has anyone else noticed a reduction in fuel economy lately? mine started at the same time fuel prices starting coming down a bit.i can't find anything wrong with my truck and its like it happened over night on FE report 2012-06-08.
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums - Garage FillUp Listing
whatever the case,i sure don't like it.am i alone,or do i keep searching my truck?

with the warmer weather,does turbo efficiency really go downhill this hard without intercoolers?
(just put a turbo on mine a few months ago for those who haven't read.)

 

im too busy gettin 14 mpg at 80+mph... lol.

 

I've barely driven my truck in the last 6 months so I can't say. A trip is planned for monday, so we'll see what I get. Although it would still be only a one tank average....

 

turned out to be a failing MLPS.
issue resolved.scared me there for a bit.

 

17.4 MPG with the trailer and keeping between 55-60 MPH average. I refilled the tank on the slowest setting to try and keep errors down.

AC was running about half the time too.

Glad it was a simple fix, FORD.

 

This is "probably" old news (2007!), but I stumbled across this scientific study on the effect of weight on fuel efficiency and thought it might be interesting to those who are trying to cut down on vehicle mass:

http://www.autoaluminum.org/download...th%20cover.pdf

It has lots of confusing charts and graphs, so unless you are very science-minded just skip to the diesel summary table on p. 51 and read the conclusions on p. 59

I found it fairly interesting that weight matters less the faster you drive, and matters less for heavier vehicles, even for the same % of weight reduction.

 

weight is just weight, it doesn't go anywhere. if you accelerate slow and keep it down in the gears you will burn less fuel. same goes for slowing the truck, think of your brakes as another accelerator pedal only used for slowing the truck, the more you have to break, the more fuel you are burning.

best way to drive is to judge your deceleration and not use your brakes when possible.
using that i can get better fuel mileage on back road than i do on the interstates. about 4 mpg over interstate mpg in my audi 1.8t. (by the in car computer)

if you want to drive quickly then weight reduction is your best bet.

 

Moving through the air is the largest influence on fuel economy. That's why fairings and air dams work so well. That's also why all new cars are looking more alike, Mother Nature only has one set of rules, ergo one ideal shape.

 

I managed 15 mpgs out of my V10 just the other day by the addition of somewhat of an air dam that went under the truck to stop air from pulling on it

 

Hm, looks like I'm doing decently then. I get 16-21MPG in my 88 F250, with the ZF-42 transmission and a GearVendors Over/Underdrive unit.
I've also done a couple of other tweaks:
1. Reduced the fuel level to the point that I get no visible smoke when the engine is at max acceleration(floored in 5th gear) - Note that someone had done this when I got the vehicle, and I liked it far better this way.
2. Adjusted the timing for the most power under the above condition - any more advanced and it's louder and has slightly less power, and more retarded and it feels sluggish.
3. Chopped the front half off of the air cleaner bowl, and placed a cardboard box/air ram in it's place(so the intake is a good 3"x12"+), which seriously increased power and "snappiness".

Last time I checked, at highway speeds(about 60-65MPH), I'm getting somewhat above 16mph(Last long high-speed trip was at 21MPH). However, driving short distances - as I do during the week - kills my MPG numbers.

 

i finally had a reason to run an entire tank out (plus a bit) out on the interstate running empty.i just ran down to New Hampshire to pick up a hydraulic lift gate for log truck!
fillup date: 2014-05-01

basic recap:
f250 4wd
E40D auto (hd reman with custom extra low stall converter/tugger kit)
srw to drw convert.
3.55 R&P with shorter than 235 tires for an effective gear change to 3.84
111k miles on 7.3l idi
banks turbo
intercooler
maxed oem n/a ip (a reman that i swapped in around 70k miles.reman by IFS from the U-haul idi parts clear out back along)
fresh (new) G codes
electric cooling fans
8k lb empty
enclosed stake body,box truck
engine timing 7 BTDC (pulse/ferret adapter)



http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-l...vehicleid=5088

 

Running free fuel will reduce your cost / mile by 25%, which is what you really want, not incremental improvements in mile / gallon.

IDI's can easily burn 25% waste vegetable oil w/o mods.
I added a $150 heat exchanger and can burn 50-90% used veg oil, turning my F-250 into the equivalent of a 40 mpg vehicle in cost / mile.

 

LOL. Running WVO w/o mods is a recipe for disaster. Your sig says you run BioD, which means you spend more on methanol than just using plain Diesel nowadays. Also, even if your statements were true, a "zero-mod" vehicle would mean you didn't change out your rubber lines and seals with viton seals, so the BioD will eat that stuff up and mess up the fuel system. The only safe way to run VO is with a 2-tank system, with separate fuel pumps, heated filter heads, heated lines, FPHE's, heated fuel pickups, etc, with proper non-reactive materials like aluminum, heat-resistant plastics, and proper rubber materials. And you need a proper purge cycle of at least 30 seconds, or else your IP, injectors, injector lines, nozzles, and other parts of the after-filter portion of the fuel system will be flooded with polymerization.

Lemme guess? Your heat exchanger is brass or copper. I've never seen a non-modded diesel engine last more than 25K on VO.

 

Very interesting post, genscriptor. In the above quote, you mean the fuel system, like Injection pump/Injectors don't you? ...and not major engine damage?

That was a rather hard slam on ctbiodzl.
In response to his post: For me personally it's not (about) least possible cost per mile WHEN I consider the work, the amount of time to gather the WVO, the equipment and having the space to process waste vegetable oil.

That's a lot of work for someone like me, not to mention the expense with my very low income.

My truck is not for commuting around town empty or empty on long trips unless its one way loaded and one way empty. If I'm working it, the cost of fuel is paying the truck to do it's work. It's a bargain compared to paying someone else to do it or renting a more efficient truck. It may be comparatively fuel inefficient but I can accept that for my plans.

I like the idea of a WVO Volkswagon much better! Seems it would be a lot less work, less volume of WVO that has to be processed, etc. That would be cute! I wouldn't mind having one regardless of WVO or biodiesel. I am SAD about what the US Gov. did to Volkswagon. I WISH I could buy one of THOSE! Anyone who returned these - or whatever the exact deal, was stupid in my opinion. Now all of the big three American Mfr's are being accused and sued for the essentially the same thing aren't they?

I THOUGHT that the excessively strict emissions regulations in place for diesels (for all uses, not just commercial trucks) WOULD CHANGE SOON... regulators and even the people of this nation coming to their senses about this., Then GM got hit a few weeks ago and with lawsuits (I didn't read the details) and I'm not sure if that change in regulations is going to happen. It's costing everyone and they are not going to happy about the results in the rising costs of goods & services (The banking system is largely responsible for that, but that's a different issue)

It's a good reason to have your truck tuned so it doesn't blow excessive smoke, not to mention adjusting driving habits to drive the way the engine is designed to perform rather than over-fueling it, except at times when you really may need to.

I like the idea of WVO, it's just not for me.

 

Hard indeed. I'm a WVO expert. For a decade, I've seen noobs destroy engines, IP's, and other components by running improperly modified vehicles or improperly prepared fuel, or both simultaneously. It seems the only way to get through to these people is by being direct. I was a member of the Frybrid forum (the best of all the WVO forums) and unlike the other namby-pamby forums on net, the Frybrid group was the strictest which meant actual results. Lots of whiners would complain about the Frybrid group. But in the end, most of my colleagues that followed the Frybrid standard are still running their VO beast today.

THere is a lot of science behind a proper WVO system. Temperature, pressure, material science, viscosity, fluid dynamics, filtration, and so on. It takes a while to properly design, build, implement, and calibrate a good WVO kit, so whenever I hear some noob brag about running a ****ty blend or some idiotic FPHE on their stock lift pump and stock filter head, I get a little perturbed. Ultimately, it's on them to destroy their engine and fuel system. And within 6 months, they'll be on this forum asking questions about why their lift pump isn't pushing fuel, their stock filter is always clogged, their IP isn't pushing fuel to the injectors, their engine is smoking a lot due to pitted injectors, their cylinders don't have compression, and so on and so on.

And that person will likely keep quite silent about their previous improper WVO usage, leaving us IDI FTE veterans in the dark about why they fuel system is malfunctioning.

So yeah, I'm a little direct about these topics.