|
|
|
|||||||
|
#1
04-26-2002, 02:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
12v vs 24v.......
I have both..............the '94 12v has 200k miles on it and gets almost 30mpg.
The '98 24v has about 60k and is a little quicker BUTTTT the mileage AT BEST is about 21...is this typical and why is it so much lower? 
|
|
#2
04-27-2002, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Typically the 24v do get a little less mileage than the 12v. To further this a little the 94-95 12v's go get a little better mileage than the 96-98.5 12v.
Just curious what town are you located in SW Michigan. I'm in Grand Rapids
|
|
#3
04-27-2002, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What is it then.....Ma Mopar is going BACKWARDS in fuel econ? To me - that does NOT make any sense.........
 I expect/HOPE for a mileage read at 35 or so - UNLOADED - at about 65 mph WITH the "improvements". I am located in Three Rivers. And also in the Dandridge TN area toooo.
|
|
#4
04-27-2002, 11:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
My 94 rarely gets above 22, so don't feel bad. I don't baby it though, and it seems to get about the same mileage, towing or unloaded. I also live in an area with alot of hills, so I am sure that doesn't help. It's a full size truck fer chrissake...it's not supposed to get 40mpg. C'mon Doc, really, it's OK to spend that communion money! 
|
|
#5
04-28-2002, 12:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Come on now - Mister Mod..........
  You don't think that Ma has some input ON the R&D and HOW that 5.9 Cummins has been built since the 89 model year?? Me thinks (seriously) that the EPA had their nose into the motor specs...........I have heard of quite a few people who TOW for a living that will NOT have a 24v combo. And that almost 30 mpg # that I got ..... WAS keeping my leg-out-of-it on the trip back from FL where I picked it up. Communion money?? ......... does the crew all here know that you have the first dollar that you ever made??
|
|
#6
04-28-2002, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WHAT 35 mpg wanted?????
Ok now that you have amused us get real,,First off the 98.5 to 99 24 valvers were notorious for poor fuel economy and lack of power,,Production on the 99's was even cut short due to this known fact,,The 98.5 24 valve trucks also had some slip out fo the factory with the incorrect torque convertor inside(some had the V-10 convertors placed inside by accident),,24 valve motors were designed to meet the stricter exhaust emissions and fuel milage suffered due to it,,You will also find the 98-older 12 valvers like the 3.54 gears due to the low rpm motors where the 98.5 and newer 24 valvers like the 4.10's to keep them in their powerbands better for fuel milage purposes,,If your 98.5 is getting 21 unloaded I'd tell you be happy thats better than most,,Adding aftermarket boxes will help to pick the milage up IF you can keep your foot out of the throttle(and thats a tall order),,Your truck your choice,but,35 mpg out of a 24 valver is a tall order,remember this is a 6000 lb/plus truck were chatting about not a Toy-oh-ta,,Want high milage buy a car,want power buy a Cummins........
|
|
#7
04-28-2002, 02:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well BRM - I am furrr REEL !
............and if you reread my post - you will see that my almost 30 mpg mileage figure was attained with a 94 12v. BTW - just how do you tell if there is a V10 converter in the 98.5?
|
|
#9
04-28-2002, 01:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
what is the specific Q?...........I think that the EPA has had their hands on this and forced Mopars hand ............ they would not lower the fuel econ ..... or at least I wouldn't THINK they would.
|
|
#11
04-28-2002, 04:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Same here toooo.....I would IMAGINE that the V10 converter is NOT as heavy duty as the diesel type. ........ ????
|
|
#12
08-22-2002, 10:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
intake port volumn between the 12 and 24 v motors....anyone know?
|
|
#13
08-23-2002, 07:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you want better MPG with the 24 valve you will need to change to bigger injectors and put a box on it.
I have a 02 4X4 auto and stock it was getting 15- 17. With the 275 injectors it gets 17-19. with the comp box on level 2 it gets up to 21. And before someone corrects me, I know the overhead computer is not correct after injectors and boxes are used. Mine reads about 10%-12% high. It will read 22- 24 on the highway. I am sure the emissions watchers are to blame for the lower mpg's. It does'nt make sense that burning more fuel will keep the air cleaner. I have built a box for my old gas engines and it would improve the mileage 2-3 on them! On a diesel they need to get into boost quick and this is something that Ma Mopar took out of the 24v. My guess is they are trying to protect a trans that they-yes ma mopar - won't for some unknown reason- build correctly for the cummins. End of RANT!!! fox
|
|
#14
08-23-2002, 09:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
WOW 20 TO 30 MPG??? that sounds great, my work truck has the cummins N14 motor and it only gets around 6 MPG whether its loaded or empty although I guess I shouldnt complain since its rated at 435hp at 1900rpm and 1450 lbs of torque at 1200 rpm LOL
|
|
#15
08-23-2002, 07:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
WoooooooooW ............ 1450 ft lbs of torque !!!
...and you are pulling two 50 foot reefer trailers? ....OR how many buildings are you pulling down? ----this combo runs WHAT at the drag-strip?
|
|
#16
08-24-2002, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, mister fiberglass 1450 lbs of torque at 1200 rpm, no kiddin!!
and no I only pull 1 53 or 48 ft container at a time this is actually middle of the road power for the " Big Trucks " you need that torque to get 80,000 lbs rolling down the road. lets see at the drag strip I guess by the time I am done shifting thru 10 gears it may take 60 seconds to cover 1/4 mile and maybe just maybe I might get to 50 mph of course this is without a loaded trailer hooked to it, or it would take much longer.I think the biggest cummins has to offer rite now is the 525 hp motor with 1850 lbs of torque. pretty good power for a 14 liter engine I think now only if they could get these things to rev over 2500 rpm without coming apart.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
