found this when looking for something else
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
From: Hewitt, Minnesota
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,085
Likes: 6
From: Lakewood, Ca.
To quote the link: "Fuel economy is directly related to vehicle fueling costs".
Hmmm. Pretty profound. Fuel costs twice as much now as it did in 1999 when the data for this article data was collected, so it's no suprise that fuel economy is down, like you said. Do you think we that don't "need our trucks" should be forced to get rid of them in the interest of fuel economy? Should we eliminate leather seats and chrome and comfort features, which you seem to detest so much?
Hmmm. Pretty profound. Fuel costs twice as much now as it did in 1999 when the data for this article data was collected, so it's no suprise that fuel economy is down, like you said. Do you think we that don't "need our trucks" should be forced to get rid of them in the interest of fuel economy? Should we eliminate leather seats and chrome and comfort features, which you seem to detest so much?
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 787
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by Old Rust Bucket
Should come as no surprise that fuel economy is dropping. When you start putting on all these comfort features it has to get their power from somewhere.
Gas mileage is far better today on any truck. Way better than in the 1960's/1980's when the trucks were shaped like bricks.
Aerodynamics, lighter weight materials, and EFI have made a major difference today.
Ford's bread and butter for the last decade has been their F150 pickup, but if Ford only had customers like you that think all trucks should be stick/sixes with armstrong steering, drum brakes, and a heater, Ford wooda gone bankrupt years ago.
You are entitled to your opinion, but personally, I don't give a good G.D. about it!
Last edited by NumberDummy; Oct 31, 2007 at 03:53 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
From: Hewitt, Minnesota
I had the chance to read the article further. I found it interesting that according to the article vehcile under 8,500KLBS achieved there greatest fuel economy in 87 and the economy has gone done since then.
NumberDummy I have to disaggree.
My 83 got 19.25MPG, My 89 is lucky to get 15MPG. Same truck, Same engine and both 2WD. As I said all these comfort features have to get power form somewhere. I'll add to that by noting that they also add weight. My 89 is 300LBS heavier then my 83 was.
As far as gas mileage, it's cheaper then running the 1555 and burning 5 gallons an hour.
SteveBricks, Anyone who owns a truck be it out of want or need should have an interest increasing the mileage there of, If for no other reason then to thicken one's own pocket book.
NumberDummy I have to disaggree.
My 83 got 19.25MPG, My 89 is lucky to get 15MPG. Same truck, Same engine and both 2WD. As I said all these comfort features have to get power form somewhere. I'll add to that by noting that they also add weight. My 89 is 300LBS heavier then my 83 was.
As far as gas mileage, it's cheaper then running the 1555 and burning 5 gallons an hour.
SteveBricks, Anyone who owns a truck be it out of want or need should have an interest increasing the mileage there of, If for no other reason then to thicken one's own pocket book.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Originally Posted by NumberDummy
Gas mileage is far better today on any truck. Way better than in the 1960's/1980's when the trucks were shaped like bricks.
But the 390 I built for my '74 highboy was able to get 15MPGs on the highway on long trips.
My '01 V10 gets 16-17. Not THAT much of an improvement, except when you consider the Superduty is about 1500lbs heavier than that highboy
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ernesteugene
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
22
Jul 26, 2007 12:16 AM
