My neighbor recently got an 05 diesel 250 crew cab, long bed 4x4. 4.10 gears. I have, well see my signature.

Anyways, he has a 29 foot toy box. We've both towed it.

Results?

I get about 8mpg towing this trailer.

He gets about 9mpg.

Surprisingly, there wasn't the "Night and Day" difference I was expecting between the 2 in performance.

On top of all that he has stock tires, and I have 35's.

Figure in the cost of fuel, and I'd say the v-10 is the cheaper of the 2 to operate under these circumstances.

Eric

 

I'll get my remarks in before some diesel guys come down to flame I had two 7.3s They were great on fuel. I would always get around 17 mixed driving. I went for an 04 PSD with the 6.0. Right from the get go, the 6.0 was way harder on fuel. The Lariat computer read around 12.4 on the 04 Diesel . Right now the truck in my sig is showing 12.1, same type of driving. Hand calculation shows the 05 computer is very accurate but the PSD was actually getting 13.5 so basically my 6.0 was getting around 1.5 miles better than my V10.
Now you will get people in the 6.0 Forums telling you they are getting twice the mileage of a V10.................in their dreams . When I went from an 1988 F250 with a
460 ( no OD ) to my 95 7.3 PSD with OD , yes my mileage was twice as good but my new 05 V10 moves my monster CC LB 4x4 much quicker than my 460 moved my much smaller 88 F250 and it does it using about 40% less fuel. The V10 is an incredible
motor and many , many, people with the 6.0 PSD are not happy with their mileage.
Yes it is possible there are 6.0s out there that are good on fuel and I suppose there are V10s that burn as much gas as a 460 but I can only give you my own experience.
Every day I own this truck , I like it better and better. I doubt I will ever own another diesel. Wrenchtraveller

 

i'm getting 12.67 on my last 2 tanks at 4000 miles. miles driven div. gals used the old way my larait is the std no meter.

 

etcetera

While I agree with the sentiment of the wrench man and Captain Charlie I have to point out that your friends PSD is sick or brand new...diesels take a long time to break in and get decent mpg figures. Your 8mpg is about average, his 9mpg is very low. While I do not normally defend the PSD in this case I think your assumption may be premature.

On the other hand I do agree that the buy in cost, the added maintenance, and the typically lower than 7.3L mpg averages I don't think the 6.0L is meeting enough gains or benefit just in longevity to warrant an additional $3800 cost.

 

The trailer is large, pretty close to maxing out my GVCW. If I remember we tipped the scales at about 19,000 loaded. Of course he has an 05 so he has quite a bit of breathing room.

His diesel is new, only 8000 miles on it.

The 6.0 and new 3 valve motors both get worse mileage than their earlier counterparts. More power = more fuel without a real technology change. Heck, 150's with the 3v 5.4 aren't beating my numbers by much if any.

The best part is, my other neighbor with a Tundra v8 is getting about 8 mpg towing a 5500 lb trailer. Go figure.

I don't have a trip computer, all my calcs are the old fashined way.

Eric

 

i personally look at the fact. some where we have to pay the piper to have the ability to tow our toys. to me it's the same no matter what motor, gas or diesel or brand. a load is a load.
when i drove my big rig i always thought 4 was good. now some of the guys are getting 6 and 7.
i'm very content with the ability to tow my toys. when and where and hold a speed on hills even pull them. my truck is a ford and i'm very happy with just that.

 

Yes over the years , I have read many magazine articles in trailer life and even the small pickups pulling tiny fifth wheels can get pretty grim mileage.

 

I tow alot with my v10 and also a 7.3psd, 6.0psd (no longer have it), and the 5.9 cummins. I get about 7-8 towing with 6"lift and 35's w/3.73 gears at about 62-65mph, and 12-13 empty at 75. The 7.3 would get about 9.5 towing at 70, and 16 empty at 75. The 6.0, when it was running, would get about 8 towing at 70, and 16 empty at 75. The cummins only has 2000mi, but it got 9 towing a 22,000 pound load at 70, and 16 empty at 78-79. I shoud have a pic of my truck with a load on it in my gallery now. This was a "light" load at about 12-13k.

 

Mathematics and the laws of nature dictate that it takes X-amount of energy to move X-amount of weight X-length. Small motors with big gears need rpm to move X-weight, a 3 liter motor spinning double the rpm of a 6 liter motor will ingest double amount of fuel ? Probably not exactly but the picture is close enough to make the point. There are no free lunches, 20, 18 year old male football players can push a loaded sled up a hill that would take 60, 12 year old girls to do. But they will both consume 60 cheesburgers worth of calories, the boys will eat three each, the girls will eat one each. Our technology is improving the percentage of fuel that is used now, but was previously wasted in the past. Once we get to having perfectly efficient engines, everyone's gas mileage will be exactly the same based on weight, frontal area, engine size and gearing. The whole gas/diesel/ethanol/methanol debate will cease to exist. Then, we will be able to reminisce about the old days with our V-10's that got 10, or 11, or 15 mpg.

 

You forget about the amount of energy that each fuel has. Diesel will always have more BTUs than gasoline and will always burn less to create the same amount of energy as gas.

The engine that has 100% volumeteric effeciency or Brake Means Effective Pressure will perform better with a higher quality (more BTU) fuel.

The debate will never end.

 

Yes, I meant to add the btu of any given fuel into the equation, but got so esoteric and reflective on how lovely society would be when all this came to pass that I was trying to get outside and hug a tree. Hopefully a tree in Lahaina, or better yet Kapalua,

 

While it is true that SOME "grades" of diesel fuel oil have more "Potential" therms per unit (BTU) let us not forget that relatively the ratio of DF2 potential to 87RON is not great.

That said, one must account for all the parasitic drag associated with each engine design and thus arrive at the percent gain.

The Diesel motor is a MUCH heavier motor (BTUs consumed just to move THAT added weight).

By now many of you see where I am going in this.

So I will yield to others thoughts for a moment while I find some real world Thermal examples of motor mass and volumetric efficiency and other predictable principles of physics.

There are many diesel myths out there..... don't forget marketing in you thinking

 

My 05 V10 CC 4x2 is still averaging 12.5 after 2100 miles and some towing a 2k trailer. Haven't towed with a loaded trialer, just an empty trailer. Overall I'm getting about the same as my Lightning that required premium and only got 13 on the highway. No complaints here!

 

The biggest variable in gas mileage on any vehicle is the drivers right foot.

I have camped next to 5vers the SAME size and weight as what I pull and the Diesels maybe get 1 mpg more than I do and when it comes to pulling grades they are no faster than me. I have a friend that has the exact trailer that I have (he looked at my and ordered the same thing) and he has a 7.3 PSD with a chip and big exhaust and we compared notes on interstate 70 through Colorado, he was no faster on the grades and I had better control on the down hill side (he didn't have a exhaust brake).

I learned a loooooong time ago that if you want a truck to pull with it will never be a fuel sipper, but the trucks today compared to 20 years ago they are fuel sippers.

Denny BSEG

 

I've only had my V10 a couple weeks and a couple tanks so far. But I'm happy to report that the first two fill-ups yielded 13.3mpg and 13.7mpg. This is city driving with an empty truck and no trailer. That's comparable to my old '91 F250 351W.