(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Older good fuel mileage small truck?

D

Dave from MN

Well-known Member
Looking for a farm/parts running truck that gets great mileage. Nothing new, I"m talking 70"s to early 90"s. Manual transmission even. Toyota, Nissan, Datsun, does not matter. Any testemonials?I little 4cyl diesel with a 5 speed would be great, but do not believe any one made on for us in the US back then. My 1/2 ton get avg of 14.8 mpg the 1 ton gets about 8-10 mpg no matter what, and I need some that sips the petro, not guzzles
 
I had a couple Datsun PUs back in the 80s that were terrific little machines. Dependable, tough, easy to work on. Also had a couple of Chevy LUV PUs in that time frame too. They were great too but IMO not as reliable as the Datsuns.
Isuzu built the LUVs and the later ones had a diesel. Mine were all gassers.
The trouble with any/all of the Jap units was rust. The drive trains would chug on about forever.
If a guy could find one from CA or TX they would make great parts runners.
 
My 1985 Isuzu 4WD diesel gets 27-32 MPG all the times. Makes little difference if highway or stop-and-go on the farm. It only has a four speed manual trans (no overdrive). Also has a pretty heavy custom made diamond-plate steel bed in back. I used to have a 1985 Toyota pickup with a 2.4 gas engine and four speed trans. It did almost as good as my Isuzu. 24 MPG stop-and-go and 28 MPG on the highway. For a heavier truck - I just switched from my 1994 Ford with a 7.3 IDI turbo diesel to a 1995 with a 300 six. 4WD and E40D auto trans. Getting 19 MPG with the 300 and gas is much cheaper the diesel. My 94 with 4WD and extended cab and diesel gets 16-17 MPG on the highway.
a153169.jpg

a153170.jpg
 
toyota and datsun back in the 1970's and early 80's were much more truck than the ford courier/mazda ect i had a datsun new in '75, we worked the snot out of it and it never quit or broke down, sold it to a kid when it reached 200,000 miles, it got fuel economy in the mid 20's and i didnt drive it easy,driving one like a human would probably siginificantly improve the mpg's, worked at a place that had a couries and a chevy luv for shop trucks, they were ok, but just didnt have the power that datsun did, saw one of those engines with the oil pan off one time, the rods and crank were as large as a sb chevy v-8! , dad drove toyotas until he passed away and always had good luck with them , our nearest neighbor still has a '77 datsun pickup and regulaly makes 400 mile round trips in it to this day dont know how many miles it has now but its a lot! still runs good and looks decent
 
just to peeve B&D I gotta throw out that my '95 cummins gets between 22 and 25mpg putting around town. Ford did build diesel rangers in the early 80's, Japanese copy of a Perkins. Hard to find, but they got great mileage. The older Toyota solid axle 4x4 are crude, simple, reliable little trucks, but the ones I've driven only get 18-20mpg, hardly worth driving a tin can for that little increase.
 
Yes - the Jap metal almost seems to have rust in it right from the factory. That's what did my 85 Toyota in. My 88 Toyota has done much better and I assume they either improved the steel or improved the rust proofing. Here's my 88 Toyota mini-truck with 5000 lbs. of motorhome body on it. Gets a best of 15.5 MPG with a 2.4 gas engine and auto trans.
a153172.jpg

a153173.jpg
 
I don't think you'll find a twenty-year-old small pickup that will be a reliable vehicle without first pumping a lot of money into it. Better to find something about ten years old. There's not a lot of difference in gas mileage between models; buy based on condition and price.
 
91-97 Nissan's are the only small pickups to get really good fuel mileage. I think I've tried them all! no complaints but they do have problems with the frame rusting above the rear tires. ez to fix if you know about it and catch it before it breaks!
 
Oh come on! I've got 92 and 95 Dodge Cummins
trucks. Both 4WD, extended cab and 5 speed manual
trans. Both get a best of 20 MPG when empty on the
highway. Mixed driving around 17 MPG. Also put a
2000 lb. camper on the back and went to Kentucky
and got an overall average of 17 MPG. Camper has a
pop-up roof. I don't know how you do your
calculations - but I do not believe there is a 90s
5.9 Cummins truck on this planet that gets 25 MPG
in USA gallons. The big Canadian gallons - maybe.
20 MPG in the USA is 24 MPG in Canada since
Imperial gallons are bigger.
 
I can't agree. My first service truck at our John Deere dealership was a 79 Mazda Courier with a four speed trans. We drove it all the time severely overloaded and that truck never skipped a beat. In fact as it got old - many of us tried to blow it up so our boss would buy something newer. I got it to eat a quart of oil every tank of gas but it never broke down. That was probably the most durable truck I ever drove. It got replaced with an International Harvester diesel Scout that was a real piece of junk. Good Nissan engine but the rest was crap. Then moved on to Ford Rangers which also were always breaking down. Then we got a Ford F350 with a 7.3 diesel and that thing was bullet proof. A fuel hog but durable.
 
You can find late 90's rangers and mazdas for around a grand at auctions and private party sales. I have the 4 cyl 5 speed and it gets between 25 to 27 in mixed use with a medium load.
 
I have a 2000 Suzuki Grand Vitara four door hatchback. It has a 2.5 litre with a 5 speed and 4 wheel drive. With the back seats folded down, the area is about 4 by 4 1/2 feet. Gets 25 to 30 mpg on an imperial gallon and has 300k kms on it. Tough little car that's very comfortable to drive. I've had it for 5 years, the only thing is it's not so Grand now....Ron
 
(quoted from post at 12:44:15 04/06/14) Looking for a farm/parts running truck that gets great mileage. Nothing new, I"m talking 70"s to early 90"s. Manual transmission even. Toyota, Nissan, Datsun, does not matter. Any testemonials?I little 4cyl diesel with a 5 speed would be great, but do not believe any one made on for us in the US back then. My 1/2 ton get avg of 14.8 mpg the 1 ton gets about 8-10 mpg no matter what, and I need some that sips the petro, not guzzles
Click to expand...
Are you open to doing a little work? A first gen Ranchero (about '60-'63), 200 six, backed by a T5 would be tough to beat for economical, easy to work on, and cool.
 
WRONG I had a 99,2500 with a 5 speed,4 wheel drive,355 gears that got 22 on short runs and 25 all day long on a trip,but only 12 to 15 with a 25ft goose neck loaded.
 
My 97 ranger, 2.3, 5 spd, has 297,000+ mi and I've done very little to it, just maintenance, a/c compressor and an alternator. I get 26+ mpg and plan to keep it til 350,000 mi. Best vehicle I've ever had, and almost no rust,except on some scratches. I've had it since 86,000. Mark
 
(quoted from post at 06:14:24 04/06/14) Oh come on! I've got 92 and 95 Dodge Cummins
trucks. Both 4WD, extended cab and 5 speed manual
trans. Both get a best of 20 MPG when empty on the
highway. Mixed driving around 17 MPG. Also put a
2000 lb. camper on the back and went to Kentucky
and got an overall average of 17 MPG. Camper has a
pop-up roof. I don't know how you do your
calculations - but I do not believe there is a 90s
5.9 Cummins truck on this planet that gets 25 MPG
in USA gallons. The big Canadian gallons - maybe.
20 MPG in the USA is 24 MPG in Canada since
Imperial gallons are bigger.
Click to expand...
merican gallons, with a topper, driven gently. Hand figured, and averaged over many tanks. Can't argue with you, won't do any good. If you show up, I'd be more than happy to take you for a ride and prove it. I am sorry that you have not had the same results.
 
1988 to 1993 Chevy or GMC reg cab 8' bed 1500 2WD with 4.3 V6 EFI and AT with 3.42 rear end.

I have a 1992 that I bought new like this on a share with Dad while I was still in college. Will get 23.5 hwy mpg empty and running air on a trip. Will do 15 to 16 mpg pulling a vintage hi-lo camping trailer (heavy) and the bed full of ATV's. All in all towing or carrying close to 6000 lbs. And again running the AC. Although with a load like this you will be running in D instead of OD which puts the engine rpm's exactly where they need to be.

Still have this truck today although it gets only rarely driven. Have considered putting a little sweat equity into it and fixing her back up and simply selling my 2003 GMC ext cab 1500 4wd with 5.3 v8 and 4.10 gears which likes its gas so this truck is only rarely driven as well.

The 1992 towing a load will do real close to what the 2003 will do empty on mpg on its best day. Towing the 2003 is 11-12 with the same load as the 1992 truck towed. Now if I have to tow real heavy then there is no comparison as the 4.10 gears and the v8 will do it, but it takes gas and expect 7-8 mpg towing something with lots of wind resistance or weight.

Note: Stay away from the Central Port fuel injection that replaced the EFI around 1994 or 1995 or so as it killed the MPG on the 4.3 v6's when GM switched to that.
 
I drove a Ford Courier as our 2nd vehicle for a number of years while I was still in the Army. Mine had the 2.3 engine and the 5 speed. It would get about 32 on the highway and mid 20s around town empty.

My 2nd son had a Chevy Luv diesel. 5speed. That thing would get 47-48 if you drove it nice and drop to about 40 is you drove the snot out of it.

Both were 2 wheel drive.

Neither one was a comfortable vehicle to drive in but something along those lines would be nice when you have run 50+ miles for a part.

Rick
 
I'm not a Ford fan, but my daughter owned a Ranger for a couple of years before her expanding family forced her to sell it. Seemed to be a very nice truck. My son bought a well-used ranger. It was a worn out piece of junk when he bought and he still got 2 years out of that thing and put almost nothing into it. It was still running when he got rid of the poor thing. My sons BIL has a poor old beat up Ranger that has no business still being on the road. bent frame, won't pass inspection so he just doesn't get it inspected, completely whipped vehicle, but the darn thing keeps on running. After witnessing this, I wouldn't be afraid of a Ranger. Have had some experience with the early 2000 Tundras at work. Quite frankly I just couldn't understand everyone's inflated opinion of the things. Not bad trucks but not anyhwere near as great as their worshipers claim. But that's just me, I guess. It's been quite a while since I worked in the auto parts industry, but at that time Toyota parts were outragously expensive.
 
The mileage on my '95 Ranger 3 liter 6 is nothing to brag about, but it's an automatic. I had a 2000 Ranger 3/6 with 5-speed that did much better. Get stick if you can. They're tough little trucks.
 
(quoted from post at 07:12:19 04/06/14) I'm not a Ford fan, but my daughter owned a Ranger for a couple of years before her expanding family forced her to sell it. Seemed to be a very nice truck. My son bought a well-used ranger. It was a worn out piece of junk when he bought and he still got 2 years out of that thing and put almost nothing into it. It was still running when he got rid of the poor thing. My sons BIL has a poor old beat up Ranger that has no business still being on the road. bent frame, won't pass inspection so he just doesn't get it inspected, completely whipped vehicle, but the darn thing keeps on running. After witnessing this, I wouldn't be afraid of a Ranger. Have had some experience with the early 2000 Tundras at work. Quite frankly I just couldn't understand everyone's inflated opinion of the things. Not bad trucks but not anyhwere near as great as their worshipers claim. But that's just me, I guess. It's been quite a while since I worked in the auto parts industry, but at that time Toyota parts were outragously expensive.
Click to expand...

LOL, that['s what I've been trying to tell people for years. The Ford rear wheel drive vehicles were actually pretty good. Pre 05 or so front drives were junk.

Rick
 
Had a Mazda 2000 32 mpg overloaded and still keeped going.2wd long bed would go places 4 wheel drive wouldn't go next best Chevrolet work truck or wt models stripped down trucks .also took old Chevrolet full time 4 wheel drive added water injection and got 25 mpg with that rig.
 
Drive a Nissan XL PU from 1986. 2.3L with throttle body injection, 5sp manual. It just keeps going. (50 dollar purchase originally, needed a wire to the fuel pump repaired) Jim
 
I had small Datsun pickup, diesel, manual transmission, 1982 model, King Cab, so they did make them, called a Datsun 720. It worked fine for me.

They were available in both 2 and 4 wheel drive versions.
The diesels were probably not very common.

For example:
http://lincoln.craigslist.org/cto/4347022555.html
http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/cto/4352643213.html
These seem way overpriced for such an older, small pickup.

Wikipedia says the diesel engine was a 2.3L SD23 or 2.5 L SD25, the trucks were made in Tennessee from 1980 to 1986.
 
It"s cost per mile.
There are lots of base six cylinder direct gas pickups that are economical to run, for a truck.
If you want mileage, you don"t want a truck.
So how much $ is a diesel five speed putting around truck going to save over a gasser? At most a couple of hundred bucks a year IF burning coloured diesel.
 
If I was looking for a cheap light duty run around vehicle that could also haul some stuff I think I would get a mini van and rip out the rear seat. Make a wood box with plywood floor and some 6 inch tall side and put it in the back. I know this is not what you are thinking but it would be easy to find, reliable and get 25mpg all day long.
 
(quoted from post at 11:17:34 04/06/14) Had a Mazda 2000 32 mpg overloaded and still keeped going.2wd long bed would go places 4 wheel drive wouldn't go next best Chevrolet work truck or wt models stripped down trucks .also took old Chevrolet full time 4 wheel drive added water injection and got 25 mpg with that rig.
Click to expand...


I'm calling BS on the 32 mpg, the 2wd with more traction than a 4wd and the 25mpg water injection.
 
If the pickups are anything like my 90 Amigo they"re pretty good. I can just pull this thing into low range without locking the hubs and it"ll cross ruts that would hang up a 4-wheeler or a full-size truck.

If I drive it easy at 65 it"ll get 20-23MPG. Fair bit less if there"s much headwind or I get a little more, uh, spirited, shall we say?
 
I have an '07 Ranger 4-banger 5-speed. I used to get 30 mpg with it, but it's now down around 23. There's a few possible reasons for the drop. One of which is all the tools and junk that lives in the bed.
 
In the early 80's about everyone offered diesel mini trucks, Ford had diesel Rangers it was a Toyo-Koyo (Mazda engine)about the same engine they used in the diesel Escorts/Lynx and Tempo/Topaz. Mitisibushi had a turbo diesel and I think Dodge sold a version of it as the Ram 50. GM had S body pickups available with an Isuzu sourced diesel, probably the same engine available in the diesel Chevette and the Isuzu I-Mark/Gemini/Opel (US). Of course Isuzu offered pick ups and Troopers with the same diesel engine. Volkswagen had their Rabbit truck and Datsun/Nissan and Toyota both offered diesel mini trucks. With that being said these trucks are all 20+ years old and the diesels tended to be bought by people that were going to use them. They sold very few of them in the USA and most of them have been pretty well used up by now, the ones that haven't demand a premium price as a novelty or collector vehicle. If you want one with the majority of the metal still there you might plan an extended vacation to the Southwest USA and look for one.

Moving into the 2000's Jeep offered Liberties and Grand Cherokees in Diesel and Dodge is offering a 1/2 ton Diesel this year.

When working down in Florida we promoted one of our truck drivers into management as part of his job he had to do customer service visits with our customers. This required him getting a newer vehicle. He choose a S-10 truck. After about a month we needed a centrifuge picked up over on the Atlantic coast and he was sent to get it with one of the company 1/2 tons, a new Chevy with a V-6, five speed and highway rear end ratios, he was a little upset the 1/2 ton got about the same mileage as his S-10. Last time I bought pick-up trucks for the county some supervisors where upset I choose F-150 Crew Cabs. I had to explain the alternatives were Dodge Dakotas that cost more and had lower EPA fuel mileage estimates and lower resale values or GM S series trucks that were less money got a little better fuel mileage but had dismal resale values and could only be bought off the state contract the delivery cost from Milwaukee increased the cost above the F-150s

Has other have eluded a Mini van will give you cheap to purchase, space, reasonable gas mileage and can carry about as much as most mini trucks. You're in Minnesota another alternative might be to go to Canada where diesels are a little more common and import one but you'll have to check into rules about importing non-compliant vehicles and find out what duty, if any, you'll have to pay.

Two wheel drive mini/midi truck might serve your needs but stay with the smaller engine and stick shift if possible, Full sized 1/2 ton 2WD regular cab with the small engine and a stick shift might get you in the 20MPG highway range.

The other option would be a grow your own deal. I always thought something in the nature of a Mercedes 300D engine swapped into a Ranger or Dakota with a 5 speed would make a pretty good truck. Other possibilities would be a Cummins 4BT swapped into a half ton with a stick shift. I've seen a few step vans with 4BTs. I'm not sure about durability but GM did offer the 6.2 diesel in 1/2 tons but finding one that isn't all trashed might be a challenge especially in a 2wd.

Subaru Brat/Baja? or even an older Outback or Forester?
 
if i remember and i might be wrong the 70's was along time ago ,the courier [ mazda] the shop had was something like a 74 or 75 it had a 1.6 i think, it was a taller rear end and the truck had a higher speed but wouldnt pull a load near as good as my 2000 in my 75 datsun, i remember the later couriers had larger engines and may have been much more powerfull
like others have said a 90's full size ford with the 300 6 cylinder and 5 speed may get comparable mpgs and be much more truck
 
Get a small car. Something like an older Camry. They last forever and get up to 33 mpg on the hwy. I'd imagine that most of the gas is wasted on parts runs, so this would fill that void well unless you're getting alot of big parts. Something else that would work really well is a mid 90's S10. If you can find one with a 2.2, they're pretty good on gas. There's a few for sale on craigslist in the Twin Cities. If you can keep a fuel pump in it, it should serve you well.
 

In the north east a 10+yr old vehicle is a rusty wreck . Maybe 15 -20yrs if washed very carefully, oiled twice a year and some body work is done.
Most of us have to make do with current vehicles.

If you want to track the demise of the diesel in light highway applications. And the increased cost of operation in heavy diesel applications. Here is a list of appointed bureaucrats heading the EPA. They are listed by date and are guilty of varying degrees of offense.

Gina McCarthy since July 18th 2013. Bleeding heart political correct abundant. Trouble and more trouble to come.

Lisa P. Jackson January 23, 2009 – February 19, 2013 .Bleeding heart political correct abundant.
Seen her on TV on the way to a meeting where "she was going to set the president of Exon straight".
During her tenure, Jackson oversaw stricter fuel efficiency standards; the EPA's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; authorized carbon dioxide as a public health threat, granting the EPA authority to set new regulations regarding CO2 emissions; and laid out a failed plan to set stricter smog pollution limits by amending the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
A real trouble maker and to blame for ridiculous diesel regulations.

Stephen L. Johnson. January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009Sensible fellow.Johnson tried to block the efforts of 17 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.

Mike Leavitt. November 6, 2003 – January 26, 2005 . Fairly sensible. At the Environmental Protection Agency he implemented higher standards for ozone, diesel fuels and other air pollutants. He organized and managed a collaboration to develop a federal plan to clean up the Great Lakes.

Christine Todd Whitman.January 31, 2001 – June 27, 2003. A trouble maker. Under Whitman's direction as the first director of the EPA under the Bush administration, in 2001 the EPA produced a report detailing the expected effects of global warming in each of the states in the United States.

Last on this list and not least. This abundant American lawyer, environmentalist, and businesswoman, who served as director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the external_link administration from 2009 to 2011. January 23, 1993 – January 20, 2001head of the EPA.
she convinced Clinton to support a stringent tightening of the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards regarding permissible levels of the ground-level ozone that makes up smog and the fine airborne particulate matter that makes up soot.
During her tenure, Browner also began efforts to deal with global warming, giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions causing climate change.
During Browner's tenure, there were many reports from African American employees of racism directed at them from a network of "good old boys" who dominated the agency's middle management.[45] The most known of these reports involved policy specialist Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, who in 1997 filed suit against the agency; in 2000, the court found the EPA guilty of discrimination against Coleman-Adebayo, and awarded her $300,000.
 
Sorry but its true i guess you have to be smart enough to
figure it out water injection is easy to prove did it all the
time with tractors but just check mileage on a foggy day
versus a dry day did all heavy tillage at night could and did
run a gear faster with lower temps in cool moist air the rest
is easy to explain to but maybe some people cant figure it
out
 
Just gave our grandson our '93 Toyota 5 speed, 4 cyl engine 22R. Great engine, probably had 250,000 plus on the odometer. Last time I checked (years ago) it got around 22 in town and 26 on hwy. The only thing repaired/replace was the clutch at 189,000 miles. Oh! and shocks at around 100,000.
 
My vote goes for a 90's to 2000 - 2 wheel drive Dodge or Ford diesel. Where I usted to work they bought a new 1993 Dodge Cummins 2 wheel drive with 3.55 (important) gears and a automatic trans. Danged thing always got more than 20 every time I filled it up. Everybody drove it, delivering oil products. and running errands. A buddy drove it on a 800 mile trip, he said fast. Couldn't believe it got 23 mpg. He has passed, and I have retired and the old Dodge is still delivering oil to farms and businesses. Another friend has a Ford 7.3 power stroke just like it but a 2000 or so model. It is a 6 sp manual, and he put 3.07 gears in place of the 4.10's that came in it. They use it to chase parts, says it will get up to 28 if you drive it just 55- 60. I have a 91 Cummins Dodge 4X4 with 3.55 gears and a 5 speed. It always gets 20 to 23 just messing around. Also dependable as a rock. Vic
 
I had a '92 like yours but a stick and bought it new. I got the mileage that you got also out on the road. I stated it on this site and was burned at the stake. Luckily that guy hasn't seen your post, geesh.
 
(quoted from post at 17:14:35 04/06/14) Sorry but its true i guess you have to be smart enough to
figure it out water injection is easy to prove did it all the
time with tractors but just check mileage on a foggy day
versus a dry day did all heavy tillage at night could and did
run a gear faster with lower temps in cool moist air the rest
is easy to explain to but maybe some people cant figure it
out
Click to expand...

Water doesn't burn. It just absorbs heat from combustion and becomes steam. Limits peak combustion temperatures to allow more air-fuel mixture to be burned per minute.
If water injection worked so well. Why doesn't every plane, train and automobile manufacture install factory water injection?
 
Plain as can be with just the towing package.

2014 GMC Sierra K15 4WD 4.3 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 6-spd, Regular Gasoline

EPA Fuel Economy (MPG)

17 City
19 Combined
22Highway

Your Built sierra 1500 SummaryPrintShare
Total MSRP $31,885
Cash Allowance -$2,500
Special Value Discount -$1,205
Total Value -$3,705
Special Value Price (After All Offers) $28,180*

2014 sierra 1500 Regular Cab, Long Box Sierra 4WD
Special Value Price$28,180*orIncludes $2,500 Cash Back

MSRP1 starting at $30,315
Destination Freight Charge $1,095
Options
Iridium Metallic $0
Jet Black/Dark Ash, Cloth seat trim $0
17" painted steel wheels $0
4.3L EcoTec3 V6 engine $0
6-speed automatic transmission $0
3.42 rear axle ratio $0
AM/FM stereo with 4.2" diagonal color display, USB ports, auxiliary jack and SD card slot $0
Front 40/20/40 split-bench seat $0
Tires, 17" P255/70R17 all-season, blackwall $0
Accessories
Floor Mats - Front Vinyl Replacement. Remove $65
Hitch Ball Assembly. Remove $25
Hitch Ball Mount Assembly. Remove $30
Hitch Pin - Locking. Remove $40
Hitch Trailering Package. Remove $295
Trailer Wiring Adapter. Remove $20
Options and Accessories Total $475**
Total MSRP $31,885
Cash Allowance -$2,500
Special Value Discount -$1,205
Total Value -$3,705
Special Value Price (After All Offers) $28,180*

Fuel Cost $2700 per year.
 
I read some there MPG claims and see BS running rampant. There's not a HD 3/4 diesel truck with a 5.9 on this planet that gets 25 US MPGs "around town" or the highway. Stick a 3.9 Cummins it and it comes close. And with 2.2 liter Chevy LUV diesels getting near 50 MPG? NEVER happened. I've had four and am still driving one now. 35 MPG for a 2WD driven near sea level - yes. Same with a 85 Toyota pickup with a 2.4 diesel. If you want to see near 50 MPG - you need a Volkswagen Rabbit pickup with a 1.5 or 1.6 diesel. I pity the person who believes some of this nonsense and buys an old truck based on it. There were many small gas trucks from the 70s to the 90s with four banger engines that got 25-32 MPG.
 
John, I'll give you credit for being very knowledgeable on many things diesel, but fuel mileage on some vehicles is not your fortay. I put 45000 miles on the 1.8 yanmar powered S10 and sold it a few months back. The fellow that bought it gave it to his grandson who is driving it 140 miles per day, and averages 48 mpg. It will run off and hide from the Isuzu diesels. Will start to 0 degrees with no heat, ether, or glow plugs. Until you have had one, don't say it can't be done. My 96 Dodge 5.9 will still get 25 on the road at 65 mph or under and has 430000 on the odometer. Granted this country is mostly flat ground but it happens. Don't mean to be an a$$ but you are wrong about saying that it doesn't happen.
 
Exactly. Get some water folks to talk to dyno operators about the
effect humidity has on the output. Putting water in an engine does not make power.
 
Dave and others. No disrespect but when jdemaris quotes numbers from personal experience. I believe jdemaris's numbers are being closest to what the laws of physics dictate.
I've been in a convoy of pickups on an extended trip moose hunting and back.I kept track of fuel pump volume and the miles driven.
Best way I can say it is most folk when it comes to their claims of fuel mileage. They are mathematically challenged, bold faced liars.
 
I disagree. I've been experimenting with high fuel mileage vehicles for 40 years. I've had just about every economy minded diesel (and many gassers) ever sold in the USA along with a few custom builds. I've had several of the "100 MPG" vaporizer carbed Pogue machines (that were lucky to actually get 25 MPG). I've had cars that run on wood smoke. I had the first full size Dodge diesel truck in 1978 (Mitsubishi straight 6). I've had Chevy S10s with 2.2 diesels, LUVs with 2.2 diesels, Ford Rangers with the NA and turbo diesels, Dodge Ram 50 mini-trucks with diesels, etc. I also had a Jeep from the 60s with a factory 4 cylinder Perkins diesel. Also had many, many Volkswagen 1.5 and 1.6 diesels. I know one thing for sure. There is NO magic combo out there in the mainstream. I don't care if your mechanically injected diesel is an Isuzu, Perkins, Yanmar, Standard, Cummins, Mistubishi, Toyota, BMW, Renault, etc. They all work generally the same. If IDI they will be around 10% less efficient then DI. If turbo - they are no more efficient then NA when near sea-level but will excel at high altitudes. I know - in the real world what all these rigs get. Granted a 2WD that is lower and lighter then a 4WD will do a little better. Also any non-turbo engine loses 1% efficiency for every 300 feet above sea level. So a vehicle driven at 5000 feet is going to do poorly (if no turbo) as compared to the same driven at sea level. I will also note I've seen the silly BS stories about high mileage, ad nauseum for ages. I kind of wonder why none of big auto makers were never able to find a 5.9 liter diesel in a pickup and get it certified for 25 MPG "around town." They couldn't barely do that with a 2.2 diesel in a mid-sized truck like a Ranger or S10. The reason is - it never happened. Note I still have over 20 older diesel cars and trucks. None have magically improved to get anywhere near any of these claims I've heard.
 
I currently have a 95 Mazda B2300 (ford ranger), 5 speed manual, drive round trip of 50 miles to/from work daily, get around 25 MPG with winter blend fuel. Mixed highway and country roads. odometer stopped at 188,600 miles so milage is only a good guess by miles driving to work and gallons gas used
 
(quoted from post at 20:18:34 04/06/14) I disagree. I've been experimenting with high fuel mileage vehicles for 40 years. I've had just about every economy minded diesel (and many gassers) ever sold in the USA along with a few custom builds. I've had several of the "100 MPG" vaporizer carbed Pogue machines (that were lucky to actually get 25 MPG). I've had cars that run on wood smoke. I had the first full size Dodge diesel truck in 1978 (Mitsubishi straight 6). I've had Chevy S10s with 2.2 diesels, LUVs with 2.2 diesels, Ford Rangers with the NA and turbo diesels, Dodge Ram 50 mini-trucks with diesels, etc. I also had a Jeep from the 60s with a factory 4 cylinder Perkins diesel. Also had many, many Volkswagen 1.5 and 1.6 diesels. I know one thing for sure. There is NO magic combo out there in the mainstream. I don't care if your mechanically injected diesel is an Isuzu, Perkins, Yanmar, Standard, Cummins, Mistubishi, Toyota, BMW, Renault, etc. They all work generally the same. If IDI they will be around 10% less efficient then DI. If turbo - they are no more efficient then NA when near sea-level but will excel at high altitudes. I know - in the real world what all these rigs get. Granted a 2WD that is lower and lighter then a 4WD will do a little better. Also any non-turbo engine loses 1% efficiency for every 300 feet above sea level. So a vehicle driven at 5000 feet is going to do poorly (if no turbo) as compared to the same driven at sea level. I will also note I've seen the silly BS stories about high mileage, ad nauseum for ages. I kind of wonder why none of big auto makers were never able to find a 5.9 liter diesel in a pickup and get it certified for 25 MPG "around town." They couldn't barely do that with a 2.2 diesel in a mid-sized truck like a Ranger or S10. The reason is - it never happened. Note I still have over 20 older diesel cars and trucks. None have magically improved to get anywhere near any of these claims I've heard.
Click to expand...
Why would I lie? 25mpg is the best my truck has done, but it did do it. My "around town" is near perfect conditions, a farm town with few stoplights and lots of 45-50mph roads. I get worse on the highway than I do around town, due to spinning faster than she likes (3.55 gears). I would be more than willing to prove it to you, but you are most likely never going to be close enough, or willing enough to do a fair test. I don't see why the numbers are so hard to fathom. To shine a different light on it, my semi is a 2001 western star sleeper truck, 3.90 gears, overdrive 15spd, 500hp 12.7l Detroit 60 series. Loaded light (under 60,000) running 65mph and 1650rpm she averages 6.8 mpg. Very commonly accepted number, not out of normal ranges at all. She weighs 8 times what my pickup weighs, is much less aerodynamic, makes 2.8 times the hp, 3.6 times the torque, and yet you think the empty pickup getting 3.16 times better mileage (21.5 vs 6.8, not all time best for either rig) is unlikely and against the rules of physics?
 
Strongly recommend an early to mid 90's Toyota with the 22R 4 cyl engine, if you can find one that's not rusted out. I put over 300 k on a 91 and my 90 had 280K before the rust did them in. Dead reliable, 20ish mpg day in and day out. I put a starter and a rad in one, that was about it beyond consumables.

Had a 94 Nissan. Hunk of junk. 15-16mpg at best, uncomfortable, a true problem child. Had an S10 Chev from the early 80's, good truck but not great on gas.
 

69gmc

A one time best of 25mpg is not a number to be quoting. You know it has to be wrong when every other tank of fuel yields 15-20mpg.
 
(quoted from post at 05:23:21 04/07/14)
69gmc

A one time best of 25mpg is not a number to be quoting. You know it has to be wrong when every other tank of fuel yields 15-20mpg.
Click to expand...
Wow. I never said 25mpg was my average, only my best. It would sound very suspicious if every other tank was between 15-20, but they are not. It averages 21.5, and I originally said 22-25 around town, not overall, because mileage starts going down over 55mph. Refer to my last post as to why these numbers are perfectly plausible.
 
Anybody who drives a diesel on the road is going
to get "bad fills" with foamy diesel fuel. When
that happens - it kind of feels good because it
will seem like extremely high MPGs for that one
tank full. Next tank though will be the converse.
So OK. I've had many occasions when one tank
"fill" showed 24-25 MPG with my 3/4 ton diesel
truck. I'm not fool enough to believe it means
anything. It happens mostly with my Ford (small
filler neck) or the rear tank on my 92 Dodge. 25
MPG for one fill, and 11-12 MPG for the next. I
pity any poor person trying to buy and fix up and
old truck who believes some of these BS stories. I
fell for them once - a long time ago. The farmer
next door bought a first-year Ford F250 with a 6.9
diesel. He bragged for years it got 25 MPG ALL the
time. Well I borrowed it and drove it 1200 miles.
It got a average of 13.2 MPG for a long highway
trip. 4.10 axles, 4WD, and C6 trans. There was
also a guy in town with a 1987 Chevy diesel
Suburban with 4WD, 6.2 diesel, TH400 trans and
3.73 axles. He said he got 30 MPG on the highway.
I ended up owning it and it's still running and on
its third engine. It has never gotten better then
18 MPG on the highway and 13 MPG "stop and go."
That is in NY at 1300 feet. When at 5000 feet in
Colorado it got a best of 14 MPG. And these 45 MPG
stories with diesel LUVs and Isuzu PUPs - pure BS.
I've had many and am still driving a 85 PUP with
the 2.2 diesel. A gas truck with a 2 liter engine
would be cheaper to drive. Big problem as I see
it when looking for small trucks now-adays is
this. Hardly anyone makes 4WDs with small engines.
I was searching for years for a Ranger with 4WD
and a four cylinder engine. Very scarce.
 
(quoted from post at 06:21:25 04/07/14) Anybody who drives a diesel on the road is going
to get "bad fills" with foamy diesel fuel. When
that happens - it kind of feels good because it
will seem like extremely high MPGs for that one
tank full. Next tank though will be the converse.
So OK. I've had many occasions when one tank
"fill" showed 24-25 MPG with my 3/4 ton diesel
truck. I'm not fool enough to believe it means
anything. It happens mostly with my Ford (small
filler neck) or the rear tank on my 92 Dodge. 25
MPG for one fill, and 11-12 MPG for the next. I
pity any poor person trying to buy and fix up and
old truck who believes some of these BS stories. I
fell for them once - a long time ago. The farmer
next door bought a first-year Ford F250 with a 6.9
diesel. He bragged for years it got 25 MPG ALL the
time. Well I borrowed it and drove it 1200 miles.
It got a average of 13.2 MPG for a long highway
trip. 4.10 axles, 4WD, and C6 trans. There was
also a guy in town with a 1987 Chevy diesel
Suburban with 4WD, 6.2 diesel, TH400 trans and
3.73 axles. He said he got 30 MPG on the highway.
I ended up owning it and it's still running and on
its third engine. It has never gotten better then
18 MPG on the highway and 13 MPG "stop and go."
That is in NY at 1300 feet. When at 5000 feet in
Colorado it got a best of 14 MPG. And these 45 MPG
stories with diesel LUVs and Isuzu PUPs - pure BS.
I've had many and am still driving a 85 PUP with
the 2.2 diesel. A gas truck with a 2 liter engine
would be cheaper to drive. Big problem as I see
it when looking for small trucks now-adays is
this. Hardly anyone makes 4WDs with small engines.
I was searching for years for a Ranger with 4WD
and a four cylinder engine. Very scarce.
Click to expand...
yeah, if it was 10mpg over average I would discount it, 3 is a bit more believable. So no answer to my question of why a 60,000lbs combination with 18 tires rolling is so much more economical, and believable?
 
You didn't mention your size. (original poster)
Those little older Rangers, or import equivalents would
be ideal, but you and your workers have to fit in them...........
If you are big, a full size, reg cab barebones truck with a V6
and a manual tranny will get you pretty good mileage.
I am very partial to manual transmissions myself.
I want to pick my gear, and when you have been driving a stick a long time, you can squeeze considerably more gas mileage out of one.
 
(quoted from post at 17:33:45 04/06/14)
(quoted from post at 17:14:35 04/06/14) Sorry but its true i guess you have to be smart enough to
figure it out water injection is easy to prove did it all the
time with tractors but just check mileage on a foggy day
versus a dry day did all heavy tillage at night could and did
run a gear faster with lower temps in cool moist air the rest
is easy to explain to but maybe some people cant figure it
out
Click to expand...

Water doesn't burn. It just absorbs heat from combustion and becomes steam. Limits peak combustion temperatures to allow more air-fuel mixture to be burned per minute.
If water injection worked so well. Why doesn't every plane, train and automobile manufacture install factory water injection?
Click to expand...


Can't comment on the trains but some auto manufactures did install water injection.Not to make more power but to eliminate ping.Many aircraft,piston powered especially but some turbine powered as well had water/methenol injection.It was called ADI fluid(Anti Detonation Injection) on the recips.Used for the most part on takeoff for added power and to put the power to use without engine damage.As I recall the fluid was mixed 50/50.
 
No way in H*ll is any 7.3 diesel going to get 25 MPG. Not even with Canadian gallons. I've got a turbo 7.3 in a 4WD truck with 3.5 axle ratios (same as my Dodge). 15.5 MPG is the absolute best it ever got in NY and 17.2 MPG when in the flatlands of Michigan.
 
(quoted from post at 08:31:37 04/07/14) No way in H*ll is any 7.3 diesel going to get 25 MPG. Not even with Canadian gallons. I've got a turbo 7.3 in a 4WD truck with 3.5 axle ratios (same as my Dodge). 15.5 MPG is the absolute best it ever got in NY and 17.2 MPG when in the flatlands of Michigan.
Click to expand...
Yo, JD! I asked you a question, why don't you answer it instead of accusing others of lying? Why is 6.5+ mpg perfectly average and believable out of a heavy truck, but not a pickup? You did just say all diesels work the same way.
 
(quoted from post at 11:50:29 04/07/14)
(quoted from post at 08:31:37 04/07/14) No way in H*ll is any 7.3 diesel going to get 25 MPG. Not even with Canadian gallons. I've got a turbo 7.3 in a 4WD truck with 3.5 axle ratios (same as my Dodge). 15.5 MPG is the absolute best it ever got in NY and 17.2 MPG when in the flatlands of Michigan.
Click to expand...
Yo, JD! I asked you a question, why don't you answer it instead of accusing others of lying? Why is 6.5+ mpg perfectly average and believable out of a heavy truck, but not a pickup? You did just say all diesels work the same way.
Click to expand...
Ever hear tell of efficiency of scale?
Want to see really outstanding mileage? Find out how much a train locomotive burned to move 500 vehicles 2500miles . The train has far better mileage than off each vehicle was driven individually.
 
I have a Chevy LUV Diesel too. The trick to good mileage was driving slow. Like 40mph or less. At 65mph speed it got like 12mpg. If you tried to go faster the mileage just got worse.
 
But you tell people if they want economy, they don't want a truck? So a heavier vehicle gets better mileage per pound on the same roads at the same speed because of efficiency of scale? Nope, don't work. Comparing a train to a pickup is apples and oranges. Even with the semi bob tailing the comparison works.
 
(quoted from post at 04:18:34 04/07/14) I disagree. I've been experimenting with high fuel mileage vehicles for 40 years. I've had just about every economy minded diesel (and many gassers) ever sold in the USA along with a few custom builds. I've had several of the "100 MPG" vaporizer carbed Pogue machines (that were lucky to actually get 25 MPG). I've had cars that run on wood smoke. I had the first full size Dodge diesel truck in 1978 (Mitsubishi straight 6). I've had Chevy S10s with 2.2 diesels, LUVs with 2.2 diesels, Ford Rangers with the NA and turbo diesels, Dodge Ram 50 mini-trucks with diesels, etc. I also had a Jeep from the 60s with a factory 4 cylinder Perkins diesel. Also had many, many Volkswagen 1.5 and 1.6 diesels. I know one thing for sure. There is NO magic combo out there in the mainstream. I don't care if your mechanically injected diesel is an Isuzu, Perkins, Yanmar, Standard, Cummins, Mistubishi, Toyota, BMW, Renault, etc. They all work generally the same. If IDI they will be around 10% less efficient then DI. If turbo - they are no more efficient then NA when near sea-level but will excel at high altitudes. I know - in the real world what all these rigs get. Granted a 2WD that is lower and lighter then a 4WD will do a little better. Also any non-turbo engine loses 1% efficiency for every 300 feet above sea level. So a vehicle driven at 5000 feet is going to do poorly (if no turbo) as compared to the same driven at sea level. I will also note I've seen the silly BS stories about high mileage, ad nauseum for ages. I kind of wonder why none of big auto makers were never able to find a 5.9 liter diesel in a pickup and get it certified for 25 MPG "around town." They couldn't barely do that with a 2.2 diesel in a mid-sized truck like a Ranger or S10. The reason is - it never happened. Note I still have over 20 older diesel cars and trucks. None have magically improved to get anywhere near any of these claims I've heard.
Click to expand...

I like your post.
Over the years, I have also experimented with all types of carbureted engines. I have heard of putting smaller jets in carburetors and getting better mileage and I have heard of installing larger jets with increased mileage. It all depends on what the gas/fuel ratio was before starting.
In the 60s & 70s I specialized in automatic transmissions, air conditioning, and carburetor. Attended so many classes, I can't remember them all. If I remember correctly, in one of my carb. classes, the instructor advised us that the optimum gas/air ratio of any internal combustion engine was 14.6:1. At this ratio and under the right conditions, all of the gasoline and all of the oxygen can burn leaving nothing except for the combustion products. This is called the "stochiometric" ratio.
Years ago, I decided to build a modified version of a standard carburetor. I spent many hours fabricating and experimenting with a small lawn tractor carb. and got the results I was searching for.
I filled a small gas container with a measured amount of gasoline and the engine ran for a few minutes and seconds at a set RPM.
I then installed my modified carburetor and ran the SAME test. The engine ran over three times a long, and had unbelievable throttle response-----GOT IT!!
There was only two problems:::The engine did not produce enough power to move the machine out of my shop, even in the lowest gear!!
Second problem was the engine got dangerously HOT!
Scrapped that idea and remembered another statement my instructor made-"There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline!"
 
(quoted from post at 12:49:44 04/07/14) But you tell people if they want economy, they don't want a truck? So a heavier vehicle gets better mileage per pound on the same roads at the same speed because of efficiency of scale? Nope, don't work. Comparing a train to a pickup is apples and oranges. Even with the semi bob tailing the comparison works.
Click to expand...

It's frontal area which figures into aerodynamic drag , deiveline loses, parasitic loads and rolling friction. Weight at a constant speed make little difference to fuel efficiency . Weight is a major factor in stop start city mileage.
 

I'd look for a later 2.3 5-speed reg cab 2wd ranger. Ford made a "Fuel Economy Leader" (FEL) that would give 37 MPG or so(CDN) Those trucks sold for $13k new a few years back. I looked at getting one, but was one of those "spend more money to save fuel than just driving what you have"

I drove an older 93 2.3 5-speed and I could get 35 MPG (CDN) out of it if careful, wouldn't pull the hat off your head, but sipped fuel.

I have a 7.3 6-speed 3.73 4x4 F250. I've seen 20 MPG (CDN) on a long highway run pulling a small trailer. I doubt it'd do much better empty.

Perhaps I should bolt a water tank in the bed and spray water, or put some magnets on the fuel line, tie a "fish carburetor" to the HPOP with yarn, or just lie about my mileage and get 50 MPG.
 
Ill second the Toyota. Had one for my first vehicle, 22re 2wd, 30
mpg highway. Never checked around town. I would buy a new
one today if I could. Hard to find good used ones.
 
(quoted from post at 10:36:43 04/07/14)
(quoted from post at 12:49:44 04/07/14) But you tell people if they want economy, they don't want a truck? So a heavier vehicle gets better mileage per pound on the same roads at the same speed because of efficiency of scale? Nope, don't work. Comparing a train to a pickup is apples and oranges. Even with the semi bob tailing the comparison works.
Click to expand...

It's frontal area which figures into aerodynamic drag , deiveline loses, parasitic loads and rolling friction. Weight at a constant speed make little difference to fuel efficiency . Weight is a major factor in stop start city mileage.
Click to expand...
Huh? I'm not talking about trains, buckwheat. I'm talking about something with three times the frontal area (at least) and 5 times the axles on the same roads at the same speeds getting better mileage than you think is possible with a pickup truck
 
2014 Ram 1500 SLT REGULAR CAB 4X4 8' BOX
Interior
Cloth 40 / 20 / 40 Bench Seat
Exterior
17-Inch x 7.0-Inch Aluminum Wheels
P265/70R17 BSW All Season Tires
Black / Gray Interior Colors $0
Black Clear Coat Exterior Paint $0
$0
Options
Uconnect® 5.0 AM/FM/BT $0
Cloth 40 / 20 / 40 Bench Seat $0
17-Inch x 7.0-Inch Aluminum Wheels $0
P265/70R17 BSW All Season Tires $0
8-Speed TorqueFlite Auto Trans 8HP70 $500
3.0-Liter V6 Turbo Diesel Engine $4,000
Engine Block Heater $90
$4,590

$38,665 net price plus tax

3.0 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 8-spd, Turbo, Diesel 2WD

City 20mpg
Combined 23mpg
Highway 28mpg
Fuel cost $2600 per year

Ohhhhhhh Wowwwwwwwww........You are saving $100 per year in fuel and paying $10,000 more for the truck. Vs the 2WD GMC gasser
 
(quoted from post at 17:59:33 04/07/14) 2014 Ram 1500 SLT REGULAR CAB 4X4 8' BOX
Interior
Cloth 40 / 20 / 40 Bench Seat
Exterior
17-Inch x 7.0-Inch Aluminum Wheels
P265/70R17 BSW All Season Tires
Black / Gray Interior Colors $0
Black Clear Coat Exterior Paint $0
$0
Options
Uconnect® 5.0 AM/FM/BT $0
Cloth 40 / 20 / 40 Bench Seat $0
17-Inch x 7.0-Inch Aluminum Wheels $0
P265/70R17 BSW All Season Tires $0
8-Speed TorqueFlite Auto Trans 8HP70 $500
3.0-Liter V6 Turbo Diesel Engine $4,000
Engine Block Heater $90
$4,590

$38,665 net price plus tax

3.0 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 8-spd, Turbo, Diesel 2WD

City 20mpg
Combined 23mpg
Highway 28mpg
Fuel cost $2600 per year

Ohhhhhhh Wowwwwwwwww........You are saving $100 per year in fuel and paying $10,000 more for the truck. Vs the 2WD GMC gasser
Click to expand...
ho are you arguing with? Because you have not answered my question. And we are talking about fuel economy, not price. Even if I paid $100,000 for my Cummins, it has no impact on stated fuel economy. I know you don't like diesels, that is of no import to me.
 
Ya, and you and jdemaris are in your world of knowing physics as you call it that it isn't possible, and were it proved to you in person you would still claim it is impossible. In this country, the 12 valve diesels have and will still get better than 20 in every day all conditions driving and lots of them for you to call bald faced liars. As for the 2014 Gmc you listed, not a one of them will make that mileage or close to it. It also maybe that you and John are the kind that stabs the throttle, let off, stab the throttle and can't get fuel mileage. Nonetheless, I call BS on what you guys claim. Thank you.
 
(quoted from post at 23:21:11 04/07/14) Ya, and you and jdemaris are in your world of knowing physics as you call it that it isn't possible, and were it proved to you in person you would still claim it is impossible. In this country, the 12 valve diesels have and will still get better than 20 in every day all conditions driving and lots of them for you to call bald faced liars. As for the 2014 Gmc you listed, not a one of them will make that mileage or close to it. It also maybe that you and John are the kind that stabs the throttle, let off, stab the throttle and can't get fuel mileage. Nonetheless, I call BS on what you guys claim. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'll take the EPA mileage numbers measured accurately in a lab. And repeatable with every test with different vehicles . Over what Bubba says he gets for mileage.
 
My 1985 diesel Isuzu PUP is the same thing as a LUV. Mine only has the 4 speed. I doubt it would even do 65 MPH but can't say I've tried. It's revving pretty high at 55 MPH. Mine always gets around 27 MPG no matter what I do. I suspect it would drop like a rock if I tried to make it go 65 MPH. Mine is 4WD and also has a very heavy steel bed on back.
 

I'm saying that a plain 2wd gasser Chev pickup costs $10,000 less than the plainest Dodge 2WD diesel. Under the identical driving conditions the gasser burns $100 a year more in fuel .
I thought the question here was " where to find a cheap to purchase and cheap to operate beater truck".
Don't put untrue words in my mouth.if you cared to read you would know that I believe from 1989 to the mid-late 2000's . The power, simplicity and low price of fuel made the diesel a winner in pickups used to regularly haul loads .
Unfortunately a couple of PC fools set some unrealistic EPA regulations for Diesel engines .
The early common rail diesels had some $$$ injector problems. Since 2007 and 2011 in particular. The diesel has been made too complex and expensive.
The low cost of diesel fuel at the pumps advantage is gone since ULSD was mandated.
 
I'm open minded. I'd love to see it proved to me "in person." I've tried. I've challenged many people on their inflated fuel mileage claims and driven several of these "suspect" rigs. Not one panned out yet to be true. If I ever found one - I'd copy what it had and drive it. I've driven all these rigs new as well as compared notes with many others. When Ford came out with the IDI 7.3s - all the 4WDs when driven at 1000-2000 feet elevation got a best of 14 MPG. When the 5.9 Dodges came out -4WDs with manual transmissons were well known to get 20-21 MPG when empty. That was with the old diesel fuel that had more BTU content then the newer low-sulfur fuel. 2WDs (lighter and lower) when driven at near sea level were known to get 22 MPG. I've got a 1983 Chevy K10 with a 6.2. 3.07 axles, and a four speed manual overdrive that got 24 MPG near the Ocean in Long Island, NY. In the hills in central NY - with today's diesel fuel it gets an even 20 MPG if I baby it. My 92 Dodge 4WD extended cab and 8 foot bed, with 3.50 axles and 5 speed Getrag -used to get a best of 21 MPG with the old diesel. Now gets a best of 19 MPG. Anyway as to your claims -I'll glady believe them if I ever see them happen. So would a lot of auto engineers.
 
(quoted from post at 09:16:11 04/08/14)
I'm saying that a plain 2wd gasser Chev pickup costs $10,000 less than the plainest Dodge 2WD diesel. Under the identical driving conditions the gasser burns $100 a year more in fuel .
I thought the question here was " where to find a cheap to purchase and cheap to operate beater truck".
Don't put untrue words in my mouth.if you cared to read you would know that I believe from 1989 to the mid-late 2000's . The power, simplicity and low price of fuel made the diesel a winner in pickups used to regularly haul loads .
Unfortunately a couple of PC fools set some unrealistic EPA regulations for Diesel engines .
The early common rail diesels had some $$$ injector problems. Since 2007 and 2011 in particular. The diesel has been made too complex and expensive.
The low cost of diesel fuel at the pumps advantage is gone since ULSD was mandated.
Click to expand...
biggest thing I think you forget on the affordability of driving a diesel pickup, is that most people have the option of buying used. You may not due to rust, but other areas of the world are not in the same boat. I would never advocate buying a newer common-rail cummins for an affordable driver. However, a first or second gen cummins is a great option for an affordable farm truck if not in the rust belt. My truck is 19 years old and looks like new. I didn't pay $10,000 more than I would for a gasser, either.
 
JD, I don't see how you not getting the mileage I do proves any point. I can just as easily call you a liar for saying you get less mileage than I do. You may drive differently than I do, our numbers are within a couple mpg of each other, which can easily be explained away by driving habits. So, I call bs on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
American truck weight rating.
Replies
1
Views
1K
ericlb
E
D
Best plow truck
Replies
13
Views
3K
hd6gtom
H
O
Trucks as help on the farm, GM truck info I've learned here
Replies
2
Views
559
hd6gtom
H
2
3020 Gasoline Tractor Overhaul
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
tomstractorsandtoys
tomstractorsandtoys
S
Suggestions for getting better fuel mileage
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
wisbaker
W
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top