Diesel Truck Emissions and MPG

This is a very interesting case history. If I understand it correctly, the truck giving 30 MPG is an old version of a diesel engine without emission controls etc. If this is the case, I presume that the truck doesnt have the modern amenities such as air conditioners which are a drain on the engine and lead to more fuel consumption. The new version trucks having turbochargers guzzle more diesel as the turbo charger is run by the same engine and the power required to run the turbocharger has to come from the same engine and hence more diesel consumption. Besides, if there is no need for a turbocharged engine, one should not purchase the same as turbochargers are required if you have to haul heavy loads or travel uphills. Regarding emissions, it doesnt matter if you spread the emissions over a 100 miles strecth or 10 mile strectch, the total volume still goes into the atmosphere. High mileage doent also mean less pollution. Pollution is the amount of gases generated during combustion and the less the better. High mileage could mean lesser loads on the engines, and should not be coupled to emissions.

The difference in fuel consumption is far to big to be caused by new engine calibration to meet the new emission standards. But there are two points to be considered. 1. To get low NOx you have to reduce peak combustion temperatures. At conventional engines, this results in less efficiency. 2. The engine calibration (fueling, timing, EGR,...) is optimized to meet the emissions in the test driving cycle. But this is not real life.

Lower fuel consumption will, ceteris paribus, meean less pollution. So unless the NOx emitted per gallon has been reduced by two-thirds the lower MPG means more pollution - but the main means of reducing NOx is by using exhaust catalysts or a fuel additive (there are fuel additives that simultaneously dramatically reduce NOx and particulate emissions and improve mpg - ask Clean Diesel Technologies, Associated Octel or Rhodia - I prefer CDT's); Johnson Matthey or Engelhard are the leading suppliers of exhaust catalysts which should only worsen performance by about 5%. Emission control cannot of itself reduce efficiency by two-thirds. You've been sold a lemon. Try turning off the air conditioning and any other fancy gadgets which weren't on the old truck and measure mpg on as near to a like-for-like basis as possible then go back and complain again.

well you missed it, both trucks had ac, and both trucks were drove the same, both trucks were the same engine, but one had the new emisions, and a turbo, and if you ask any one with a new diesel, the mpg is far less than the pre 2000 yr models,(it was a 1997), its all about the emissions, nothing to do with gadgets, both truck (and all others i've talked to) are telling me the same thing, yes we put fuel conditioner in the tank every time we fill up, and it does help the mpg, we also found that if we use preimum diesel, we get better mpg, its worth the extra 6 -10 cents a gal, but still get less than half what the pre 2000 epa emission standards did, so again i ask, how can a truck that was getting 3 times the mpg be worse than a truck getting just over 10 be better?? if you use 3 times less fuel over a trip?? yes if its got a little more nox but if it takes you 3 weeks to burn a tank,compared to, you burn a tank every week,, how can 3 times more fuel in the same trip/distance be better, your still burning fuel, and now your burning 3 times more!!! humm,,

Quite possibly a good portion of the difference is due to manufacturing tolerances. Every engine is different even in the same year. I had a 1987 car with a 302 V8 in it that should have gotten into the low 20's in mpg at best. I have a 105,000 mile history of gas purchases to prove it got as high as 30 mpg at times. This should never have happened, but it did. This car, like your old truck was an exception. The block in our car came from the factory as though it had been "blue printed". Everything was in perfect alignment. My son and I decided to drag race it at 100,000 miles and tore the engine down, only to put it back together as it was, since little could be done to improve it. The wear in the bores was inside tolerances for re-building with 100,000 miles of wear. Balance of the crank/piston assembly was phenomenal. This, like you old truck engine, was just a "freak" of manufacturing process.

Sorry, I read the next comment before I got to respond so I thought "maybe air conditioning and other extra gadgets makes up a few percent of the difference" so that if you wanted to PROVE there's something wrong you needed to show what happens without these so that no clever-pants lawyer can say "It's all due to these new-fangled extras, not because we messed up badly manufacturing that particular truck". Of course there's no logic in government regulation - not so long ago California passed legislation so that any new car in Los Angeles had to have less pollutants per cu foot coming out of its exhaust than it took in through its air inlet in the bonnet! But I still think (if anything, more so) there's something wrong with your new truck if fuel consumption has doubled, let alone trebled.

So, what I would like 2 know; What make and model are we talking of here?? I suspect Ford because I don't believe their diesels were turboed in 97. Given that, 30 miles per gallon is a very suspect mileage figure. I have driven, owned Dodge diesels since 95, and none of them came close to 30 mpg (tho I did hit 20 on occasion.) The mpg would vary 2 to 3 mpg between pulling a load (gooseneck horse trailer) and not. Your claim to 30 mpg regardless of load seems far fetched. The real problem with a turbo is that it generally means more power and performance - which our right foot chooses not to ignore. Turbos run on heat which otherwise heads down the pipe to the atmosphere, so their "power cost" is minimal. Once we know what you are driving, maybe we answer your questions more satisfactorally.

hi,, well you guess it,, it is a ford, and the new is a ford, but,, i guess i havent heard of anyone (new diesels) getting close to 30,, and yes it wasnt allways 30,, the least we got was 23-25, and that was puling a heavy load in the hills,, and ive heard of others getting close to that with the pre 2000, and yes we took it back to the dealer to have it checked out,, when we bought it,, and as i said, the dealer gave us the song and dance,, then when it was clearly a used truck 10k-11k the song and dance truned to we dont warrenty mpg, and after talking to several people (including other makes) the mpg wasnt much different, find a person that has a pre 2000 and ask them how many mpg they get and ill bet it will be much more than current models, then ask a person that has a forien model, and ill bet its more than a us model, gee could that be why the u.s. models is getting stomped in the ground each yr, the part that gets me is they cant seem to catch on about standing behind there (u.s.) products, have you heard of a honda dealer telling a customer that just bought a car, pay us $$ and we'll look and see if its a problem covered under warrenty?? (note the part,, pay us first), regardless of the actual mpg,, how can a enginge that gets more mpg bet worse at emissions? both engines burn fuel and make you go, so if you go more distance on a gal, (and im not talking about a foot or two) and if it still has the standard emissions, are we pushing the emissions paset the point of reality,what is the greater, burn more fuel to stop a dismal amount of emissions?? is there bigger fish to fry, the corprates that pay a fine each yr, and look at it as a permit? and yet still continue to exceed the limits? im not against making the transportation better, and polute less, but, what are we talking here, 1/3 the mpg is a large amout of difference, is it better????

Then the engines aren't the same, if your previous ford was a 97! That had a 7.3 litre, your current is a 6.0. I have a close friend who bought an '04, but had an '03 engine with the then current computer control. After having the computer reflashed, the transmission and performance went to hell. He finally recovered things under lemmon law arbitration - and proceeded to buy a new 2006 model from the Ford!! I bought my Dodge for the Cummins, nothing else. They have a much better track record with regard to computer control of their engines - and besides, I feel an I6 is a better, more efficient configuration than a V8. Open a hood on a new ford, and it's a plumbers worst nightmare! No room to do anything. What I really want to know is how you checked your mileage?? I NEVER heard of anyone getting 25 to 30 mpg out of ANY large pickup with a Diesel! I had a 96 Dodge that averaged 17 to 18 mpg, which was about norm for a pre-computer Cummins. My current 05 Dodge gets 16-17 mpg with 14K miles on it. Takes about 30K to get a Cummins broken in, so I expect the mileage to improve a little bit. What ever you do, DON't believe the mpg computed by the computer that may display on your dash , or overhead! It's way optimistic. Divide miles by gallons, and make sure your speedometer is reading correctly by running a measures mile at 60 mph. Should take 60 seconds! If anything, the computer controlled motors run more efficiently than whatever came b4, so bear that in mind.

I have a friend who's son is a diesel technician in the Chicago land area, he can program my 7.3 liter diesel in my 2001 F350 crewcab dually with a 4:11 rearend to get 30 MPG and proved it to me. The downside is that you cant really use it for pulling when set to these levels. And if Ford finds out about it they will void the warranties if they are still in place. However the settings are easeier on your transmissions and fuel systems.

You are correct!!!!! IM 240 testing with the balloon theory is wrong. These college boy engineers that designed this crap are not mechanics and they do not have a clue as to what they are doing.

the truck was a 1997, yes it had emission controls, but was before the 2000 standards, and it had (has) the same gadgets, same crew cab, same size engine, same,same, the ONLY difference is the turbo, and the 2000 emissions that had to be meet, please read the reply down a couple storys, i still think its a big problem, is the goverment trying to keep us from getting the fuel consumption down? we cant have those engines takking profits from the political/oil people,??

There are some basic questions I am thinking about in terms of this post, they are as follows: What is the idle speed vs the older truck, exactly the same? Also how does the new transmission compare to the older truck, is the truck shifting at the same rpms as the old one? Does the new truck run with exactly the same engine temps? I suspect that the real culprit here is the turbo. Where does this truck operate? Here in the New England our fuel makeup has changed dramaticaly for the worse due to emmission standards, especially the gas, and is causing problems with our small engines- 2 cycles etc. Ive heard of truckers using a hydro-gen system to increse milage. This might work if you don't mind making a modification. I really appreciate older equipment now that I'm getting older, If I had to buy equipment I'd definately go with something pre 1990, even if I had to rebuild it, the new stuff is nice shiny crap! I'm looking into some sort of fuel stabilizer for my small engines, I think there would be applications for diesel along the same lines. That turbo's really going to hit your wallet hard, sorry, L.

It is a simple relation, increased power (turbocharger) yields increased fuel consumption or decreased fuel economy. Turbocharging a small engine should be more efficient than a larger engine for the same power output. However, you stated the engine was the same size, so of course your fuel economy goes down. Your performance, i.e. acceleration should be better, but may not be much better if the new pollution controls place a higher back pressure in the exhaust system than the previous ones did.

I am not as familiar with Diesel pollution controls as compared to Gasoline engines, but catalytic converters basically "burn" (oxidize) wasted fuel, yielding H2O (water vapor) and CO2 (carbon dioxide gas)with some CO gas as well, and convert CO, NOx to N2, CO2, and O2, the components of air. NOx (NO and NO2) are bad for a variety of reasons (see URL below). In Diesel engines, I believe controls focus on reducing soot and converting cancer-causing (if airborne) carbon particulates to C02 gas, which although might be contributing to global warming, is not yet on the EPA list of harmful pollutants. All humans, animals, and some plants give off C02 as part of normal respiration, so it would be pretty hard to say it is dangerous!

I would say that the government sometimes has conflicting goals, and this is a good example. On the one hand reducing fuel consumption SHOULD lead to a reduction in air pollution overall, but the "fix" to reduce individual pollutants (engines) can also also lead to an increase in fuel consumption through decreased efficiency. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" as they say!

What are your options? You could sell the new truck, cut your losses, and look for a well-maintained low-mileage replacement for your older vehichle. If you live in an area where bio-diesel (vegetable oil-enriched diesel) is available for a lower price, you might look into getting your own tank to fuel your "fleet". The pricing might be lower because of government subsidized research funds or alternative fuel incentives. How is that for irony?

http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter.h tm

i think you got part of it, its the goverment? we did try to find a pre 2000 model before we bought the NEW one, but i think people were on to the mpg, before we were, so its very hard to find one, and the $$ is holding on to the oldr models, unfortunalty, we didnt have a choice to keep the 1997 model, my wife totaled it in a accedent, and the value of it was allmost what we payed for it, thats how bad people want the older ones, it was striped of the motor and drive train about the same time it got to the yard, i wouldnt be suprized if it went in to a new model!! AND if the turbo was a emission increaser, then why did the goverment let them install them?? cause they dont care about the mpg??? you cant get the same engine (or a diesel) that dont have turbo. how many of the senators/ goverment people have stocks in oil?? dont this seem like a double standard? im for lower gas prices and better mpg.. but yet i make more $$ if not?? ummmm which is it??? they should not be allowed to own stocks in oil, and represent us, but thats another story,, there's not enough paper to get going on goverment waste, i know i see it verey day, its very upsetting, but,,, i do what i can to save the taxpayers $$ even if i get in trouble some times, you are suppose to play by the rules, even if it costs the taxpayers thousands,, see,, you got me going,, back to the mpg, im just not sure that a enging that gets less mpg is better than a unit that gets more,,,

My old friends. 1) Yes, better MPG means less "emissions", BUT, only by total mass. The emissions you get with lower MPG may be 'cleaner' (i.e. non-disease causing and environmentally useful) even though there will be more. Government is not always evil. 2) Engineering. Car companies typical add stuff to change emissions. They don't necessarily re-engineer. 3) Now for the long part... I had a '72 Thunderbird with a massive V8 (gas, yes, but...) Bit by bit as the pollution control devices malfunctioned they were disconnected. (Remember that old pump thing that ran off a fan belt? Ford was kind enough to have it on it's very own belt all alone so when it jammed - about 6-7 hours or miles after the warranty ended - one simply removed the belt.) Then one day in 1978 I got caught by the Ontario 'pollution police'. They pull you over and inspect under the hood. I was allowed 72 hours to fix it all. I had no $$ but did have a fine Holley 4bbl from a '58 Edsel. For $6.50 my local Ford dealer sold me a carb kit (it was the last listed price they had) which they'd had since 1963. The carb just dropped right on to that 460, with only fuel and PCV valve input. The rest of the many hoses I simply plugged into each other under the air cleaner. Found the Pollution Police and used their exhaust gas analyzer to tune the engine. Got them to sign off that my 1972 car met 1976 standards, and void my ticket. Later noted my gas mileage went from 12 average to 16. Had more get up and go, too. Not as spectacular as your diesel, but not too bad for less than ten bucks!

In order to get the most power out of a given fuel in an internal combustion motor you need to capture as much heat as possible. One way to do this on a diesel motor is to keep advancing the injection point so that when combustion occurs the expanding gases have the maximum amount of time to act on the piston. This why on a typical gasoline motor advancing the ignition timing yields more power. This would work fine in an environment where the buffer gas in the atmosphere were something inert rather than nitrogen. Nitrogen burns in the combustion chamber right along with the fuel whenever the temperature is high enough, to form NOx. Which incidently allows you to reduce the injected fuel slightly without getting the combustion temperature so high that the aluminum piston starts to burn away. So the efficiency of a street motor is limited by prohibited NOx emission levels. There are three ways to reduce NOx emissions: retarding the advance to lower the the combustion temperature, or introducing incompletely combusted exhaust gas into the combustion chamber to lower the burn temperature or using noble metals in a second catalytic convereter stage to scrub the exhaust. Each process complements the other. And each presents unique challenges to solving the bigger emission problem. Both retarding the timing and adding EGR cost power although adding EGR allows more but not optimum advance. So bolt on a turbocharger and try to recapture some of the lost heat energy. When you supercharge the air-fuel charge to a motor you must reduce the advance so that detonation doesn't occur in a gasoline motor and premature detonation doesn't occur in a diesel. Net gain in power, net loss in efficiency since slightly more fuel is being burned but still a decrease in NOx. The first catalytic converter is an oxidizing catalyst with regard to C (somewhat), CO, and HxCx. The secondary converter is a reducing catalyst with with regard to NOx. Now the 97 7.3l diesel was a beast. Normally aspirated it would walk and talk, but it would never on a good day see 25mpg unless there were something wrong with your odometer (which by the way have been problematic in Fords for years), the more likely true average is around 14-16mpg. Yout motor at 6.0l is nearly 10% smaller and is running with boost most of the time to produce similar but cleaner power with what should be very similar quantities of fuel. If your mileage is truly considerably lower than that I would have my odometer checked for accuracy and then have the powertrain management system looked at or monitored for proper operation to see where the missing mpg went.

the truck has a 7.3.. its not a 2006, we bought it a couple yrs ago, and as several of you have stated, we couldnt get 30 mpg.. we did,, and it was by dividing the gal to fill to the miles gone, and we did it on every tank,, and still do, the 1997 was a wonderful truck, we got the best of both worlds, it was when the diesel was cheaper than gas, and got better miliage, now,, there is no point in buying a diesel, only to the customers that need the power to pull special stuff, we will never buy another one, unless the stated reasons change, but, i guess its a question of is the small amout of better pollution, reason enough to suffer the waste of fuel, i guess we all have to put in our 2 cents worth, but its a heavy price we all have to pay, i still have difficulty in the better mpg getting worse emissions, seems like that would be the goal we strive for getting the mpg to the highest possible amount, for all the reasons, but the goverment must know best! or is it the envior-mental-ist,, sorry little bitterness here, it was nice being able to go for more than 400 mi on a small 16-18 gal tank of fuel,(it had dual tanks), we could go past lots of fuel stations, but now, were LUCKY if we get near 400 on a 32 gal tank, so weve done the math, tank after tank, and have the pages to show, thats why we were so unhappy about the new(2000) truck,, by the time we got 10k on it it was 2002 ( the truck was a 2000 bought in the later of yr) and dont really drive alot, compared to some ive talked to, put 1200 a week,, but ive talked to alot of folks, and found its the same for all,, the new(er) trucks get about 12-15mpg avg ofcourse,, if you get different let me know, the one thing i havent heard anyone say anything about is the fuel!! i heard that the goverment is now going after the fuel,, it has to have lower sulfer,, is this going to change things??? and did the people that got less mpg on there older diesels, pay the bucks and get premium?? we did and still do,, even though its hard to find actual premium,,!! since there is no control or regulations on diesel fuel,, they can sell kerosine and call it diesel,,(yes it is, but not the same)have you seen a pump that listed the cetane ratings,, not many if at all,, whys that???

Greetings all. Let me begin with this bit of information: Turbo chargers work off from burn gases in turn forcing more air O2 into the cylinder. Todays diesel engines are built for a different kind of pollution. Noise pollution. To reduce noise the engine timming is retarded until engine speed has been reached and is how it works. Retarded timming means a lower mpg. What makes it happen is a little sensor called a "knock sensor". When the engine noise is at its peak, this sensor will retard the timming. Older diesel engines did not have this sensor. The timming base line was fixed and only advanced with engine rpm. Computer control provides timming with a wider range reducing engine noise and effectly reducing mpg by fault. Gas engines used this sensor to reduce engine ping or permature ignition burn of fuel do to high exhaught valve temp which caused the early burning of fuel. GM and Ford build diesel engines for passenger cars. Dodge buys their engine from Cummins. The 6B engine has always been and will always be an industeral engine that is more that 30 years old in design. As for the poor mpg I strongly advise you demand a reburn of your ECM and a total systems check behond an ECM scan. You are not the first to have this trouble with mpg often caused by incorrect engine timming and believe it or not, poor assembled electrical systems that cause incorrect voltage readings to the ECM. Always remember your engine is totally controlled by a electrical current. After a very heatly tune up of your ECM, which is clearly not working correctly, often cause by a poor ground that is not detected by the ECM, ever. You can add mpg by using bio-diesel fuel, installing an hp chip (void warrenty)adding a very small amount of 2 cycle to your fuel (do not tell dealer). Keep in mind this little known fact: diesel engines break in time is between 80 and 100,000 miles for any of todays diesels. The average life of a 7.3 is 500,000 miles for Ford. 350,000 miles for the 6.6 GM and for Dogde, 650,000 miles. Keep a good oil in any of these engines and you will get your money back. After a proper correction of your engines ECM, plan on 17 to 19 mpg. Add a few tricks and get up to 28 mpg and horse power like you never have known in a pick up truck. The down side will be the drive tires to the adding of preformance. You will not know it but those tires will be digging in all the time. Oh, one other note for you. 7.3 DI. (Double injected.) This happens when the engine is cold and when the timming is retarded, reducing engine noise. DI is what makes the new generation of diesels quite as well as powerful when the timming is retarded. Again, have the electrical systems checked out and a reburn of the ECM. I might also add that you are going to have to work to find a dealer with well educated,"extremely experienced" diesel mechanics in there shop which "should be" very hard to find, otherwise you have just another Ford Mechanic.

this is the type of info that helps us all, i am wondering why the problems of the ecm, wasnt a sugestion of the dealer to try and correct the complaint we have?? we have a diablo sport programer, and have found it did help the mpg, but still way low, we have bought special air filters, and set the computer to max mpg, and use the best oil, but the best mpg we have recorded is 14, and after having a engine that got upper 20's its still very disapointing, to say the least, then add the dealers lack of looking in to the problem, (im being very nice here) it really is a let down, and now we have a bad feeling to the ford co. we even went to the reg. rep. and all they did was refer all info right back to the dealer, what a usless deal that was!!! i am curious though, how can i find a dealer that will do/know about the ecm reburn process? or even tell us that it can be done, and im betting it will be at our cost, but it would be worth it if the mpg went up more than 1 or 2 mpg, asuming it could be done, we would put the dealer program back on the truck computer, then have it recalibrated/ burned? thanks for the info on the ecm, i will be checking into it. can the anti-knock sensor be changed/removed?? can you manualy reset the timming? ive found that the computer just keeps resetting the timming if i change it on newer cars, darn those computers,, let me know if you have any more info on this,, thanks again,

Your on the right path to making your truck get the mpg you are looking for. Dulter Ford Truck in Grand Rapids has perhaps the best you can find reguarding diesel troubleshoot. However, I could tell you where to get your ecm custom burned and you would have the mpg you are looking for and more power than ever could have thought of but that information is best left for you to find. Google 7.3 or 6.0 high performance. Keep in mind: there is a fine line to getting what you are loking for mpg when changing the program of your ecm. The sensor is part of the system and can not be remove(epa)but can be made not to hear so well. Double check the sticker on the right valve cover for your engine size. Besure you have a 7.3 and not a 6.0. Also, a nother point to be made here, what is your gearing? 4:10, 4:11, 3.73? If you have a tall hwy gear, take it out of over drive or dirrect. The engine will run at a higher rpm but your mpg could go up in relation to the speed you are driving. 55 mph and less, no over drive. 70 mph use over drive. Finding the right toque band,just under peak, (IE 7.3 toque band) for your engine will be up to you. Once again, the information you need is at your finger tips. Google it. Keep in mind the epa as you do your home work. I also want you to know that as fact; you can get up to 32 mpg with your truck depending on the gearing.(reported and proven, 23 mpg@70 mph w/ 4:10 gearing w/ 17,000 in tow, 6.0 Ford) If you do things right not only will you have good mpg, you will also have a race horse on your hands that will eat the nieghbors kid's car alive. Do not: use prophane assist!

thanks, if i rember correctly the gears are 3.9, ill have to check, the rpm is about 2.5 at about 80, wife likes to go fast,, yes its a 7.3. it was bought before the 6.0 was available, we dont really care for the max hp, but more for the mpg, can hardly afford fuel as it is, i work with a couple guys that also have the 7.3 and one is trying the pills, and looking into the veggie fuel, he has put 2-3 gallons of gas in a tank to see if it helped and claims it starts better,, but only got a mile or two more,, and im not sure i want to put gas in?? i kinda like the 2cycle fuel idea, has the lub in to replace the gas dryness?? the only truck dealer close to us is central, and ive been hearing more and more people haveing troubles, its where we bought ours, positivaly wont again, but gr is not that far,, i take it your from around here? how is the 32 mpg a possibility?? change the gears to 2.7?? if we could get in the mid 20's it would be great, after dealing with the low teens, have you heard anything about the problems were going to have with the new fuel?? low sulfer,,?? does this mean we can get rid of some of the emission controls for the better fuel?? or are we going to pay with more loss of mpg??? we found that premium fuel gives better mpg, but have difficulty finding true premium!!. thanks for the info again

hp is only a bonus to your desire for mpg. Your gear is a good one. Veggie fuel has a lot to offer. Gas will quickly bring and end to your engines life. "don't do it" I lived near gr for 27 years. There are two kinds of diesel fuel in the USA. On road and off road. Meaning; low sulfer (green) and high sulfer (red) Your engine was built for low sulfer if built after 1996. Your safe I would say. Veggie fuel is bio-diesel. This far it is proven very well and out performs the normal stuff. Lower sulfer means more refinement. Higher fuel bill is questionable but not likely. I might add, with a little home work, you could make your own fuel for less than you pay. Diesel engines are very user friendly and for giving.

5 Star I have read your notes on this question about Fuel MPG. Is the Ford 7.3 able to get 30 MPG? How about the 6.0?. I am in the market for a used truck and fuel economy is very important. I do not tow with this truck. I have a friend with a turner-Diablo Predator he gets around 30 Highway on his 2000 7.3 Excursion and gets 24mpg on his 2005 6.0 Excursion.I have an Edge turner with my 7.3 2000 Excursion with a slight HP increase I get 16.5 Highway. When I set it to plus 75 hp I get 22.5 mpg.

We have a company that had almost every year of ford diesel and gas. The ford diesels were good in fuel milage till after 2000 model year then it went to crap. My 2002 ford gets between 9-11 mpg not towing,with towing im lucky to get 8mpg.My 2 96 fords and up to 99 get awsome fuel milage and 2 of them are mini dumps. I parked the 02 in the garage and drive the old 96. Told the dealership about my 02 and they said you have to break in the engine. Well the 02 has 75000 miles and I don't see any improvement. You are right when you talk about what you say because I have proof. Don't like the dodge because they arn't tough enough for the work I do. Had friends that had those trucks and they failed after the 1st year. My friend has a 2500 chevy gas getting 20+ towing and has 120000 miles on his brakes front and rear. Hard to beleave he never changed them.

You are absolutely correct in your assumption that better mileage such as you cite is a far more desireable benefit that any possible change in ratio of carbon to NOx or SOx. Even discounting this, the decrease in fuel use that can reduce our dependance on foreign fuel and thus improve the excrable 'balance of payments` situation that currently exists would warrant a change. Unfortunately the emissions reg.s are written by lobbyists for the auto industry. As to the 250 MPG engine: there simply isn't that much energy in a gallon of fuel to drive a truck, (as we know one), that distance. - Pragmatist - "Politicians are not born, they are excreted."

i like the politicans comment,, that mad me have a good chuckle,,, i have a hard time in the 250 mpg engine,, but was posted a few days back,, but couldnt find much out about it,, and am betting its a hybird, so its back to the true mpg, the hybirds give a false statment to the mpg, cause its not the gallons thats being used to get it, when the engine switches to electric, its a watts per mile rating, not gallons, and then we have a hole different outlook to evaluate, the power/ fuel to get the watts to use. but i didnt post the article, and it didnt say what the engine was put in/for, a bicycle?

WE ARE WORKING ON A REAL LIFE MILEAGE IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE FOR DODGE CUMMINS ENGINES ... OUR LASTEST ROUND OF IMPROVEMENTS HAS OUR SHOP TRUCK (2006 DODGE CUMMINS QUAD CAB 4X4 DUALLY LONGBED) AVERAGING OVER 20 MPG AT 60+ MPH COMBINED OF CITY AND HWY DRIVING FOR THE LAST 1000 MILES OR SO ... WE DONT RESET THE TRIP COMPUTER ... MAKING A GOOD AVERAGE OF OVERALL MILEAGE.

STILL NO MODS TO THE ENGINE ... JUST OPEN UP THE AIR INTAKE A LITTLE.

ROUND 2 WILL BE TO DECREASE INJECTOR SIZE A FRACTION, INCREASE FUEL PRESSURE A FRACTION AND ADD A FUEL HEATER ...

WE HAVE DONE THIS SUCCESSFULLY WITH OLDER 12VALVE MOTOR AND ACHIEVED OVER 30 MPG ... AVERAGE FOR SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN!

WE NOW HAVE A NEW SHOP IN PORTLAND, ARE LOOKING FOR A WHEEL DYNO AND ENGINE MONITORING EQUIP SO WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WHILE TRUCK IS RUNNING.

OUR GOAL IS GETTING THIS "OLD" TRUCK OVER 30 MPG WITHOUT TOUCHING MECHANICS OF ENGINE ... SOMETHING DUPLICATABLE SO EVERYONE CAN DO IT ..

AS WE PROGRESS, WE WILL WILL GIVE OUR "SECRETS" AWAY FREELY ...

FACE IT ... WE ALL WANT BETTER MILEAGE ... WE ARE DOING OUR PART HERE IN PORTLAND

JKD ...

Being from Portland you've undoubtably read about a recent invention to gain real-world mpg without increasing NOX emissions. Have you tried preheating the intake air in addition to the fuel. Preheating the air reduces the oxygen content, (reducing NOX), and increases power by expanding more and enhancing the mixability of the fuel. Synthetic oil is a must of course, since the temperatures will be higher inside the cylinders. I believe the future of diesels is here, http://www.dieseltech.cc/advantages.htm , and the engine of choice in the future will be DIESEL!