truck guys...whats your fuel consumption ratio( couldn't think of the proper term)LOL

Amphibious said:
29mpg in my little rig, fits a whole moose too ;)

Suzuki Sidekick Sport 4dr, 4x4, 1.8ltr best damn vehicle I have ever had
Click to expand...

X2 I have the same vehical,before that I had a Samuria and by the way I shot a 42" moose and it fit in the back horms and all:p I drove it for 11 years never a minutes trouble.On the weekends I drive my GMC 6.5 and it gets 16-17 with an 11!/2 ft camper.
 
There is a distinct trend coming through here - some guys don't want to know their mileage and be disappointed by it, and others know their mileage and still aren't sure if it is worth bragging about.

I've kept fuel logs in all my vehicles. My longest lasting logbook is a 4"x5" hard covered address book with fine lines. The routine after refueling is to record the date, odometer, fuel in, cost per litre, total bill, and then reset the trip odometer. When the numbers are in front of you, it is clear how much you spend for fuel and how far it gets you.
 
waynesixgun said:
1996 Ford Exploder 15mpg (with a tailwind)!!
Click to expand...
I will concurr. I have the computer option and play with it all the time. No matter what I do, my mileage doesn't improve though. :eek:

During the winter, average = 16 - 18 litres/100 km and during the summer average = around 11 - 12. And I toe the line with speed.

^maple leaf eh, you nailed it. :cool:
 
Dakota 4x4...with the 3.8L v6 It get about 14 L / 100 km - not very good.

I don't understand why everyone but the last poster seems to be converting both liters to gallons and kilometers to miles when both were obsolete more than twenty years ago???? Why not just use the units on the pump & odometer?
 
Longwalker said:
Dakota 4x4...with the 3.8L v6 It get about 14 L / 100 km - not very good.

I don't understand why everyone but the last poster seems to be converting both liters to gallons and kilometers to miles when both were obsolete more than twenty years ago???? Why not just use the units on the pump & odometer?
Click to expand...

Same reason you can't buy anything but a 4X8 sheet of plywood....
 
Longwalker said:
Dakota 4x4...with the 3.8L v6 It get about 14 L / 100 km - not very good.

I don't understand why everyone but the last poster seems to be converting both liters to gallons and kilometers to miles when both were obsolete more than twenty years ago???? Why not just use the units on the pump & odometer?
Click to expand...

Agreed, but some of us are pre metric and although we all now use the metric system, it's still easier to relate to miles/gallon than KM's/100L's. It has more meaning as that's what we grew up with.;)
 
2548139-M.jpg



2003 F150 Lariat 5.4 Trident 3.55 rear end gearing towing package.
Approx 16 mpg in the city and 20 mpg going to Saskatchewan cruise contol with a tail wind.

Once I push the pedal to the metal it is easy 10 mpg in the city and 14 Hwy

I would not trade this truck for nothing .
Ford Tough and not one problem in 90,000 km

Oh yeah for you Chevy Gm Fans.. . My other car is a Pontiac I hold no Chev/Ford animosity.
If its good its good.
 
Last edited:
Johnn Peterson said:
Agreed, but some of us are pre metric and although we all now use the metric system, it's still easier to relate to miles/gallon than KM's/100L's. It has more meaning as that's what we grew up with.;)
Click to expand...
I can somewhat relate to L/100km but I do not know a reference point, I know in the MPG world that anything approaching 30 MPG is good and 40MPG is great.. I know anything less than 10L/100 km is very good but that's it.
 
scott_r said:
Nothing wrong with that!! Ive got an 06 F-150 FX4 and its a pig on fuel and its soon going to a dealership on trade for a Toyota Tacoma (older ones).

Fords wondering why it had record losses this year, maybe a vehicle that only go 20 mpg has something to do with.
Click to expand...

Ford lost 9billion dollars in the first 9 months of 2006, and the chairman of the company said they will not financially come back until 2009, they also have an impending fight with the UAW. I read that they plan on closing 14 plants in the next 10 years, that sounds like a decline in construction to me?
But I digress, they annouced in 2000 thatthey would build vehicles that got better mileage, and they have not done so.
 
1992 Toyota PU extended cab 4x4 with canopy, 2.4l 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual, 21mpg city

2002 Toyota Tacoma extended cab 4x4 with canopy, 2.7l 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual 21mpg city

2006 Rav4, 2.4 l 4x4, 3 speed auto, city 27 mpg.

I have a bit of a lead foot but I also own a radar detector.
 
fester said:
Ford lost 9billion dollars in the first 9 months of 2006, and the chairman of the company said they will not financially come back until 2009, they also have an impending fight with the UAW. I read that they plan on closing 14 plants in the next 10 years, that sounds like a decline in construction to me?
But I digress, they annouced in 2000 thatthey would build vehicles that got better mileage, and they have not done so.
Click to expand...

Every north american company claims to lose money! It's just Fords turn, last year it was Chev & I believe Dodge are now startin to claim losses! Ask GM workers around Oshawa how many supply plants have been closed or sold off!

My 02 Ford F-150 4.6 4x4 get 18 average with 22-23 highway, which just happens to be exactely what my piece of #### 2000 Dakota 3.8 v-6 4x4 got!
I now see the 5.4 4x4 F-150 get almost exactely what my 4.6 does:)
I'd say that's an improvment!
 
97 f250 supercab with the 7.3 powerstroke and trailering package (4.11 gears). Combined city/hwy about 21 mpg, avg hwy 25 mpg, best hwy 28.5mpg, all empty. Pulling a loaded 26' travel trailer and a truck full of stuff (bikes, kids, etc.), worst ever was 18 mpg ( running up the COq connector from Kelowna at 90+ km), best 20 mpg. I tend not to have a heavy foot for acceleration unless I'm pulling weight. Key on the hwy is to run just under 2000 rpm.
No plans on getting a new truck for a while, this one has 250K km on it, just getting nicely broke in.
 
After reading some of the posts by diesel owners I'm getting jealous..........better fuel mileage, gobs of power and more is easily attainable.
mmmmmmm...........new Duramax's.
 
I'm driving a 99 Dodge Dakota, bought it two years ago. Great shape. For the first little while I expected it to be bad on gas but I never remembered to watch the numbers. Gas light came on filled up but forgot to look at how many liters went in but figured, light was on must have been pretty close to empty. Calculated it out 400 km at 80 liters 14 mpg which was a bit worse than I was expecting. Next time the light came on I watched how much gas went in, only 58 liters, so all of the sudden my gas mileage went way up.

So long story short I get between 18-20 mpg on highway and 16-18 in the city, and it all depends on how I drive it.
 
mercuryv8 said:
I've got a 97 Dakota...with the 3.8L v6 ....the mileage is horrible! about 15mpg. Considering how underpowed it is, the least it could do is get good mileage. Maybe being underpowered is the problem! My I-6 300 ford would get about 20mpg even after 300,000km.

Go figure.

Nic

*Edit*

Mine has a small tank too, costs about 55$ to fill it at todays prices 0.90$ I only get about 300-400 km.
Click to expand...

theres likely something wrong with your truck then:confused: i easily get over 400 when im givin it around town all the time...

mines the 3.9 v6 and its definatly not underpowered for a stock truck. try doing these 2 things to it. i noticed a difference for sure...more power and better mileage.

remove the clutch fan on the front of the motor. no worries of anything falling apart afterwards because everything is pressed together. even when its warm out my truck runs just a touch warmer. alot quieter too...

take off the throttle body and grind down all the ridges so the top of the tb is all one level surface. this allows the air to flow quite a bit better according to people from dodge sites and i believe it.

i noticed a slight improvment in mpg when i switched to mobil 1 as well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom