3rd Gen Engine and Drivetrain -> 2003-2007 5.9 liter Engine and drivetrain discussion only. PLEASE, NO HIGH PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION!

MPG Drop on 75 MPH vs. 70 MPH

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 9, 2004 | 04:31 PM
  #1  
Mark Hodowanec's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
From: VA
MPG Drop on 75 MPH vs. 70 MPH

I normally drive 70 MPH & get 17.3 mpg. I bumped up the speed to 75 & the milage dropped 1.2 MPG. Does this sound right?
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2004 | 04:38 PM
  #2  
Breakin Loose's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
That sounds like what my truck does. The mileage really seems to drop as you get above 2000 rpms. I read somewhere that my 555 engine is most efficient at about 1600 rpms. I'm sure the 600 motor is similiar.
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2004 | 10:29 PM
  #3  
Cummins600's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Hill Country
Originally posted by Breakin Loose
That sounds like what my truck does. The mileage really seems to drop as you get above 2000 rpms. I read somewhere that my 555 engine is most efficient at about 1600 rpms. I'm sure the 600 motor is similiar.
Ture for me too. On hi-way past 2000 rpms fuel starts to burn really fast.
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2004 | 01:27 PM
  #4  
hognutz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 481
Likes: 1
very true for me too. basically going to fast or getting into the throttle to hard just kills your milage on these things. I thing there is a 2.5-3mpg differance between babying the truck and driving no faster than 70 vs driving it like you stole it and going 75-80 down the freeway.
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2004 | 10:58 PM
  #5  
djp9747's Avatar
Muted User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Sounds about right to me. If you can get used to driving by RPM's and not by MPH, then you will notice an increase in your fuel economy.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2004 | 02:00 AM
  #6  
Cummins600's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Hill Country
I should note that I use my EGT guage as a fuel burning tool also. A pre turbo mounting reflects instant fuel burning. Heat = fuel consumption. I'd get over 20 mpg if I keeped it under 700* for the full tank.
Reply
Old Nov 12, 2004 | 11:12 PM
  #7  
Barrett_Fodder's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: Rapid City, SD
Just for comparison I made a fairly long trip on the old highway adjacent to the interstate and averaged about 20.8 mpg over 300 miles at an average speed of 57 mph. Came back on the interstate and averaged about 17.2 mpg at an average speed of 76 mph. The fact that the boost is higher thus the fueling curve sharper accounts for a good portion of the mpg loss because of the extra fuel all other factors being equal. Now the other factor is wind resistance It grows exponentially with increased speed as both parasitic and induced drag increase with relative wind resistance. Thus at say 20 mph diff between ~55 and ~75 it would take about 35 hp more to overcome that increased drag on a 7000# vehicle. Bearing in mind these are all rough numbers im crunching in my head at the moment simply to demonstrate how much worse it could be. Imagine increasing by another 20 mph.. HAHA.. I try to drive around 60 or so on freeway and 70 on interstate unless spped limit is 75 even then the mpg drop is too drastic. Uggg

On another side note since i am going. You reduce the amount of induced drag by reducing the amount of air flowing beneath the vehicle (primarily). Thus a lowered vehicle with a proper aerodynamics ground effects package could do substantialy better in the economy range than the same vehicle lifted with open fender wells and tall bumpers.
Aint Aerodynamix cool...
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Nov 13, 2004 | 11:17 AM
  #8  
blown32's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: Cheyenne Wyoming
Just did a 100 mile each way MPG test. At 70mph - 17.2 mpg at 78mph - 16.8 mpg. For me, I'll take the loss in mpg to not get rearended by a 18 wheeler on the interstate. I was going to try 65mph but I am wound way to tight to drive 10 under and be a accident waiting to happen on the roadway.
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2004 | 09:40 PM
  #9  
alltork's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: southern wisconsin
I'm not an engineer with mumbo jumbo technical terms but I can conclude from my own experiences that when you go somewhere around 70 to 75 the mileage decrease seems to be from increased wind resistance. And when you add 9 inches of lift to your truck you will deifinetly see a difference in fuel mileage. It sure looks good going down the interstate though.
Reply
Old Nov 13, 2004 | 11:02 PM
  #10  
Barrett_Fodder's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: Rapid City, SD
Alltork... I couldnt agree more.. I love the 35's on these trucks (should be the factory size). All of my vehicles (trucks at least) are lifted or are on their way to it..hehe. No an engineer just a curious individual who thinks this stuff is pretty cool to learn about...Actually majored in History...LOL. I could definitly see if it only costs me about .4 mpg i would speed up too. Especially with 80,000# of tractor trailer baring down on me... Put that Banks to level 6 and let that turbo eat..
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
treemonkey
12 Valve Engine and Drivetrain
2
Jun 17, 2009 02:06 AM
Ron R
3rd Gen High Performance and Accessories (5.9L Only)
5
Sep 16, 2008 11:09 AM
Mark Hodowanec
3rd Generation Ram - Non Drivetrain - All Years
4
Nov 10, 2004 06:41 PM
Gene007
24 Valve Engine and Drivetrain
10
Jul 10, 2003 12:55 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.