yabanja
Explorer
Hackney reported 9.97 on your truck which was one of the lowest reported. He also mentioned that it is likely the heaviest one in existence.
Everything seems to be in order!
FG fuel economy
- Thread starter kerry
- Start date
Hackney reported 9.97 on your truck which was one of the lowest reported. He also mentioned that it is likely the heaviest one in existence.
Everything seems to be in order!
Czechsix
Watching you from a ridge. In Alaska. I'm cold.
Update, as promised.
Just did a a trip from Phoenix, AZ to home in Southern California.
Ran a gps log for corrected mileage, and running at an average of 70 mph (between 65 and 75, top speed 84), got 11.91 mpg. Some elevation changes, long hills, etc. Next time I do a trip I'll run at minimum safe speed, around 55 - 60 mph and see how it compares.
Tire pressure at 80.
Just did a a trip from Phoenix, AZ to home in Southern California.
Ran a gps log for corrected mileage, and running at an average of 70 mph (between 65 and 75, top speed 84), got 11.91 mpg. Some elevation changes, long hills, etc. Next time I do a trip I'll run at minimum safe speed, around 55 - 60 mph and see how it compares.
Tire pressure at 80.
SkiFreak
Crazy Person
For those not wanting to do the math... that equates to about 19.75 litres/100Km.
Czechsix
Watching you from a ridge. In Alaska. I'm cold.
At 104 - 120 Kph...top speed this run 135 Kph (for some reason that sounds much more impressive than 84 mph :bike_rider
gait
Explorer
I thought I'd posted this, but can't find it in this thread. Fuel consumption over 100,000 km and 157 tank fills.
Best consumption was Scandinavia and India / Nepal. Consistent low speed, long runs. 13.0 l/100km - 21.8 mpg.
Worst was Turkey. Higher speed, steeper hills, higher ambient temperature. 21.0 l/100km - 13.5 mpg.
Most 4wd was in Morocco. Slow speed, lower tyre pressure, softish sand. 14.8 l/100km - 19.2 mpg.
Average for nearly 100,000km whole trip 16.5 l/100km - 17.2 mpg.
Simplistically speed has most effect, changing speed and gear changes increase consumption, surface, probably fuel quality, and 4wd was well masked.
There's also considerable variation tank to tank despite best efforts to fill to same point. UK in particular was a struggle to extract more than 100 litres from pumps.
Best consumption was Scandinavia and India / Nepal. Consistent low speed, long runs. 13.0 l/100km - 21.8 mpg.
Worst was Turkey. Higher speed, steeper hills, higher ambient temperature. 21.0 l/100km - 13.5 mpg.
Most 4wd was in Morocco. Slow speed, lower tyre pressure, softish sand. 14.8 l/100km - 19.2 mpg.
Average for nearly 100,000km whole trip 16.5 l/100km - 17.2 mpg.
Simplistically speed has most effect, changing speed and gear changes increase consumption, surface, probably fuel quality, and 4wd was well masked.
There's also considerable variation tank to tank despite best efforts to fill to same point. UK in particular was a struggle to extract more than 100 litres from pumps.
Czechsix
Watching you from a ridge. In Alaska. I'm cold.
My figures were all interstate freeway - 2wd.
Are those imperial gallons or US gallons?
At 104 - 120 Kph...top speed this run 135 Kph (for some reason that sounds much more impressive than 84 mph :bike_rider
How are you getting 84mph out of it. I doubt I could even get my 99 up to 75 on a long downhill.
Czechsix
Watching you from a ridge. In Alaska. I'm cold.
2012 with standard diff and 19.5's. I'd bet in good conditions (no wind, and miles of real level road, and tires inflated higher) I could probably get 85mph. Truck is definitely not happy at those speeds though, engine is fine, but handling is starting to get light...
Uncle_jesse
Observer
Ok I did some math on my old rig that I had it was a 93 f350 crewcab long box dually 4x4 I did a 5.9 cummins conversion in it it was a 5spd truck and I was rolling on 9.00-16 XL michellins with my 3000lbs 9'6" camper and I was towing a 18' flatdeck trailer weighing around 6000lbs loaded and I would get roughly 240km to 65L so about 3.45Km per litre and about 3.86km with out the trailer.. And I was tipically getting better fuel economy then the rest of our convoy that consisted of a 95 f350 PS , 2012 dodge cummins and a 06 f350 6L PS ...and a 72ford motor home with a 460 but that's in its own league 😜
I have since sold my f350 and am waiting for my new to me 03 fg to be delivered to me and looking forward to the fuel savings of sorts ..😀
I have since sold my f350 and am waiting for my new to me 03 fg to be delivered to me and looking forward to the fuel savings of sorts ..😀
skippythedog
Observer
My 2007 at 9800# was reading 5mph high with stock wheels. My best mileage (flat-ish) on secondary roads was 17.76 w/ typical mixed at about 14.5mpg.......Now, after a week of running w/ 17" steel wheels and 37x12.50 Hankooks I was horrified that my mileage seemed to drop to about 12....then I noted that the speedo was now reading 5mph low at 60mph.....so I've run it on one 200 mile flat freeway trip and got 14.45mpg (via gps); also found that my speedo/odometer was reading low by 9.8%......more mileage tests coming but now comparing my mileage to stock wheels is moot because I didn't compare stock equipment to a gps measurement......Unsprung weight is noticeable and the new wheel/tire assemblies weigh 145# compared to about 83# for stock rims....4 wheels instead of 6 resulted in a net gain of about 82#....
Last edited:
Aussie Iron
Explorer
skippythedog
Observer
Only alloys I know of are from EC in Oregon. There are reported problems with them, no real way to balance them reliably and they have been very evasive about these failures. Though heavy, I have complete confidence in the GoannaTracks/Bolton wheels. They have sufficient clearance for ordinary tire weights if desired, (though 8 0z of ceramic beads is working quite well); and they will bear the full rated weight of the truck, and beyond, in off kilter situations in the woods...
JohnRogers
Observer
The reduced fuel economy from the heavier steel wheels over alloys would be easily covered by the large price difference