Todays trucks where is the MPG's

[Highbeam]

You cant compare that old deisel to a new one. That was an engineering nightmare for GM from what i have heard. It was a dog, needed to be turboed just to be decent. And this was basically the 350 made to run on deisel, not a true engineered diesel.

Wrong. The 62. and 6.5 diesel has nothing to do with GM gas engines. It was made for GM by detroit diesel to replace the small blocks. As you say, they are not comparable to today's direct injection and common rail turbo diesels with regards to power or efficiency.

I think they made HP in the low 100s. Just like a 4 cylinder gas car.

 

[JESSE1]

The 5.7 Olds diesel was basically a beefed up gas engine. We had one in a '81 Buick Riviera. 120 hp but would get in the high '20's fuel mileage. Only problem we had was an injector pump, otherwise ran like a sewing machine.

My point is even though these new diesels are computer controlled and heavy on the emissions equipment, they can run rings around the old diesels. It's just been the evolution of diesel technologly which has resulted in much cleaner, high horsepower engines. Unfortunately, fuel mileage is very disappointing but it takes fuel to make horsepower and that's what sells these trucks.

 

[PoorMansCat]

ok... guess I'll throw my .02 in and get change back....
When compared to the older trucks... say early 90's ..... all the manufacturers trucks are getting worse and worse fuel efficiency... One is, as others have clearly stated... the trucks are more powerful... My 89 Dodge Cummins 4x4 was 160 hp... My 06 Cummins is 325-335.... HP isn't free!. Same with the Ford guys, and the GM camp.... THEN, the HP war started..... and its STILL not over.. every time this happens, we pay for it in higher initial costs, higher maintenance costs, and more fuel consumption.
In the last 12 years or so, the big 3 have been catering their diesel pickups more toward "grocery getting fashion statements" rather than for hard work... Most diesel pickups on the road today have a 2" receiver ball stuck in them for pulling a golf cart trailer or bass boat.... Take a peek in the bed and find no GN hitch or 5er hitch!!..
With that being said, these same people that bought them and didnt need them are the same ones that also complained that the "engine rattles too much" and "it doesnt take off fast like my old truck" etc..etc..etc..
So, now we are left with tin can body panels to reduce weight, touchy throttles so we can be the FIRST ones to the next red-light, sound suppression diapers for the engine, and more options than a european luxury sedan...
So, in the middle of all that, we also have several sets of mandated on-highway diesel emissions standards that are enacted.... I think one set was in the late 90's, then again in 2004-2005 maybe, then again in 2010-2011...
IMHO, it would make more sense to ease back on the on-highway diesel emissions to somewehere around the 2004-2005 standards... give up a slight amount of stack emissions to gain a substancial MPG #..... We have a 1992 Ford diesel in the family and while I love the truck, it has always fuel smoked WAY more than my 06 Dodge, but the FE #'s are similar... why did we feel the need to go to 2010 emissions where the trucks burn twice the fuel to do the same work... I drive a 2011 service truck and the fuel mileage is absolutely un-acceptable..
In Europe, they are slightly more leinient on the CBD autos since they are capable of 50 MPG...
ok, i'll put my soapbox back in the shed!!!

 

[not2old]

The 5.7 Olds diesel was basically a beefed up gas engine. We had one in a '81 Buick Riviera. 120 hp but would get in the high '20's fuel mileage. Only problem we had was an injector pump, otherwise ran like a sewing machine.

My point is even though these new diesels are computer controlled and heavy on the emissions equipment, they can run rings around the old diesels. It's just been the evolution of diesel technologly which has resulted in much cleaner, high horsepower engines. Unfortunately, fuel mileage is very disappointing but it takes fuel to make horsepower and that's what sells these trucks.

I had one of these motors in an Eldorado. When the head gaskets let go for the second time in less than a year, I converted to gas. Best thing I ever did to that car.

 

[Fordman1981]

Ok lots of good points have been made but back to my original point I can run my 71 f350 that gets 1 mph less than my work truck 08 6.4 for a long long time before I equal out to the cost of that 60000 dollar beast heck that work truck cost as much as my 28 acres. You guys that like the new trucks can keep the auto makers fat and happy I won't give the a penny till I see a truck worth my hard earned money and there's not a new one on the road worthy of that right now.

 

[Hersheyfarm]

Ok lots of good points have been made but back to my original point I can run my 71 f350 that gets 1 mph less than my work truck 08 6.4 for a long long time before I equal out to the cost of that 60000 dollar beast heck that work truck cost as much as my 28 acres. You guys that like the new trucks can keep the auto makers fat and happy I won't give the a penny till I see a truck worth my hard earned money and there's not a new one on the road worthy of that right now.

Well...good for you. But there is a reason 'your' work truck is an 08. You have the luxury of putting miles on something you don't have to pay for. When you put 50-75k a year on the clock you have no choice but to spoon feed money out for expenses. I still have my first diesel retired here to the farm, 97 7.3. I like that truck but it in no way can keep together to run a business.

 

[redprospector]

Well...good for you. But there is a reason 'your' work truck is an 08. You have the luxury of putting miles on something you don't have to pay for. When you put 50-75k a year on the clock you have no choice but to spoon feed money out for expenses. I still have my first diesel retired here to the farm, 97 7.3. I like that truck but it in no way can keep together to run a business.

That's not necessicarily the case either. It's a personal decision.
I've got a 1998 Dodge 3500 4x4 CTD that is my main truck, and yes I am running a business, and it holds together. Yep, I've got to spend some money on maintenance, & repairs. But it's still cheaper than buying a new one.
But I'm one of those guy's that run's a 1973 JD skidder, a 1994 Chipper, and I just bought a 2005 model Fecon to take up the slack for a 2011 Terex that can't seem to stay out of the shop.
Like I said, it's a personal decision. Personally, I'd rather pay the parts guy's, and mechanics than the manufacturers.

Andy

 

[Hersheyfarm]

That's not necessicarily the case either. It's a personal decision.
I've got a 1998 Dodge 3500 4x4 CTD that is my main truck, and yes I am running a business, and it holds together. Yep, I've got to spend some money on maintenance, & repairs. But it's still cheaper than buying a new one.
But I'm one of those guy's that run's a 1973 JD skidder, a 1994 Chipper, and I just bought a 2005 model Fecon to take up the slack for a 2011 Terex that can't seem to stay out of the shop.
Like I said, it's a personal decision. Personally, I'd rather pay the parts guy's, and mechanics than the manufacturers.

Andy

1998 - 2011 = 23 years x 50k miles/year = 1.15 million miles. Lot of parts. Sometimes people and companies have no choice but to pay the man and run what's available.

 

[Fordman1981]

If allot less of us paid "the man" the auto makers might have to start making quality trucks again

 

[clemsonfor]

1998 - 2011 = 23 years x 50k miles/year = 1.15 million miles. Lot of parts. Sometimes people and companies have no choice but to pay the man and run what's available.

You could always buy a used one and not feed the manufacture and save a few K$. Buy one with 100K run it 3 years then sell it, buy one with 35K on it save 10 grand off new run it 4 years then sell it. you dont have to but a $60k truck every 4 years.