Ford Chevy and Dodge MPG
#46
09-20-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally Posted by blazeone
Don't baby it too much or you'll produce a weak motor. All engines and diesels especially need to have a good load put on them to seat the rings properly.
The book says no loads for the first 500.
You're saying do the oposite?
I'm just doing a standard break in.
#47
09-20-2007, 09:15 AM
#48
09-20-2007, 09:36 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Central Massachusetts
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal preference. I always just brought a new motor though the rpms trying not to keep it steady for the 1'st few hundred, then put it through the paces after that. When I use to race 2 stroke snowmobiles in the mid 70's had a Free air Snojet with a Yam. motor. Once I changed rings after a 1st heat because my compression was down a little. Next heat it ran pretty good. by the time I got to the final the rings were seated and won the race. Yamaha said to run the motor at 7800rpms tops. I use to run it at 9,000 rpms. I did have to change rings about every few weeks. Could change rings in about 45 minutes. Those were the days, have a stack of used rings and pistons in my toolbox now.
#49
09-20-2007, 10:15 AM
#50
09-20-2007, 05:00 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasfaa
Northland, the 450 definitely gets bad mileage but you are in flat country (IOWA). Throw some mountain passes and a few other things along with the weight and you could be getting as low as 5 mpg real quick. The worst part is with all of the engineering the mileage keeps dropping from Ford. First the 7.3, great motor. Then the 6.0, gets more power with a few modifications including better headbolts for the headgasket problem. Now we have a 6.4 liter motor that dropped the mileage even more and has less power and worse fuel mileage than a tuned 6.0. I also did not buy this thing for fuel mileage but it is dissappointing that the mileage keeps decreasing with each new vehicle while the other manufacturers seem to at least sustain their mileage.
I had heard that the 450 was de-tuned compared to the 350. Do you have any opinion on that?
I had heard that the 450 was de-tuned compared to the 350. Do you have any opinion on that?
#51
09-20-2007, 07:27 PM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasfaa
Northland, the 450 definitely gets bad mileage but you are in flat country (IOWA). Throw some mountain passes and a few other things along with the weight and you could be getting as low as 5 mpg real quick. The worst part is with all of the engineering the mileage keeps dropping from Ford. First the 7.3, great motor. Then the 6.0, gets more power with a few modifications including better headbolts for the headgasket problem. Now we have a 6.4 liter motor that dropped the mileage even more and has less power and worse fuel mileage than a tuned 6.0. I also did not buy this thing for fuel mileage but it is dissappointing that the mileage keeps decreasing with each new vehicle while the other manufacturers seem to at least sustain their mileage.
I had heard that the 450 was de-tuned compared to the 350. Do you have any opinion on that?
I had heard that the 450 was de-tuned compared to the 350. Do you have any opinion on that?
The F450 has the same power ratings as any F350/250 unless you select 4.88 rearend with a manual tranny.Then it has 300hp/600tq. All manufacturers have dropped some mpg because of the new emissions.(regen cycle etc.) I was pumping fuel the other day and a new duramax (LLM)pulled up next to me. We started talkin and he claimed he was getting 24 mpg. I almost laughed. I new what I was dealing with so I didnt really say much else to him. You must be talkin to this guys like this if you think mpg by other manufacturers has not dropped because of emission controls.
#52
09-20-2007, 07:48 PM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bf250
i think all the mpg threads just shows there is a big market out there for those who want a full size truck and good mpg.
relating that more, not everyone who wants a full size wants it to pull 10k pounds, some just like trucks (like me), others may just haul things or use it to have things in the back.
so it would be nice is ford responded to this by having a full size truck with a higher mpg, lower power diesel in it. it would be cool if they offered 2 versions of a diesel in the superduty, 1 that is for pulling and one that is weaker on the power but got higher mpg. that being said with just me thinking mpg is directly related to power.
relating that more, not everyone who wants a full size wants it to pull 10k pounds, some just like trucks (like me), others may just haul things or use it to have things in the back.
so it would be nice is ford responded to this by having a full size truck with a higher mpg, lower power diesel in it. it would be cool if they offered 2 versions of a diesel in the superduty, 1 that is for pulling and one that is weaker on the power but got higher mpg. that being said with just me thinking mpg is directly related to power.
Agree yes and no. Yes some people just like trucks and what good mpg. That is what the diesel powered f150 will be for in 2009.And no they should not offer a economy diesel in the superduty. The name says it all SUPERDUTY. Plus the truck is just to heavy for economy. The f150 diesel will be there answer. It will get better mpg than the superduty but it was not designed specifically for this reason. Designed more for people who want a diesel truck but not as big.
#53
09-20-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by kimminau2
I would agree, for the first 500 miles. After that start giving it a good workout. I have owned alot of vehicles and trucks and it seems that the ones that were broken in soft, were always soft and tended to have more problems later on. Just my .02.
#54
09-20-2007, 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by Fordsonly
The F450 has the same power ratings as any F350/250 unless you select 4.88 rearend with a manual tranny.Then it has 300hp/600tq. All manufacturers have dropped some mpg because of the new emissions.(regen cycle etc.) I was pumping fuel the other day and a new duramax (LLM)pulled up next to me. We started talkin and he claimed he was getting 24 mpg. I almost laughed. I new what I was dealing with so I didnt really say much else to him. You must be talkin to this guys like this if you think mpg by other manufacturers has not dropped because of emission controls.
#56
09-21-2007, 11:26 AM
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sacramento Ca
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#57
09-21-2007, 11:42 AM
Agreed...if you can't afford fuel to drive full sized truck get something smaller with better mileage. I've got 08 F250 PSD CC and am only getting 10.3 mpg hand calculated, not very impressive for a PSD but the power is...impressive. Traded in 97 PSD which regularly got 16-18 mpg. I've been reading threads here which mention reflashing the computor with factory update. I'm hoping this helps with the mileage, has anyone had this done and does it help at all?
Dan
Dan
#58
09-21-2007, 11:54 AM
Mountain Pass
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for Yamaha Motor and the Japanese engineers have us break in a new engine at 30 miles at under 30mph before testing is done..
Originally Posted by Mike SVOR
Most motorcycles say not to take the engine past a certain rpm the first few hours, then not past a certain rpm the next so many miles, and so on. So they like to see rpms limited the first few hours of use.
#59
09-21-2007, 12:05 PM
