|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
24 Mpg ????
I know two folks with 2003 4dr dakotas with the new OHC V-8 engine SWEARING they get in the neighborhood of 24 mpg on the road.. one is a 4wd automatic. the other is a 4wd 5spd..
CAN THIS BE TRUE?????? earl |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
It's possible. Driving habbits effect milage greatly. I get 15 with my big block 3/4 ton and I get 18.5 with my '90 1/2 ton. My dakota would get 20 with the V6 but gets only 17 with the V8 (doesn't change when pulling a 2000lb trailer though).
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mpg
My 92 v-6 5spd used to get about 20 mpg pretty much just messing around. dont remember what it used to get on the interstate.
My brother's 92 v8 auto used to get about 20 on the interstate running about 65-75 mph. but 24 HWY mpg for a 4wd just seems high to me. One of these guys is a good friend that is as trustworthy as anyone I know. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Earl, my '04 CC auto with 3.92 gears got 26.4 MPG from Tulsa to Ft. Worth. One stop to pay toll, two pit stops. "Refromulated fuel" from Ft. Worth dropped me to 25-odd coming back. Cruise on all the way, running legal speed limit.(75 on OK turnpike, 70 90% of the rest of the way). I don't think most guys would have spec'd 3.55 gears for a 4WD, but I think it's "doable" using 100% gasoline. 10% ethanol drops me 10-15% hiway and 20% or more in-town.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe they WILL get that kind of milage... If I buy the vehicle Im thinking about, I BET IT DONT...
Not to change the subject BUT.. If adding 10% ethanol costs a car 10-15% in the milage. wouldnt the country use LESS oil if they used NO methanol... I guess with a Government Mandated Program, IT DONT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.. BTW, Ive heard MANY personal stories that back up the lost milage from ethanol being added. earl Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Ethanol reduces green house gas emissions. It's a cleaner burning fuel. It has less BTU's so it does require more fuel to be used resulting in less mileage. And a drop from 26 something to 25 something is less that 4%.
I ran 5 gallons of E85 to 10 gallons of E10 (making E54) and lost 2 mpg vs E10 in my '92 dakota. I went from 20 mpg to 18 mpg a 10% drop in mileage. From an ecomomic point E85 needed to be $0.50 cheaper than gasoline to make it worth wild. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ethanol MAY burn cleaner in some engines, in others it doesn't burn as cleanly. The EPA acknowleged this. In some enigines, 10% ethanol doesn't hurt fuel economy a bit, but since making ethanol is an endothermic process (it takes more energy to produce it than it gives off when burned) ethanol is drying up the third time around. First in the teens, then in the 70's(Gasohol) and once again. There are a number of complex ethers that are better and cheaper oxygenates than ethanol, and were proven in the last ultra-high performance piston aero-engines. Why try and re-invent the wheel?
JV, your '92 Magnum specfically said in the owners manual not to use E-85, or at least my '94 does(Mom's truck now). I'm surprised that very lean mixture didn't do major damage. Yes, I asked the old Phillips' guys at Rocket Fuels about this. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I was mixing my own ethanol fuel by only using 5 gallons of E85 and 10 gallons of E10 in my tank. You end up with about E54. Any computer controlled engine that is in good opperating condition can burn fuels mixed like this up to about 30% ethanol. Now in open loop operation it may not run very well but usually open loop is richer than it needs to be anyways. Of course colder weather will make it run worse as alcohol doesn't evaporate as well as gasoline. I know it wouldn't run on straight E85 without me adjusting the fuel pressure to increase the amount of fuel. Since the '92's were regulated at the fuel rail and not in the tank it was an easy conversion to add an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and gauge, but no adjustment needed for just E54.
The only reason E10 wouldn't run cleaner in an engine is if it wasn't in proper condition anyways. Hydrocarbon is hydrocarbon no matter what the original source. If an engine was at it's fuel trim limit and you added E10 it could cause some driveability and poor emissions, but if it was an engine in proper running condition there shouldn't be any problems. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
been reading threads for the last 30 minutes and SOMETHING must be wrong with my truck... |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Four year old thread (almost).
Reports of very high or very low gas mileage are always subject to doubt. Unless tests are made under exacting controlled conditions, they are subject to interpretation. The trip computer on my truck says 11 to 12 mpg average. Probably as close as any. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In my opinion, it should get at least 17 on the interstate and 15 around town.. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
The standard cab with a standard numerically lower axle ratio was rated at 12 in town, 17 on the highway and 14 overall average.
The 4 doors and 3:55 axle would drop the mileage a bit. Doesn't sound like anything's wrong. |
|
|