Ford PS 6.4 mileage

[RollingsFarms]

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

Ford Festivas were WORSE then the Escorts

 

[crashz]

Yeah but the mileage was great in the Festivas! Just don't get caught in a headwind or you'll have to get out and push!

 

[Diamondpilot]

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.

Yep, I always used to say it had a big block because 1986 was the first full year for the 1.9L 86 HP motor. Prior to that they had a 1.6L, not sure of the HP. The little Saturn has a 1.9L, 124 HP.

As for the 0-60 time I am not sure. It was a Escort GT Big Block! In all honesty I do not remember it being a real dog but I will tell you this Saturn is with the AC on. It seems to change the shift points. I just about have to turn it off to merge on the freeway.

Chris

 

[Builder]

Yep, I always used to say it had a big block because 1986 was the first full year for the 1.9L 86 HP motor. Prior to that they had a 1.6L, not sure of the HP. The little Saturn has a 1.9L, 124 HP.

As for the 0-60 time I am not sure. It was a Escort GT Big Block! In all honesty I do not remember it being a real dog but I will tell you this Saturn is with the AC on. It seems to change the shift points. I just about have to turn it off to merge on the freeway.

Chris

Then in your criticism of the Saturn for only getting 2 more MPG, you need to also clarify that you also have 45% more HP.

IMO, if you get 45% more HP and a 2MPG increase, I'd say you're doing very well.

That's why new diesel trucks get such crappy fuel mileage, because they're ~40% more powerful than their counterparts from 7 years ago.

 

[Diamondpilot]

You are 100% correct. It is just a shame that they can not get it to work both ways. I guess its true, no such thing as a free lunch.

Chris

 

[jcmseven]

I agree that fuel economy with the 6.4L is not as good as hoped, but it is pretty close to the 7.3L and as mentioned, most other brands. Really NONE of the big three diesels is burning up the fuel economy war. I suppose on average the Cummins gets the best but the difference between any of them is small. I am as much about conservation as the next guy, but great fuel economy and 7000#-8000# bricks do not totally fit--nor will they ever. One who looks at a truck like these machines really is looking for performance first and everything else second. Also, in the grand scheme the difference between one or two MPG's is not that large. A local TV station interviewed a lady who was trading in her GX470 Lexus SUV (which really is not all that large an SUV) on a lighter spec Honda Accord. I have nothing against these cars, but there is a difference between those two vehicles. Our subject lady lost 50% of her original purchase price on trade and including the sale price of the Honda, would have to drive her car for five years, 15,000 miles per year at the prices of gasoline at the time to break EVEN--and she traded for a less amened vehicle with less capability to boot. Guess what--despite this she STILL traded!!!!????? I think one has to be careful not to let the same outcome occur is this case, as the fuel consumption difference here could be much smaller.

John M

 

[Builder]

I would disagree. We tend to think of things from the standpoint of an owner/operator. However, unlike you & me, bean counters make decisons on purchasing fleets of trucks for big companies.

A 1-MPG advantage on a fleet of 50 trucks being driven 20,000 miles per year each converts to a huge savings for that company.

1 million miles at 11MPG = 90,910 gallons of diesel at $4.50= $409,100/yr
1 million miles at 12MPG = 83,333 gallons of diesel at $4.50= $375,000/yr

That's a savings of $34,100/yr. Over 5 years that would be $170,500 savings compared to buying trucks that get only 11MPG.

That's enough savings to buy 5 new trucks!!

 

[dmccarty]

I agree that fuel economy with the 6.4L is not as good as hoped, but it is pretty close to the 7.3L

Late last fall I was reading The Diesel Stop on the 6.4 mpg and they was alot of complaints about poor mpg. My impression was that people were lucky to see 15mpg. They were not getting what they had expected and it was much worse than their older trucks.

I hope eventually the trucks got better mpg but people were not happy last year. I would love to hear that the mpg improved over time.

My 7.3 in the last two tanks has gotten 21.2 and 21.1 mpg. It used to be 20.9ish this time of year but my route has changed away from traffic so the mpg has gone up a tad. There is a difference between 15 and 21 mpg especially with the cost of fuel and the diesel engine.

Later,
Dan

 

[Heywood Jannockitov]

There are a multitude of GAS engine size/hp options for domestic pickups.
Why not for DIESEL? I know GM is working on a 4.4 L for the 1500 but there is serious lack of choice in diesel power options.

The hp has doubled since my 95 Dodge with 12 valve 5.9, rated 175 hp.
I haven't considered a new one, partly due to the fact I don't need a 6.7L 350 hp diesel with the corresponding increase in fuel consumption.

If Dodge offered a range of diesel power options (all Cummins I6 of course!), i.e. a de-rated 6.7 or continued to offer versions of the 5.9 as well, then I might consider replacement.

I guess it is probably an unrealistic wish on my part, oh well.
My 95 2500HD 4x4 reg. cab, 5 speed, 3.54:1 - final drive, has been a great tow vehicle for my 3 horse Sooner. Good fuel economy, and of course, the engine runs perfect... body not too bad

I looked in the engine compartment of my buddy's 2008 F250, 6.4 PS and I ran away screaming.

 

[john_bud]

I know that there are diesel hot rodders that make programs to jack up the power to really stupid levels. Why can't they jack DOWN the power for maximum fuel economy? Lack of interest??

jb