1st Gen. Ram - All Topics Discussion for all Dodge Rams prior to 1994. This includes engine, drivetrain and non-drivetrain discussions. Anything prior to 1994 should go in here.

Mpg

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 05:45 AM
  #1  
bannerd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 59
From: New York
Mpg

I watched that ford ad the other day, looked pretty good but they started to brag about fuel economy. How 12-14 mpg was really good. That doesn't sound right, I just calculated my truck the other day with the new lift pump and wider banjo tube, I'm getting about 25mpg.

For some reason I was hoping to see a 30+mpg truck, what I heard makes no sense at all. Sounds like we're going backwards?
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 06:15 AM
  #2  
NJTman's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,838
Likes: 1,683
From: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Originally Posted by bannerd
I watched that ford ad the other day, looked pretty good but they started to brag about fuel economy. How 12-14 mpg was really good. That doesn't sound right, I just calculated my truck the other day with the new lift pump and wider banjo tube, I'm getting about 25mpg.

For some reason I was hoping to see a 30+mpg truck, what I heard makes no sense at all. Sounds like we're going backwards?
Back in the early 90's my MIL had her 1988 honda accord getting somewhere in the 35-37 mpg. since then, the carburetor has gone the way of the do do bird, and the new accords get significantly less fuel mileage. Her car, which she still has now gets < 30 mpg and it only has 90K on the odometer. Obviously, something has changed....

Part of the reason is the alterations in fuel being sold to the public that the oil companies have done to comply with emissions, and I'm sure the other reasons have to do with making more profit for them as well. In NJ they put some kind kind of toxic chemical in our gasoline to "oxygenate" it, and supposedly get better emissions while poisoning our water shed system. It makes all of our vehicles get poor fuel economy, but I guess that's what they want so they can sell more fuel.

I'm under the impression that in Europe, specifically England, the same vehicles get much better fuel mileage due to the unalteration of the fuel being sold there. We're just lucky, I guess.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 06:54 AM
  #3  
bannerd's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 59
From: New York
Originally Posted by NJTman
Back in the early 90's my MIL had her 1988 honda accord getting somewhere in the 35-37 mpg. since then, the carburetor has gone the way of the do do bird, and the new accords get significantly less fuel mileage. Her car, which she still has now gets < 30 mpg and it only has 90K on the odometer. Obviously, something has changed....

Part of the reason is the alterations in fuel being sold to the public that the oil companies have done to comply with emissions, and I'm sure the other reasons have to do with making more profit for them as well. In NJ they put some kind kind of toxic chemical in our gasoline to "oxygenate" it, and supposedly get better emissions while poisoning our water shed system. It makes all of our vehicles get poor fuel economy, but I guess that's what they want so they can sell more fuel.

I'm under the impression that in Europe, specifically England, the same vehicles get much better fuel mileage due to the unalteration of the fuel being sold there. We're just lucky, I guess.
Yeah, that is too bad. I didn't know that, good info.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 07:10 AM
  #4  
93-12Smoke's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Definitely a change in fuels and the way auto manufactures build the engines. More mpgs can be had but they don't do it. When i bought my tundra i had a good friend that work in the service department. After the first service he told me my mpgs would increase a bit. When they did i asked him what changed. He said they adjust the timing after the break in period. Now 1 mpg may not seem like a lot but I'm sure over the last 5 years its added up!
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 07:49 AM
  #5  
patdaly's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,372
Likes: 172
From: Streator Illinois
Originally Posted by bannerd
I watched that ford ad the other day, looked pretty good but they started to brag about fuel economy. How 12-14 mpg was really good. That doesn't sound right, I just calculated my truck the other day with the new lift pump and wider banjo tube, I'm getting about 25mpg.

For some reason I was hoping to see a 30+mpg truck, what I heard makes no sense at all. Sounds like we're going backwards?
You won't see it until you break the law, and unchoke the new trucks.

Even then, you won't see the same as you currently get, simply because they are so much more powerful.

I have read of some 6.7's getting a tick over 20 after removal and retrofit......
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 09:46 AM
  #6  
peckens's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 691
Likes: 102
From: Winterset, IA
I agree this whole fuel economy problem today stumps me. My POS 1997 Dodge neon got 37.5mpg highway with a blown headgasket that leaked oil and coolant into the cylinders. I wonder how much better it would have been if I decided to replace the HG and fix all the darn electrical problems it had. My assumption is all the bells and whistles of todays cars really adds to the weight.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 12:07 PM
  #7  
j_martin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,479
Likes: 211
From: Isanti, MN
Originally Posted by peckens
I agree this whole fuel economy problem today stumps me. My POS 1997 Dodge neon got 37.5mpg highway with a blown headgasket that leaked oil and coolant into the cylinders. I wonder how much better it would have been if I decided to replace the HG and fix all the darn electrical problems it had. My assumption is all the bells and whistles of todays cars really adds to the weight.
Quite the opposite. The bells and whistles don't weigh much, and the plastic body parts don't either.

Statistics show that the mileage mandates translated to lighter vehicles are causing increased morbidity and mortality in traffic accidents.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 12:20 PM
  #8  
haultruck's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 133
Likes: 1
From: North Idaho
My little brother bought a 1976 Ford 1/2 ton when he was in high school ( his first rig) the guy he bought it from said he didn't know how many times the odometer had rolled over. Since then he's rolled almost 3 times(16 years ago) 360-c6-3:1 ratio 2 wheel. Never had a wrench on oil pan or valve cover. Still starts every time, and gets 17 mpg on today's fuel. It's definitely not a trailer puller, but still, where's the 40 years of technology? Until they quit making/selling parts, I'll keep driving my 70's Fords and first gen dodges. Screw those new ones.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 12:22 PM
  #9  
BILTIT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 9
From: Lloydminster SK/AB
I disagree with them not weighing more.

I think it is the HP race that they all get caught up in. I would be glad to give up 30-40hp to gain 5-8MPG.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 12:40 PM
  #10  
TheMrAMack's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 124
Likes: 2
From: Salem, Virginia
It's all the restrictions on the intake and exhaust combined with today's fuel. I had a 72 Duster with a slant six that got 30+ mpg highway. My 93 gets 20+ while my dads 04.5 gets 17-18.

Last edited by TheMrAMack; Mar 12, 2013 at 08:02 PM. Reason: Adding to post/ wrong year for dads truck
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 01:02 PM
  #11  
Mark Nixon's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 857
Likes: 6
From: Palmyra, Nebraska
I don't understand how, in the case of the 6.7, using MORE fuel in the re-gen actually makes them "cleaner"?

I've been into the 6.7s and it's a fiasco in there.
From day 1 they are subjected to soot recirculated into the intake, until the day the DPF and EGRs are deleted, that engine is literally on a countdown to self destruction.
ANY diesel with DPF and EGR is, in fact.

Pull the intake horn on an 80,000 mile 6.7 and you'd swear there's some major oil leak into the intake, until you realize it's DRY SOOT you're seeing.

You'd think these moron EPA people would look at this, plus the obvious mileage loss it causes and figure out that it equates to MORE pollution by way of HIGHER consumption.

But then again, you can't use facts to reason with a tree hugger, so why try to show the EPA any hard facts, either?

Mark.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 05:47 PM
  #12  
NJTman's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,838
Likes: 1,683
From: Land of the Toxic Avenger
MTBE

The Govt's point of view:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasoli...rams/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm


Then there's the "others" who claim that there is no substantiated risk of ...

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...pollution/mtbe



Here's a way of eliminating it from your water system

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1220010815.htm


The only thing I can tell you is that since they have been putting the stuff in our gasoline we've noticed a significant reduction in mileage in our gasoline powered vehicles.... I would NOT BE SURPRISED if there is something similar being put into diesel fuel as well that purposefully reduces fuel economy in diesel powered vehicles.
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 06:08 PM
  #13  
gyman98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 208
From: Saskatchewan
Of all the trucks in my signature the 82 crew cab gets the best with a 92 ve engine at 27mpg, the 2011 gets 15mpg. These are imperial gallons.

That's progress, burn more fuel to pollute less. Perhaps they should come see how we pull this extra fuel from the ground it definitely isn't enviromentally friendly.

I would gladly buy a 2013 dodge 2500 with a 96-98 p pumped 12v
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2013 | 07:41 PM
  #14  
Chrisreyn's Avatar
DTR's Night Watchman & Poet Laureate
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 1
From: Lyndon KS
I dont know what you guys are doing different, but the best I get in my 93 is about 20, with a tail wind...
average is about 16-18 mixed hwy/city
Reply
Old Mar 13, 2013 | 05:37 AM
  #15  
NJTman's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,838
Likes: 1,683
From: Land of the Toxic Avenger
Believe it or not, the type / tread on your tires have more impact on your fuel mileage that you would believe.

I have two sets of rubbers for my truck. A set of mud terrain tires I use in the winter, and a set of summer highway tires I use for the rest of the year. With the mud tires on, I drop my fuel mileage almost 4 MPG, just because of their tread pattern. Since they're mudders, you can feel the rumbling when pulling away from a stoplight, that eventually goes away when you get moving. Rolling resistance plays a big role in your MPG's as when I put the summer tires back on, my mileage goes right back to 18-19 MPG.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 AM.