Found this today, personally I cannot believe it would get such craptastic MPG to begin with.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Report..._Boost_Addition

I heard a lot of people bitching about Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel hamstringing mileage, but unless this dude had a untuned truck and/or carried a ton of equipment, I care to say HUH?

Before anyone asks, any 3/4 ton or higher diesel rig is never listed at the EPA fuel economy site. It should be able to at least match a modular 5.4L gasser e250.
Gas Mileage of 2001 Ford E250 Econoline 2WD

 

It probly was loaded.

 

They never state what motor it was, it could have been a 460 to get the lower mileage like that...

 

Just looked at it again and in the uper right corner under the picture of a a E350 it states it has a 7.3l powerstroke and that the van was empty but does have a ladder rack on top wich would catch wind.

 

He did his mileage calculations on "about 1/2 tank" and "about 1/4 tank". Totally meaningless.

 

This is very ture.

 

might as well just pull a guess out his ****, about as accurate... probably about what he did anyway.

 

Has anyone even heard of a powerstroke of that era getting only 10 MPG? Not even the 6.4L is that bad.

true MPG calculations can only be made at the time of refueling, and even then, a single outliner of 20 MPG can happen, but that would probably have more to do with the shutoff of the station pump. We all know how much diesel can foam up.

 

Unless there is something wrong w./ it..the ole 7.3L's were very economical but they had no emmission equipment.. funny how saving the evironment costs us a lot of mileage.
The more crap you put on an engine might flow cleaner exhaust, but uses more fuel to do it..does this even make sense?
7.3L 17-22MPG,6.0L 15-20MPG,6.4L 12-14MPG..see a pattern here?

 

It is my truck. Yes, without the hydroxy system, it gets around 8 MPG. The van does not have an innercooler installed on it. Vehicles later had those included. This one did not. This is "worse case scenario". And yes, the van is the long-bed version.

Here is the latest report using the "Dry Cell" system - Hydroxy System for Diesel Vehicles – Solving Emission Contaminations

 

And how much do you get with a hydroxy system?

 

It is really "to soon to tell" with the dry cell at the moment, but the fuel gauge indicates it is better than the wet cell technology. The wet cell technology was giving me over twice the mileage I was getting without it turned on.

The dry cell is much less maintenance than the wet cell. I was told last night by a person from DOE, that I need to state that wet cell hydroxy technology is obsolete.

 

"Instead of only a 20% efficiency, we get closer to 50%, when using hydroxy to burn the hydrocarbons."

Here we go again. Its statements like that that peg my BS meter.

Jim

 

It has been in existence since 1804. Read the updated info linked to the website listed at the top of this thread.

I appreciate the feedback from this forum regarding this vehicle.

The truck/van never ever gave very good mileage to my younger brother who owns the vehicle (it was used in roofing). He was surprised to find that the engine did not have an innercooler on it and his exclamation of; "No wonder it never performed very well!" said it all.

So we turned a sluggish trailer-puller into a better-performing machine.

With the hydroxy, there is more power, a quieter engine, better performance and much, much lower emissions. We did the emissions testing in Spokane WA. It got 4%, where 40% is passing. We did the tests of before and after. The results of those tests are posted at H2O Hybrid Pro. H2O HYBRID PRO

http://images.ford-trucks.com/forums...s2/mad0228.gif

 

I would have to say. How could hydrogen make it quieter? if anything it should make it louder as the hydrogen would burn faster and also theoreticaly cause faster more efficent burning off the fule wich would advance the timing. Does it seem wierd to any one els that this guys responses seem generic and out off no where?