Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillbilly Hauler, or.. my first diesel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Beagle
    replied
    mileage report on the new toaster... 23 mpg on the lie-o-meter over 1200 miles mixed, probably 50/50 city / highway. I can't calculate by hand yet, the first receipt "disappeared" and I haven't had to fill it up a second time yet. Looks like about 750 mile range on the tank is going to be normal.I am bordering on being really impressed and really liking this 2.7 mill, and one Mercedes turd really doesn't. Haha. Despite being the smallest engine they have ever put in an F150, all of it's 375 ft/lb's are in by 3000, making it a pretty good truck engine.

    Red truck becomes pasture truck. Nasty smelly beat up White truck gets a new fuel pump. The way too civilized for me toaster becomes the new family car... and a pretty decent family car at that. I saw the front page and I thought "Well, this IS RWD, 300+hp, seats four comfortably, and flies under the radar... for 25k"

    No wonder they are selling better than the Impala I didn't know existed.

    Leave a comment:


  • milner351
    replied
    you like the fuel economy - that comes with aero enhancements - which include much lower air dams under the front bumper than you're used to on the older truck - in fact - it probably has under engine shields that will have to be totally or partially removed to change the oil .... this is all stuff the LSR guys have figured out a long time ago - they probably made this stuff from aluminum, in production, plastic is a heck of a lot cheaper (and lighter)

    ENJOY

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    I'm in Texas, so duplicating conditions is almost impossible. You can't drive 10 minutes in one direction and get the same weather on the return trip. Haha.

    This is supposed to be a stripped down model, but they did spend some time on the programming of the trip computer. Trip A and Trip B keep independent economy and ET numbers. The white F250 was very generous with it's estimates, generally 10 percent high based on miles/gallons calculated from the pump receipt. I'll have to check a few tanks before I have an idea with this one. It's just an approximation for me, but it's close enough... the biggest variables I notice are wind and fuel price. My foot gets consistently heavier when fuel prices are down. Wind, well, you already know about wind with your LSR experiences...

    Speaking of LSR... Damn city trucks. I drove over a box yesterday that I wouldn't have thought twice about with anything else I drive currently and it stuck on the lower air dam..I'm going to have to pay attention to curbs when I'm parking it. Also has it's first paint chip already, tiny, but present. I may give this to the missus. It doesn't smell funny, it starts and runs without drama, the ride and drive are car like, the stereo is completely acceptable, the fuel economy appears to be acceptable, and it has a back seat. She loves it. I had planned on getting her a new Edge, but this may be it. The stupid white truck and I just about bonded when I moved it yesterday and the red one told me it missed me with that basso profundo voice it has. I like the city truck, but it has girl written all over it.


    Leave a comment:


  • DanStokes
    replied
    Believe it or not, those on-board fuel calculators are about as good as you can get shy of some really expensive instrumentation. The old "drive it 'till it needs fuel and divide the miles by the gallons (or is that the other way around? Math is not my strong suite)" is surprisingly fallible. How full is full, how empty is empty, how reproducable is your driving cycle, what's the weather (including barometer) - all this stuff matters. We tried that at EPA for an on-road program and believe me it really doesn't work all that well. The best way to make that work is to get LOTS of data (lots of tankfulls) so that the variables sort of wash out due to the sample size. I just go with my on-board instrumentation and more or less believe it.

    Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    Thanks! It's the 2.7... pretty much a girlie truck with a cushy berth. I went to buy one with 3.73's and the only junk left on the lot were 3.31 trucks. They made up for it in price I guess, and it does have a locker. It pulls okay, runs harder than a 5.3 Chevy anyway. I'm about to put the toy trailer behind it and see what happens. I'll have to give it a few miles and see. I can't help but think some 4.10's would help it, but it's a go to work toaster so I may just leave it be. It says it got 23.4 average for the first 100 miles so I'm guessing 20mpg. Most of it was at 75-80 into a 20+ mph head wind. I can live with that. With a 36 gallon tank, it will be a few days before I can calculate it.
    Last edited by Beagle; December 11, 2016, 09:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell
    replied
    Congrats! Did you get the TT or V8? Burnout video or it didn't happen

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    And in the end, I guess I really I wanted a new four slice toaster.. the newest one here has 130,000 slices of toast on it and it shows, so I bought a new one in black. I probably should have done this instead of the white F250 to begin with since I will keep the red F250 no matter what.


    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    It's a RWD F250 Super Duty. Yep, the same 50+ year old design they are still using in 2017. The F150's went to a-arms in 97 iirc, as was the two year light duty F250 (97-98). I wonder if they may have changed something in the geometry for fuel economy or something as none of the other 5 I have prior to this one needed as much attention. Maybe they were wore out just right or something. Pffft.

    I was reading a guys thread on a Bronco forum where he went through a pile of shims to get it to drive the way he wanted. The aftermarket has an adjustable camber/caster bushing for this truck , I was thinking about giving it a try before giving up on the truck. Seems like the Wine and Cheese magazines still complain about this on brand new trucks (Car and Driver, Motor Trend) so I'm guessing Dan may be right and I may have to drive it that way (Right into a dealership).
    Last edited by Beagle; December 10, 2016, 07:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • milner351
    replied
    post 2006 I believe the twin i beam was dead - much improved dynamics and much tighter turning radius - and coil springs up front.

    I miss my 7.3 when I'm towing - but not when it's cold out!

    New diesels are amazingly quiet powerful, and quick to start when cold - but at the same time horrifically complex and ridonkulously expensive.

    If I get another diesel, it will most likely be a 7.3 or a 6.4.

    For now the '91 F150 SC 8ft 351w with 3.55 traction lock is doing everything I need it to, it's parked more often than not - and it gets what it gets for fuel economy, the registration and insurance is so much cheaper than the newer trucks - I'd still be money ahead if the fuel economy was 1/3 of a new one!

    Leave a comment:


  • DanStokes
    replied
    While we like Vanna the Van ('99 E150) it too wanders even though it's low mileage and we've replaced a bunch of stuff up front. Vic (our Vic and owner of Allen's Garage in Fancy Gap, VA) says that Ford trucks simply don't stay in their lane like my Dodge does (the Dodge has a ton of caster). So it's worth making sure that everything is in perfect shape but also to accept that you'll probably have to utilize the steering input device constantly.

    Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • STINEY
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperBuickGuy View Post
    bushings are more likely the culprit
    x2 And when replacing them, get the OEM ones. Cheap rubber replacements have a life of about 5000 miles, and Urethane is even worse.

    Radius arm twin i-beam front suspension? Ford is STILL using that horrific design on the new trucks? Unreal....

    Wild camber changes and toe-setting changes within a small suspension travel distance are the hallmarks of this design. You set it at what is guessed to be normal ride height and every little dip in the road changes it by several degrees.

    Herding cats.




    Leave a comment:


  • SuperBuickGuy
    replied
    bushings are more likely the culprit

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    Interesting ... I noticed a little turbo lag on the 2.7, but I figured 3.73's would help with that. Most of them have 3.31's and I consider that a city truck ratio. I've been driving a 4cyl Escape mostly, about 18k miles since February, so any of them are going to feel like a rocketship in comparison. The point of that comment is I tend to anticipate things like hills and drive accordingly. The fuel economy on this newer truck has been really disappointing, but I'm not sure I'm done trying to improve that. I haven't quite rubbed the new off of the "good lord this thing makes some torque" accelerator position. Haha.
    With only a few thousand miles on it, fuel costs are trivial compared to the price of a new truck. There's a drawback for everything.. better economy, fatass payment. lol.

    I usually bond with a vehicle, but this white thing is fighting it. Apparently I'm going to have to learn about alignments, this one doesn't have sloppy steering but it won't stay in a lane either. You constantly have to give it input. On the plus side, man does it start easy when it's cold, something I can't say about my 7.3.

    Back to the current most irritating quality, the road wandering. Is this a product of camber? I saw where you can get adjustable caster/camber bushings for this truck, and I'm wondering if that might be the cure to it's ills.
    Last edited by Beagle; December 9, 2016, 05:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell
    replied
    My cousin had an ecoboost he said he didn't like it for pulling a trailer, got horrible mileage. Something messed up on the truck while it was in the shop he traded it for a v8 f150
    Last edited by Russell; December 8, 2016, 06:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beagle
    replied
    I'm just giving you grief, but I look at diesel particulate filters the same way I look at pellet catalytic converters right now. It does impact the fuel economy significantly according to the highly inaccurate lie-o-meter MPG gauge on the dash, like 15-20% that is hard to recover from. Likewise, there are a wealth of 6.4 owners who didn't see the legendary diesel engine longevity and the DPF regeneration strategy looks like the major contributor. An injector on the pipe would likely be a far better solution from a metering standpoint. It definitely sounds like a better idea than running two cylinders so rich that flames shoot out the tail pipe. I'm guessing it would be a plumbing nightmare on a common rail diesel and a programming nightmare unless you ran a completely independent controller for that injector.

    In reality, I don't "need" 950 foot pounds like the 2017's make but boy does it get addictive fast when you stomp on the loud pedal. I've given serious thought to a 6.2 powered gasoline burner which still makes more nuts than I really need for the job I have the truck doing. We all know how indecisive I can get when it comes to selecting a powerplant... and the fact than a RWD work truck F250 drives and drives marginally better then a Connestoga wagon has me wondering if it's time to downsize. A plastic bed liner in an F150 would fix my angst about the aluminum bed floor (so would a sheet of plywood... lol.) and after driving one, I'm pretty sure I could still get speeding tickets pretty easy dragging a car trailer. The 2.7 twin turbo is amazingly good.

    I hope I don't make you guys as crazy as I do everyone around me when it's time for a new anything but really cheap vehicle. I find reasons to love whatever it is I'm looking at but always find one glaring reason why I hate it that makes it really difficult to just buy something and not worry about it. In the long run, that reason is usually money. I have a serious issue with paying as much for a truck as I did for my first house... it paralyzes my check writing hand it's so bad. I don't have as big a problem paying twice as much for a new truck as I did for my first new truck 30 years ago, but six times as much just hurts my skull. Even if I probably make more than six times as much now as I did then, it just hurts. That's the strategy "they" use on you to keep you perpetually broke. You make more now, so spend more now. No. Next question.

    In sitting here thinking about it some more, I think I'll have the front end rebuilt on the red one and just work some overtime. Most of the stuff I need to do the job like a press and big air guns are not at this house. Then I can trade the newer truck for a F150 with a warranty and keep a diesel that doesn't seem to mind when you beat on it or get it filthy dirty.
    Last edited by Beagle; December 8, 2016, 05:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X