Last post on Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair
What is this discussion about?
Engine, Exhaust, Diesel, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
This topic is for diesel car and truck owners who have not been able to find satisfactory information in the forums dealing with their particular vehicles (please use SEARCH on left of page before you post here).
Jun 02, 2008 (1:48 pm)
It's best to change them all, like spark plugs. They wear out.
#124 of 166 Re: help [muncy]
Jun 05, 2008 (3:41 am)
On my 1990 the glow plugs are easily removed like a spark plug. (My book says on some models you have to remove valve covers to get at them) it probably would be best to replace them all. You can test by pulling the glow plugs and connecting to a battery. The end will ďglowĒ also it will get very hot. It only takes a few seconds for them to heat up. If any do not heat up they are bad.
I would test before replacing. I almost just replaced mine. After testing found all were good and that was over a year ago.
#125 of 166 Re: help [orchiddj]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jun 05, 2008 (9:26 am)
I've read that they should be replaced somewhere around 100,000 miles, give or take.
Jul 03, 2008 (11:02 am)
I have a 2004 Dodge Diesel. I bought it for towing a 35-foot travel trailer. I talked to several Dodge owners before I bought mine that were towing travel trailers and they always said they get 18 MPG towing. Mine only gets 10-11 MPG. After two years I decided to put in the Bully Dog chip and I didnít see a difference. Last year I added the K&N filter and I still didnít see a difference. This year I had them change the muffler and I still donít see a difference. I also went by the onboard MPG calculator and I now realize that with the chip itís no longer accurate. I will re-check my MPG again but calculating it by hand.
The big question is why am I not getting 18 MPG? Is there something I am missing?
Is there that much of a difference between engines? It does have a lot of power to tow the trailer. This last week towing the trailer I hand calculated the MPG and it was 10.2 MPG. The onboard computer showed 13.
#127 of 166 Re: Gas mileage [wisdodge]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jul 03, 2008 (1:13 pm)
Probably you are relying on anecdotal information from other owners, and anecdotal information can be very tricky to confirm. For instance, maybe one day one time in ideal conditions someone got 18 mpg, and then they presume to declare this the standard for the truck. Also if you have a different rear end ratio, or dual tires, this can have a big effect. And then there is the matter of what type of terrain you drive in, vs. the report from the other owners. So a guy in Kansas with a 3:55 ratio rear end is going to perform a lot better than someone in Colorado with a 4:10 rear end.
Your reports on chips and K&N and fancy mufflers only confirms my skepticism that while these things might make the car run better they are not likely to increase fuel mileage.
#128 of 166 Re: Gas mileage [wisdodge]
by kcram HOST
Jul 04, 2008 (7:05 pm)
In additio to Shifty's reply, it's also important to ask what year those other Rams are. The old mechanical 12-valve engine (used until December 1997) was phenomenal on fuel... my 1996 3500 extended cab dually 4x4 had no problem getting 24 mpg empty with the 3.54 axle. My 2005 3500 Quad Cab 4x4 dually requires a lot of effort to get 20 mpg with 3.73s under the same conditions.
kcram - Pickups Host
#129 of 166 Re: Gas mileage [Mr_Shiftright]
Jul 05, 2008 (8:59 am)
4:10 ratio here, '92 Ford F350 dually, Int'l 7.3 diesel.
When I do mileage checks, I fill the tanks to the very top, so I have a consistent starting point.
I was wondering also if there was a difference in mpg in various states based on their fuel mixture or something. I pulled my 37' RV from FL to NM recently. In the hilly area of FL I was getting 11mpg when towing a lot of weight - which was pretty much consistent in the flat and hilly areas in FL over many years. The further west I went the worse the mpg got, with a low of 7.3mpg in western TX and across NM (I-10). I didn't think the short times I had to downshift for hill climbing would have affected the mpg. The hill country N of San Antonio and then west for a while required more downshifting (9mpg area), compared to W. Tx and NM, which seemed flatter with fewer steep hills/mountains.
I used to get 18mpg consistently in combined traffic (city/highway) until a few years back (16mpg). It's hard for me to imagine any p/u truck getting 18mpg towing a big rig.
#130 of 166 Re: Gas mileage [cayadopi]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jul 05, 2008 (10:46 am)
Well it's no accident that places like Texas are good for wind generators. Headwinds can really knock down mileage on a towing rig.
I kind of agree with the other posters---in the final analysis, fuel mileage on this or that diesel truck is kind of "genetic"--it's going to get what it was built to get and driving habits are probably the best way to get any improvements.
Jul 11, 2008 (9:39 am)
Thank you everyone for your input. I drive on fairly level roads. I hand calculated my mileage to and from work the past two weeks, not towing and empty, and with the outlook computer set to stock I get 18.4 MPG and with it set to towing I get 18.39 MPG. Not much difference. Now this is in heavy traffic with a lot of stop and go, some times at speeds of 62 MPH. I wanted to check this quick before I tow my trailer out to Colorado for a week leaving July 26. I was hoping to see an increase in the MPG in the tow mode compared to the stock. I Believe I have the 3.73 gears. I was wondering if the others had the 4:10 gears that were getting the better mileage. I used to have an F150 with the 3.02 gears and it didn't have the power to tow a small popup camper. I changed them to the 3.73 gears and my MPG jumped from 12 to 18 and I had no problems towing anything. I was told that the 3.02 gears kept the engine at a bad power range. I wonder if the same is true here with the 3.73 vs 4.10 gears. From now on when I ask about their gas mileage I will have to ask which gears they have.
#132 of 166 Re: Gas Milage [wisdodge]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jul 12, 2008 (7:22 am)
It is my understanding that when you have engines of considerable horsepower and torque, that ONCE they get moving and develop some forward momentum, from that point on, you wouldn't see that much difference in fuel economy if you just added another few thousand pounds to an already moving truck. Does an 18 wheeler empty vs. one with a few thousand pounds in the back on a flat highway really change its MPG? I doubt it.
Sure, if it were fully loaded with 10 tons and churning up a hill---yeah, that would eat up fuel, but for a pickup truck towing a trailer, once it got moving, I'm not surprised your MPG is close with or w/o the trailer. I'm sure that in traffic and stop and go, your MPG difference would be much more noticeable.