2003 F-250 mileage
James Gemmill
Superduty, crewcab, powerstroke diesel with 6.0 Liter engine?
frostalicious
> What gas mileage should I expect from a truck descriced as F-250,
> Superduty, crewcab, powerstroke diesel with 6.0 Liter engine?
Six speed or automatic?
What rear end axle ratio?
-- frosty
Tyrone
"James Gemmill" <gemmilljim@hotmail,com> wrote in message
news:8dmjpvk14gkkabbao...@4ax.com...
> What gas mileage should I expect from a truck descriced as F-250,
> Superduty, crewcab, powerstroke diesel with 6.0 Liter engine?
You will get absolutely "0" miles per gallon of gasoline. You will also
seriously damage that engine by trying to run it on gasoline.
James Gemmill
James Gemmill
As stated and uipdate request to include info: 3.73 rearend and
automatic tranny.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:12:15 GMT, "Tyrone" <Tyr...@innercity.net>
wrote:
EJGroth
>From: "Tyrone" Tyr...@innercity.net
>Date: 10/24/2003 9:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <zKmmb.192244$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
I'll take that as an "I don't know."
Tyrone
"EJGroth" <ejg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025184731...@mb-m05.aol.com...
So, you don't know either?
Don
Friends of mine are getting 16 - 18 around town. They report getting 18 -
20 pulling a 30+ foot fifth wheel at 80 mph up and down hills (interstate).
Can't report anything from personal experience - and who knows how much
these folks are exagerating - but since most everyone I talk to report about
the same - I would imagine it is pretty close. Note that these are engines
that are broken in - they won't do that brand new I understand.
Don
"EJGroth" <ejg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025184731...@mb-m05.aol.com...
silverfox
that will give them that kind of mpg as you said they get . ;o)
Fox.
Tyrone
the better mileage he says he's getting. I guess theoretically, if the
load was heavy enough, he wouldn't actually be burning any fuel. Is it
conceivable that he could actually produce fuel and sell it, if he
hauled a really.......really.......really, big load?
"silverfox" <silve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F9EC410...@sympatico.ca...
Don
"around town" and "on the interstate". I notice that no one was willing to
post anything of any use to this question of James, but everyone is around
to cast stones when I volunteered what I had heard. I qualified it - if you
note - that this info was not from personal experience. If anyone has more
information, I would love to see someone contribute it - I would like to
hear what kind of mileage the 6.0 gets myself.
"Tyrone" <Tyr...@innercity.net> wrote in message
news:gYEnb.197910$0v4.15...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
silverfox
5th wheel and 11 mpg pulling the 5th at 65 mph . This is a high profile ( 12
foot high ) 5th wheel so I am in the ball park with the 7.3 for mpg.
The new 6.o Lt 2003 F250 should be better with the new trany but no way will it
get the mpg as your friend told you . 1 or 2 years from now I will try the new
F250 . But I am happy with the 7.3 motor for now .
Fox.
Dr. Robert B. Hoffman
they get great milaeage are staring up at the useless overhead display that
might read 29 mg coasting down hill or lightly pedaled on the flats. True
mpg comes from running a tank to the end and calculating it.
Silverfox is right, nobody gets that mpg towing, nobody.
Goodluck with the 6.0 Don. :-)
Robb
"silverfox" <silve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F9FCC9F...@sympatico.ca...
Rudy
> Silverfox is right, nobody gets that mpg towing, nobody.
> Goodluck with the 6.0 Don. :-)
> Robb
>
> "silverfox" <silve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F9FCC9F...@sympatico.ca...
> > James and Don . My 2002 f250 7.3 . gets 18 mpg at 65 mph with out the
25
> foot 5th wheel and 11 mpg pulling the 5th at 65 mph .
I get 18 on the interstate solo and 10 pulling our 34' Cardinal Double
slide.
Matt Mead
<kid...@texas.net> wrote:
>I think no matter what engine we are talking about, most people that think
>they get great milaeage are staring up at the useless overhead display that
>might read 29 mg coasting down hill or lightly pedaled on the flats. True
>mpg comes from running a tank to the end and calculating it.
>Silverfox is right, nobody gets that mpg towing, nobody.
Another Neanderthal response from someone who either doesn't own the
oeverhead display computer or isn't smart enough to use it
properly.....
Yes, it is possible to see very optimistic numbers from it..... but
only right after you have fueled up. (I've seen as high as 20 mpg
with my V-10 during that period.) The computer AVERAGES and right
after you have fueled up, and are coasting down a hill, it certainly
can show interesting numbers since it is AVERAGING some optimum
conditions. Now only an idiot would call those figures gospel.
But for the informed, we run our trucks down to 1/4 tank or so and
then use the number the trip computer tells us. Since it has AVERAGED
over a 30 gallon or more span, it is pretty darn accurate. Always
within 1/2 of a mpg in my case. And how would I know that? Because
only an idiot wouldn't do routine comparisons to the tried and true
gallons/miles math method that we all grew up with. (By the way, the
last time I did this comparison, the trip computer was less than
1/10th of a mpg off.)
I'd suggest learning how to use your trip computer properly or quit
talking trash about something you know nothing about.
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 (Lariat w/trip computer)
silverfox
Fox.
Robin Brumfield
silve...@sympatico.ca says...
> Matt . I hope your V10 keeps you happy and lots of camping fun for
> Years to come . One thing I was told years ago was if I need to know
> what I am getting in mpg I can not afford the rv we are driving ?. I
> think it was good advise but I still like to know what I am getting
> in mpg so maybe I am over my head ? . But it is great to know even
> if I have to count my $$ . ; o) . Good Camping to you and all and have
> lots of fun as you do it .
> Fox.
I have never really calculated MPG for bragging rights or anything else.
I keep track of my MPG for possible engine problems. If there is a
drastic fluctuation in the MPG, I know I probably have a problem.
Robin
Plasyd
"Robin Brumfield" <rbrum...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a13534bf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> I have never really calculated MPG for bragging rights or anything else.
> I keep track of my MPG for possible engine problems. If there is a
> drastic fluctuation in the MPG, I know I probably have a problem.
>
> Robin
That's one reason. However, I bought my Ranger not only for it's ruggedness
and reliability, but also for the gas mileage.
A habit I got from my parents. They would buy a notebook to keep in the
glove compartment, and write down everything that went into the car,
including any work done.
Plasyd
Robin Brumfield
did expect 25MPG..:-)
JSMMV
>did expect 25MPG..:-)
tire size or type may require re-calibration of the speedometer or erroneous
MPG's will be the result. I to have a F-250 PSD and on occation have gotton
22MPG but that is no load no towing freway mileage.
Dr. Robert B. Hoffman
Somebody put your diaper on backwards that morning?
Cool the diatribe Mr V10 overhead computer wizard. FYI- I have a Lariat,
WITH the overhead console and use it with discretion at best. I have done
tons of full tank comparisons and it is way off to say the least. If I
rememebre correctly, the original post was a diesel engine anyway. I have
also done fuel tank mods and changed my pick-up and fuel lines to prevent
air and i can fill my 29 gal tank to 33 gals now. This allows me to run the
tank almost dry before filling up so I can get good readings. I do agree
that the OH gives averages and that they may be close at any given time, but
you never drive the same for good lengths of time, therefore preventing the
"averages" to tell you what total mileage you can get. I might suggest
taking a troll ride over to the dieselstop.com
and posting your statement there. Seems not too many diesel owners trust the
overhead for more than a thermo and compass.
Meanwhile, go have a beer and relax Cro Magnon Man. You should also learn to
be more polite and stop calling poeple idiots,
were just talking about mileage here sweetie pie :-)
The Neanderthal
"JSMMV" <js...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031106222002...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Matt Mead
<kid...@texas.net> wrote:
>You should also learn to
>be more polite and stop calling poeple idiots,
Sorry, can't do it. I get tired of people continually taking shots at
anyone who has and uses their mileage computers. There is always the
implication that we aren't smart enough to figure our mileage
long-hand and/or that we believe anything the display tells us, (and
of cours the display is always wrong!).
Don't want to be called an idiot? Simple solution: Pick YOUR words
carefully, don't make blanket statements, and don't talk about what
you don't know or understand. (I think if you do a google search on
all my posts here and at the other newsgroups I frequent, you will see
I only get pissy when someone else makes an idiotic comment or
statement first.)
Have a great day!
Got Diesel??
I will have a great day thanks, knowing you are the idiot
who got this fired up over a freaking overhead computer.
My words were picked quite well as Im more than capable of using both
systems however I have more class than to blanket a statement like YOU did,
assuming I was an idiot. Perhpas you ought to google search some behavioral
science info on projection as you seem to be acting out your own
inadequacies with name calling and assumptions yourself. While your
searching, go over to the dieseltstop.com and see how most people realize
Ford builds a great truck but that it has its weak points and the OHD being
one of them.
RBH
"Matt Mead" <mdm...@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote in message
news:v4ivqvcap6prg9eei...@4ax.com...
Matt Mead
wrote:
>I will have a great day thanks, knowing you are the idiot
Keep on whining Dr. You seem to be the only one losing sleep over
this issue. I stand by what I said.
Hope your weather is as beautiful as ours today!
Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 (apparently with the SOLE working
overhead trip computer!)
G. Stewart
overhead display) varies between 15.5 - 17.9 in daily driving to/from
work in stop-go, fast-slow freeway + local highway. Pulling a
23-foot, 5000 lb. trailer, I average around 11.5 mpg. I usually pull
at about 65 mph.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my truck. Those who claim
to get 22 mpg unloaded, and 16 mpg pulling a high-profile 5th wheeler
are probably not calculating throughout a full tank of fuel.
GS
silverfox
some help on there math as it will not happen now or never with any
diesels we can buy at this time unless you buy a standard trany. But if
you think about it large trucks can pull 30 + tons and get 8 mpg with a
500 hp motor . My brother has one mil on his truck and never had the
motor apart yet . He will buy one more new truck this year that will be
his last before he retires 5 years from now . Look after the fluids and
it will make a big difference and have less chance of a trouble free
motor .
Fox.
Don
If I drive gently around town I get about 16 mpg with it and towing a 4500
lbs, 22 ft trailer (albeit, a Hi-Lo, so there is a lot less wind drag) I get
about 12 to 13 mpg at 65 mph. Why wouldn't the diesel do a lot better than
that? I would think a 5000 lb trailer would be child's play for the diesel.
I'm not doubting you, I'm just looking for comments and explanations.
Thanks
"G. Stewart" <gfs...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:9vcfrvce244jusoin...@4ax.com...
XLanManX
>Date: 11/19/2003 5:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <GOUub.11768$iS6.9765@fed1read04>
>
>OK, I'm confused here. I have a 4WD 2001 F150 with the 5.4L
>
>If I drive gently around town I get about 16 mpg with it and towing a 4500
>lbs, 22 ft trailer (albeit, a Hi-Lo, so there is a lot less wind drag) I get
>about 12 to 13 mpg at 65 mph. Why wouldn't the diesel do a lot better than
>that? I would think a 5000 lb trailer would be child's play for the diesel.
For starters, the 250 diesel curb weight is about a thousand pounds heavier
than your 150 gasser. Also, claims of greatly improved mileage with diesels
tend to be exaggerated. My experience is only a couple more mpg with diesel. My
2003 F250 6.0/5sp auto is getting 14 mpg around town with light loads.
Martin Rogoff
I have a 2000 7.3 PSD F250 6-speed 4x4 and I get right around 16mpg to
and from work (no highways and usually lots of stops at traffic
lights). The best I have ever gotten is 18.5 mpg on a tank that was
entirely highway. Pulling a 27' travel trailer at 65-70 and it goes
down to around 11. I believe that the weight of the trailer is less
important that the wind resistance. A 27' travel trailer is at least
11' tall if I remember correctly.
Kent
Martin Rogoff wrote:
Back a few years, I was a line-haul truck driver. The big thing for trucks back
then was mounting an air foil on the tops of truck cabs to reduce drag and go
down the road in a fuel-efficient manner. Yeah, and they had 'fuel squeezer'
engines coming online too. Radial tires were coming of age and the whole
trucking industry was slowly integrating fuel economy into their fleet purchase
plans. We went from 3.5 mpg in the early 70's to 6.0 mpg and beyond in the 80's.
I always tracked my mileage, every tank of fuel. I could usually tell you within
a gallon or so how much it would take to do a fill-up, depending on how many
miles I had gone and what kind of load I was running, etc.
The horsepower didn't make much difference when I went from a Cummins 300 to a
Cummins 350. Cummins has a reliable workhorse line of engines and the straight 6
configuration was a real puller. Fuel mileage remained about the same.
When it came to loads, I could have a 40,000 lb. load or an 80,000 lb. load, it
didn't matter, the mileage didn't vary more than 0.5mpg due to weight. The
average fuel mileage back then (mid-1980s) was 6.0 to 6.5 mpg. Running sleeper
team with the same partner, week in and week out, three trips from Detroit to the
East Coast per week, averaging 5500 miles per week, 250,000 per year. We hauled
auto parts to assembly plants, taking the same routes over and over. I could
predict the amount of fuel used at any point along the route.
So what made a difference? Really cold weather brought the mileage down a bit.
Properly inflated tires kept it up. We got an oil fiter change at the end of
every week and an oil change every other week. We didn't bother with fuel
additives. As long as the maintenance was kept up, the mileage remained
constant.
At 325,000 miles, the company sent my truck in for an engine check-up. Cummins
said that it needed injectors, but that if we went with an overhaul, they would
give the engine an additional 300,000 mile warranty. The company went with the
overhaul. When we got the truck back out of the shop, we noticed a bit more
power, a bit less oil consumption and about .4 mpg improvement. We consistantly
got up around 6.5 mpg from that point on.
Just my 2 cent's worth ....
Rowbotth
wrote:
Excellent posting! I knew some of the better truckers knew their units
very well, but not to this extent.
(What about Radial Tires? Did you ever compare these to the bias ply?
Or was yor stint behind the wheel before or after both were generally
available? And manual v/s automatic transmissions?)
So why would this be? The energy required to heat the air in the
cylider? Or maybe the cab heating load? Most things work better in the
cold (like the electrical system shold have been operating more
efficently).
Interesting observation.