Todays trucks where is the MPG's

[Hersheyfarm]

Oh and I idle alot so no more regens. Engine just purrs and blows out hvac with no ill effects.

 

[clemsonfor]

It takes a specific air to fuel ratio for current engines to run properly. To increase mileage you'd have to reduce weight and improve aerodynamics. Reducing weight will also reduce the towing capacity. Engines today are built with much closer tolerances and have improved mileage by a small percentage (most 1/2 T trucks are pushing 20 MPG these days. Unless someone comes up with an entirely new engine design using a new fuel source I doubt I'll see a 1/2 T or larger getting 40-50 MPG in my lifetime.

Maybe the 2 door regular small 8cyl models. Everyone i know with one i ask and they get like 14 on mostly highway travel. We got 3 f150 4 door 4wd at work, the computers in them say 16mpg at best.

 

[zzvyb6]

It is very clear to me that all of you aren't aware of the problems of achieving significant fuel economy improvements in cars as well as trucks. You seem to believe that todays motors are developed to produce Stoichiometric or Theoretical Combustion. This is the ideal combustion process where fuel is burned completely. Unfortunately, its not legal to sell a vehicle which would achieve this because the resulting high combustion temperatures produce oxides of nitrogen which is a principle component of smog. The other harmful gas produced is carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). So, engines are deliberately mistuned to produce exhaust gas mixtures which are set by a politically motivated academic committee (usually in California). To further the lower fuel economy, an amount of unburned fuel must be passed downstream to heat the catalytic converter elements, These elements catalyze (break down) nitrogen and carbon residues into legally limited exhaust levels.

Certainly weight and aero design have some part in the econmy rating. Howver, very little time is spent in a high speed section of the LA Driving Emission schedule (used by the EPA to test emissions and hence economy) so aero improvments don'r get any priority. Certainly premium materials (aluminum mainly) can be used to get weight down, but with a significant increase in cost and sacrifice in strength and durability. A shortage of aluminum worldwide and the cost in electricity to produce it doesn't help matters either.

Best way to get your mileage up is to put low rolling resistance tires on and keep them inflated to high pressures. Just adding pressure to an ordinary tire will short change you in stopping distance and wet road traction.

Thought you might be interested in the catch 22 part of this problem. Don't forget that emissions laws are getting tighter every year and most states will want you to pass a sniff test soon before they give you a plate. This is not for air quality reasons, but because its a big money maker for them. AND, modifying any vehicle to defeat the EPA's Federal emission standards and hardware is a federal offence. That includes removal of hardware, fuel injection sequencing, ignition timing, exhaust components, converters and air cleaners. Pretty soon, older trucks will be legislated off the highways for emissions reasons and cars will soon follow. That's the current 'atmosphere' in Washington D.C.

 

[magicheater]

What you said!!

And from Michigan as well! :thumbsup:

 

[Verticaltrx]

It is very clear to me that all of you aren't aware of the problems of achieving significant fuel economy improvements in cars as well as trucks. You seem to believe that todays motors are developed to produce Stoichiometric or Theoretical Combustion. This is the ideal combustion process where fuel is burned completely. Unfortunately, its not legal to sell a vehicle which would achieve this because the resulting high combustion temperatures produce oxides of nitrogen which is a principle component of smog. The other harmful gas produced is carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). So, engines are deliberately mistuned to produce exhaust gas mixtures which are set by a politically motivated academic committee (usually in California). To further the lower fuel economy, an amount of unburned fuel must be passed downstream to heat the catalytic converter elements, These elements catalyze (break down) nitrogen and carbon residues into legally limited exhaust levels.

Certainly weight and aero design have some part in the econmy rating. Howver, very little time is spent in a high speed section of the LA Driving Emission schedule (used by the EPA to test emissions and hence economy) so aero improvments don'r get any priority. Certainly premium materials (aluminum mainly) can be used to get weight down, but with a significant increase in cost and sacrifice in strength and durability. A shortage of aluminum worldwide and the cost in electricity to produce it doesn't help matters either.

Best way to get your mileage up is to put low rolling resistance tires on and keep them inflated to high pressures. Just adding pressure to an ordinary tire will short change you in stopping distance and wet road traction.

Thought you might be interested in the catch 22 part of this problem. Don't forget that emissions laws are getting tighter every year and most states will want you to pass a sniff test soon before they give you a plate. This is not for air quality reasons, but because its a big money maker for them. AND, modifying any vehicle to defeat the EPA's Federal emission standards and hardware is a federal offence. That includes removal of hardware, fuel injection sequencing, ignition timing, exhaust components, converters and air cleaners. Pretty soon, older trucks will be legislated off the highways for emissions reasons and cars will soon follow. That's the current 'atmosphere' in Washington D.C.

I agree completely, and your last paragraph is very true but a shame. I have a '79 F-150 which is my off-road toy built for rock crawling, etc and it get very respectable mileage for what it is. Aside from the motor the rest of the truck is very non-conducive to good mpg. (36" bias ply super-swampers, lifted 4", tube doors, deep gears, 4spd, etc)

However, it has a very well tuned (and built) 351w running a GM HEI and a Quadrajet carb. The carb, ignition and timing is tuned for absolute max power and efficiency, which is fairly lean. I have a feel for the carb and can drive without opening the secondaries and get about 15mpg cruising at 65mph on the highway. Current motor is about 315hp/410lb-ft, so in a 4500lb truck it's no slouch either.

The next motor I'm building for it should get ever better mileage while hopefully getting close to the 400hp/450lb-ft mark. (351w, full-roller valve train, higher compression, better heads, closer tolerances, etc.)

My point of all this is it is possible to have you cake and eat it too (mpg + hp), except for the whole problem of emissions. I often wonder what the net difference in pollution would be from having vehicles that get much better mpg but pollute more (think economy cars of the 90's) vs cars that get poorer mpg but are cleaner (economy cars of today).


As for the whole debate about mpg in diesel trucks, I'm in the 'extra mpg don't come close to paying for the darn thing' camp. Even for my business where I like to buy new equipment, I wouldn't even consider buying a new truck. IMO the usefulness, longevity and serviceability has been going down hill in light trucks over the past decade or so. The 10K truck that is a few years old is going to make me just as much money as the new 40k truck, and without the overhead.

 

[Deere40Fan]

I just drove to Branson, MO over the 4th of July. On the way home, I averaged 19.3 with my 2011 Silverado. Pretty respectable since about half of the 450 miles I was pulling our 16' utility trailer.

Most of the driving was highway through MO at 65-70. Must have been a sweet spot in the engine because I can not average that at 75-77 mph.

 

[JESSE1]

Even with the emissions hardware on these trucks there's no way I'd want to go back to what we drove 30 years ago. My first diesel was a new '82 GMC with the 6.2 diesel. About 130 HP and maybe 250#/ft torque. It got twice the mileage my '79 F-350 w/460 gas engine got but by the time I had it three months it had blown two head gaskets. Traded it for a new '85 Ford F-350 with the 6.9 diesel. It got good mileage but was still low on power. Great engine, though.
If I stay around 60 mph I can get pretty decent mileage in my F-450's 6.4 diesel considering it weighs over 9,000#. These trucks have the aerodynamics of a brick so the faster you go the more fuel they'll suck down. I do like having 350 hp and 650 #/ft torque, pulls a trailer like it's not back there.

 

[RobertN]

I do not think that is correct, at least not completely. Yes, the clean air emissions get mandated here in California, but because we need them in many area's. Some area's, like the greater Los Angeles area, have greatly benefited. Same with Sacramento; I live east of there. I can not imagine the air quality if not for aggressive emission control. I was born and grew up here; the growth in the last 40 years has been major; unfortunately, because it also meant smog.

Many of the populated areas here are in basins; the smog just sits there.

Unfortunately, those emission standards are getting passed to the rest of the country; where you do not have the same geographic issues that amplify the smog problem. Even here in California, you can get in to some pretty backwoods areas that have not need for the standards, but it is a blanket regulation in the state.

As much as I dislike all the extra emission stuff on vehicles, I can not imagine being without it in this region.

So, engines are deliberately mistuned to produce exhaust gas mixtures which are set by a politically motivated academic committee (usually in California). To further the lower fuel economy, an amount of unburned fuel must be passed downstream to heat the catalytic converter elements, These elements catalyze (break down) nitrogen and carbon residues into legally limited exhaust levels.

 

[RobertN]

Problem is, most people do not keep their vehicles in a highly tuned condition. I have seen a couple examples of Jeeps with smog equipment removed, cammed, carbed, headered, that ran really really clean. But, they would not meet smog because the equipment was mandated.

When my Dad had the '70 CJ5, it had a factory Buick V6. He removed the smog stuff. Added an Offy 4bbl intake, cam, Hooker headers, and a few other things. The carb had been jetted ect so it ran sweet. It ran GOOD! That little 225ci V6 really came to life. And, on the smog machine, came out really clean. But... regs required the smog pump ect...

If everyone kept their cars/trucks tuned like my Dad kept the Jeep, a lot of our smog issues would not be there. Problem is, most people dont take care like that.

My point of all this is it is possible to have you cake and eat it too (mpg + hp), except for the whole problem of emissions. I often wonder what the net difference in pollution would be from having vehicles that get much better mpg but pollute more (think economy cars of the 90's) vs cars that get poorer mpg but are cleaner (economy cars of today).

 

[schmism]

heres what i dont get.

My 2001 E350 pulling 8k lbs (20' equipment trailer with tractor and additional stuff) gets 10mpg at 65 mph. It gets 12mpg with 3K behind it and 15 or so empty.

So my "empty" van that weights say 5K lbs pulling another 8K lbs ... lets ball park that at 15K lbs. GCVW... at 10mpg

now step up to the big boys.... Modern semi get 5-7 mpg at 80K lbs

so if you scale my 15k lbs over 10mpg up to 80k lbs it would be....(carry the 2) 1.8 mpg ?!?!

or look at it the other way.... if the semi gets 7mpg at 80K lbs then i why cant i get 37.3 mpg in my 15K truck?

something ant right in denmark when an 80K lb truck can get 2/3 the gas millage our little trucks get....