SuperCrew

terrible gas mileage

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 7, 2004 | 06:55 PM
  #1  
FASTRNU's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: Motown
terrible gas mileage

I know the cold has something to do with gas mileage but mine seems to be really bad. I do have BIGGER tires and I know that effects mileage also but mine has gotten really bad in the last month. Truck seems to run the same. No bogging or lack of power. I replaced fuel filter last summer. Have also dumped in some fuel injector cleaner hoping that would help. Any ideas what I should look for or try? Thanks
 
Reply
Old Feb 8, 2004 | 07:55 PM
  #2  
F150_TIM's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Plainfield, IN
Couple of ideas

Howdy Fastrnu,

Nice hadle! Is your heater putting out good heat, and warming up in about 2 miles if outside temp is below 32, but lets say above 20? If not you could have a bad thermostat, and that will make for lously MPG results. Also have you recalibrated your odometer after putting on your large tires. I have to add 8% to my distance to get an accurate MPG on my 4x4, and that makes a huge difference. Hope this helps.

Oh one more thing, is your left foot a 10 and your right a 12?
 
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 01:29 AM
  #3  
longarm's Avatar
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Go and get the KNN FIPK. It makes one helluva difference. It did on mine vs. stock.
 
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 01:38 PM
  #4  
ReelWork's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
K&N

The FIPK is kind of a waste of money when you can get 95% of the gains by just using a replacement K&N filter that drops in...

Yes, I have had both and I'll gladly pay $35 for the replacement, $175 for the FIPK is a waste!

Later,
Chris
 
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 03:48 PM
  #5  
WebGuyRich's Avatar
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
An FIPK isn't a waste of money, if you switch to larger MAF and a larger TB. A drop-in style K&N can't supply the amount of air required for larger MAF's and TB's.

Personally, I'd probably go with a different brand of intake over K&N.

-Rich
 
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 04:28 PM
  #6  
ReelWork's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
You're right

I stand corrected.. To get that additional 5% of airflow that the K&N FIPK gives you over the replacement K&N drop-in filter, YES it is well worth the extra $140+ dollars...

Personally, I'll stick with the 95% gain with only 20% of the cost! I guess I am just crazy like that...

I put some holes in my stock airbox housing and I'm sure I plenty of flow... You can see pics in my gallery..

I've got a magnet for sale that will give you 200% better fuel economy!

Interested???
 

Last edited by ReelWork; Feb 9, 2004 at 04:32 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 07:18 PM
  #7  
FASTRNU's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: Motown
I already have a K&N drop in filter installed. Maybe it needs cleaned. When it was warm out I could get to 100-110 miles on the first 1/4 tank easily. Now I'm lucky to get to 80. This is done with a fillup to the top of the neck so I know I am close. Thanks for all the suggestions.

I've had this username for a few years. Saw it on a Hot Wheels package. Somebody already has the personized plate in Michigan. I have a 2000 Lightning and was hoping to put the plate on it.
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Feb 9, 2004 | 10:03 PM
  #8  
ReelWork's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
Ah... I see glasshoppa...

You said the magic words, "when it was warm out... "

Let me tell you what a big V-8 does when it is cold. It sucks up GAS big time!

I'd be willing to bet that you have been taking shorter trips and/or letting the truck warm up longer since you guys have been a little colder than normal.

Another thing could be the gas itself. When it gets really cold, I believe some places (read cities or states) use gas with a different formulation that is "supposed" to be be better emmisions wise, by like 20%. The thing is, it normally nets a 10-20 percent less in economy as well.. Go figure, what a bunch of nimrods..

Good luck,
Chris
 
Reply
Old Feb 9, 2004 | 10:03 PM
  #9  
ReelWork's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
sorry...

duplicate... When is this server problem gonna get fixed!
 
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2004 | 12:27 PM
  #10  
King James's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
From: Hartselle, AL
Re: Ah... I see glasshoppa...

Originally posted by ReelWork
Another thing could be the gas itself. When it gets really cold, I believe some places (read cities or states) use gas with a different formulation that is "supposed" to be be better emmisions wise, by like 20%. The thing is, it normally nets a 10-20 percent less in economy as well.. Go figure, what a bunch of nimrods.
Somebody else that agrees with me. I wish there was an easy way to prove this to them. Another thing I wondered about also is the fuel atomization. It doesn't atomize as well when it is cold so I have always wondered what would happen if I were to figure out a way to heat the fuel up as it travels down the line.

Edited to make my statement clearer and fix a spelling error.
 

Last edited by King James; Feb 10, 2004 at 01:12 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 10, 2004 | 08:29 PM
  #11  
Rockpick's Avatar
Moderator &
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 31,440
Likes: 4
From: The Bluegrass State
Duh... sorry.... I posted thinking I was inside the SUPERDUTY forum.
 
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2004 | 05:32 PM
  #12  
FASTRNU's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: Motown
Reelwork, I'll take that bet. My test was done completely with highway miles. Drove up north and back last Saturday. No engine warmup, no city traffic. All done at at 70 mph.
 
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2004 | 05:50 PM
  #13  
sleddogg's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: Beaverton,MI
How Many miles on it? Might be needin new plugs. Also winter blend fuels in Mi can give you slightly worse mileage. Dont know though. I use Purple Royal from the water pump to the rearend, Have a 5.4 with K&N and modified air box and average 18/19 with my 99 4x2 flareside reg cab.
 
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2004 | 07:01 PM
  #14  
FASTRNU's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: Motown
Just turned 24,000. It's a 4X4.
 
Reply
Old Feb 11, 2004 | 09:28 PM
  #15  
ReelWork's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
Originally posted by FASTRNU
Reelwork, I'll take that bet. My test was done completely with highway miles. Drove up north and back last Saturday. No engine warmup, no city traffic. All done at at 70 mph.
Yes, but don't forget that I also stated the gas is most likely that re-formulated crap... That's the worst part of it all...

A lot of states do this and I don't quite know why.. I know what they say - that it is less polluting, but if it's realistically causing 10-20 percent poorer gas mileage, isn't that basically negating the purpose altogether?

I just don't get it...

Later,
Chris

O.K. - The bet is that you drive down here and if you're mileage still sucks, I buy beer and lunch.. If it's good, then you buy!
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 AM.