I have to agree with you on your points. My 5.2 never got better that 18 mpg
and all the v-6 guys in my area of Northern Cali were not getting much
better, about 19 to 20 at best. My 5.2 now averages about 14 to 15 with lows
of 12 in city driving. Runs great with plenty of power, so I just accept the
crappy mileage.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce B" <bruce@coldmourning.com>
To: <dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 04:10
Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> I don't really think that's much of an issue between engine sizes. The
point
> o me of having a V8 "and I have a v6 car and love it so I'm no bigot about
> v6" is the personality and response characteristics. Also consider towing
> capacity and acceleration not top speeds. I like to get up to speed fast!!
> It makes driving fun for me. I like to feel the truck pulling me back into
> the seat a bit. Just don't really get that off the line with a v6.
>
> So your point makes allot of sense if you where lecturing someone on the
> virtues of not speeding. But as far as you Torque and engine size I think
> it's pretty irrelevant.
>
> I'm sure the 6's are great. It's rated at about the same HP as my Audi C90
> and that thing moves pretty good over all. Plus gearing has a huge effect
of
> these characteristics as well.
>
> But I don't know if a 6 is really gonna get you much better mileage???
I've
> heard it both way's from different people. The service adviser at my
dealer
> was telling me he got a jeep and opted for the 6 "better mileage" and he
> said he ain't getting much better that what a 4.7 does.
>
> Just my .02 on the whole speed idea anyway. It's all about torque
baby!!!!!!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "-=Krawdaddy=-" <black98dak@home.com>
> To: <dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
>
>
> > I pretty much feel that way too.. all those years of driving home from
> > college every weekend showed me that on a 150 mile trip, 60mph would get
> me
> > there damn near as quick as 80, since you have to slow down so much
doing
> > 80. The mileage benefits more than made up for it.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Krawdaddy - New Orleans, La.
> > www.krawdaddy.net
> > ICQ# 2325710
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andy Levy" <andylevy@yahoo.com>
> > To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:28 PM
> > Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> >
> >
> > > I look at it like this. The limit is 65 almost everywhere I drive on
> the
> > > interstate. To go 80 MPH would take about 20 minutes off a 130 mile
> pure
> > > highway drive. On mixed roads, the difference would be even less. To
> me,
> > > 20 minutes isn't worth the larger amount of gas burned (gas mileage
> drops
> > > at a non-linear rate, faster you go the faster your mileage drops),
risk
> > of
> > > a ticket, and risk of an accident. 20 minutes to listen to the end of
> the
> > > album I have in the CD player, 20 extra minutes to talk to my
girlfriend
> > > before we get to my parents' house, 20 extra minutes to ENJOY MY DAK!
> > >
> > > Ryan Stewart wrote on Tuesday 24 July 2001 05:27 am:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hehe, i take it everyone drives like maniuacs on long trips? Do you
> > drive
> > > > like an adolescent 24/7? i doubt it and IMHO you are flaming to be
> > > > flaming. this was a long trip, the speedlimit itself was only 55 and
> the
> > > > road a
> > > > dangerous one (mountain Parkway). This is just stupid! Oh, last
trip
> > got
> > > > to see a Camry that hit a Ram head on, together there a cobined
speed
> of
> > > > 125 and let me assure you it was a lot worse than a 35 MPH crash,
and
> > yes,
> > > > the higher the speed, the worst the crash, This is especially true
in
> > head
> > > > ons where you add both speeds together.that you would claim otherwse
> is
> > > > frankly
> > > > unbelievable! Oh, on that crash, if i hadn't seen the rear of the
> > > > smoldering mess, i would have never known what it was. And FYI, no,
> you
> > > > do
> > > > NOT have to drive like a grandmato see that milage on the highway.
> For
> > > > starters it's basic figures, you use less gas traveling at a
constant
> > > > speed that accelerating, second the PCM (stock or performance) wil
> > > > recalibrate itself for gas mileage whendoing highway driving and it
> will
> > > > kil
> > > > performance, but that's beside the point. Where was i again?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Kevin
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:47 AM
> > > > To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > > Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Crash test are done at 35 M.p.h. and you see what that does to a
> > vehicle.
> > > > 65 or 85 will not make that much of a difference. If you are driving
> > > > safely at 65 or 85 it does not make a difference.Your arguments are
> > > > invalid, and if you are getting 21 mpg then surely you are driving
> like
> > an
> > > > old grandmother. ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Ryan Stewart" <firebird@kymtnnet.org>
> > > > To: <dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 06:55
> > > > Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Well, thansk for saying I'm lying'have no math skills. :/ I got
21MPG
> > the
> > > >> only time I bothered to check. The one difference I have is I
> normally
> > > > drive
> > > >> between 60-65. I see you guys running on AVERAGE at ridiculous
speeds
> > > >> like 85MPH! THAT'S WHY YOUR GAS MILEAGE SUCKS! Get a clue! I may
make
> a
> > > >> WOT
> > > > romp
> > > >> up to 85-110 fairly often, but I would never think of jsut driving
> down
> > > >> theroad and keeping a totally uncalled for speed like that. And
just
> > > > because
> > > >> that's the speed everyone else is going doesn't do it for me
either,
> > > > you'll
> > > >> think that when ya have an accident at 85MPH....
> > > >>
> > > >> -Ryan
> > > >> 99 DA RC R/T
> > > >> Craziness.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Shawn Bowen
> > > >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:05 PM
> > > >> To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Man, I'm glad to see someone else who has good math skills;-)... I
> get
> > > >> frustrated with all the high mileage claims, I DO believe the 4.7
is
> a
> > > > more
> > > >> efficient engine but the 5.2's and 5.9's flat out suck the gas out
of
> > the
> > > >> tank. Who needs a fuel pump when you have a 5 liter!;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Shawn
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Richard A
Pyburn
> > > >> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:17 PM
> > > >> To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > > >>
> > > >> Hey, Shawn ~
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree with you. Some people just can't accept reality. I was
> getting
> > 15
> > > >> mpg in city driving with my 318 before the S/C. Since the S/C I get
> 12
> > > >> -13 with no difference in driving habits ( when I get on it for
pesky
> > > >> BMW's and shit, I don't count the mileage). I've gotten 17 on the
> > > >> highway. My CC weighed in at 3805 lbs at HRP last fall (pre S/C).
> > > >>
> > > >> I see you got the larger K&N cone, too. The one that came with the
> S/C
> > > >> collapsed for me. Glad to see that you have determined that the
> bypass
> > > >> valve is working for you.
> > > >>
> > > >> HTH
> > > >>
> > > >> Richard in San Antonio
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:53:55 -0700 "Shawn Bowen" <Shawn@bowen.com>
> > > >> writes:
> > > >> > I got to say this, either my truck is just a gas PIG or people
are
> > > >> > blowing
> > > >> > smoke out of there ass. I get at most 14MPG from mine on the HWY
> on
> > > >> > cruise.
> > > >> > Now I do have a good bit of stuff done to it, and it is running
> rich
> > > >> > at WOT,
> > > >> > but I can't see how a 5.9 can get better mileage than my 5.2...
I
> > > >> > usually
> > > >> > run 80 - 85 on the HWY. 93 Octane.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Shawn
> > > >> > 98 5.2L 4x4 CC
> > > >> > PowerDyne at 9PSI with a real intake (K&N 6x9 Cone)
> > > >> > Bernd's magic blow off valve (works well!)
> > > >> > DynoMax Catback
> > > >> > JBA Ceramic Headers
> > > >> > F&B 52MM TB
> > > >> > Leach custom flash
> > > >> > MSD Ignition & Wires
> > > >> > Crower 1.7 RR's, HP pushrods, HP springs, valve covers
> > > >> > Autolite 3922's
> > > >> > Black Magic Fan (ditched the clutch fan)
> > > >> > Currently 3.55 Gears
> > > >> > A bunch of other stuff but I'm tired of typing;-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Ronald Wong
> > > >> > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 7:38 AM
> > > >> > To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > >> > Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <<There are several people on the list who get 20-22 MPG on the
> > > >> > highway with
> > > >> > their
> > > >> > R/Ts.>>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That's sitting in their driveway with the ignition off! ;-D
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> ________________________________________________________________
> > > >> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > >> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > >> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > >> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:12 EDT