Modifications To Improve Gas Mileage (1 Viewer)

[Asanka]

Can't leave this thread without chip-in my thoughts... Those who getting around 10mpg or less on stock rigs with careful right foot, please please check and fix whatever not working effectively to avoid releasing fumes to the environment.

Btw, $ savings for 100 miles is 11.8462-10.2667=$1.5 if I improve from 13MPG to 15MPG with the current gas price at my area (regular $1.54). Its negligible even on few thousand miles road trip. So I don't care mpg given mine did over 15+ before modifications and now 13+ (sliders and roofrack coming soon)

Even though I like to improve range, even at $$$$ cost

 

[MUDZLLA]

From comments so far it seems that realizable efficiency gains are in the 7-9% range, depending on if you have any problems. This translates to about $250-300/year based on my current usage. Assuming the gains stick for 3-4 years the $1000 or so savings should hopefully pay for whatever modifications I decide to do.

 

[Lonegrasshopper]

From comments so far it seems that realizable efficiency gains are in the 7-9% range, depending on if you have any problems. This translates to about $250-300/year based on my current usage. Assuming the gains stick for 3-4 years the $1000 or so savings should hopefully pay for whatever modifications I decide to do.

Maintenance fund.

 

[chuckscap]

I get about 15 mpg in Colorado at 6000 ft elevation. I expect that to change for the worse when I put my bumpers on.

 

[NoTempoLimit]

I got this result this January on a snowy weekday night drive on US 202. This was before the maintenance described in my previous post.

Adjusted for tire size:
19.8 MPG at 40.5 MPH average speed.

Max fuel economy on these rigs is at the minimum speed for top gear (5th in my case), flat terrain, sheilded from wind (lots of trees in Maine) and steady speed with a minimum of stopping or slowing down.

 

[MUDZLLA]

I got this result this January on a snowy weekday night drive on US 202. This was before the maintenance described in my previous post.

Adjusted for tire size:
19.8 MPG at 40.5 MPH average speed.

Max fuel economy on these rigs is at the minimum speed for top gear (5th in my case), flat terrain, sheilded from wind (lots of trees in Maine) and steady speed with a minimum of stopping or slowing down.

View attachment 2500194

Sad we must resort to these measures when my HDJ-81 got 22mpg with a 1HD-T fully armoured on 35s. But if you're only gettin' 10? C'monnn Mannn.... build it back better!

 

[NoTempoLimit]

Sad we must resort to these measures when my HDJ-81 got 22mpg with a 1HD-T fully armoured on 35s.

Mr. T decided that us Yanks would never get Diesel.

Although that is regrettable, in many places in the U.S. the cost of Diesel is higher than premium 93 AKI. It's like that here where I live, especially gas stations situated near Interstate exits. So you'd have to calculate the increased MPG against the increased fuel cost.

I'm not sure if it is related to increased taxes on Diesel, the ultra-low sulfur requirement, or increased demand from shipping (ships can't burn cheap bunker fuel anymore).

 

[MUDZLLA]

Mr. T decided that us Yanks would never get Diesel.

Although that is regrettable, in many places in the U.S. the cost of Diesel is higher than premium 93 AKI. It's like that here where I live, especially gas stations situated near Interstate exits. So you'd have to calculate the increased MPG against the increased fuel cost.

I'm not sure if it is related to increased taxes on Diesel, the ultra-low sulfur requirement, or increased demand from shipping (ships can't burn cheap bunker fuel anymore).

Yeah was like that here in Alberta too, but recently diesel has been cheaper.

 

[J1000]

Mr. T decided that us Yanks would never get Diesel.

Although that is regrettable, in many places in the U.S. the cost of Diesel is higher than premium 93 AKI. It's like that here where I live, especially gas stations situated near Interstate exits. So you'd have to calculate the increased MPG against the increased fuel cost.

I'm not sure if it is related to increased taxes on Diesel, the ultra-low sulfur requirement, or increased demand from shipping (ships can't burn cheap bunker fuel anymore).

US emissions regs for diesel passenger vehicles (not pickup trucks) are absurdly hard to meet and end up ruining the performance benefit of the diesel in the first place. That's why VW was involved in a massive EPA cheating scandal.

 

[geargarcon]

Run ethanol free gas. Haven't tried it in my LX, but in other vehicles, I've picked up 2-4mpg.

Ive tried this a few times have haven’t shown any noticeable improvement with ethanol free.

 

[NoTempoLimit]

Ive tried this a few times have haven’t shown any noticeable improvement with ethanol free.

Ethanol boosts octane, which may make up for the lower energy density of the 6-10% ethanol in the gasoline by allowing a small timing advance by the ECU.

That's the reason for the push for standarized ethanol in gasoline. In the '90's EPA pushed MTBE, which is an excellent octane booster, then banned it, so ethanol was the only (cheap) choice.

 

[flintknapper]

Ive tried this a few times have haven’t shown any noticeable improvement with ethanol free.

BTU output between the two is marginal. Non-E gasoline having the advantage, but you'd have to burn a lot of fuel to see the difference.

 

[flintknapper]

Ethanol boosts octane, which may make up for the lower energy density of the 6-10% ethanol in the gasoline by allowing a small timing advance by the ECU.

Our engine can't really take advantage of Octane boosts. I'm sure you're aware (but others might not be)....higher octane simply resists detonation (knock). Engines with higher compression, cam profiles, timing, etc.....can take advantage of this and that is why they perform better. It isn't the fuel....its the engine design.

You can put the highest rated fuel there is in a lower performance engine and will make NO difference. In fact higher octane fuels are less efficient (lower BTU output) than regular fuel. But the myths die hard.