I know how you feel, you'd think with the 'advances' our trucks would be pretty solid in the 20's by now (mpg i mean). Heck there were some chevy trucks in the 90's that were actually EPA rated in the low 20's (I think they were the 6.2 diesle maybe, i'd have to look it up). Its ashame that we cant even match the 90's currently. BUT... the trucks today are about 50% larger, heavier, more powerful, and pretty much all the ratings for payload and towing are way up. On top of that with the diesels they are really craking down on the emissions, I guess you could say its like back in the 70's with the gassers almost. As I recall there were a few model 460 big blocks rated all the way down under like 150 horse power due to the big emisions crunch back in the 70's... we should be thanksfull that at least the trucks today are at their peak capability wise. they just need to get out of the stupid power race and start working on economy a little more.

 

I don't have real numbers for 3 valve engines, but on 2 valve engines the V-10 gets better mileage not towing and empty than a 5.4L. I know several folks who have both and the V-10's with 2 valves seem to get arount 14 mpg (US) on the highway empty. The 5.4L guys tend to get 12.5 empty on the highway. All have E/C and 4X4 automatics and F250's. I do know a couple of guys with the 6.4L engine and they say they are getting 14.5-15 MPG highway empty.

 

Before I lifted my 05 f250 v10 crew cab 8' bed fully loaded=option wise (ref for weight size) I was getting about 13 mpg highway. Now I am getting 8mpg but that's mostly just around town driving haven't done any real highway miles since the lift.

 

Just yesterday I ran from Austin to San Antonio and back (200 mile round trip) in an unloaded V10 4x4 Crew Cab and got 13.7MPG. I was averaging about 70 mph the entire way.

 

according to the handy dany mpg function on the dash i get around 15 on the highway empty and around 10 with 4k of trailor behind me thats with the 5.4 and 373's

 

This is what would fall under wrong calculations that I mentioned in my reply to your post in the K&N thread. The computer cannot be trusted for accurate mpg calculations.

Compare it's calculations to your own, if you add a tuner to your vehicle, you can't trust your computer from then on out for mpg calculations. You have a small chance that the computer and your calculations are going to be close enough(or the same) with a stock truck, change the stock truck configuration, especially fueling tables and it's not going to be correct.

I should be getting 22mpg according to my truck's computer and I actually get anywhere from 13-16mpg.

 

i completely understand that the computer cant be fully trusted never seen one that could i dont bother to check my mileage from fill up to fill up cause i dont really care as far as the whol;e filter deal i think what is trying to be uncovered is wether or not its worth it in the lond run to use the k&n

 

Thanks again for all the info.

I might be better off going V10 as opposed to the 5.4 for my highway driving.

 

2005 F250 XLT 4x4 5.4 V8 SuperCab Short Bed, 3.73 rear, 5 speed auto and I get 13.5 mpg mixed driving.

 

Tex, don't be ****.

 

If the person working the software knows what they're doing,then it can be trusted to be accurate. My fuel economy meter is within .5 mpg on every fillup no matter the driving.
JL

 

That's a pretty big if and one that I don't think the majority of the tuned population(atleast 51%) would be that lucky to have happen. The reason being is that I'm willing to bet that the majority of the tuned population doesn't have custom tuned vehicles. I see far more off-the-shelf tuner then I do ones for custom tunes. Unless the gas tuning world is all that much different then diesel, I would also be a little shaky as to how much they are actually able to get into that part of the computer. Even with PT DIAG I can only go so far within the computer and that program allows me to tune the ECM, TCM, and FICM of any Ford vehicle.


Doing what I do as served me well for many years. Yes it has "annoyed" many people, but by being "****"(as you put it) and nit-picking, it has kept me from making decisions that would have cost me quite a bit. It's not a habit that I'm eager to break either because of that.

"You" wouldn't believe the flaws that you find in people's arguments if you were to start picking them apart and those flaws might actually be big enough to keep you from swaying over to that decision and what doing that entails.

 

The actual parameter to adjust the calculation for the fuel economy meter is known by reputable tuners,and is easily adjusted. So-are you using a Cardaq for your tuning?
JL

 

Yes and no, the base software is based off of that, but it isn't specifically the cardaq.

 

Ok,then you're using the USB based MCS1?
JL