2003 F-250 mileage

Sorry, can't do it. I get tired of people continually taking shots at anyone who has and uses their mileage computers. There is always the implication that we aren't smart enough to figure our mileage long-hand and/or that we believe anything the display tells us, (and of cours the display is always wrong!).

Don't want to be called an idiot? Simple solution: Pick YOUR words carefully, don't make blanket statements, and don't talk about what you don't know or understand. (I think if you do a google search on all my posts here and at the other newsgroups I frequent, you will see I only get pissy when someone else makes an idiotic comment or statement first.)

Have a great day!

Matt

99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

Keep on whining Dr. You seem to be the only one losing sleep over this issue. I stand by what I said.

Hope your weather is as beautiful as ours today!

Matt

99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 (apparently with the SOLE working overhead trip computer!)

I have a 2003 F-250, 6.0 PSD. Mileage (calculated; I don't have the overhead display) varies between 15.5 - 17.9 in daily driving to/from work in stop-go, fast-slow freeway + local highway. Pulling a

23-foot, 5000 lb. trailer, I average around 11.5 mpg. I usually pull at about 65 mph.

I don't think there is anything wrong with my truck. Those who claim to get 22 mpg unloaded, and 16 mpg pulling a high-profile 5th wheeler are probably not calculating throughout a full tank of fuel.

GS

Anyone that says they get over 13 mpg pulling a 25 foot H/P 5th needs some help on there math as it will not happen now or never with any diesels we can buy at this time unless you buy a standard trany. But if you think about it large trucks can pull 30 + tons and get 8 mpg with a

500 hp motor . My brother has >I have a 2003 F-250, 6.0 PSD. Mileage (calculated; I don't have the

OK, I'm confused here. I have a 4WD 2001 F150 with the 5.4L

If I drive gently around town I get about 16 mpg with it and towing a 4500 lbs, 22 ft trailer (albeit, a Hi-Lo, so there is a lot less wind drag) I get about 12 to 13 mpg at 65 mph. Why wouldn't the diesel do a lot better than that? I would think a 5000 lb trailer would be child's play for the diesel.

I'm not doubting you, I'm just looking for comments and explanations.

Thanks

For starters, the 250 diesel curb weight is about a thousand pounds heavier than your 150 gasser. Also, claims of greatly improved mileage with diesels tend to be exaggerated. My experience is only a couple more mpg with diesel. My

2003 F250 6.0/5sp auto is getting 14 mpg around town with light loads.

I have a 2000 7.3 PSD F250 6-speed 4x4 and I get right around 16mpg to and from work (no highways and usually lots of stops at traffic lights). The best I have ever gotten is 18.5 mpg on a tank that was entirely highway. Pulling a 27' travel trailer at 65-70 and it goes down to around 11. I believe that the weight of the trailer is less important that the wind resistance. A 27' travel trailer is at least

11' tall if I remember correctly.

Back a few years, I was a line-haul truck driver. The big thing for trucks back then was mounting an air foil on the tops of truck cabs to reduce drag and go down the road in a fuel-efficient manner. Yeah, and they had 'fuel squeezer' engines coming online too. Radial tires were coming of age and the whole trucking industry was slowly integrating fuel economy into their fleet purchase plans. We went from 3.5 mpg in the early 70's to 6.0 mpg and beyond in the 80's.

I always tracked my mileage, every tank of fuel. I could usually tell you within a gallon or so how much it would take to do a fill-up, depending on how many miles I had gone and what kind of load I was running, etc.

The horsepower didn't make much difference when I went from a Cummins 300 to a Cummins 350. Cummins has a reliable workhorse line of engines and the straight 6 configuration was a real puller. Fuel mileage remained about the same.

When it came to loads, I could have a 40,000 lb. load or an 80,000 lb. load, it didn't matter, the mileage didn't vary more than 0.5mpg due to weight. The average fuel mileage back then (mid-1980s) was 6.0 to 6.5 mpg. Running sleeper team with the same partner, week in and week out, three trips from Detroit to the East Coast per week, averaging 5500 miles per week, 250,000 per year. We hauled auto parts to assembly plants, taking the same routes over and over. I could predict the amount of fuel used at any point along the route.

So what made a difference? Really cold weather brought the mileage down a bit. Properly inflated tires kept it up. We got an oil fiter change at the end of every week and an oil change every other week. We didn't bother with fuel additives. As long as the maintenance was kept up, the mileage remained constant.

At 325,000 miles, the company sent my truck in for an engine check-up. Cummins said that it needed injectors, but that if we went with an overhaul, they would give the engine an additional 300,000 mile warranty. The company went with the overhaul. When we got the truck back out of the shop, we noticed a bit more power, a bit less oil consumption and about .4 mpg improvement. We consistantly got up around 6.5 mpg from that point on.

Just my 2 cent's worth ....

Excellent posting! I knew some of the better truckers knew their units very well, but not to this extent.

(What about Radial Tires? Did you ever compare these to the bias ply? Or was yor stint behind the wheel before or after both were generally available? And manual v/s automatic transmissions?)

So why would this be? The energy required to heat the air in the cylider? Or maybe the cab heating load? Most things work better in the cold (like the electrical system shold have been operating more efficently).

Interesting observation.