Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 

Go Back   Montana Owners Club - Keystone Montana 5th Wheel Forum > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS > Tow Vehicles & Towing
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-03-2008, 06:43 AM   #21
exav8tr
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Casa Grande
Posts: 5,369
M.O.C. #6333
While we could go on and on about MPG, it seems to me to be a moot point. There are just too many variables to compare different TV's. On any given day each one of us probably drives a little different, then take into account weather, road conditions, traffic, speed, tire pressures, barometric pressure, strecth of road driving. While it is somewhat nice to hear what other people are getting I get what I get. I'm not totally happy with it, but it would take a lot of extra miles per gallon to make me switch to some other TV. I fight the high cost of gas by travelling a little less. I think what kills me is the "in town" mileage I get by making many trips in and around town, but that's what seeing the country is all about.

As the saying goes: The proof is in the pudding......
 
exav8tr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 01:19 PM   #22
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
There are two things that pretty much invalidate that test for me. One is so many differences in the trucks. How can you truly compare?

The other is my own experiences. 13 mpg solo? My Dodge has never gotten so low as 13 solo, even with all town driving! I can't give any credence to a test with numbers so far from my own reality.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 01:30 PM   #23
neighborman
Seasoned Camper
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 52
M.O.C. #323
Steve, From reading other vehicle tests that Popular Mechanics does. I think they drive 'em like they stole 'em. All of their tests seem to have pretty poor mpg results. I know that if I keep my foot in it, I have to pay for that behavior at the pump next time I fill up.
neighborman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2008, 01:31 PM   #24
neighborman
Seasoned Camper
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 52
M.O.C. #323
Steve, From reading other vehicle tests that Popular Mechanics does, I think they drive 'em like they stole 'em. All of their tests seem to have pretty poor mpg results. I know that if I keep my foot in it, I have to pay for that behavior at the pump next time I fill up.
neighborman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 09:21 AM   #25
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Neighborman, I would think all the trucks would exhibit the poor mileage in that case, not just all but one. It just doesn't match up. I went to Tucson on Monday, driving 70 mph going, 75 coming back (speed limit is 75). I start at 3500 ft, gain about 800 feet, then drop 1800 down to about 2500. Going, 45 miles, cruise on 70, I got 22.3 mpg. Coming back I was climbing that 1800 feet, then dropping 800. Cruise on 75 mph. I got 18.9 mpg. And this is the norm for this truck. So I just cannot put much credence in that particular test. I don't drive it real easily, either, although I am not foot in the firewall all the time. Only sometimes. It's too hard on the rear tires.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:10 AM   #26
neighborman
Seasoned Camper
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 52
M.O.C. #323
Wow, Steve; I can only dream about that kind of mileage. When I drive 70 - 75, I get 14 mpg. Sixty five mph rewards me with 16 - 16.5. Best that I can do. I'll definitely opt for 3.73:1 or 3.55:1 if I get another TV. I looked for SRW at the time, and didn't want 4x4, but had to have the truck to meet a deadline, so I took this one; it was two years old at the time, and I got a good deal on it. (6years ago) It's been pretty good though.
neighborman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:44 AM   #27
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
That is super MPG for the new diesel motors. I knew that the are cummings the most MPG efficient of the big three,On my shinny new Ford 6.4L(now running good since the DPF replacement) I can get 18/18.5 at 63/65 MPH, boost around 10 or so on level roads like the Fla tpk. At 75 MPH the MPG plunges to the 15's, the more boost applied and the faster we go the more the MPG plunges. we only have 5600 miles on the truck so it may get better. Driver that pulled in across from us in a 08 250 reported better MPG by @ 2MPG but he was perhaps 1K lighter than my truck. I would be a lot heaver than Steves truck and have the 4:10 Diff, Those Cummings are awsome motors.

richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:49 AM   #28
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
That's one of the things I enjoy about this new Dodge. Far better mileage than I got with my 6.0's. Mine has the SRW, 4x4, and 3.73 axle. It's the megacab so is heavier than the quadcab, though. If I go over 70 my mileage starts dropping. Not all that difference between the 22.3 going and 18.9 on return was due to elevation changes. Going over 75 it drops far faster. Also have to keep in mind that with just short of 22,000 miles on the truck it's closing in on its peak mileage. And I have to say on a day I made that same trip but had a regen going on the mileage going to Tucson started out at over 22 and dropped to about 17.5 or so before ending up at around 20.0. I am very happy with the mileage on this truck, especially with the cheapest diesel here being 3.399. Towing mileage seems to be inline with my 6.0's, though. Usually around 11.5, +/-, depending on conditions. But our Montana weighs 14,620 scaled pounds, too.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 06:26 PM   #29
clutch
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: St.Maries
Posts: 1,010
M.O.C. #7329
If you go to http://www.dieselram.com and look at posts for the new 6.7 engines you will find that the mileage is all over the place. Some are doing very well and others are on the low side.
clutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 05:37 AM   #30
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Rich, yours is heavier than mine, no doubt, especially being the dually. Mine is srw and shortbed but the megacab, which is huge and makes it heavier than the quadcab. With full diesel and no people onboard it weighs in at 8160 or 8120 (I forgot which, offhand). That includes a steel fullsize toolbox, crossbed, the hitch, rhino liner, and all our gear. I just wish towing mileage were a bit better.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 06:51 AM   #31
Broome101
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Conover
Posts: 995
M.O.C. #1832
Steve I have SRW long Bed F350 Crew cab i am at 8,900lbs loaded full tank 2 adults 2 kids, tool box full of just in cases.
Broome101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 08:14 AM   #32
MIMF
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Goshen
Posts: 1,058
M.O.C. #2827
Neighborman,

As you can tell from my signature, I own a Silverado SRW 1 ton. If you go shopping for a GM product with the Duramax/Allison combination, you will quickly learn that they do not offer anything other than a 3:73 rear end. I guess that they think that with the torque of the Duramax and the intelligence of the Allison when in the tow/haul mode, you don't need any other rear end. For me, that is absolutely fine.

My truck is going on 3 model years old very shortly. I recently rolled the odometer to 56000 miles. This thing is still not broken in! Because, every few months I am rechecking fuel mileage the good old fashioned way and it is consistantly getting a 10th or 2 MPG better and I am using this thing as my daily driver.

Gail just recently bought a 2007 Trail Blazer. It is a great vehicle! But, everytime we go somewhere of any distance, we take my truck. The reason is, there is less cab noise and it rides nicer than the Trail Blazer. And, even though fuel prices are 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher than gas, it really does not cost that much more to operate because, generally I am not towing and I have the bed cover extended.

It is only fair that I tell you that when I have that 14000 pound Challenger setting on it's back, fuel mile will very anywhere from 10.0 to 13.0 miles per gallon. Naturally, that all depends on road conditions and how far into the fuel pump I have my foot planted. But, I have never had to worry about whether or not she could do the job.

Bottom line. When you get ready to buy another tow vehicle, test drive all 3 brands. You will end up getting what is right for you.
MIMF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 09:42 AM   #33
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Broome101

Steve I have SRW long Bed F350 Crew cab i am at 8,900lbs loaded full tank 2 adults 2 kids, tool box full of just in cases.
Broome, yours is then a bit heavier than mine. I have never weighed with kids in mine but with two adults it would come out to 8560. The toolbox is also very full and loaded heavily, as is yours. I don't know how big your kids are but we're pretty close in weight with yours maybe being a couple hundred pounds heavier, depending on how big the kids.

My towing mileage is a little bit less than Dale reports he is getting. It's still pretty good, though. And, as he said, I'd recommend someone looking for a tow vehicle go into that process knowing that all three do an excellent job. So, pick the truck on the other things you like about it so you get the one that is the best fit for you. That's what we did and we got the best fit for us. At this time. Next time may differ as those who know I drove Fords for years are aware. I drove all three and liked things about them all. But I bought the one I liked best for our particular situation.

Dale, that's yet another 1 ton SRW GM. What on earth were those dealers telling me? One of those dealers was near you. In Elkhart.

sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 10:08 AM   #34
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
Broome101.. Our trucks are the same execpt mine is a dually. With full fuel, Helen and I (and Bird) on board. We do not have much in the bed other than the hitch, we were 9212 one time snd 9218 another time. These Fords are heavy.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 11:16 AM   #35
Broome101
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Conover
Posts: 995
M.O.C. #1832
Your correct they are heavy, Steve my oldest son football guy is 15 YOA and weighs about 225 in off season, 210 during football, keeps it off running everyday. Per couch potato currently but the other is about 75 lbs soaking wet, my tool box is loaded with everything I would need to do any job on the road plus air compressor and 10K lb winch as well. When I weighed it it was without hitch but that could weigh I would think less than 150lbs. I get around 14-16 mpg not towing and that's if I treat the pedal good or at least stay less than 2500 RPM's over that MPG go down fast. I tow about everything from 14K camper to 8K equipment trailer I don't care what I pull it gets about 11-12.5 MPG. I really would thing towing our camper would be less but really not, have three equipment trailers from a 5K to 12K trailer and push tow mode and get about same no matter what. I have seen in interstate not towing after rest about 19-20 mpg but once I start stop and go drops to 14-16 at best.
Broome101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 12:36 PM   #36
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
Our numbers are close, Of course we have the 08 with the new emmision standards. We have been using the Shell premium diesel here in Florida and the Diesel seems to like it better. From what I can learn the Shell premium has a higher cetane rating which these new diesel need. Since the new DPF we are happy with the trucks performance.We knew the Fords were very heavy..but they are tough..
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 12:51 PM   #37
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Rich, just curious, where are you getting the precise weight readings? The scales I've used all are to the nearest 20 lbs. I'd like to have a more precise number although I'm not sure why.

I always just use the regular diesel in mine and it seems to like it fine. It might be a geographical difference in the diesel.

You're right, they are tough. At least mine always were. Good trucks.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 01:31 PM   #38
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
We weigh at a landscaping company scale normally used to weigh loads of gravel, mulch, dirt , etc in our hometown in Ohio. Can't weigh the 3400 there as the camper is to long for the scales. We had a pretty good lecture from "the" Diesel guy here at the local Ford dealership in Florida about cetane ratings and the effect of a defective DPF on the all over performance of these new motors. The Dealership had tested cetane levels at stations in the area and found the cetane levels at 40/41. These new diesels like a min of 45. We were advised to use a cetane booster or the Shell premium if we could find it. There are many shell stations in this area that sell the Diesel premium. I really could not say for sure that the shell fuel is better because the truck is still breaking in but we have used several tanks of it without the cetane booster and our MPG is up and my neighbors say we sound quieter as we clatter by. You have put more miles on the new motor than anyone I know and we value your observations.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 02:35 PM   #39
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Thanks for the info. I've only used cat scales, grain elevators, and one city scale and always wished they had more specific weights. That would be nice.

I'm glad Dodge says regular diesel is ok. So far no problem with the dpf. Hopefully it won't be a problem. I know they've been used in Europe for awhile but I have no idea their actual operating experience with them. I did read that they will someday be thought about like the cat converter is. They're usually invisible unless there's a problem. I remember as you probably do when the cat first came out we all thought it would be the end of the modern automobile and its performance.

If a Dodge or Cummins diesel guy told me what the Ford diesel guy told you, I'd sure be listening to him, too. I'm glad to hear your truck is doing much better. I sure couldn't understand why it was doing so poorly but it all makes sense now. And it's nice to have a clue to the cause if something like that afflicts mine in the future. Your reports are appreciated.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2008, 02:21 AM   #40
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
Ford admits to having a run of defective DPF's that were cracked Internally upon manufacture or defective to the point of failure shortly thereafter. I was lucky enough to get one of those.You are correct DPF's have been in use In Europe for many years but are new to us and we are automatically suspicious of anything new.We attended seminars over 2 years ago by International and were told about the effect of the ULSD and the DPF on overall diesel performance but the actual experience was a real eye opener. We may note that Cetane rating is never posted at the pump unlike Octane rating because, We are told, there is no legal rating, in the USA, for cetane rating. In Europe the cetane rating was set at 49 in 1994 and 51 in 2000. In the USA the CN rating for regular diesel is 40-45 and premium 45-50. But we are never sure what we are pumping. The higher the cetane rating the beter the diesel performes (up to a max of 55) We have a lot to learn.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008-2010 ford diesel chapman Tow Vehicles & Towing 29 03-04-2016 01:54 PM
2008 Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel awhite Trailers, Tow Vehicles & RV related items for Sale 0 04-01-2013 01:56 PM
Selling 2008 Lariat F 350 Diesel 4x4 nickandmarilyn Trailers, Tow Vehicles & RV related items for Sale 0 04-24-2010 10:46 AM
2008 F250 6.4 Diesel Regeneration ehmcfarl Tow Vehicles & Towing 19 10-12-2009 12:36 PM
looking to buy 2008 F 350 diesel bigrockbruce Tow Vehicles & Towing 3 04-07-2008 11:25 AM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Montana RV, Keystone RV Company or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.