RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Tow Vehicles: 2012 deisels

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Help and Support  |  Contact

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > 2012 deisels

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 17  
Prev  |  Next
Sponsored By:
FishOnOne

Katy

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/30/12 10:11pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

NewsW wrote:

There are quite a bit of tricks involved in getting fuel economy as good as Duramax and Powerstroke with the CP 4 pump.

All of you may hate the CP 4 pump, but the fact is the higher pressure is necessary to simultaneously get better fuel economy and mileage.

Higher injection pressures, paired with the high tech micro nozzles in the injectors, enable a very fine, mist like spray that exposes a lot of fuel droplet surface area to oxygen in the combustion chamber.

That in turn, enable rapid combustion and reduce particulates (basically partially burnt fuel that have carbonized).

It also enables shorter bursts of injection and less fuel striking the relatively cool cylinder walls / piston top / head.

Lower pressure and slower combustion with the CP3 pump makes for bigger carbon particles.

A bigger problem is, nozzle size equal, a longer injection event to deliver the same volume of fuel in bigger droplets.

That makes it more likely that the fuel will contact the cool cylinder bore, piston top, etc. rather than fully burn.

Every bit of carbon out the tail pipe is money down the drain because it could have been oxidized to produce energy, but instead it is being captured and fuel has to burned to get rid of it.

All things equal, the Cummins have to work harder to get the same cleanness by scrubbing more particles via the DPF, and also handling a bigger volume of unburnt hydrocarbons.

That is why it is a matter of time before Cummins move to the CP4.

They may be just doing it all at once with the DEF update.


BINGO.... Plus Ford's piston design produces 50% less soot which equates to less regens as well. This also promotes improved fuel economy.


Great more Ammo to copy and paste for future reference
Don't ask whatshisname about that back when the drum broke
IMO Ram should have gone with DEF by now just like they do in the CC's and the Ford 650 up.
Surely a half mile increase in MPG would put them right in line with the bowtie's and a half mpg lower than the Ford's.
And that's without the trusted CP4. Oh yeah a actual link to tested mileage reports at over 2k miles.

Clicky

Always room for improvement in one camp, ignorance is bliss in the other.
Don't get me wrong,20 plus MPG empty is a great achievement guys. Been enjoying it for almost 7 years now.


Rico,
This thread is for '12 emissions equiped trucks which excludes your truck as well as many Cummins 6.7 as well since most are forced to delete as the miles rack up. The test you posted by the way was done on new trucks with new DPF's.

I've archived as well for future referrence!

20+ mpg must have come from your previous GM product

FishOnOne

Katy

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/30/12 10:31pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence

Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/30/12 11:49pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence


LOL, with pump failure after pump failure with fuel contaminated with DEF, Ford might consider relocating the DEF tank to the engine compartment like GM did.

On second though maybe it was on purpose to put the DEF inlet right next to the fuel inlet? At 12 to 15 grand / screwup that is not a bad deal for the dealership every time a soccer mom puts the DEF in the wrong hole.


~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~


"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"


NewsW

US

Senior Member

Joined: 02/06/2012

View Profile



Posted: 07/01/12 05:28am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

Plus Ford's piston design produces 50% less soot which equates to less regens as well. This also promotes improved fuel economy.



I think that is a Federal Mogul Piston design, but Ford probably got an exclusive on it for a period of time.

A lot of simulations went into how to avoid soot --- swirl, preventing contact with piston and fuel droplets, spray patterns, etc.

This feature is not available with antique designs that date from the mid 1980s.

And there is no impetus of the antique makers to pony up the money for a new design.

Probably because they don't sell enough to make it worth while.

Need a lot of volume to amortize the introduction of a new engine.

* This post was edited 07/01/12 05:42am by NewsW *

45Ricochet

North Idaho

Senior Member

Joined: 09/04/2009

View Profile



Posted: 07/01/12 10:53am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

FishOnOne wrote:

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence


Another free Ford ad, no thanks.
And I'm well aware the tests were with DPF trucks. Your right I bought mine 2 years ahead of schedule because of the new emissions due out in 2007. I was simply stating a diesel engine didn't need a CP4 to achieve good mileage like your buddy stated. My empty highway mileage is ~20 mpg with the 3rd injection event off. To be honest though I don't notice much difference in mileage with the tuner. I suppose I'll have to document it with photos and google maps so some folk will quit calling me a liar

Oh yeah one of my previous trucks was a 1981 GMC 3x3 DRW. It really got good mileage


06 Ram 3500 CC LB Laramie 4x4 Dually 5.9 Cummins Smarty Jr 48RE Jacobs brake
GVWR 12,200 RAWR 9350
06 Grand Junction 34' High profile 15500 GVWR 3200 pin Mor/ryde 5500 Onan genny Dual A/C Wet bolts
27' Hallett 502, 500HP


summithmk

butt#$%$ egypt, NV

Senior Member

Joined: 12/30/2009

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 07/01/12 11:28pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence


Another free Ford ad, no thanks.
And I'm well aware the tests were with DPF trucks. Your right I bought mine 2 years ahead of schedule because of the new emissions due out in 2007. I was simply stating a diesel engine didn't need a CP4 to achieve good mileage like your buddy stated. My empty highway mileage is ~20 mpg with the 3rd injection event off. To be honest though I don't notice much difference in mileage with the tuner. I suppose I'll have to document it with photos and google maps so some folk will quit calling me a liar

Oh yeah one of my previous trucks was a 1981 GMC 3x3 DRW. It really got good mileage


20 highway? BS!

Jarlaxle

New England

Senior Member

Joined: 11/18/2006

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 07/02/12 07:58pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Hey, it's "summithmk", aka "gmcsmoke", aka "I'm Rick James". This must mean another...SOCK PUPPET TROLL ALERT!


John and Elizabeth (Liz), with 3 nutty cats
My beloved St. Bernard, Marm, lost him 1/2/12
Current rig:
1992 International Genesis school bus conversion

45Ricochet

North Idaho

Senior Member

Joined: 09/04/2009

View Profile



Posted: 07/02/12 08:03pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Dang I missed it

FishOnOne

Katy

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 07/02/12 08:16pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

summithmk wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence


Another free Ford ad, no thanks.
And I'm well aware the tests were with DPF trucks. Your right I bought mine 2 years ahead of schedule because of the new emissions due out in 2007. I was simply stating a diesel engine didn't need a CP4 to achieve good mileage like your buddy stated. My empty highway mileage is ~20 mpg with the 3rd injection event off. To be honest though I don't notice much difference in mileage with the tuner. I suppose I'll have to document it with photos and google maps so some folk will quit calling me a liar

Oh yeah one of my previous trucks was a 1981 GMC 3x3 DRW. It really got good mileage


20 highway? BS!


Rico,
Is this guy one of your fan boys? I noticed a pattern here!

FishOnOne

Katy

Senior Member

Joined: 02/12/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 07/02/12 08:21pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Rico,
Here's another document for future referrence... Enjoy!

Future Referrence


Another free Ford ad, no thanks.
And I'm well aware the tests were with DPF trucks. Your right I bought mine 2 years ahead of schedule because of the new emissions due out in 2007. I was simply stating a diesel engine didn't need a CP4 to achieve good mileage like your buddy stated. My empty highway mileage is ~20 mpg with the 3rd injection event off. To be honest though I don't notice much difference in mileage with the tuner. I suppose I'll have to document it with photos and google maps so some folk will quit calling me a liar

Oh yeah one of my previous trucks was a 1981 GMC 3x3 DRW. It really got good mileage


Ahhh...Yeahhh... We had 1981 C10/Silverado with a 305 cu with the first year Overdrive tranny. We pulled a 21ft Terry and the way you disabled the OD was to pull a connector mounted on the firewall. In 1982 they added the OD feature on the shift column so shifting out of OD was much easier (700R).

I also remember it had the "Electronic Spark Control" emblem on the tailgate so maybe that was the first year for that technology.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 17  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > 2012 deisels
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:

© 2013 RV.Net | Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS