Disappointed in MPG of my 6.4L
#121
03-15-2007, 04:17 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#122
03-15-2007, 04:17 PM
#123
03-15-2007, 04:24 PM
#124
03-15-2007, 04:40 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Columbia County. Pa
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enorma.......Understood, but at 80! come on.......even with 3:73's your taching about 25-2600 rpm and slightly out of the rpms typical of good fuel economy.
All I'm saying is with out all the information, those numbers do not make sense, something is missing
Better mpg at 65mph vs 35mph quite possibly but doubtful at 80mph, IMO.
All I'm saying is with out all the information, those numbers do not make sense, something is missing
Better mpg at 65mph vs 35mph quite possibly but doubtful at 80mph, IMO.
Last edited by Strut61; 03-15-2007 at 04:44 PM.
#125
03-15-2007, 04:59 PM
Laughing Gas
Originally Posted by BRANDON MORTENSON
Sorry,
No trailer 80 mph 10 mpg
Trailer 80 mph 5.5 mpg
Trailer under 35 mph 5-6mpg
No trailer under 35 7-9mpg
I called Ford's customer service line and they were going to send a tech engineer to Utah to look at my truck. I was just informed that they closed my complaint file because I have 35 in tires on my truck. No engineer will be coming. I have owned 23 Ford trucks 6 6.0, 3 7.3. All of these trucks had 35's on them with 3.73 gears and recalibrated speedo's and they consistantly got 10 w/ a trailer in or out of town and 13 - 16 w/ no trailer in and out of town.
I am extremely disappointed with Ford. Also 6.4 performance in my case is about 80% of what my 6.0's were. I have an 04 6.0 that will runcircles around my 2500 mi 08. If you are thinking of buying an 08, wait and buy a Toyota diesel, the japanese build quality and efficiency, and they care about customers who have bought 23 different trucks from them.
No trailer 80 mph 10 mpg
Trailer 80 mph 5.5 mpg
Trailer under 35 mph 5-6mpg
No trailer under 35 7-9mpg
I called Ford's customer service line and they were going to send a tech engineer to Utah to look at my truck. I was just informed that they closed my complaint file because I have 35 in tires on my truck. No engineer will be coming. I have owned 23 Ford trucks 6 6.0, 3 7.3. All of these trucks had 35's on them with 3.73 gears and recalibrated speedo's and they consistantly got 10 w/ a trailer in or out of town and 13 - 16 w/ no trailer in and out of town.
I am extremely disappointed with Ford. Also 6.4 performance in my case is about 80% of what my 6.0's were. I have an 04 6.0 that will runcircles around my 2500 mi 08. If you are thinking of buying an 08, wait and buy a Toyota diesel, the japanese build quality and efficiency, and they care about customers who have bought 23 different trucks from them.
Good luck. Congradulations on your new truck. I'm sure you will find a dealer that can get this problem resolved for you. You can't be using fuel at that rate unless you have a leak! Can you?
#126
03-15-2007, 07:58 PM
#127
03-15-2007, 08:01 PM
6.7L Cummins is getting the same mileage
#128
03-15-2007, 08:10 PM
#129
03-15-2007, 08:35 PM
It's my misunderstandings that the EPA (four EGRs and DPF) have something to do with it.
#130
03-15-2007, 08:38 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Columbia County. Pa
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah well, the mileage may not be up to what some expect ......especially since no one has enough mileage on one to consider it broken in.
EPA has their fingers in way to deep and we will all continue to reap the rewards of what appears to be lower mileage, performance and increased cost of ownership. But ya know, I'm still happy with my new truck, even with the price tag.
My previous 1999 7.3, crew, 4x4, long didn't due much better. My truck before that was a 95 with a 302 that sucked fuel....prior to that I had an 88 with a 302 and it to sucked and my 79 with a 400 was worse yet. Point is, NONE of my prior trucks is half the vehicle this one is, weigh near as much or had even close to the same capabilities.
I'll reserve judgement on the 6.4's mileage potential until such time I hear factual reports from someone with 50k+ miles on one.
EPA has their fingers in way to deep and we will all continue to reap the rewards of what appears to be lower mileage, performance and increased cost of ownership. But ya know, I'm still happy with my new truck, even with the price tag.
My previous 1999 7.3, crew, 4x4, long didn't due much better. My truck before that was a 95 with a 302 that sucked fuel....prior to that I had an 88 with a 302 and it to sucked and my 79 with a 400 was worse yet. Point is, NONE of my prior trucks is half the vehicle this one is, weigh near as much or had even close to the same capabilities.
I'll reserve judgement on the 6.4's mileage potential until such time I hear factual reports from someone with 50k+ miles on one.
#131
03-15-2007, 08:57 PM
Yeah well, the mileage may not be up to what some expect ......especially since no one has enough mileage on one to consider it broken in.
EPA has their fingers in way to deep and we will all continue to reap the rewards of what appears to be lower mileage, performance and increased cost of ownership. But ya know, I'm still happy with my new truck, even with the price tag.
My previous 1999 7.3, crew, 4x4, long didn't due much better. My truck before that was a 95 with a 302 that sucked fuel....prior to that I had an 88 with a 302 and it to sucked and my 79 with a 400 was worse yet. Point is, NONE of my prior trucks is half the vehicle this one is, weigh near as much or had even close to the same capabilities.
I'll reserve judgement on the 6.4's mileage potential until such time I hear factual reports from someone with 50k+ miles on one.
EPA has their fingers in way to deep and we will all continue to reap the rewards of what appears to be lower mileage, performance and increased cost of ownership. But ya know, I'm still happy with my new truck, even with the price tag.
My previous 1999 7.3, crew, 4x4, long didn't due much better. My truck before that was a 95 with a 302 that sucked fuel....prior to that I had an 88 with a 302 and it to sucked and my 79 with a 400 was worse yet. Point is, NONE of my prior trucks is half the vehicle this one is, weigh near as much or had even close to the same capabilities.
I'll reserve judgement on the 6.4's mileage potential until such time I hear factual reports from someone with 50k+ miles on one.
All true - especially about the 302 - they should have never put that thing in a truck in the first place (my 86 f150 has one). I am curious to find out what sort of change there would be in fuel economy as these trucks age. But I remember a similar thead a while back about the 6.0L. 19 mpg was what some owners were claiming 500 miles from the show room floor. But that was likely a lighter truck and it had less of the emission controls that the 6.4L has been burdened with. I guess time will tell.
#132
03-15-2007, 09:58 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: tukwila
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#133
03-15-2007, 10:50 PM
My 08 is a crew cab short with 3.73ls. My frustration is simply that this truck doesn't perform or get the mpg that any of my 6.0's had. I replace my truck every year at 25-30K miles because I use it for work and as the family hauler. I have never had good luck with Fords out of warranty and I do enjoy the tax benefits of trading yearly. My trucks are immaculate when I trade them and I don't beat them.(unless you think towing a 7000 pound trailer at 80 is abuse.)
The trailers I tow both weigh 7K loaded, both are enclosed Wells Cargo tandem axles. One is a v nose 27' , the other is a square front(w/nose cone).
I'm not embellishing the numbers. I spent $730 plus driving from northern utah to las vegas last week. When my 04 had 40 miles on it I pulled this trailer to Seattle and got a consistant 10 mpg driving 79.9 miles per hour.LOL
The trailers I tow both weigh 7K loaded, both are enclosed Wells Cargo tandem axles. One is a v nose 27' , the other is a square front(w/nose cone).
I'm not embellishing the numbers. I spent $730 plus driving from northern utah to las vegas last week. When my 04 had 40 miles on it I pulled this trailer to Seattle and got a consistant 10 mpg driving 79.9 miles per hour.LOL
#134
03-15-2007, 11:15 PM
I should also add that I've never seen my mpg increase after so many miles. My 04 Excursion has 46K on it and it has the same size lift and tires as my 08. By the way the 04 got 16.8 the other day on a trip averaging 65 mph. It also has 3.73LS. Turning over trucks at 30K mi prevents me from "breaking in" the diesel. I'm glad to see a dodge man be honest about mpg on a cummins. All my dodge friends swear they get 20 mpg to infinity on theirs. BS. My 03 5.4 Expedition gets 8 mpg and won't go any faster than 70 pulling the 27'. (The square front is an 18')
My yearly bill in depreciation and fuel has been 10-13K. Thanks to my 08 it will be 21K plus. This thing should fly to the moon for that kind of money. Maybe I'm just bitter.
My yearly bill in depreciation and fuel has been 10-13K. Thanks to my 08 it will be 21K plus. This thing should fly to the moon for that kind of money. Maybe I'm just bitter.
#135
03-15-2007, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by socalfurnow
Kiminau - how'd the towing go? Handling, starts, stps etc? 18k is a fair whack to lead down the road.
But back to your question. I love the way it pulls. Even with a 18k lb trailer it pushes you back in the seat when you hit it.