 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / September 2006Any products that will improve V-10 fuel mileage?
I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am wanting to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy atleast when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. >I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite >often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am wanting >to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy atleast >when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. What axle ratio do you have, is it SRW or DRW, stock of aftermarket oversized tires (tread design too) and how heavy is trailer you pull? ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite > often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am > wanting > to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy > atleast > when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. There aren't too many things you can do to improve you mileage, driving habits will garner the greatest improvement. Ford used to have (early EFI days, mid 80's - mid 90's) restrictive air intake systems, there is much less room for improvement in that area now... Most things sold are simply snake oil, all hype and no improvement... That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) I went from 12mpg empty on the highway and as low as 5.5-8 mpg towing with a single rear wheel, 4.10 gear 4x4 super cab in my LAST gas Ford. The new 10,000 pound F-450 turbo diesel, dual rear wheel 4.30 geared 4X4 crew cab, gets 16.5-17.2 empty (under 1-ton of crap on the truck) on the highway under 60mph and 14.5 over 60-75 mpg, towing depending on trailer weight and speed, it gets 9.5-13mpg. I'm pushing 30,000 miles and my fuel mileage keeps creeping up, Well worth the investment to me. Good Luck >That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge >fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) There is nothing that a stock PS will pull that a v10 will not pull properly geared and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. BTW, they are forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it is cold and heating oil demand rises as base stocks are low and demand is up so where is the money savings??? Also here today, regular can be had for 2.25 and plus for 2.35 a gallon and diesel is still 2.98 so again what would I be saving with a oil burner today? Nothing. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge >>fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com That is the same stupid sh.t everyone who has never had one says... Get back to us when you have a clue what the hell you are talking about. > >That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge > >fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) > > There is nothing that a stock PS will pull that a v10 will not pull > properly geared You'd eat those words at any kind of elevation. Yep, all those trucks and motorhomes I passed on the Pennsylvania turnpike last summer were "geared wrong." > and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay > for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, The $5000 is easily recouped at trade in. > increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. Hey numb-nuts, are you aware that spark plug changes on Ford V engines can run in the thousands of dollars when the plug seizes in the head due to the bonehead design? If you were a real mechanic, you'd be well aware of this... > BTW, they are > forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it > is cold and heating oil demand rises as base stocks are low and demand > is up so where is the money savings??? Also here today, regular can > be had for 2.25 and plus for 2.35 a gallon and diesel is still 2.98 so > again what would I be saving with a oil burner today? Nothing. Maybe he doesn't live in your town. >> >That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge >> >fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yep, all those trucks and motorhomes I passed on the Pennsylvania >turnpike last summer were "geared wrong." There is no elevation to speak off on turn pike in PA. A Ford pickup with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 PS will and with a lot less noise and fuss. About 4 months ago I was out on highway doing 75 to 80 in my stock (except for speed limter removed with a HyperTech tuner)) and with stock tires too 2000 K3500 SRW (except for speed limter removed) and came on a new tricked up PS with loud exhaust. The road was clear and he nailed it to show off and much against my nature, I did to with my little old 5.7 that I have always used at least 89 octane in in winter and 93 in summer. I stayed right with him and then easily passed him around 105 because his PS was wound out, I was not impressed. Years ago when I used to work with guys that ran the computer show circuits (I would whole sale from them) they used to travel 1000 miles round trips on weekends with big trailer and the hard core guys dumped the oil burner because they found that runnin 80 and better that big block trucks could walk away from them towing and get about same MPG doing it too. (about 6 to 7). The oil burner did better if speed was held up 65 or 70 but at 85 and above late at night they sucked on power and MPG with big cargo trailers. >> and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay >> for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, > >The $5000 is easily recouped at trade in. In your dreams, they are begging people to by them here as there is not shortage of them new or used >> increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. > >Hey numb-nuts, are you aware that spark plug changes on Ford V >engines can run in the thousands of dollars when the plug seizes >in the head due to the bonehead design? If you were a real >mechanic, you'd be well aware of this... Got o name call huh next you will tell me than 12 to 14 quarts of diesle oil and filter costs less to service and sprak plugs gee they can go 50K or more today and are not a factor in cost becuase you can change them fro a lot less than the price of a oil change in a oil burner. ALso the plugs siezed in some fords because of wrong torque sp[eak and plug design, not because it was a gas engine and you might pay 1000.s of dollars to fix one but a good tech could install a helicoil in the hole and have you back in bussness quickly and for under 100 bucks too. >> BTW, they are >> forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Maybe he doesn't live in your town. And maybe he does not live in yours either but desile is trading on futures market for 205 richt now and it sell for about 65 to 85 more than that depending on your area and gas is trading at 1.75 and ad 40 to 55 cents to that plud historically heating oil/diesel fuel will only increase in price from now until feb or so. and if it is a cold winter, you will be crying filling up the oil burnerat 4 buck a gallon while gas is 2.50 or so. . ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >You'd eat those words at any kind of elevation. > >Yep, all those trucks and motorhomes I passed on the Pennsylvania > >turnpike last summer were "geared wrong." > > There is no elevation to speak off on turn pike in PA. Really? I must have imagined those inclines where my stock 180 horsepower Cummins was running down wheezer gas trucks, Mustangs, Camaros, etc. > A Ford pickup > with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 > PS will and with a lot less noise and fuss. What have you ever pulled besides everyones leg? > About 4 months ago I was > out on highway doing 75 to 80 in my stock (except for speed limter > removed with a HyperTech tuner)) and with stock tires too 2000 K3500 > SRW (except for speed limter removed) From the Department of Redundancy Department. > and came on a new tricked up PS > with loud exhaust. The road was clear and he nailed it to show off and > much against my nature, I did to with my little old 5.7 that I have > always used at least 89 octane in in winter and 93 in summer. I stayed > right with him and then easily passed him around 105 because his PS > was wound out, I was not impressed. When did the subject turn to drag racing? Well, it's good to know that you're a menace to others besides the flammables you use in your air conditioning system. > Years ago when I used to work with > guys that ran the computer show circuits (I would whole sale from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > above late at night they sucked on power and MPG with big cargo > trailers. Sounds like a lack of time management. Also sounds like a crock of bullshit. October 2004, myself and two others are pulling a 40' enclosed car hauler with a $250K Plymouth Superbird to the Talladega Speedway for the Aerowarriors reunion, pull truck is a 2003 7.3 Powerstroke w/ Banks turbo kit and chip, cruising at 80 MPH the whole way the truck easily got 13 MPG no matter what speed we were at. > >> and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay > >> for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In your dreams, they are begging people to by them here as there is > not shortage of them new or used Then they're all as stupid as you. Around here, a Diesel stays on the lot for two maybe three days tops. The guy that bought my 97 Dodge back in June didn't even want to haggle price (the first words out of his mouth after he test drove it). > >> increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > helicoil in the hole and have you back in bussness quickly and for > under 100 bucks too. Um SnoJob, you are thinking of the OLD Ford spark plug problem. They got a whole new one because of the redesign of the plugs. Now instead of them coming out on their own, you have to pull the heads (remove cab if so inclined) and beat them out with a hammer and punch. This has all been long ago documented in repair industry circles. You don't even want to get into the repeat coil on plug failures that plague the Ford gas engines. And as for your precious Chevies, last time I checked, the proper AC Delco plugs for them were $12-$14 each, so two spark plugs cost as much as the 11 quarts of oil my Cummins holds. > >> BTW, they are > >> forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > winter, you will be crying filling up the oil burnerat 4 buck a gallon > while gas is 2.50 or so. . Just proves that you only understand price, not value. I really don't care if any fuel hits $4.00 a gallon. I earn enough to make it a non issue, and as a mechanic, the higher the price of fuel, the more tune up business I get. I'll let you in on a little secret; if you think that $1.50 is a lot of money, you always will. >> >You'd eat those words at any kind of elevation. >> >Yep, all those trucks and motorhomes I passed on the Pennsylvania [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >horsepower Cummins was running down wheezer gas trucks, Mustangs, >Camaros, etc. The only magic here is the thick headness of some to refuse to properly gear their engine type to the load because a gas engine would climb just as fast if it was geared properly and a big block would walk away from it if properly gered. Back in 03 in CO when on vaction in some real mountain I cam on a truck with a big 5th wheel camper passing everything in site. It was doing about 80 when I caught and passed it and it was a V10 Dodge. >> A Ford pickup >> with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 >> PS will and with a lot less noise and fuss. > >What have you ever pulled besides everyones leg? Been towing for over 30 year and used to hual 23K plus grain trailer over 25 years ago with gas P/U's and power was not a issue either as they were geared properly. >> About 4 months ago I was >> out on highway doing 75 to 80 in my stock (except for speed limter >> removed with a HyperTech tuner)) and with stock tires too 2000 K3500 >> SRW (except for speed limter removed) > > From the Department of Redundancy Department. From your department on BS. Oil burners get real upset when threatened >> and came on a new tricked up PS >> with loud exhaust. The road was clear and he nailed it to show off and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well, it's good to know that you're a menace to others besides >the flammables you use in your air conditioning system. THe menance it you not me and I guess they are all menaces in austrailia because "flamable" refrigerants are the rage down there where EPA and Dupont has no clout, not poisonous ones. >> Years ago when I used to work with >> guys that ran the computer show circuits (I would whole sale from [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >whole way the truck easily got 13 MPG no matter what speed we >were at. NO time management issues at all, you have x number of hours to work with period. Their trailers where a lot heaiver that yours too and your 13 MPG at 80 is likely a lie too. BTW, oil burner need a lot of boost to make any power at all and a really big NOx polluters (this will change in 08 with ne regs they will limit there performance and boosts) with your truck make the NOx of about 10 gas P/U's. Plus if you put a mild boost on a big pblock gas motor you would get HP they you could only dream about with your oil burner and a wide RPM range to use it with too unlike your narrow one that get narrower the more you boost it. >> >> and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay >> >> for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >haggle price (the first words out of his mouth after he test >drove it). No look in the mirror as only a fool would pay 5K more thinking that it will be cheaper in long run (it never will be) when fuel cost more and will always cost more and it is going up another 8 to 15 cents independant of market pressure due to costs for removing sulpher >> >> increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >AC Delco plugs for them were $12-$14 each, so two spark plugs >cost as much as the 11 quarts of oil my Cummins holds. There is no problem with aluminun heads is plugs and heads are designe right. If there are not or not properly torqued but inept mech there cam be problem because there on millions of engines out there with aluminum heads without a ford label that have more plug problems. Also you must by your plugs at Joe's ripp offs because I pay about 2 bucks of so a piece for my name brand ones here. >> >> BTW, they are >> >> forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >if you think that $1.50 is a lot of money, you always will. No price is value. It ell you take it is not a good choice for a fuel in future if you are looking to controll costs and when NOx emissions kick in and 08. oil burner are going to have to start toeing the line because they have been basically unregulated for years in this regard while gas engine have not. If gas motor had the same lack regs as oil burners they would be some real beasts today. BTW the EPA has stated that diesel are the leading cause of polluton for transportation without doubt hence the rule change. When feild is leveled in regards to emissions, the diesle will cost more and loose performance and luster and with it appeal too. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >Really? I must have imagined those inclines where my stock 180 > >horsepower Cummins was running down wheezer gas trucks, Mustangs, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > climb just as fast if it was geared properly and a big block would > walk away from it if properly gered. Right. According to you, all it takes to compensate for the reduced air density is a different set of gears. Volumetric efficiency problem? Just put in the right gears according to the Snoblower. > Back in 03 in CO when on vaction > in some real mountain I cam on a truck with a big 5th wheel camper > passing everything in site. It was doing about 80 when I caught and > passed it and it was a V10 Dodge. If the Dodge was "passing everything in site(sic)" how is it that you "cam upon it?" How is it that you think your silly little stories trump the real world experiences related by myself and many others who have owned both gas and diesel not just in this newsgroup but every other group you spout your BS in? Going to Pennsylvania last year, there were three of us convoying, all three trailering MoPar e-bodies, my 97 12 valve Cummins, Mike in his 99 24 valve Cummins and Kevin in his 2000 360 gasser. The gasser was always the first to stop for fuel, we all had 35 gallon tanks that were filled at the same time before we left, the gasser is on fumes, my 12 valve still has 1/2 tank and Mikes 24 valve still had 1/3 tank. Yeah,yeah, gearing is all Kevin needed to get that gasser to hang with the oilers. Sure thing Santa Claus! I guess that everywhere you've been, it all been down hill. > >> A Ford pickup > >> with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > over 25 years ago with gas P/U's and power was not a issue either as > they were geared properly. Yup, lots of 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesel pick-up trucks on the market 25 years ago, so you are comparing what to what? The friggin GM 6.2 wasn't even out yet! > >> About 4 months ago I was > >> out on highway doing 75 to 80 in my stock (except for speed limter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > From your department on BS. Oil burners get real upset when threatened Threatened? Hardly. The overall underlying pattern however seems to be a lot of people who smell your BS for what it really is. > >> and came on a new tricked up PS > >> with loud exhaust. The road was clear and he nailed it to show off and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > austrailia because "flamable" refrigerants are the rage down there > where EPA and Dupont has no clout, not poisonous ones. Yeah, R-134 is so poisonous they use it as propellant in asthma inhalers. Like -so- many other things, you have your facts very wrong. Now, explain for me how it is that the HCs in your AC system are somehow less polluting than the HCs from an engine tailpipe which have been regulated since the clean air act of 1968? > >> Years ago when I used to work with > >> guys that ran the computer show circuits (I would whole sale from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > NO time management issues at all, you have x number of hours to work > with period. That's a time management issue. > Their trailers where a lot heaiver that yours too You have no way of knowing how much that trailer weighed. > and your 13 MPG at 80 is likely a lie too. It might be if others come out and call it a lie, so far, it's only you. We'll just have to wait and see. Being a Ford truck NG, it shouldn't take long. > BTW, oil burner need a lot of > boost to make any power at all That is ridiculous beyond belief. A gas engine has no efficiency advantage considering the compression ratios involved. A normally aspirated gas engine has no advantage over a turbo diesel considering that it has no way to increase charge density. > and a really big NOx polluters (this > will change in 08 with ne regs they will limit there performance and > boosts) with your truck make the NOx of about 10 gas P/U's. Sorry to burst your bubble SnoCone, the current NOx standards are; Passenger car 5/50 diesel 1.00 gpm gas 0.40 gpm Passenger car 10/100 diesel 1.25 gpm gas 0.60 gpm HLDT (>6000gvw) 5/50 diesel ----- gas 1.10 gpm HLDT (>6000gvw) 10/100 diesel 1.53gpm gas 1.53 gpm You know, any time someone pulls exaggerations out of their a.s, they've lost any and all credibility. BTW, where -do- you get your information, hanging around a pickle barrel? > Plus if you put a mild boost on a big pblock gas motor you would get HP they > you could only dream about with your oil burner and a wide RPM range > to use it with too unlike your narrow one that get narrower the more > you boost it. And of course, on planet SnoBall, the faster you spin a gas engine, the less fuel it will use. > >> >> and even if it uses more fuel the PS will NEVER pay > >> >> for itself in fuel savings because of the 5K plus option cost, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and will always cost more and it is going up another 8 to 15 cents > independant of market pressure due to costs for removing sulpher Fuel cost more, will always cost more? Funny, diesel was 15 cents a gallon cheaper than 87 regular here this summer. Another exaggeration that fails the test of fact. Yup, all those rescue squads running diesels. Fools. All those people pulling horse trailers. Fools. Contractors. Fools. Tow truck operators. Fools. That back hoe digging a foundation. Owned by a fool. OTR trucks (gears galore). Fools. The list goes on and on.... All fools. > >> >> increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > There is no problem with aluminun heads is plugs and heads are designe > right. Has nothing to do with aluminum. > If there are not or not properly torqued but inept mech Gotta talk to the factory about that one, they installed the spark plugs. > there cam be problem because there on millions of engines out there with > aluminum heads without a ford label that have more plug problems. Really? Which one are those? > Also you must by your plugs at Joe's ripp offs because I pay about 2 bucks > of so a piece for my name brand ones here. Nope. I buy the OEM specified spark plug for GMs. Doing otherwise is asking for trouble. > >> >> BTW, they are > >> >> forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > in future if you are looking to controll costs and when NOx emissions > kick in and 08. Already refuted your exaggerated claims. > oil burner are going to have to start toeing the line > because they have been basically unregulated for years in this regard > while gas engine have not. Already refuted your exaggerated claims. > If gas motor had the same lack regs as oil > burners they would be some real beasts today. Thing is, I was a truck mechanic up to 16 years ago, the gas engined dump trucks in the fleets I worked for were absolute dogs compared to the diesels and these gas motors -were- unregulated. 366 cid, 409 cid, 427 cid, 348 cid, 392 cid, 549 cid Chevies and International Harvester. 5 spd/4spd tandem and tri-axle. > BTW the EPA has stated > that diesel are the leading cause of polluton for transportation > without doubt hence the rule change. And the Catholic church is the leading cause of the Catholic religion... > When feild is leveled in regards > to emissions, the diesle will cost more and loose performance and > luster and with it appeal too. I'll put that with all your other promises. >> >Really? I must have imagined those inclines where my stock 180 >> >horsepower Cummins was running down wheezer gas trucks, Mustangs, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Volumetric efficiency problem? Just put in the right gears >according to the Snoblower. This statement shows your total lack of understanding on this whole matter. First there are no altitude problem in pennsylvainia you need to go to Rockies for that. Next axle ratios have EVRYTHING to do with towing power of a gas engine. A 200 HP 5.7 will towed far better with a 4.10 than a 310 HP 5.3 with a 3.73. If you want maximum towing power with a gas engine you need to be at or very near you peak VE (Volumetric Efficiency) or torque peak beacuse for one you will produce the most HP hours for the less amount of fuel used when under a heavy load. A 300 HP motor with a 4000 RPM torque peak does not make a good towwe at 2500 or 2600 RPM at 60 or so. THey keep getting more impressive HP rating at 5000 or higher RPM but you do not tow at that RPM. I detriot would stop the HP wars and focus more on negine that peak torque at 3000 RPM or so and sell truck with 4.10 and 4.56 gear option with the gas motors and OD, diesels would loose a lot of there luster. A ford 5.4 or GM 6.0 would surprize you what it would tow well with a 4.56 axle (they used to come with up to 5.13's years ago and before there was OD trannies) but Detriot would never do that because they need to help convice you that you need a optional 5 or 6K engine, not a cheap axle ratio option. How in the world did I manage so well 30 years ago driving a C70 triaxle chevy dump with a 427 and a 20 speed hauling 20 tons of cargo??? It did a fine job and was actually one of the perferred setups in that day and could hit and hold 60 to 65 MPH without beng floorboarded too. >> Back in 03 in CO when on vaction >> in some real mountain I cam on a truck with a big 5th wheel camper [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If the Dodge was "passing everything in site(sic)" how is it that >you "cam upon it?" Because every one else was doing less than 80 duh, Are you that slow on the draw??? >How is it that you think your silly little stories trump the real >world experiences related by myself and many others who have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >with the oilers. Sure thing Santa Claus! >I guess that everywhere you've been, it all been down hill. Never said it would get better MPG but I did say that it could pull anything you could and cost lees to buy and maintian. Did I also mention that if you areone to watch your legal GVW of vehicle that you can carry 500 to 700 lbs more cargoe with a gas motor because the drive train weighs a lot less? I'll bet that escapes you too. YOu know some fool tried to adapt diesel to aircraft long ago but the had a poor power to weight ratio, reliabilty issues, and problems in the tempature extremes that they had to operate in too so they scraped it. >> >> A Ford pickup >> >> with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >market 25 years ago, so you are comparing what to what? >The friggin GM 6.2 wasn't even out yet! Nope not lots of them at all, very few sold and they were a lot weaker than gas motors. It was not till mid 90's and turbo charging did Detriot start to push them and cheap fuel and cheaper option prices then hepled too but it is not a cheap option and fuel will never be cheaper again so worm has turned. If you like them fine but do not spread the BS that they are a must have because you can be done without them. >> >> About 4 months ago I was >> >> out on highway doing 75 to 80 in my stock (except for speed limter [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >seems to be a lot of people who smell your BS for what it really >is. No doubt about it. lie if you want but you are threaten that youego is going to be bruised because you are not supreme with your oil burner. Yep no doubt about it. >> >> and came on a new tricked up PS >> >> with loud exhaust. The road was clear and he nailed it to show off and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >inhalers. Like -so- many other things, you have your facts very >wrong. You better do more research, I have asstma and my inhaler does not have R134 in it and never did. typical BS >Now, explain for me how it is that the HCs in your AC system are >somehow less polluting than the HCs from an engine tailpipe which >have been regulated since the clean air act of 1968? Different chemical problems but you would know that is you had any real knowledge on this. The problem with R12 and R12 is not down here on the ground, it is when it breaks down in to chorine atoms in upper atmoshere and distroys Ozone. (it tkaes several years to get there from ground (longer than the usefull low maintaince life span of a new oil burner) >> >> Years ago when I used to work with >> >> guys that ran the computer show circuits (I would whole sale from [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >That's a time management issue. Not it is not but you are a expert here, when you have to be one place durring the week and another on weekend you have to make do. Beside you side stepped how they where dumping oil burner because the big blocks gassers ruled for them. >> Their trailers where a lot heaiver that yours too > >You have no way of knowing how much that trailer weighed. Sure I do, well over 11K because they had problems at times with tires on 5200lb tandum axles not cutting it for long even with best tires and max pressure. I conviced a few of them to upgrade to heavier axles and tires and problems subsided. I would not even own a cargo tandum with out at the very least 5200's and 6 or 7 K axles would be better still >> and your 13 MPG at 80 is likely a lie too. > >It might be if others come out and call it a lie, so far, it's >only you. We'll just have to wait and see. Being a Ford truck >NG, it shouldn't take long. Give your BS elsewhere in this thread you have a ego issue so you would never admitt otherwise. I had a freind that had a new 7.3 PS (one of last ones made) and towed the circut with it. Man was he upset when he saw how lousy the MPG was towing with his custom 50K CC dualie 6 to 7 MPG around 80 and to make matters worse the guys with big block could leave him if they wanted too. He dumped the truck after a year when he got tired of feeding it and sucking hind tit. . >> BTW, oil burner need a lot of >> boost to make any power at all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >A normally aspirated gas engine has no advantage over a turbo >diesel considering that it has no way to increase charge density. Lets compare apple to apple, compare a non turbo oil berner to a non turbo gas motor, no contest, gas kicks it butt, Next a gas moter built for 6 PSI boost and a oil burner again no contest, oil burner gets but kicked and so on. To make any power on of a oil burner you have to use 2 to 3 times as much air volume and more to make it and deliver 10 times the NOx polution while doing it too. Make a oil burner meet the exact same requiment for emissions as a gas engine then see what happens as performce will suffer greatly >> and a really big NOx polluters (this >> will change in 08 with ne regs they will limit there performance and >> boosts) with your truck make the NOx of about 10 gas P/U's. > >Sorry to burst your bubble SnoCone, the current NOx standards are; Sorry to burst your buble but you are in error as usual they jsut started to tighten them in 2007 model and every guy the chips his oil burner turns it in a a major NOx factory >Passenger car 5/50 diesel 1.00 gpm gas 0.40 gpm >Passenger car 10/100 diesel 1.25 gpm gas 0.60 gpm [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Yup, all those rescue squads running diesels. Fools. They have to if they want a Ford because the gas ones caught on fire (GM ones never did) so they stooped making them >All those people pulling horse trailers. Fools. I pulled horse for many years without them with no problems with the proper gas truck >Contractors. Fools. So yes with ego problems like yours. I have a firend to bought one a whiel ago and now he wishes he never did because it is not saving him any money like people like you told him it would . Between namaintain purchase price and fuel cost he is lossing money over a like gas truck >Tow truck operators. Fools. Depends on trucks. Most use a oil burner because they are very heavy and hrlp ballast front end in 1 ton models, not because you need it for power, lot of gas one arouf here so they sdo not have to worry about making calls at 20 below or colder without keeping it plugged in or be taken out od action from fuel waxing. When I lived where 40 below was common nobady plowed with a P/U with a diesel, they parked them for winter. >That back hoe digging a foundation. Owned by a fool. This it not the same as automotive because those are constant speed opertions mostl and most of them are very mildly turbo charged too. BTW, I can and have run Dozers, backhoes, grades and track loader quite well and I remeber one old track loader (a CAT955) in 70's that had a gas pony motor on it to start in in cold weahter because it would never start otherwise >OTR trucks (gears galore). Fools. Again not them same as a daily driver at all and a veru limted RPM range on engine too >The list goes on and on.... All fools. Yes you BS list goes on but you are labeling the wrong fool here >> >> >> increased mantainance costs and now more expensive fuel. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Has nothing to do with aluminum. No surprized at all by that comment because again you are clueless >> If there are not or not properly torqued but inept mech > >Gotta talk to the factory about that one, they installed the >spark plugs. Factory makes mistakes and they are call recalls when people fuss enough about it (;ike ford catching on fired from cruise control switch (that was a stupid again from day one) >> there cam be problem because there on millions of engines out there with >> aluminum heads without a ford label that have more plug problems. > >Really? Which one are those? Why should I waste my breath >> Also you must by your plugs at Joe's ripp offs because I pay about 2 bucks >> of so a piece for my name brand ones here. > >Nope. I buy the OEM specified spark plug for GMs. Doing >otherwise is asking for trouble. You are buy them at the wrong place because I pay 3 bucks each for my spec'ed plugs. >> >> >> BTW, they are >> >> >> forcasting deisel fuel to hit $3.50 to $4.00/gallon this winter if it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Already refuted your exaggerated claims. No it has not been, if they were so great there would have been no need for a major rule cahne in 08 , removing sulpher and having detriot scramble on how to deal with it. Example Chysler stopped putting a oil burner in 07 Liberties because it could not meet 07 let alone 08 regs >> If gas motor had the same lack regs as oil >> burners they would be some real beasts today. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Chevies and International Harvester. 5 spd/4spd tandem and >tri-axle. You did not learn much then >> BTW the EPA has stated >> that diesel are the leading cause of polluton for transportation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I'll put that with all your other promises. Not likely. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >Yeah, R-134 is so poisonous they use it as propellant in asthma > >inhalers. Like -so- many other things, you have your facts very > >wrong. > > You better do more research, I have asstma and my inhaler does not > have R134 in it and never did. typical BS ASStma? Is this why you're such an a.s? I skipped most of YOUR stupid BS because I dont feel like replying to it because "you're to childish and immature to handle it". However this is an easy one to prove what a stupid and blind f.cker you are and anyone with google can check up on this. YES R134a is used as a propelant in inhalers and air dusters and many other things. You wont see "R134a" on the bottle! If you werent such a stupid f.cker you would instead see on many propelant products the following chemical "1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane". Geeeeee what is tetrafluoroethane I wonder??? Maybe he's right? Maybe the reason he's such an idiot is because tetrafluoroethane in his ASStma inhaler has destroyed his brain? PS Hey look its snoman sporting his tinfoil hat! http://static.flickr.com/54/111247831_2a0b0ade89_m.jpg > >Right. According to you, all it takes to compensate for the > >reduced air density is a different set of gears. > >Volumetric efficiency problem? Just put in the right gears > >according to the Snoblower. > This statement shows your total lack of understanding on this whole > matter. First there are no altitude problem in pennsylvainia Who beside you mentioned anything about an "altitude problem?" > you need > to go to Rockies for that. Next axle ratios have EVRYTHING to do with > towing power of a gas engine. A 200 HP 5.7 will towed far better with > a 4.10 than a 310 HP 5.3 with a 3.73. And my 180HP diesel with 3.54 gears tows better than any of those at much lower RPM which equals less wear and strain on the engine. > If you want maximum towing power > with a gas engine You just don't get it do you. I don't want to tow anything with a gas engine. It's a huge waste of time and resources. > you need to be at or very near you peak VE > (Volumetric Efficiency) or torque peak beacuse for one you will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > option with the gas motors and OD, diesels would loose a lot of there > luster. This is nonsense. You keep harping about taller gears and then claim that higher RPM is bad. How do you gear an axle lower and not spin the engine faster? > A ford 5.4 or GM 6.0 would surprize you what it would tow well > with a 4.56 axle No it wouldn't. I might be a bit shocked however at the amount of fuel it swills. > (they used to come with up to 5.13's years ago and > before there was OD trannies) but Detriot would never do that because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of the perferred setups in that day and could hit and hold 60 to > 65 MPH without beng floorboarded too. Yeah, well, it isn't 30 years ago, is it? You're a luddite, plain and simple. > >> Back in 03 in CO when on vaction > >> in some real mountain I cam on a truck with a big 5th wheel camper [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because every one else was doing less than 80 duh, Are you that slow > on the draw??? Seems you're a bit slow on your BS. If he was passing everything in site, he'd have passed you also. How can you "caught and passed it" when he's passing you? > >How is it that you think your silly little stories trump the real > >world experiences related by myself and many others who have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Never said it would get better MPG but I did say that it could pull > anything you could and cost lees to buy and maintian. How in your convoluted way of thinking is fuel economy not part of cost to buy an maintain? > Did I also > mention that if you areone to watch your legal GVW of vehicle that you > can carry 500 to 700 lbs more cargoe with a gas motor because the > drive train weighs a lot less? I'll bet that escapes you too. Nope, doesn't escape me. The other thing that doesn't escape me is that that 500 lbs extra cargo capacity may not matter to everyone, so the question then becomes, do I choose 500 lbs of cargo capacity that I'll never use or better fuel economy, better acceleration, lower operating stress, better reliability, no emissions tests, etc. > YOu know > some fool tried to adapt diesel to aircraft long ago but the had a > poor power to weight ratio, reliabilty issues, and problems in the > tempature extremes that they had to operate in too so they scraped it. There are a number of diesel aircraft engines available, could you be more specific? > >Yup, lots of 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesel pick-up trucks on the > >market 25 years ago, so you are comparing what to what? > >The friggin GM 6.2 wasn't even out yet! > > Nope not lots of them at all, My point exactly. <sheesh> > very few sold and they were a lot weaker > than gas motors. Gee, that would be the what, Oldsmobile gas engine based 5.7? > It was not till mid 90's and turbo charging did > Detriot start to push them and cheap fuel and cheaper option prices > then hepled too but it is not a cheap option As I stated before, the diesel option cost me nothing because the diesel engine holds its value better than any gas engined version. Bought the truck last June for $15,000, drove it for a year, sold it this June for $15,000. Same truck with a gas engine would have lost a couple of thousand dollars in that time. > and fuel will never be > cheaper again so worm has turned. If you like them fine but do not > spread the BS that they are a must have because you can be done > without them. Again, diesel was cheaper than gasoline this summer, just as it was last summer, and no doubt next summer. Given the difference in BTUs per volume and the inherent efficiency gains of a diesel engine, the fuel cost differences have to spread quite a bit before there is an -actual- deficit. > >Threatened? Hardly. The overall underlying pattern however > >seems to be a lot of people who smell your BS for what it really > >is. > No doubt about it. lie if you want but you are threaten that youego is > going to be bruised because you are not supreme with your oil burner. I don't own an oil burner anymore Snocone, so whatever doubts you may have are sadly misplaced. > Yep no doubt about it. There's no doubt that your reading comprehension is non existent. > >Yeah, R-134 is so poisonous they use it as propellant in asthma > >inhalers. Like -so- many other things, you have your facts very > >wrong. > > You better do more research, I have asstma and my inhaler does not > have R134 in it and never did. typical BS YOUR asthma inhaler doesn't have it. Doesn't in any may prove that it's not used. > >Now, explain for me how it is that the HCs in your AC system are > >somehow less polluting than the HCs from an engine tailpipe which > >have been regulated since the clean air act of 1968? > > Different chemical problems but you would know that is you had any > real knowledge on this. <cough> Bullshit. Your real knowledge is what? You claim to have gone to college for engineering, you obviously flunked out and now plow snow, cut lawns and haul manure for a living. > The problem with R12 and R12 is not down here R12 and R12? > on the ground, it is when it breaks down in to chorine atoms in upper > atmoshere and distroys Ozone. (it tkaes several years to get there > from ground (longer than the usefull low maintaince life span of a new > oil burner) Would you like to be 609 certified, I am licensed by the state of Wisconsin to teach the certification tests and issue diplomas you know. Now, tell us what your above gibberish about ozone and chlorine atoms has to do with putting HCs in your AC system. > >That's a time management issue. > Not it is not but you are a expert here, It's not hard to learn. > when you have to be one > place durring the week and another on weekend you have to make do. > Beside you side stepped how they where dumping oil burner because the > big blocks gassers ruled for them. Already explained that. It's always downhill on planet Snoball. > >> Their trailers where a lot heaiver that yours too > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with out at the very least 5200's and 6 or 7 K axles would be better > still You know, I've met 8 year olds who comprehend better than you. Again, slowly; You-have- no-way-of-knowing-how-much-that-trailer-weighed. But I will tell you that we had no problems with tires, axles or any other such things. Comprende? > >> and your 13 MPG at 80 is likely a lie too. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Give your BS elsewhere in this thread you have a ego issue so you > would never admitt otherwise. Well, so far, no one else has claimed that I'm lying. Surely there are some diesel owners here that would chime in, don't you think? > I had a freind that had a new 7.3 PS > (one of last ones made) and towed the circut with it. Man was he upset > when he saw how lousy the MPG was towing with his custom 50K CC dualie > 6 to 7 MPG around 80 and to make matters worse the guys with big block > could leave him if they wanted too. He dumped the truck after a year > when he got tired of feeding it and sucking hind tit. . Did you work on it? That might explain a few things... > >> BTW, oil burner need a lot of > >> boost to make any power at all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Lets compare apple to apple, compare a non turbo oil berner to a non > turbo gas motor, no contest, gas kicks it butt, Who currently sells a non turbo diesel in a 3/4 ton truck? > Next a gas moter built > for 6 PSI boost and a oil burner again no contest, oil burner gets but > kicked and so on. Who currently sells a boosted gas engine 3/4 ton truck? > To make any power on of a oil burner you have to use > 2 to 3 times as much air volume and more to make it and deliver 10 > times the NOx polution while doing it too. Make a oil burner meet the > exact same requiment for emissions as a gas engine then see what > happens as performce will suffer greatly You seem to like making comparisons of mythical trucks that do not exist on the market. You look to be desperate, not to mention absurd and ridiculous. > >> and a really big NOx polluters (this > >> will change in 08 with ne regs they will limit there performance and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > started to tighten them in 2007 model and every guy the chips his oil > burner turns it in a a major NOx factory You claimed diesel NOx equals ten gas engines. I proved you wrong. Stop exaggerating. > >Passenger car 5/50 diesel 1.00 gpm gas 0.40 gpm > >Passenger car 10/100 diesel 1.25 gpm gas 0.60 gpm [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > They have to if they want a Ford because the gas ones caught on fire > (GM ones never did) so they stooped making them Hey sh.t fer brains, I worked at a Ford dealership in the late 80s, did plenty of ambulance recalls, it wasn't just the gas engines, and for your information, it was the coolant hoses that were opening up and causing the fires. And FYI, GM didn't have any market share in the ambulance market, still don't. > >All those people pulling horse trailers. Fools. > I pulled horse for many years without them with no problems with the > proper gas truck Why do you think everything is about you? > >Contractors. Fools. > So yes with ego problems like yours. This isn't about me either. > I have a firend to bought one a > whiel ago and now he wishes he never did because it is not saving him > any money like people like you told him it would . Between namaintain > purchase price and fuel cost he is lossing money over a like gas truck Hogwash. > >Tow truck operators. Fools. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > below was common nobady plowed with a P/U with a diesel, they parked > them for winter. What year(s) were you living in -40 weather again? > >That back hoe digging a foundation. Owned by a fool. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > had a gas pony motor on it to start in in cold weahter because it > would never start otherwise Of course, nothing has or could possibly have changed since the 70s. > >OTR trucks (gears galore). Fools. > > Again not them same as a daily driver at all and a veru limted RPM > range on engine too Yeah, so? You said it was all about gears. Since they have access to so many gears, why don't they use gasoline instead since it's cheaper, more powerful, needs less maintenance, etc? > >The list goes on and on.... All fools. > > Yes you BS list goes on but you are labeling the wrong fool here Nope, right fool. BTW, the regulars over in the dodge truck group are still waiting for your explanation about the knock sensor on the V-10 engine, you know, the one that was never installed. > >Has nothing to do with aluminum. > > No surprized at all by that comment because again you are clueless Has nothing to do with aluminum. Again, you're relying on outdated information and trying to apply what you don't know to an entirely different failure. > >> If there are not or not properly torqued but inept mech > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enough about it (;ike ford catching on fired from cruise control > switch (that was a stupid again from day one) Got nothing to do with the installation, aluminum, cruise control, recalls or people fussing. Take a year or ten, get up to speed and then we can continue. Clearly this is all going right over your head. > >> there cam be problem because there on millions of engines out there with > >> aluminum heads without a ford label that have more plug problems. > > > >Really? Which one are those? > > Why should I waste my breath Because you've made a claim. Now back it up. > >> Also you must by your plugs at Joe's ripp offs because I pay about 2 > >> bucks [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are buy them at the wrong place because I pay 3 bucks each for my > spec'ed plugs. Because you drive old crap that specs a $3 plug. No missfire monitors 17 years ago, was there? > >Already refuted your exaggerated claims. > > No it has not been, if they were so great there would have been no > need for a major rule cahne in 08 , removing sulpher Sulphur is not NOx <sheesh> > and having > detriot scramble on how to deal with it. Example Chysler stopped > putting a oil burner in 07 Liberties because it could not meet 07 let > alone 08 regs And this proves your claim that a diesel has 10X the NOx emissions how? > >> If gas motor had the same lack regs as oil > >> burners they would be some real beasts today. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You did not learn much then This isn't about me. > >> BTW the EPA has stated > >> that diesel are the leading cause of polluton for transportation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not likely. Make up your mind... >YOu know > some fool tried to adapt diesel to aircraft long ago but the had a > poor power to weight ratio, reliabilty issues, and problems in the > tempature extremes that they had to operate in too so they scraped it. Scraped it? I guess they used a gasket scraper. Snowblower, as hard as it may be for you to believe, you might be wrong... http://www.centurion-engines.com/ One of many a simple search will uncover.  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 3 days 23:58 > >YOu know > > some fool tried to adapt diesel to aircraft long ago but the had a > > poor power to weight ratio, reliabilty issues, and problems in the > > tempature extremes that they had to operate in too so they scraped it. That fool was Hitler's Messersmeits. 203's I believe and they did quite well, I'm told. Sure, they were being phased out...........by JETS circa 1944. MM^^ > NO time management issues at all, you have x number of hours to work > with period. Their trailers where a lot heaiver that yours too and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to use it with too unlike your narrow one that get narrower the more > you boost it. Ya OK... Try getting a pickup truck, with the aerodynamics of a brick, to go 222 MPH with a diesel engine. Banks did, and kept it street drivable too. http://bankspower.com/sidewinder-news.cfm > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:54:57 GMT, aarcuda69062 BUZZ! Sorry, wrong answer. Thank you for playing. Many oil companies have been shipping the ultra-low sulfur diesel that meets 2007 model year requirements all summer. You fuel up in a Flying J and even though the sticker says you can't use the fuel in 2007 MY engines, it's still the ULS fuel. This from a friend who manages the Flying J in Saginaw, MI. > No look in the mirror as only a fool would pay 5K more thinking that > it will be cheaper in long run (it never will be) when fuel cost more > and will always cost more and it is going up another 8 to 15 cents > independant of market pressure due to costs for removing sulpher > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:08 GMT, aarcuda69062 > > There is no elevation to speak off on turn pike in PA. Ever driven the PA turnpike? Elevation approaches 3,500 feet in some areas, according to my GPS. It an't the Rockies but it ain't Kansas, either. >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:08 GMT, aarcuda69062 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > areas, according to my GPS. It an't the Rockies but it ain't Kansas, > either. Bad analogy. Elevations in western Kansas are over 4,000 feet. Elevation is meaningless in this discusion. Elevation changes over a short distance are what matters. >>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:08 GMT, aarcuda69062 >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Elevation is meaningless in this discusion. Elevation changes > over a short distance are what matters. More BS, Mark. Your naturally aspirated engine looses 10% of it's power for every 1000 feet of elevation above sea level it operates at, PERIOD. An engine with a turbo or super charger, does not suffer from that same dramatic power loss, period. It is an atmospheric density issue not a slope or grade issue. >>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:08 GMT, aarcuda69062 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > same dramatic power loss, period. > It is an atmospheric density issue not a slope or grade issue. BS right back at you. At 4,000 feet on level ground, a gas powered truck will have no problem. Throw in some rapid tansitions up and down some steep hills at this elevation and it will start to have some problems when compared to a turbo charged vehicle. >>>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:08 GMT, aarcuda69062 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > have some problems when compared to a turbo charged > vehicle. Do you have any clue what you are talking about, Mark? Your naturally aspirated 362 Horsepower V-10 has only 237 Horsepower and the Torque drops down from 457 to 300 at 4000 feet elevation. That power loss is real and doesn't have anything to do with the workload you are asking of the engine. The Powerstroke Turbo Diesel with 325 Horsepower & 570 Torque suffers no loss of power at higher altitudes. Please think about your statements and perhaps do some research before you respond with more of this nonsense. >Do you have any clue what you are talking about, Mark? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Please think about your statements and perhaps do some research before you >respond with more of this nonsense. Average HP loss per 1,000' of altitude (regardless if it's from high temps or actual increases above sea level or a change in barometric pressure is about 7hp. As such, your claimed <>130 HP loss from 4,000 feet is inaccurate. > There is no elevation to speak off on turn pike in PA. A Ford pickup > with stock tires and a 4.30 axle ratio with pull anything that a 6.0 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > above late at night they sucked on power and MPG with big cargo > trailers. Again you spew your misinformed BS, SnoMan. All the new pickup trucks have a computer speed limiter. Fords is at 95 miles per hour. For $200 you can buy the speed eliminator. With that installed, the Ford 6 liter Powerstroke Turbo Diesel with 4.30 gears can go 120 miles per hour with plenty engine to spare... You really need to learn what the hell you are talking about before you start spewing your BS. In article <nonelson-F173EC.20150701092006 @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, nonelson@sbcglobal.net says... > > >That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge > > >fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Maybe he doesn't live in your town. Diesel is already $3.51/gal in Seattle area. Regular just went down to $2.87/gal. I. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > Diesel is already $3.51/gal in Seattle area. Regular just went down to > $2.87/gal. Diesel is 3.05 here, gas is 2.87. If the Diesel gets 30% better fuel economy, which is the smarter choice? >>That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge >>fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com There is nothing that a stock 6 liter Powerstroke Turbo Diesel will pull that a half ton with a 4.6 will not pull either, so what? My 34 horsepower Kubota tractor can and does pull my full 12,000 pound goose neck horse trailer too... Until you have directly compared the absolute stark difference, you will never know how silly your statements sound. By the time you gear the V-10 to pull like the Powerstroke Turbo Diesel, you will be getting about half the fuel mileage it got originally, under half the mileage the diesel gets doing the same work. While you are wheezing up to the top of Poncha pass (elevation 9010 feet above sea level) or Milner Pass (elevation 10,758 feet) with less than 140 HP instead of your sea level 362 HP, and less than 177 Torque instead of 457, get back to me and explain how much better that is for towing than the 325 HP & 570 TQ the Powerstroke Turbo Diesel gets anywhere on the planet, and explain what a great value your less power and mileage truly is... Every time I FLY over a 6,000 or 7,000 foot pass with 12,000 pound trailer in tow, in 6th gear (overdrive/manual transmission) with cruse control on, I know without a doubt my old gasser couldn't hold a candle to this new drivetrain. That to me is worth every penny of the slight overall difference in price... >>That is exactly why people pay $5000 extra for their Turbo Diesels, huge >>fuel mileage improvement, and more power. :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com After reading through the whole thread, all I can say is don't sweat it SnoMan. I'm on your side on this one. If a person does a lot of heavy towing, then a diesel does make sense. They do have more torque and get better mileage under heavy load. I think a lot of folks who own diesel trucks just "have to justify them", and bring up the same old arguments time and time again. "Oh, you recoup the extra $5K at trade in time". Well, that is certainly true in the early years. But, not everyone is going to trade trucks frequently, so basically that $5K is tied up until then. Would the extra money be better off invested somewhere? And you would aslo save on extra finance charges. This arguement doesn't work for everyone. "I get 17 mpg vs 10 with the gas engine." True. And here in WA gas is 30 to 50 cents a gallon cheaper than diesel. Plus I saved $5K by not buying the diesel, so I have more money to save on gas, (over time that I don't have to pay finance charges on). Certainly at some point the diesel may pay for itself, but at how many miles? (In my case, it would be long after I have retired this truck.) "A diesel engine will run 300K before needing a rebuild". Sure. Maybe. Let's say it will. What shape is the rest of the truck in at 300K? Until just the last few years, (automatic) transmissions certainly wouldn't last behind the diesel engines. That would be a major expense. I've got 100K on my V-10 and it is running well. I certainly expect to run it another 50K, and I know folks have pushed the modular engines past 200K. If I were going to keep my truck forever, it would certainly be cheaper for me to buy a remanufactured V-10 over a Powerstroke. "V-10s blow spark plugs". Sadly that is true. Not all of them, but enough to where I wish Ford would fess up to the problem. But it isn't the end of the world. Heli-coils are out, but there is a company that makes an insert that is a good, dependable fix. Yes, your local Ford dealer will try and sell you a new head instead, but it is up to the owner to know better. Supposedly this issue was fixed in the last couple of years. And for the record, the 6.0L Powerstroke has had its share of "issues". And as SnoMan already stated, maintenance costs are significantly higher on a diesel engine, (if for no other reason than the many more quarts of oil they use!) As to the original posters question, save your money and keep a light foot on the gas. You will be hard pressed to find any product to improve your mileage that will recoup the cost of purchase. Diesel owners, feel free to flame away. I'm comfortable with my position and my truck. Thanks for asking! Matt 99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 >I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite > often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am > wanting > to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy > atleast > when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. Well, dude, looks like you lost control of your thread. Sorry about that. >I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite > often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am > wanting > to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy > atleast > when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. You can improve fuel mileage without any acessories. Accelerate slower off the line. Drive closer to the speed limit. Check for proper tire inflation. Remove any unecessary objects from the vehicle that might increase weight significantly. Consolidate trips. If you do a lot of driving that does not require a truck, it may be worthwile to get a used econobox for daily driving. John >I own a 2001 F-350 with a V-10. I use it as an every day driver, and quite >often approx about 10 times a month pull rather heavy trailers. I am wanting >to know if there are viable products that actually helps fuel economy atleast >when its a daily driver, and maybe during pulling situations aswell. Well, since this thread has degraded into yet another diesel vs gas argument, I thought I'd address the mileage issues. I run an '02 F350, V10, CC 4WD long bed with 4.30 gears and 35" tires. Mine is also my daily driver and I average about 9.5-10 MPG - BUT, I don't drive it like an old lady. If I drive it where the RPM never tops 2000 RPM, mileage will get very close to 12MPG in the city and well over 14 on the freeway. The best way lo keep mileage up is keep the tires properly inflated, front end properly aligned and go easy with the right foot. Keep the oil changed at proper intervals and just basically keep the vehicle properly maintained. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.