Not sure if the lie-o-meter is correct or not, but I did a local highway trip (115 miles) 95% highway and averaged 22 mpg for the trip. I regen'd twice and the avg. was still 22 mpg! Couldn't be happier with those results. No babying, I drove normally. Now that I'm back in my usual driving area, the avg. mpg has dropped to 19. Overall since day one is 16.8 which I think is respectable for a truck of this girth. Truck I have is an F250 CC/SB 4x4 FX4 with 20s and 3.55s. It's loaded to the gills and has a little over 5K miles on it.

 

Very respectable fuel milage especially with all the emmissions equipment on these trucks.

Now imagine what the fuel economy could be without the emmissions equipment!

 

I wonder how much difference it would actually make. The 6.7 runs so clean with so much power, the question becomes ; how many BTU's remain in the fuel to increase economy? Eliminating regenerations may help some but they are almost unnoticeable to the driver now.

Just thinking...

 

Massive EGR, Regens, Soot collecting dpf all adds up to reduce fuel economy no matter how you slice it. As the vehicle gets more age and miles the dpf will not be as efficient to pass exhaust which will command more regens further reducing the fuel economy.

Look at the 6.4's with their miserable fuel economy and remove the egr and dpf and you get major fuel economy improvements.

 

But the 6.4L don't have any passive regens. Each regen is a fully active regen with all 8 injectors pumping fuel.

I rarely see a regen, so I assume most of my regens are passive. And even when the 6.7L regens. Its only with half of it's injectors. ( don't know what the total fuel consumption of using 8 vs 4 injectors)

I gotta believe this version 2.0 of diesel emmission is far more efficent than what is installed on the 6.4L And the next generation will be even better
as the engineers get bright ideas of how to improve.

 

I agree.

My 6.7 is averaging 10% better on overall mileage than my 6.0 did, and on straight highway driving, the 6.7 can do 20% better than I ever got with the 6.0. And the 6.7 truck is 500 lbs heavier than the 6.0 truck was.

It's a memory test to compare the 7.3 I had to those numbers, but I don't remember it doing more than maybe 19 MPG at best, and nowhere near the power of the 6.7 regardless of whatever the MPG was.

Besides, I'm tired of noise and black smoke. If I wanted those, I'd have gotten a Dodge.


Joe

 

Every time I see the CEF message pop up I switch the display to Average MPG,
and watch it drop.

 

made a turnpike drive last night on the way home from a tobey keith concert and the truck said i was getting 19.1 mpg. i got a 250 6.7 with 3.55's and thats the best mpg i have seen. usually around local driving im seeing 14.2. i wonder why i am not seeing the mpg numbers that you all are seeing?

 

Your numbers are more realistic with what I have seen. Your are only going to see 22mpg not stopping and going , downhill with a tailwind. lol

 

Just a thought, yes, you can get 20 or even 22 mpg for a little while with these trucks. But it's impossible to sustain that in normal driving. Reality is that current technology is not generally available to get that kind of efficiency out the system. At some point the truck is going to go faster, push against a headwind, tow a trailer and all those things require energy to get moving and will decrease total mileage.

A few of us have posted real life mileage totals in this thread.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...15k-miles.html

 

Yep.

I've managed to maintain over 20 MPG (highest, 21.1) for a couple of hundred miles three times, but only with light to moderate loads in the truck and under ideal no-wind conditions (or maybe a slight a tailwind). Best on a long highway trip, including crossing three 4000+ foot mountain passes, was 19.7 overall, on an 800 mile run. 18 to 19 MPG on an all-highway trip is more typical. 16/17-ish, if into headwind or crosswind.

Could be other factors involved, but I seem to get slightly better mileage with 500 to 1000 lbs of cargo in the truck as opposed to completely empty (nicer ride too).

Joe