor it got 13-14 until I went on a trip to S. Dakota with a '66 Comet on my trailer. Then it started to show 15's until winter fuel/ ULSD. After the second tank of summer and 16oz's of power service at every tank, it Just gave me 17.78 calc'd with raw fuel in the neck. That's unloaded at 62mph with the cruise on, 40 minute drive to and from work every day. I think on a long trip uninterupted it would tip into the low 18's. I'm happy to sat the least.

If I can haul %#& in my one ton 4x4 mega cab and still get 16-19 mpg whose complaining, not me.

Here is a couple of TSB links regarding the Ram Fuels systems.
Hope these work.
This first TSB link talks about fuel quality.
http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2006/14-007-06.htm
This TSB talks about how the overhead on 06 and newer trucks do not reset due to the vehicle enviromental conditions such as going up hill or down hill during a reset.
http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2006/08-020-06.htm

Shawn

I have and older 93 cummins and want to know why with the better technology we have that we are not getting better fuel mileage??? My 93 stock got 17 intown and 20-21 on the highway, my 2003 gets 13 intown with 4" exhaust, and I am told that with intake programmer and ETC, that I might get up to these numbers. Doesn't make since to me, so shool way[dummy] Thanks
That's surprising, we have nearly identical trucks. 03 with the rare 5 speed and no cat!. I bought mine at 92,500 miles and got over 18 driving home from picking it up, at about 77-80mph. I get 22-24+ regularly. Hand calculations come in 1-2 mpg less most of the time, but still, that means i'm still getting 20+ at least 90% of the time. I drive pretty civil most of the time. And as for the high hp = poor mileage....NO. I drive around with my TST off most of the time, which leaves my downloader on performance - that gave me 379 to the wheels and I have always gotten the same mpg numbers.

I am in the process of thinkin about a new truck. I hate to get rid of the ole 92 and to tell ya the truth I just may not.

In lookin at the new trucks I see (and maybe wrong) that the 4x4 system is not like my ole 92. I have manual locks while the newer trucks seem to use the same system I have on my 94 YJ. The differential and axles on the new trucks are moveing all the time. This takes fuel and power along with constant wear on the front end. I wish they would realize the old free wheelin system is the way to go and stop makeing these push button trucks. I guess the mph problem is the emissions and increase in power but they don't seem to care about the milage. They just don't get it. They don't care but we do!! Or at least (I) do. If they didn't use the "live axles" and went back to the freewheeling I know I would be a lot happier and the milage may get better. It doesn't take much to kill your mpg. There are no dought other places that could save fuel. In stead of more cup holders I wish they would find them.

Thubs, you have to remember they produce pickups (if you can call them that anymore) for the mass market. They make them for all the mom's driving the kids to sporting events that dont want to get out and get their fingers dirty just to turn a little knob. I've honestly gotten use to just flipping the switch on the dash.

The differential and axles on the new trucks are moveing all the time. they don't seem to care about the milage.

there is usually a thread on this every ~6 months,
a few guys have went to hubs and free axles, a few just pop the front DS off,
not much difference, and the cost is significant.

like $1500 for .5 mpg gain?

There are no dought other places that could save fuel. In stead of more cup holders I wish they would find them.

[rant] Don't know if you have been in the back of a MegaCab yet, but, well, uhhhhh............they didn't focus on cupholders either!!

Hey I have a question for you guys. My ole 92 has a wheel base of about 132 inches. How do you these quad cabs turn? When haulin fifthwheel campers into state parks are they manuverable in close places. I need an 8' bed also. Will this thing be just to darn long for backin a fifthwheel into state park campsites?

thanks

Thumbs, you are correct about the live axles. It would seem that todays Auto Manufactures have taken a few steps back in time. The live Axles in these trucks are similiar to the old live Axles in the mid 70's GM four wheel drive trucks with the New Process 283 Transfer Case. These trucks would gobble gas, so a lot of the owners would swap out the locked hub to a locking hub. This helped some, but not enough. It was not until mid 80's when fuel injection came standard did the trucks actually see an increase in fuel mileage. However, by then GM changed the body style and went back to a touchless axle which they still use today. 04ctd is correct about the hub conversion and the small increase in mileage, but that is only part of the answer.

We need to remember that these trucks also have new emission standards. The current emission equipment on these truck are restrictive enough that we burn more fuel at the same horsepower and torque rating as non-emission controled vehicle. This is supposed to help with the green house gases, smog, the ozone layer and to reduce our dependace our non renewable fuels. How do they do that, you ask? By cleaning-up our fuel. Cleaning-up our fuel reduces the BTU content of the same amount or ounce of fuel that is required to reach a certain horsepower rating. The end result is then (more HP = more fuel burn). In a sense it defeats our purpose of reduction of fossil fuels. Guess you got absolute proof of third rule of Thermal Dynamics.

Our trucks gearing is also lower compared to older trucks with 3:54 or higher gear ratio (Higher the number the lower the gear ratio). Which is to help keep the drivetrain from grenading on us evertime we smash the go pedal. Otherwise we are going to need a bigger diffenential or one similiar to over the road tractors to handle the torque that goes through the powertrain.

And the list goes on and on.

As for the turn radius of these newer model trucks. I find that they can turn more sharply then my old straight axle GM K-1500. This is what makes me tend to over steer when backing up. However, if you slow down and take your time you will so feel like the big boys with the long trailers backing up your fifth wheel or flat beds.:cool:

Shawn

Hey I have a question for you guys. My ole 92 has a wheel base of about 132 inches. How do you these quad cabs turn? When haulin fifthwheel campers into state parks are they manuverable in close places. I need an 8' bed also. Will this thing be just to darn long for backin a fifthwheel into state park campsites?

thanks

The 02-07 Quad Cabs with 8' beds have a wheel base of 160 inches.
The Mega Cab has the same wheel base of 160 inches, but a small box.
The 02-07 Quad Cabs with 6' beds have a wheel base around 142 inches.

I think it depends on how comfortable you are backing up. I tend to over steer a little bit since I am always in a rush or running behind. I say they have a better turn ratio then my old straight axle 86 GM K-1500 even in four wheel drive, but that is just me.

Shawn

Thanks guys

Yeah my wheel base now is 132". If I go with the quad I think it's up about 157 or better. When backin a fifth wheel in some of the state parks in Florida man it can be a bit tight. I also realize that the steering geometry may have changed since my ole 92 and they very well may turn better, Idono. This is a big deal for me. I really don't have a big problem backin my fifthwheel now but no matter how good you are if the truck is to big it just won't turn.

I realize Dodge tried to cut costs by goin from the reg cab to the quad but for guys like me they went from it would be nice for a little more room to man this thing is way to big. I hate to say it and thought I never would but they are forcing me to look at the GMC extended cab. I have to find out the difference in the turning rad of the quad and the GMC extended. Oh, GMC still used the free wheelin system also. It kills me to even consider giving up the Cummins because they don't build the truck I need. In fact I just may keep the ole Dodge for another five years or so.

Hey I have a question for you guys. My ole 92 has a wheel base of about 132 inches. How do you these quad cabs turn? When haulin fifthwheel campers into state parks are they manuverable in close places. I need an 8' bed also. Will this thing be just to darn long for backin a fifthwheel into state park campsites?

thanks

When I switched from a '92 Club Cab to a 2004.5 Quad Cab a couple of years ago, I remember being pretty surprised at how much tighter the turning radius was the first time I made a U-turn on a local highway with a trailer. It's also easier to back up my trailer next to my house from the small street I live on. It's a rack & pinion set-up now.

When I switched from a '92 Club Cab to a 2004.5 Quad Cab a couple of years ago, I remember being pretty surprised at how much tighter the turning radius was the first time I made a U-turn on a local highway with a trailer. It's also easier to back up my trailer next to my house from the small street I live on. It's a rack & pinion set-up now.

Not to bust your bubble, but the Dodge Heavy Duty Trucks still have the recicular ball type steering. Not a rack and pinion. The rack and pinion steering can be found on 2wd light duty trucks (not sure of the heavy duty), unless you are talking about GM trucks. Most over the road class "8" trucks still use the swing arm steering box due to their weight and mass that they have to move.

Shawn

CatDiesel,

[nonono] Unfortunately, you are incorrect, sort of. Backing up my visual observation is this link at Allpar.com:

http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-heavy-duty.html

The paragraph below is a little before 1/2-way down the page in the "chassis and suspension" section.

"Two-wheel drive Dodge Ram Heavy Duty trucks feature a new rack and pinion-type steering system that delivers a combination of effort, feel and response tuned to give the driver precise control and positive feedback."

But it's followed by:

"Four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Heavy Duty trucks have a redesigned recirculating ball system made to more exacting tolerances than their predecessors. The new system improves on-center steering feel through lower internal friction, with responsiveness enhanced by a quicker ratio. The 13.4:1 overall steering ratio and 2.75 turns lock-to-lock are especially effective when making tight turns or maneuvering a trailer in close quarters. The system also provides a steady helm for highway cruising, with little of the wander and imprecision normally associated with heavy-duty truck steering."

So I didn't realize that 4WD models still have the recirculating ball system. But my 2WD does have a rack. So it depends what thumbs is in the market for. But I would think that the new steering systems are superior to the old.


I'm at work so that's all I can come up with at the moment.

(I think I need coffee this morning[coffee], and I don't drink coffee![duhhh])

Yeah I was readin in the broch from Dodge and it did say there were two types. I gotta have 4wd.

I've been burnin the midnight oil tryin to figure this stuff out but it is starting to look like I'm gonna keep the ole 92 a few years more. She still runs and looks great and the thing is set up the way I want it. Todays trucks don't offer what I really want. I know there will come a day when I will have to put her to rest but not for a while(I hope). I guess for now Dodge lost a sale with not offering the extended cab. I am probably in the vast minority but as they kinda say in the Army (I'm a minority of one) LOL

Hey if ya see on ole Red Dodge pullin a fiver headed south again this winter flash your lights. It may be the oldest snowbird truck on the road. LOL

My 05 weighs 30% more than my 91 did, but only uses 10% more fuel. Having twice the power is great, especially when towing. And as far as ride quality goes, there's just no comparison.

CatDiesel,

[nonono] Unfortunately, you are incorrect, sort of. Backing up my visual observation is this link at Allpar.com:

http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-heavy-duty.html

The paragraph below is a little before 1/2-way down the page in the "chassis and suspension" section.

"Two-wheel drive Dodge Ram Heavy Duty trucks feature a new rack and pinion-type steering system that delivers a combination of effort, feel and response tuned to give the driver precise control and positive feedback."

But it's followed by:

"Four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Heavy Duty trucks have a redesigned recirculating ball system made to more exacting tolerances than their predecessors. The new system improves on-center steering feel through lower internal friction, with responsiveness enhanced by a quicker ratio. The 13.4:1 overall steering ratio and 2.75 turns lock-to-lock are especially effective when making tight turns or maneuvering a trailer in close quarters. The system also provides a steady helm for highway cruising, with little of the wander and imprecision normally associated with heavy-duty truck steering."

So I didn't realize that 4WD models still have the recirculating ball system. But my 2WD does have a rack. So it depends what thumbs is in the market for. But I would think that the new steering systems are superior to the old.


I'm at work so that's all I can come up with at the moment.

(I think I need coffee this morning[coffee], and I don't drink coffee![duhhh])

Come on admit it. We are both correct.[coffee]
I did say I was unsure if the 3rd Gen HD Dodge 2wd Trucks had a rack and pinion. I tend to assume everyone is driving a 4wd truck. [dummy]

Yes, It is up to thumb and what he wants. However, I am glad I bought my 05 when I did. Now I do not have to worry about the new emission control particulate trap, EGR return gasses, and the need to find a ULSD fuel pump every time I fill up. If I were Thumbs I would wait a few years and see what problems the new emission trucks have before purchasing a late model truck. That way the all the lastest and greatest bugs get worked out. When buying used I would look for a 03-05 in the third gen group. I would avoid the 06 because of all the electrical gremlins they tend to have. As for the 2nd Gen anything between a 94 and 97 since they had some really durable engines and transmissions.:cool:

Your not the only one needing coffee. I finding tons of grammer mistakes in a lot of my previous post. I used to love coffee, until one night with a few pals and 20 pots later.[coffee] [duhhh]

Shawn

Come on admit it. We are both correct.[coffee]
Shawn

Ok. we're both correct![laugh]

why do newer Dodges get less mpgs ??
my present '03 305/555 HO gets better mpgs than my '96 or '01 and has a whole lot more power. This truck gets 22+ average mpgs on a 600 mile a week commute. The '01 averaged 19.5 to 20 on the same commute. The '96 averaged 20-21 on that same commute. All pencil figures. All my trucks are stock as I need all the mpg I can get.
JIM

just to chime in, i get a averig MPG of 19 town & 24 highway with my rowboat 6 speed. in my old pickup a 96 auto whole running B99 bio, i got a amazing 29MPG once on a long trip. the 96 loved the bio, i havent rain it in the 04 yet.