Ford PS 6.4 mileage

[CLinton_in_FL]

Since the deals look to good to be true, I am thinking of getting a brand new Ford Super duty. I was wondering what people were getting for fuel mileage with 3.73. Most of the people on the diesel forums give it running 4.88 and 4.10's in the rear..... Thanks for the info

 

[john_bud]

While the 6.4 is reputed to be a decent mill, it is already obsoleted by ford. I'd probably pass on it as it is only being used on 2 years production. Not a happy future.

I'll be monitoring the thread to also learn what folks are gettig with the 3.73's. The higher gears have been reputed to suck the tank dry!

jb

 

[JESSE1]

I think you'd be very happy with the performance of the 6.4. Even if Ford stops using it after the 2010 model year they will continue to support it with service and parts for a long time.
Mileage should be around 14-15 mpg with the 3.73's. The faster you go, the lower the mileage. I average close to 12 mpg with 4.30's in my F-450. If I slow down to 60 mph I can see close to 16 mpg. These trucks drive so good it's hard to drive slow. What really kills mileage are the regenerations required to clean the diesel particulate filter.
Buy the 6.4 and enjoy it.

 

[jcmseven]

My 6.4L four wheel drive KR 250 with 3.73's gets about 16 on the highway, 17-18 mpg if I drive slowly. In town, I get around 14-15 empty. My mileage does not drop much when towing, only to about 11-12 mpg when towing my 9000# (approximately) tractor/trailer combination. I do not drive my truck easy and I live in the mountains of WNC, so there is a lot of up and down. There are a couple things to note: the mileage on my truck got substantially better after 12,000 miles (by 1-1.5 mpg average), and my truck was pre-reprogram from Ford, so when this was done I picked up about 0.5 mpg average (not much but notable). The new trucks should have this done already. Our local trailer salesman has a 450 dually which he says gets across the board 2-3 mpg less than mine, but it has a rear gear rating in the "4's", and would be around 1K heavier. In all, my current ride gets about 2 mpg less than my old 7.3L but at times comes closer. In reality, unless one drives A LOT, this difference is not that much given the improved driveability of the truck. Like others, I am disappointed in Ford not likely continuing the 6.4L long term, but I think this is more relationship related instead of representative of any issue with the motor. Mine, to this point, has been excellent and I have no complaints.

John M

 

[om21braz]

My neighbor has a 08' F250 crew 4x4 sbed that he states gets 10 mpg all-around (unloaded), about the same towing 6k, and approx. 14 highway solo. He does'nt care for the mileage, but really likes the truck & power.

 

[dmccarty]

You might want to go to Diesel Forum - The Diesel Stop.com and read the 6.4 forums. That site is all about Fords.

From reading last year it seemed like people were doing good to get 15mpg on the 6.4s. I hope that is not true and the mpg has gone up as the engines broke in.

My other hope is that the low mpg is due to the regen and the other engines that use urea to regen are not suffering mpg loss.

My 2002 7.3 just got 21.2 mpg which is the best it has ever done. Looks the current tank of fuel will beat 21.2. My driving route has changed so that the mpg goes up and I CAN drive 55. The idea that we are going backwards mpg wise is insane.

Later,
Dan

 

[Diamondpilot]

I agree that the new engines are down on mpg but another big factor is weight. I have a 1999 F-250 and a 2004 F-250 that are both diesels. One is a 7.3 and the other a 6.0 The trucks are both short bed, extended cabs, 4x4's. The later truck weighs nearly 800# more.

This is true across the board. I had a 1986 Ford Escort that got 30+ mpg. I bet that car did not weigh 2,000#. I just picked up a 2005 Saturn and it does 32 mpg. 20 years difference, fuel injection, better tranny did not help with the mpg. Why? The Saturn has things like crumple zones, air bags, ect. All this adds weight and this car tips the scales at 3,000#

Chris

 

[john_bud]

I agree that the new engines are down on mpg but another big factor is weight. I have a 1999 F-250 and a 2004 F-250 that are both diesels. One is a 7.3 and the other a 6.0 The trucks are both short bed, extended cabs, 4x4's. The later truck weighs nearly 800# more.

This is true across the board. I had a 1986 Ford Escort that got 30+ mpg. I bet that car did not weigh 2,000#. I just picked up a 2005 Saturn and it does 32 mpg. 20 years difference, fuel injection, better tranny did not help with the mpg. Why? The Saturn has things like crumple zones, air bags, ect. All this adds weight and this car tips the scales at 3,000#

Chris

Don't forget that the old 7.3's had low 200's for hp and the new ones have mid 300's! That's a hugh boost in power. The 08's also weigh what, 1000# more than the 04's?

 

[Highbeam]

The 99-2003 7.3 had 235 HP and then the newer ones gained about 100 HP but not much weight or torque. Cripes, my 2000 F350 weighs 4500 on the front axle and 2800 on the rear when empty. CC/SB/4x4/PSD. The additional HP available is mostly due to increase RPM limits, the redline, allowing a flat torque curve to equate to high HP since as we all know, RPM is directly related to HP and torque by the equation.

The worse mileage is across the board with newer diesels of all three brands and is due to emissions controls in both design and modification to comply with the newest regs plain and simple. I am greatly disappointed that the EPA chooses to impose these regulations which seem designed to increase fuel consumption for gas and diesel.

We still don't see small diesel trucks in the US. So a guy like me chooses between a small gas engined toyota 4x4 at 19 mpg or a big honkin F350 diesel at 19 mpg. What the heck? The F350 sure is nice and don't think for a minute that the 3000 lb Saturn stands a chance in a head on wreck with a 7300 lb truck.

 

[Builder]

I agree that the new engines are down on mpg but another big factor is weight. I have a 1999 F-250 and a 2004 F-250 that are both diesels. One is a 7.3 and the other a 6.0 The trucks are both short bed, extended cabs, 4x4's. The later truck weighs nearly 800# more.

This is true across the board. I had a 1986 Ford Escort that got 30+ mpg. I bet that car did not weigh 2,000#. I just picked up a 2005 Saturn and it does 32 mpg. 20 years difference, fuel injection, better tranny did not help with the mpg. Why? The Saturn has things like crumple zones, air bags, ect. All this adds weight and this car tips the scales at 3,000#

Chris

I bet your Saturn also has about 50% more HP and goes 0-50 about twice as fast as that old Ford Escort, too. They were a real dog. My wife had one.