Glad to have helped man..
Glad to have helped man..
Who makes a 1/4 ton truck? So called mini-trucks such as Toyota or Nissan are still 1/2 ton and not any cheaper.
I disagree both my diesels are paying for themselves in fuel savings the liberty especially. my wife's liberty is putting out 160 hp and 300 ft lbs of torque in a 4 cyl. and she's seeing 28 mpg with her driving style (lead foot) on the interstate to and from work everyday. driving the same commute she fills up once every week and a half when in the 360 powered Durango she was filling up every 3rd trip (not day trip to or from) basically she was filling the Durango every other day.
my 318 powered half ton wasn't any better than my v10 powered 3/4. the only
1/2 ton we ever owned that was close to fuel efficiency of what my diesel is unloaded was my old d100 with the 225. but were talking unloaded numbers here. put a trailer behind them just about any trailer and the diesel pulls away from the d100 easy.
that was an example of what happens when you try to take a gas motor and make it into a diesel. you gotta build any engine from the crank up to work with the fuel you intend to feed it.
The reviews of the diesel liberty all suggest its a dog. Considerably less performance than the gasser. Whats the EPA difference between the liberty gasser and the diesel?
I got better mpg with my 360 1/2 ton than my 318 1/2 ton. A few friends that have the V10 tell me they are lucky to get 10 or 11mpg city with it. I got better than that with both the 318 and 360.
epa sticker claims 25/30 witch is pretty close to what she is seeing in real world. the gasser wasn't that good by epa sticker but don't remember exactly. the truck is no dog, runs strong! slight turbo lag on hard accel I mean if your sitting still and just stomp to the floor you will notice it. but if you just pull off normal the lag isn't noticeable.
yea what 11 or 12? don't really count does it?
at least that's what I was getting. and yes 10 ~ 11 in the 488 v10 to and from work is about right.
I've been reading this newsgroup for a long while, and have got some really insightful help from a lot of people ... but I have been reading this thread, an here's the 85% solution to everyone's mileage woes, GET YOUR FOOT OUT OF IT. Driving 65+ MPH is nuts, pulling a trailer at those speeds is INSANE. I think we really all have to reconsider the saying "I can't drive 55", and actually start doing it, take an extra
15 minutes to get to work, or whatever. The savings are quite noticeable ... I routinely used to check my mileage routinely (haven't with my Dodge), but when I owned my GMC 8.1L 6-speed manual, I got between 17-18 MPG hwy, and on one trip, 21 MPG solo!later,peace
-Derek
remember correctly is was a 6 cylinder supplied by Nissan. I drove one of these truck and found it a bit sluggish, but the fellow that owned it was extremely happy with the fuel economy. Does anyone know more about this package?
1978 and '79 were the years. The 6 cylinder Diesel was a Mitsubishi. It was underpowered, not turbo charged and sold poorly, around 2500 units IIRC.
And one of DC`s dumbest is putting 9" drum brakes on on a 5.2 Dakota 4x4. Lots of power to get it going but try to stop it with a full load! Which can be MORE carry capacity then ram
1500 with HD package BUT YOU GET REAL brakes with that or 1500. I vote yes for the crd diesel dakota too, the liberty crd is a real stump puller untill its wound up.You do know that drum brakes have more surface area than disk, right. Pleas tell me how many big rigs use disk brakes.
Hi TBone,
Friction is independent of area. There's a lot more to disk v drum than just area. Big rigs with drums have a much larger heat dissipation area for relatively long slow stopping.
Dave
TB> You do know that drum brakes have more surface area than disk, right. Pleas
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.