2016 Duramax vs 2002 Duramax Mashup

blofgren wrote:

ktmrfs wrote:
our 2016 when running empty gets signficantly better mileage than the 04 did. A good 2mpg easily on the highway. I've got data on about 20 trips over the same 700 miles on the 04 and 9 on the 16. The 16 is in the high 19's, or low 20 on all the trips, the best the 04 would do was mid 17's. And on the 16 the same trip has about 400 miles of the 750 with a 5mph higher speed limit, Montana is now 80 vs 75, Oregon recently went to 70 on section vs 65 for the last trip. The 16 still beats the 04.

And the mileage is all hand calculated, not from the DIC.

Now towing or around town they are close to the same.

That's interesting. How about towing mileage?

As I mentioned, towing and around town the 04 and 15 are virtually the same.

towing, wind resistance and mass dominates any differences
around town, mass dominates the effect on economy.

travelnutz wrote:
One of the major reasons we keep our 2004.5 Chevy Duramax CC LB 4X4 truck is the superb fuel economy when towing our scale weighed 12,800 lb Carriage Carrilite 5th wheel or our 11'4" Lance truck camper. Truck is and only has been used for RV'ing since ordered new in March 2004 (12 years ago) and is getting close to 200K miles on it now and has never needed or had any repairs other than tires, oil etc changes, 2 burned out light bulbs replaced, and new front disc brake pads at just over 125K. Rears are still original and have plenty of thickness left. Truck runs and looks just like new yet, not a bit of rust, very comfortable riding and excellent handling, and far more power than was ever needed. Why would we even want to spend $60 to $70 thousand for a new truck then?

If it's liking the smell of a new truck? It's so much cheaper to just buy an aerosol can of new vehicle smell spray! If you'd purchased the right truck to begin with, you'd still be happy today too!

That ^^^^^^^^^^ is exactly how you would want a truck to perform over many years. Good for you!

4x4ord wrote:
My 03 Duramax consistently got 20 mpg (US) on highway trips. Not sure yet what my '16 Ford is getting but it looks like it's going to be terrible......maybe about 15.

I have heard the 15 up Fords get worse mileage. It will be interesting to see what you find after several tanks.

One of the major reasons we keep our 2004.5 Chevy Duramax CC LB 4X4 truck is the superb fuel economy when towing our scale weighed 12,800 lb Carriage Carrilite 5th wheel or our 11'4" Lance truck camper. Truck is and only has been used for RV'ing since ordered new in March 2004 (12 years ago) and is getting close to 200K miles on it now and has never needed or had any repairs other than tires, oil etc changes, 2 burned out light bulbs replaced, and new front disc brake pads at just over 125K. Rears are still original and have plenty of thickness left. Truck runs and looks just like new yet, not a bit of rust, very comfortable riding and excellent handling, and far more power than was ever needed. Why would we even want to spend $60 to $70 thousand for a new truck then?

If it's liking the smell of a new truck? It's so much cheaper to just buy an aerosol can of new vehicle smell spray! If you'd purchased the right truck to begin with, you'd still be happy today too!

My 03 Duramax consistently got 20 mpg (US) on highway trips. Not sure yet what my '16 Ford is getting but it looks like it's going to be terrible......maybe about 15.

ktmrfs wrote:
our 2016 when running empty gets signficantly better mileage than the 04 did. A good 2mpg easily on the highway. I've got data on about 20 trips over the same 700 miles on the 04 and 9 on the 16. The 16 is in the high 19's, or low 20 on all the trips, the best the 04 would do was mid 17's. And on the 16 the same trip has about 400 miles of the 750 with a 5mph higher speed limit, Montana is now 80 vs 75, Oregon recently went to 70 on section vs 65 for the last trip. The 16 still beats the 04.

And the mileage is all hand calculated, not from the DIC.

Now towing or around town they are close to the same.

That's interesting. How about towing mileage?

our 2016 when running empty gets signficantly better mileage than the 04 did. A good 2mpg easily on the highway. I've got data on about 20 trips over the same 700 miles on the 04 and 9 on the 16. The 16 is in the high 19's, or low 20 on all the trips, the best the 04 would do was mid 17's. And on the 16 the same trip has about 400 miles of the 750 with a 5mph higher speed limit, Montana is now 80 vs 75, Oregon recently went to 70 on section vs 65 for the last trip. The 16 still beats the 04.

And the mileage is all hand calculated, not from the DIC.

Now towing or around town they are close to the same.

minnow wrote:
I always wondered if it was better for the environment to place all these emission controls on a truck which forces it to use more fuel per mile than a truck with no controls that uses less fuel per mile. What is more harmful to the environment over the long haul ?

Probably a more accurate method of comparing fuel economy is put 10 gallons in a dry gas tank and run it till it quits and see how many miles you went.

Not recommended to run a diesel out of fuel.

minnow wrote:

Probably a more accurate method of comparing fuel economy is put 10 gallons in a dry gas tank and run it till it quits and see how many miles you went.

That's actually a more scientific method....

TFL's method is close enough for military work, but as you can see from some of the members here it's subjective to them.

Flashman wrote:

N-Trouble wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

N-Trouble wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
To determine fuel used by clicking off waiting 30 seconds then squeeze/click is a joke.

Thanks for posting!

Please explain...

They are just using consistent/repeated technique when filling the tank each time. I don't see the problem.

What do you propose they do?

No two tanks are going to cause the fuel nozzle to shut off a the exact same time every time. If they filled the tank to the top each time would be more accurate. But they may spill a drop so that is not an option.

Only real accurate way would be tie a seperate fuel tank into system that can accurately be re filled to determine exact fuel used.

It doesn't matter if one tank consistently fills more than the other. Its irrelevant... THe key is to consistenly fill the same tank to the same (or close ot the same) level at each fill. Whether one fills to the top each time and the other always has a gallon of space left doesn't matter. As long as its consistent each time your only measuring what you are able to put into the tank. By using the same pump at the same station using the same filling technique (fill till click, wait 30sec, and top off)is about the best you can do in a test like this.

Yep - exactly correct

NTrouble is on the money.