When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
going to buy a new pickmup and was considering gas. since i'll be towing at some point figured why take the chance and i am seriously looking at the diesel in the F250. i see mpg posted in various forums but would ask those of you with 6.0's to let me know your real life experience, city, highway, towing. Really, really appreciate your thoughts on if you'd do it again. THANKS!
Last edited by Nighthawk; May 27, 2004 at 02:55 PM.
Pulling over 19k total (truck and trailer) over 11.5k passes.......4 times on one trip.
I averaged 9.1.......just fine for me. I run 75 on the flats and the trailer has a huge frontal area.
Miles of open space in he southwest.
Had a v-10 pulling 1.8k smaller trailer.........it averaged (over the time I towed with it) 4.9 mpg.
It sucked, and had no HP compared to the 6.0
I have averaged 11.9 when the cruse is on and I am not pushing…………….but what fun is that.
At 68 it will get 12.3, just takes for ever to get somewhere when the speed limit is 75
I know it is not supposed to matter to any turbo motor………altitude that is…….but I live at 5995 and yes I see better MPG at sea livel than at 6k.
around town i average about 13-14 and on highway i average about 16.5-17.5 at 73-78 mph. if i set the cruise on 60 on flat ground i will get 21+..hope this can help...btw this is all hand calculated although my overhead is surprisingly accurate...within .5 mpg.
Driving at 4,500 ft elevation, I average 15.5 to 16.5 mpg combined city & hwy. With studded winter snow tires it drops to 14-15 mpg. On summer roadtrips travelling 75-85 mph I average 18.5 to 19.8 mpg, even in 100 degree plus temps. Pulling a 7,500 lb load (boat & trailer) average 12.5-14.5 mpg with the wind being a big factor since my boat is not very aerodynamic! The 03 F250 CC 6.0 Auto has 28,900 miles. Hope this info helps.
04w04engineF350 4x4 cab&chassis dual r w w/9ft flat bed w one cross body toolbox. 3:73 rear, 6 speed manual.
Empty- 15.5-17.5mixed driving(have gotten 18 once recently)-seems to be rising(I'm at about 10,000mi). I have kept meticulous records with almost every tank since purchase. Have gotten 15mpg with 100 miles under load of 300 mi. driven towing 10,000 lbs round bales of hay in hilly terrain(300 miles from top off to top off with 100miles under load)- the cab and chassis comes with a 39 gallon tank and has over a 600 mi. range) Lowest I have gotten with mostly loaded miles-same load as above has been 13+.
Note to Tim: I had a CAC tube blow off at 7,000 mi. They towed it in, kept it for ten days and flashed the motor after replacing the tube and clamps. Might add after I asked both mechanic who was working on the truck and the service manager not to. So far (2,000 mi) the fuel mileage has not declined. Was told the proverbial "FMC said we had to do it". This was a minor problem.
I love the truck. It has enough power and torque so that it literally doesn't seem to recognize when the ac is on-no difference in mileage, and it doesn't seem to recognize it is pulling anything till you get over a 5,000 lb trailer load. It will pull most "decent grade" primary mountainous highways in overdrive with that kind of load. Hope this helps
I know it is not supposed to matter to any turbo motor………altitude that is…….but I live at 5995 and yes I see better MPG at sea livel than at 6k.
It isn't that altitude does not matter for a turbocharged engine... The deal is that turbocharged engines just are not affected as badly to high altitude as a N/A counterpart is.
I have raced turbo's and N/A's at 4000 plus feet. Both definitely lack power. The N/A engine feel like your running minus a cylinder or two. The turbo, where not near as bad, still lacks a noticeable and considerable amout of power.
To the topic at hand, I get 13 mpg in the city, no matter how light or hard I drive it. Most of my city driving is trips of 5 miles or less. On the highway, empty, I get 15 mpg @ 75mph+. I have no data for speeds slower than that. Pulling an open car trailer, 5500#, I get 13 mpg @ 75 mph+. Same trailer @ 65-70 mph, I get 14 mpg. Pulling a 30' eclosed trailer, 12000#, I get 7.5 mpg @ 75 mph+. Same trailer at 65-70 mph, 8.5 mpg.
Tim my bobcat and tralier weigh around 9-11K lbs total. It just depends on what attachments I am hauling around.
Other than the aero dynamic properties of a shoe-box (see gallery) we are very close to weighing the same. Our MPG is close also.
Do you fell it is acceptable MPG?
It isn't that altitude does not matter for a turbocharged engine... The deal is that turbocharged engines just are not affected as badly to high altitude as a N/A counterpart is.
I have raced turbo's and N/A's at 4000 plus feet. Both definitely lack power. The N/A engine feel like your running minus a cylinder or two. The turbo, where not near as bad, still lacks a noticeable and considerable amout of power.
To the topic at hand, I get 13 mpg in the city, no matter how light or hard I drive it. Most of my city driving is trips of 5 miles or less. On the highway, empty, I get 15 mpg @ 75mph+. I have no data for speeds slower than that. Pulling an open car trailer, 5500#, I get 13 mpg @ 75 mph+. Same trailer @ 65-70 mph, I get 14 mpg. Pulling a 30' eclosed trailer, 12000#, I get 7.5 mpg @ 75 mph+. Same trailer at 65-70 mph, 8.5 mpg.
OUTSTANDING data..........real world stuff.
Supports my own finding of speed = a bit more out of the o-fuel tank!!!
Same question...Do you fell it is acceptable MPG?
No BS about what the salesperson said...just your thoughts
Tim I do think the mpgs are acceptable becuase those figures are with a heavy right foot. I wish my 02 5.4L would get these mpgs and have the power that these trucks have. I know I would get better mpgs if I was easier on the right foot but what fun is that.
In the real world and given that I have NEVER been able to get the minimum EPA range out of any vehicle I have ever driven, I would say yes, it is acceptable. It is definitely on the lower side of average with everyone else.
Was I expecting something more when I bought it?
Definitely yes. I was really looking for the upper teens to low 20's, empty on the highway. But I know now that it was probably an unrealistic expectation, especially given my driving style. So there was a little bit of disappointment there at first, but I quickly got over it.
The bottom line is that it is a great truck, with boo-koo's of power, that doesn't even hardly flinch when pulling 12000# up a 6% grade. I have come to the realization that the fuel economy is what it is. No amout of complaining or whining is going to change it. So, you can either live with it or get rid of it. I love my truck, fuel economy in all.
Thank you both for your honesty, I too believe it is acceptable. Yes we always want more………..but HP/TQ comes at a cost and that is fuel. Mine climbing a10% grade did accelerate to the point of disaster If I would have stayed in it. It is truly unbelievable how good these trucks pull. A friend has a chipped, piped, 7.3 and he cannot even being to do what mine does.
So many are complaining about MPG, these are 7k trucks with big HP/TQ numbers, only way to get there is through the use of fuel.
By the way mine has once, (only drove it once withour the trailer) and at 68MPH received 20.1
My foot was not part of that, I was using the cruse control.
Just finished a 400 mile trip last week.. First one.. Drove like a 4 ton Lexus!! Unloaded, 78 mph most of the way with 'little' round town driving, and about an hour with A/C on.. Bit of a headwind on the way, calm on the way back.. I got 17MPG..Not bad, but if I had gotten 18 or better, I'd been a bit happier!! It's never enough!! I'm going to do the same trip next week with the Predator at 65HP tune to see if/and how much of an improvement it makes..
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.