V10 fuel economy, who are we kidding?
#91
10-10-2016, 11:05 AM
#92
08-06-2017, 02:39 PM
#93
08-06-2017, 11:18 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California Desert
Posts: 2,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#94
08-07-2017, 01:13 AM
Tuned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Ventura, Ca
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#95
08-07-2017, 04:01 AM
I didn't think anything (any reasonable thing) got over 30.
#96
08-07-2017, 10:05 AM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California Desert
Posts: 2,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 Mazda 6 touring with the 2.5L. In theory the auto gets even better fuel economy but I got this one specifically for the 6 speed manual. It's no rocket ship off the line but will pull just fine through the entirety of the speedometer sweep. Rides just as smooth at 55 as it does at 85.
#97
08-07-2017, 12:54 PM
Tuned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Ventura, Ca
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 Mazda 6 touring with the 2.5L. In theory the auto gets even better fuel economy but I got this one specifically for the 6 speed manual. It's no rocket ship off the line but will pull just fine through the entirety of the speedometer sweep. Rides just as smooth at 55 as it does at 85.
sounds like my 2012 kia optima. after daily driving my truck up and down the conejo grade I broke down and bought a econo car. the window sticker said 35mpg but I have trouble keeping it under 75 and below 4k rpm through the gears. it's a 6 speed auto. not the quickest but she does haul ***
#98
08-07-2017, 03:06 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California Desert
Posts: 2,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like my 2012 kia optima. after daily driving my truck up and down the conejo grade I broke down and bought a econo car. the window sticker saw 35mpg but I have trouble keeping it under 75 and below 4k rpm through the gears. it's a 6 speed auto. not the quickest but she does haul ***
#99
08-07-2017, 03:42 PM
#100
08-07-2017, 10:34 PM
#101
08-15-2017, 03:13 PM
Tuned
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Ventura, Ca
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also planning on putting 4.88's in my rig. it should get it back close to the stock powerband when it had the 265/75/16 tires and 4.30 gears. it should help mpg a little from what others have reported after doing the swap. Nice looking truck!
#102
09-04-2017, 11:19 AM
My 08 V10 with 4:30 Gears and 35inch Tires gets me a whopping 10 mpg empty, 8mpg Towing Heavy. Had all the diesels, and they all let me down, Love this Truck !!
https://goo.gl/photos/4RWG42uW2PifYivDA
https://goo.gl/photos/4RWG42uW2PifYivDA
#103
09-04-2017, 11:48 PM
Just did 370 miles last week - first time with that long of a drive since buying the truck in March.
Around town I've been averaging 10mpg. On this trip I set the cruise at 66 mph an the truck averaged 12 mpg the first half and 12.5 the second half. No wind to affect things either. Maybe could get another 1 mpg if I was running smaller wheels and tires.
Around town I've been averaging 10mpg. On this trip I set the cruise at 66 mph an the truck averaged 12 mpg the first half and 12.5 the second half. No wind to affect things either. Maybe could get another 1 mpg if I was running smaller wheels and tires.
#104
09-15-2017, 08:38 AM
Junior User
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Rayland,Ohio
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#105
11-27-2019, 02:40 PM
Because people want the "cool" factor of a heavy duty pickup along with the power, want "advertised" half ton fuel economy numbers, and don't want to pay the extra premium for the more fuel efficient diesel motor. So when they traded in their eco boost F150 they expected the same mileage out of the 1 ton V10/V8 truck. 
The went from feeding 6 cylinders to 10 and can't understand that. Then they spout out their anger towards the motor trade it where they owe more than its worth and buy a diesel for better economy. They end up with a higher payment but then again spout off about their awesome fuel economy forgetting they now have a higher payment, generally higher fuel cost, and a few more maintenance items. Likely they are spending the same amount and "saving" nothing. So in the end they get a truck that has more power and fuel economy (which are great things) but truly are not saving a thing. Disclaimer: I have nothing wrong with diesels and may like to own one at some point.
It was a similar thing for that cash for clunkers deal years ago. People got rid of paid off good running vehicles that had sub par mileage for better mpg vehicles with a monthly payment & higher insurance. In terms of "saving", anything, not really. Maybe if they kept that vehicle for 10 years for sure but immediately they added to their liability balance sheet. In terms of using less gasoline they accomplished that but are paying for it with a monthly payment.
Mileage is a concern for me so I've had a few "beaters" as I like to call them that can get me near 30mpg for commuting. 80 miles/day would end of costing me near $600/month in fuel costs. That would be absurd since the truck doesn't pay for itself running to my job. And the cars have cost me anywhere from $300-$1000 so I can make that money up with fuel savings rather quickly. And when one breaks down I still get about 50% of the amount I paid for them to put into the next one. But the truck does earn it's keep pulling a dump trailer in the summer.
I know this is a little off topic but I think it all makes sense when people are talking about saving money. But there are arguments for the other side I'm sure. If you're all about saving money you wouldn't own a truck or anything new anyways as they cost more money...
.
The went from feeding 6 cylinders to 10 and can't understand that. Then they spout out their anger towards the motor trade it where they owe more than its worth and buy a diesel for better economy. They end up with a higher payment but then again spout off about their awesome fuel economy forgetting they now have a higher payment, generally higher fuel cost, and a few more maintenance items. Likely they are spending the same amount and "saving" nothing. So in the end they get a truck that has more power and fuel economy (which are great things) but truly are not saving a thing. Disclaimer: I have nothing wrong with diesels and may like to own one at some point.It was a similar thing for that cash for clunkers deal years ago. People got rid of paid off good running vehicles that had sub par mileage for better mpg vehicles with a monthly payment & higher insurance. In terms of "saving", anything, not really. Maybe if they kept that vehicle for 10 years for sure but immediately they added to their liability balance sheet. In terms of using less gasoline they accomplished that but are paying for it with a monthly payment.
Mileage is a concern for me so I've had a few "beaters" as I like to call them that can get me near 30mpg for commuting. 80 miles/day would end of costing me near $600/month in fuel costs. That would be absurd since the truck doesn't pay for itself running to my job. And the cars have cost me anywhere from $300-$1000 so I can make that money up with fuel savings rather quickly. And when one breaks down I still get about 50% of the amount I paid for them to put into the next one. But the truck does earn it's keep pulling a dump trailer in the summer.
I know this is a little off topic but I think it all makes sense when people are talking about saving money. But there are arguments for the other side I'm sure. If you're all about saving money you wouldn't own a truck or anything new anyways as they cost more money...
.