2003 4.7 V8 Dakota Quad cab, how can I get better MPG?
#32
11-30-2009, 12:38 AM
not necessarily a v8 powered car/truck, but a small car w/ a 4 cyl engine maybe, but my point was that using an electric car is just moving the pollution from wherever you are driving to the point of electricity production, not decreasing the overall pollution, now if everyone switched to electric cars, it might make a difference, but the few people that could (and actually would) use them will not make a difference in air pollution.
and if you know how nuclear reactors work they use a water supply (usually a river, or bay) to cool the reactor which will cause the temperature of the water in that ecosystem, which will cause damage to the system, so nuclear energy, while much better for the air in the environment, it is not so much good for the ecosystem of the river or bay where the water for cooling the reactor comes from.
and if you know how nuclear reactors work they use a water supply (usually a river, or bay) to cool the reactor which will cause the temperature of the water in that ecosystem, which will cause damage to the system, so nuclear energy, while much better for the air in the environment, it is not so much good for the ecosystem of the river or bay where the water for cooling the reactor comes from.
I will not try any further in this thread. It's been fun guys. *tips hat and leaves*
#33
11-30-2009, 08:59 AM
As of right now there is NO type of vehicle that will replace the gasoline/diesel internal combustion engine. All electic and you would see CRAZY electic costs and there is NO way the power plants we have could support them. Plus nobody lets anyone build a powerplant these days. Plus you can't go very far... FAIL
Hydrogen is a great idea, but once all the cars on the road have one, the road will always be wet. That won't work very well.
So the gasoline engine is here for a long time. They are getting more effieceint all the time. Imagine 20 years ago a 7.0L Corvette getting 28 mpg? That number would be like 12.
And madison PLEASE quote me or sharp where we said a v8 is more enviormentally friendly. You're just looking for things to get upset about. Its librals like you that are responsible for that horrible president driving the country into the ground. So thanks for that...
Hydrogen is a great idea, but once all the cars on the road have one, the road will always be wet. That won't work very well.
So the gasoline engine is here for a long time. They are getting more effieceint all the time. Imagine 20 years ago a 7.0L Corvette getting 28 mpg? That number would be like 12.
And madison PLEASE quote me or sharp where we said a v8 is more enviormentally friendly. You're just looking for things to get upset about. Its librals like you that are responsible for that horrible president driving the country into the ground. So thanks for that...
#35
11-30-2009, 03:32 PM
THE ULTI-MOD
As with any thermal power station, nuclear plants exchange 60 to 70% of their thermal energy by cycling with a body of water or by evaporating water through a cooling tower. This thermal efficiency is slightly less than that of coal fired power plants[1][2].
The cooling options are typically once-through cooling with river or sea water, pond cooling, or cooling towers. Many plants have an artificial lake like the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant or the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station. Shearon Harris uses a cooling tower but South Texas does not and discharges back into the lake. The North Anna Nuclear Generating Station uses a cooling pond or artificial lake, which at one spot near the plant's discharge is often about 30 degrees warmer than in the other parts of the lake or in normal lakes (this is cited as an attraction of the area by some residents).[3] The environmental effects on the artificial lakes are often weighted in arguments against construction of new plants, and during droughts have drawn media attention.[4]
The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is credited with helping the conservation status of the American Crocodile, largely an effect of the waste heat produced.[5]
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is in a hearing process to determine if a cooling system other than river water will be necessary (conditional upon the plants extending their operating licenses).[6]
The cooling options are typically once-through cooling with river or sea water, pond cooling, or cooling towers. Many plants have an artificial lake like the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant or the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station. Shearon Harris uses a cooling tower but South Texas does not and discharges back into the lake. The North Anna Nuclear Generating Station uses a cooling pond or artificial lake, which at one spot near the plant's discharge is often about 30 degrees warmer than in the other parts of the lake or in normal lakes (this is cited as an attraction of the area by some residents).[3] The environmental effects on the artificial lakes are often weighted in arguments against construction of new plants, and during droughts have drawn media attention.[4]
The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is credited with helping the conservation status of the American Crocodile, largely an effect of the waste heat produced.[5]
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is in a hearing process to determine if a cooling system other than river water will be necessary (conditional upon the plants extending their operating licenses).[6]
i really dont see a problem with nuclear power as there are ways to dissipate the heat without dumping it into the surrounding enviroment, but most plants do just dump the water instead of cooling it first, or reusing it for something, so until that changes nuclear will help to keep the AIR clean, but will continue to do damage to surrounding ecosystems, do some more reasearch, i have provided you the basics
#36
11-30-2009, 04:06 PM
In my 4banger Dakota, I can get like 25 (i got 29 once) on the freeway. If I drive like a grandma.. lol. Now that it's getting colder up here in Wisconsin, been getting ~21. Although that may also be because I've been driving a bit faster now too 
So if you want better gas milage, we can trade trucks.
Anyway don't mind me, I'm not here to argue about nuclear energy. :P
So if you want better gas milage, we can trade trucks.
Anyway don't mind me, I'm not here to argue about nuclear energy. :P
#37
12-01-2009, 01:55 AM
Grand Champion
Where to begin. *sighs*
Tonneau covers ARE better. I will not try to force one on you, but for gas mileage they are better than an open bed
You are stupid, I can not prove my point to you and I will not try any further. Actually, I lied, yes I will.
Here is a link to the bed cover, it is expensive, but so are LEER covers. The bonus is you get better gas mileage. The man making it is hoping Ford will buy his idea and try to get all new trucks to have one or at least make them an option.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...d-cap-583.html
He has noted 20mpg to 24mpg increase traveling at 70mph. He has numerous threads on that site, with Cd test to prove it. The guy has done his homework.
All I can say to you sir, is you should know your facts, or at least read some on aerodynamics. You are ignorant, yet you feel the need to say that I am wrong.
Tonneau covers ARE better. I will not try to force one on you, but for gas mileage they are better than an open bed
You are stupid, I can not prove my point to you and I will not try any further. Actually, I lied, yes I will.
Here is a link to the bed cover, it is expensive, but so are LEER covers. The bonus is you get better gas mileage. The man making it is hoping Ford will buy his idea and try to get all new trucks to have one or at least make them an option.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...d-cap-583.html
He has noted 20mpg to 24mpg increase traveling at 70mph. He has numerous threads on that site, with Cd test to prove it. The guy has done his homework.
All I can say to you sir, is you should know your facts, or at least read some on aerodynamics. You are ignorant, yet you feel the need to say that I am wrong.
I'll give you the fact that a sloped cover does improve fuel efficiency, but those completely defeat the purpose of a truck. People buy trucks so that they may have a nice and handy place to HAUL items. If that cap is so wonderful and helps so much, why is it that truck producers in this world aren't employing the same technology? The answer is simple. Trucks are built with a bed attached to them, and they are put their to be used. It's not looks.
You really shouldn't be talking about aerodynamics as if you know a thing or two about them when you post up that tonneaous are "better".
You want to talk air flow? Let's do it.
At this point, I think we both can agree on the fact that when an object is moving, air acts like a pliable wall. OK?
If we go by your logic, that says closing off the bed or opening the bed op more (removing or lowering the tailgate), Explain this small video to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZYXbQCrK7o
I do apologize for the lack of embedding on this video, but it is the best clip so far that shows what air's actions on a moving truck are.
You'll notice that when the tailgate of that SRT is up, those ribbons will quit moving. Why is this? This phenomena is caused by air being trapped in the truck bed thus reducing drag. Drag is what we do not want on a vehicle.
When we open up the bed, air will move freely through the bed, and we have an increase in overall drag declining our fuel efficiency.
As much as I hate to use the Mythbusters as my reference point, they are by far the best explanation of what happens during air flow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3aqHbD-O9E
This is Air flow simulation videos that prove my point further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP-AGCmXlyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx8YD...eature=related
At this point, I think and could almost prove that you take every product manufacturer's word to heart. You believe everything they try to sell you, and that my friend, makes you more ignorant than anyone else involved in this thread.
I truly wish this world had more people like you in it. If you can latch onto what companies that make covers tell you about increasing mileage, then I could make millions selling you my new invention-
Laramie's Magic Fuel in a can!
Just simple put one can of this product in your gas tank at every fill up and expect a 500% improvement in MPGs.
Note, I have no scientific proof that this will work, and that I am not liable for any damages occurred during this product's use. These claims are based on opinions only.
I have read countless threads on other forums, about this however I am not having much luck seeing it talked about here (i may not be putting the right search terms in.
I have an Auto, 2003 Dakota Quad 4.7 V8, I just bought from my brother
So I have come to the conclusion that the following may help from the consensus of other forum threads.
K&N Filter
This is my primary question, would I be smarter to get the whole intake system or just the drop in, some people report a +1-1.5 increas putting these in, and I was just about to order one last night until I saw they have complete systems in the $100 + range, wonder if that is any better, then I read people saying do NOT get K&N because it lets more crap into your engine and then the oil goes in as well and mess up the MAF or MAP (I dont know what that is)
Switching to Synthetic Lubricants
I read one guy in a thread who kept stating he realized a 2-5 mpg gain when adding synthetic lubricants, however he kept mentioning red line specifically I almost wonder if he has a stock in the company, and he was talking more specifically about standard vehicles.
Changing plugs
I dunno where I begin on this, I read that everyone that did this were not impressed and switched back to the factory ones as their mileage actually decreased.
Removing weight
I have read some people have removed something on the truck that is typically very heavy and replaced it with a electric version that is much lighter, I wanna say it is the clutch fan but I assume that would only apply to standard vehicles.
So that's all I know, anyone can help me out tell me if the full KN system is worth it or the drop in or if what I read was true that some sensor will get screwed up in the long run.
I have tried to adjust my habits, and do as much coasting as I can, and I dotn drive like crazy, and I will be adding a soft tonnaue cover when I get it from my brother. It is quite a shock to go from averaging 17+ MPG in my old S-10 to seeing 13.1 avg on the onboard mpg calculator, (MY s-10 I would divide the miles I got of the tank by how many gallons I just added)
Any insight?
I have an Auto, 2003 Dakota Quad 4.7 V8, I just bought from my brother
So I have come to the conclusion that the following may help from the consensus of other forum threads.
K&N Filter
This is my primary question, would I be smarter to get the whole intake system or just the drop in, some people report a +1-1.5 increas putting these in, and I was just about to order one last night until I saw they have complete systems in the $100 + range, wonder if that is any better, then I read people saying do NOT get K&N because it lets more crap into your engine and then the oil goes in as well and mess up the MAF or MAP (I dont know what that is)
Switching to Synthetic Lubricants
I read one guy in a thread who kept stating he realized a 2-5 mpg gain when adding synthetic lubricants, however he kept mentioning red line specifically I almost wonder if he has a stock in the company, and he was talking more specifically about standard vehicles.
Changing plugs
I dunno where I begin on this, I read that everyone that did this were not impressed and switched back to the factory ones as their mileage actually decreased.
Removing weight
I have read some people have removed something on the truck that is typically very heavy and replaced it with a electric version that is much lighter, I wanna say it is the clutch fan but I assume that would only apply to standard vehicles.
So that's all I know, anyone can help me out tell me if the full KN system is worth it or the drop in or if what I read was true that some sensor will get screwed up in the long run.
I have tried to adjust my habits, and do as much coasting as I can, and I dotn drive like crazy, and I will be adding a soft tonnaue cover when I get it from my brother. It is quite a shock to go from averaging 17+ MPG in my old S-10 to seeing 13.1 avg on the onboard mpg calculator, (MY s-10 I would divide the miles I got of the tank by how many gallons I just added)
Any insight?
OP, here is my thoughts on what you are asking about.
1. The K&N Filter.
Commonly debated, but in my past experience, a nice higher flowing filter is nice, but produces gains so minimal that if horsepower is the reason for buying one, then you might as well move along. In my testing, higher flowing filters and tubing will actually hurt your top end torque. In other words, you will lose some of the acceleration capability at the higher end of the RPM spectrum. My point here is buy a K&N for the filter savings cost alone, since oil filters are considered lifetime filters, and will pay for themselves within the third paper filter change.
2. Synthetic fluids
You can never go wrong with switching to synthetics. Don't expect MPG improvements, but reap the benefits and comforts of extending your fluid change intervals. Some people may tell you that you shouldn't make this switch on a motor that has a good deal of mileage on them due to leaks occurring. Experience once again steps in and tells me that this is only true when there is a hidden issue that the sludge left behind in conventional oils has been covering up.
3. Spark Plugs
Most motors perform better with standard run of the mill, plain Jane, copper plugs. Makes sense considering that these motors were designed on them. Very rarely will you catch a motor designed on coppers running better on any other kind of plug.
4. Removing weight.
What you are hearing about isn't really focused on weight, but rather freeing up a few trapped HPs. Since the cooling fan is engine driven, you can deduce that the clutch and fan will draw some of the HPs down. By going to an E-fan you gain back those 1-2 HPs that you loss, and you reap the benefits of having better cooling abilities in the heat while sitting still.
As others have told you, your driving style is the largest variable on your MPGs. Easy accelerations and not exceeding 60MPH seem to be the best ways to help your fuel consumption.
Something about how you drive that you might not have caught onto by now. Your mood has a lot to do with how you drive. If you're angry, or anxious, you will probably tend to make harder accelerations and travel at higher speeds. This at least holds true with me.
Another major thing that you need to think about is giving your engine a nice little tune up. Fresh oil, new plugs, new plug wires, new cap and rotor (if applicable), most importantly, GAS.
Not all gases are created equal. I've found that the additives that fuel companies add to their gas act differently between different brands of vehicles.
When I first got on this forum, I was getting about 10-11MPG. After a tune up, I was getting 11-12 MPG. After I ruled out any other engine malfunctions, I started watching where I was buying gas.
Up until that point, I was gas buying mutt. I'd price shop and get it where ever it was the cheapest/most convenient.
I started to wonder what different types of gas would do to the fuel consumption. After testing out every single company in my area, I found that Shell gasoline works the best for ME by seeing that my average MPG was/is bumped to 14-15. I'm not saying that it will be the best for you, but rather, I'm saying that you need to test out different "brands" of gas and see which ones work better.
Last edited by Laramie1997; 12-01-2009 at 02:00 AM.
#38
12-01-2009, 09:44 AM
Those are some good vids you found, you won't see Madison back though because he will have nothing against it.
But to the OP, sorry this has gotten so far off track. I too have actually noticed I do better with Shell gasoline than others. Not sure of the scientific reason behind this, but it seems to be.
I agree about the synthetic oil. Also if you are serious about gaining mpg, you can remove your a/c. Its run of the same belt as everything else and it can free up a couple hp. Or at least get a belt that bypasses it...
But to the OP, sorry this has gotten so far off track. I too have actually noticed I do better with Shell gasoline than others. Not sure of the scientific reason behind this, but it seems to be.
I agree about the synthetic oil. Also if you are serious about gaining mpg, you can remove your a/c. Its run of the same belt as everything else and it can free up a couple hp. Or at least get a belt that bypasses it...
#39
12-01-2009, 03:37 PM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for all the input everyone has given me.. I am keeping an eye on the thread.. Just a side note I already had a soft cover for my bed that came with the truck, my first tank I got avg 13.7 MPG, mostly highway to work and back.. I put the soft cover on on Sunday, and since my MPG has gone up to 14.1, I noticed a button on my shifter (Automatic) that says O/D when I click it my dash lights up saying O/D off, I'm assuming this means Overdrive, I don't know why it would automatically have it on, but I haven't noticed if this being on or off makes much difference. My driving habits have definitely improve,d I coast a lot now and slowly accelerate I will be looking more into what everyone suggests..
#40
12-01-2009, 05:36 PM
Those are some good vids you found, you won't see Madison back though because he will have nothing against it.
But to the OP, sorry this has gotten so far off track. I too have actually noticed I do better with Shell gasoline than others. Not sure of the scientific reason behind this, but it seems to be.
.
But to the OP, sorry this has gotten so far off track. I too have actually noticed I do better with Shell gasoline than others. Not sure of the scientific reason behind this, but it seems to be.
.