Towing and Hauling / RV Discuss towing and hauling here. Share your tips and tricks. RV and camping discussion welcome.

everyone lies about MPG`s example

Old Oct 20, 2015 | 10:19 AM
  #16  
CTD NUT's Avatar
Chapter President
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 7
From: Caistor Centre, ON, Canada
If you own a Cummins, it is a right of passage to encounter such buffoonery. I just smile and walk away. I may even roll my eyes as I turn around to walk the other way. lol
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2015 | 11:26 AM
  #17  
verdesardog's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 279
Likes: 1
From: Arizona
I've seen my lie-o-meter show over 40 but that was just after zeroing it, running down hill coasting......normal hwy is about 20, off road is about 12-14
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2015 | 09:55 PM
  #18  
BobTipton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 157
Likes: 5
From: Tennessee
Stock truck I get 13-14 combination back roads/highway driving. Today towing our 14k fiver in 25-30 mph winds in Kansas was getting 8 mpg running in fifth gear at 60 mph. If not towing in wind, usually between 9 and 11 mpg depending on the terrain.

Bob
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2015 | 07:41 PM
  #19  
Don Baggett's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by BobTipton
Stock truck I get 13-14 combination back roads/highway driving. Today towing our 14k fiver in 25-30 mph winds in Kansas was getting 8 mpg running in fifth gear at 60 mph. If not towing in wind, usually between 9 and 11 mpg depending on the terrain.

Bob
That's pretty much where I am, too.
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2015 | 05:46 AM
  #20  
ptm600's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 278
Likes: 6
From: Northwestern PA
Originally Posted by BobTipton
Stock truck I get 13-14 combination back roads/highway driving. Today towing our 14k fiver in 25-30 mph winds in Kansas was getting 8 mpg running in fifth gear at 60 mph. If not towing in wind, usually between 9 and 11 mpg depending on the terrain.

Bob
Me three. Only had my truck since June 1st, but so far that's about what i'm gettin. I might be about 1mpg higher empty at about 14-15.
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2015 | 09:48 PM
  #21  
SIXSLUG's Avatar
Registered User
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,614
Likes: 167
From: Pacific NW, B'ham, Kalispell MT
I work with a guy who insists his 03 duramax is getting 27 on the highway-bone stock.

Before ULSD I was pulling 18-20 on my Montana runs, now I see about 15-17.

Altitude makes a big difference, a run from MT to CO across WY netted me an honest 20 a few summers ago, flat and a bit of a tailwind and running about 65 steady, and that was hand calced....
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2015 | 08:01 AM
  #22  
Reelay's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 367
Likes: 1
From: Prineville, Oregon
Originally Posted by sojoe
On a recent(7000mile) trip from Oregon to Maine, on the way to Texas while in Ill. I am getting around 12 MPG, so I ask the guy in a NEW Cummins 2500- NY plates, pulling a 5th wheel similar to me how his MPG`s are.
Response " I get 20 towing and 27 not towing. "Wow, I says, I get between 11 and 14 at times, maybe 21 not towing." He replies "Only cost me round $80.000-but I got my Edge set on economy."
BS meter was pegged, I just walked away.
So there`s some truth in the(almost) everyone lies about MPG`s........................
Have you ever run into that kinda person?
Several years back we traveled with our13k fifthwheel from Central Oregon, to Missouri, Virginia, and many other stops and then back home. We got about the same as you and also about the same as you without the trailer.
Yep we ran into some people who claim they got unheard of mpg but mostly the people were pretty honest. Maybe the ones who got good mileage went by the lie-o-meter on the over head!lol
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2015 | 01:20 PM
  #23  
KATOOM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,179
Likes: 142
From: The "real" Northern CA
Originally Posted by SIXSLUG
I work with a guy who insists his 03 duramax is getting 27 on the highway-bone stock.

Before ULSD I was pulling 18-20 on my Montana runs, now I see about 15-17.

Altitude makes a big difference, a run from MT to CO across WY netted me an honest 20 a few summers ago, flat and a bit of a tailwind and running about 65 steady, and that was hand calced....
A commonly shared experience too.....

I'm not sure why more people dont question the legitimacy of stringent emissions laws given the fact that most vehicles prove see a reduction in fuel mileage with all the new gimmicks introduced thats intent on reducing fuel emissions. Maybe I'm just crazy but if you're using more fuel to travel the same distance then how are you supposedly creating less emissions..... Where's all that extra fuel going?
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2015 | 05:57 PM
  #24  
j_martin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,479
Likes: 211
From: Isanti, MN
Originally Posted by KATOOM
A commonly shared experience too.....

I'm not sure why more people dont question the legitimacy of stringent emissions laws given the fact that most vehicles prove see a reduction in fuel mileage with all the new gimmicks introduced thats intent on reducing fuel emissions. Maybe I'm just crazy but if you're using more fuel to travel the same distance then how are you supposedly creating less emissions..... Where's all that extra fuel going?
There you go, thinking again.
Reply
Old Nov 3, 2015 | 07:25 PM
  #25  
KATOOM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,179
Likes: 142
From: The "real" Northern CA
Sorry..... I shall retreat back to my hole in the ground.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2015 | 12:04 PM
  #26  
johnny5.9's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 424
Likes: 4
From: Buffalo, NY
I was filling up my previous duramax truck a few years ago and another duramax pulled in. I asked what he got for mileage and he insisted he sees over 30 mpg. I called him out on it right there, explaining that's awful odd since I have the same truck and get 13-14 no matter what. All hand calculated over years. I think he explained the discrepancy away with maintenance. I'll have to try and find some of the magic snake-oil he puts in his drive-train. But he was sure of his ridiculous numbers. I shook my head and walked away. On another note, I think a big problem with comparing truck MPG is the vast array of configurations. Different ride heights, different gears, different tires (both size and tread pattern), running a cap or tonneau, srw or drw, 2WD or 4WD, added weight of tools and boxes etc. And use too. Obviously towing uses more fuel than dropping kids off at soccer practice or getting groceries. It all factors in a lot. That said, my current 01 24V gets about 13-14 avg, 15.6 once. But I live in real "town". Dense urban traffic, stop and go. Not a one stop light town. That isn't real city driving. Also some guys tow and that drops your avg even if you had the trailer on only a small percentage of a tank of fuel.
Reply
Old Dec 27, 2015 | 12:18 PM
  #27  
johnny5.9's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 424
Likes: 4
From: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by KATOOM
A commonly shared experience too.....

I'm not sure why more people dont question the legitimacy of stringent emissions laws given the fact that most vehicles prove see a reduction in fuel mileage with all the new gimmicks introduced thats intent on reducing fuel emissions. Maybe I'm just crazy but if you're using more fuel to travel the same distance then how are you supposedly creating less emissions..... Where's all that extra fuel going?
I hear ya. but I think a vehicle can be cleaner burning and burn more. It's just going to heat in the exhaust. Hence the lack of efficiency. Burning fuel in the exhaust make a lot less power than burning it in a cylinder. haha. That said, the ag industry's contribution to air pollution is much larger than the entire transportation industry of which our diesel trucks make up an even smaller percentage. So it seems to me like someone had invented some clever emissions components and then lobbied politicians to have their use made mandatory. But I'd have to do some research to back that theory up. But it wouldn't surprise me. The other interesting, though I'm sure unintended, side effect of all this emissions crap is that it's put the price of new trucks so high, guys are just running the older, less clean trucks longer now anyways instead of upgrading. So a lot of good that did. LOL. Just my $.02.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2015 | 05:40 AM
  #28  
j_martin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,479
Likes: 211
From: Isanti, MN
Originally Posted by johnny5.9
I hear ya. but I think a vehicle can be cleaner burning and burn more. It's just going to heat in the exhaust. Hence the lack of efficiency. Burning fuel in the exhaust make a lot less power than burning it in a cylinder. haha. That said, the ag industry's contribution to air pollution is much larger than the entire transportation industry of which our diesel trucks make up an even smaller percentage. So it seems to me like someone had invented some clever emissions components and then lobbied politicians to have their use made mandatory. But I'd have to do some research to back that theory up. But it wouldn't surprise me. The other interesting, though I'm sure unintended, side effect of all this emissions crap is that it's put the price of new trucks so high, guys are just running the older, less clean trucks longer now anyways instead of upgrading. So a lot of good that did. LOL. Just my $.02.
In that way CARS, (Cash for Clunkers) was effective. While it did nothing but skew numbers for Detroit, it totally screwed up the market you and I buy trucks (and parts) in. Witness the inability to source key components, some of them safety related like axle nut retainers.

Government isn't the solution, it's the problem.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2015 | 10:36 AM
  #29  
johnny5.9's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 424
Likes: 4
From: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by j_martin
In that way CARS, (Cash for Clunkers) was effective. While it did nothing but skew numbers for Detroit, it totally screwed up the market you and I buy trucks (and parts) in. Witness the inability to source key components, some of them safety related like axle nut retainers.

Government isn't the solution, it's the problem.
My 01 developed a weird clunk that was affected by braking and a squealing. Came to find the dumba$$ that did the brakes didn't put back in one of the bolts that holds the whole caliper to the spindle mount (names I'm sure are wrong) so the whole caliper could move a bit and was rubbing on the wheel. I couldn't believe how hard it was to track down that stupid little bolt in a hurry. Only the dealer had it special order. I had to go to a specialty industrial supply for a similar bolt but not identical bolt.
Reply
Old Dec 28, 2015 | 12:05 PM
  #30  
KATOOM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,179
Likes: 142
From: The "real" Northern CA
Originally Posted by johnny5.9
I hear ya. but I think a vehicle can be cleaner burning and burn more. It's just going to heat in the exhaust. Hence the lack of efficiency. Burning fuel in the exhaust make a lot less power than burning it in a cylinder. haha. That said, the ag industry's contribution to air pollution is much larger than the entire transportation industry of which our diesel trucks make up an even smaller percentage. So it seems to me like someone had invented some clever emissions components and then lobbied politicians to have their use made mandatory. But I'd have to do some research to back that theory up. But it wouldn't surprise me. The other interesting, though I'm sure unintended, side effect of all this emissions crap is that it's put the price of new trucks so high, guys are just running the older, less clean trucks longer now anyways instead of upgrading. So a lot of good that did. LOL. Just my $.02.
Any engine running at the same level of internal efficiency as all other similar counterpart engines can NOT use more fuel more "efficiently" than the rest of those comparable engines. Its just not physically possibly. Also, the only way an engine can be more efficient is from the inside out, not the outside in. Meaning, adding things like particulate filters to diesel engines isnt fixing anything but merely masking what environmentalists feel is the issue.

If none of what I said was accurate then all diesel smog testing wouldn't be a "visual" test but rather metered tests like gasoline engines. Sorry society but we're being played as pawns in this diesel smog scam.

By the way, the agricultural industry isnt the problem either otherwise there would be mandatory emission regulations on those vehicles as well. But just for giggles try researching what level of pollutants are global and how much of those pollutants are created by "American vehicular transportation". You'll be shocked to find out that even though the main stream media, environmentalism, and the government continually mind warp us into believing we're the problem, we're far.....FAR.....from it.
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 PM.