Mileage for 2004 LLY [Archive] - TheDieselPage.com Forums

poolman12

11-19-2004, 07:23

my 2005 d/a improved about 2 mpg when truck went past 8 k miles. coming back from Dallas about then & was happy to see 20+ mpg on ave fuel mileage. my 2002 d/a got 20 mpg at 500 miles not juiced & about same after juice. 2002 d/a gained 3-4 mpg towing after being juiced. sold Lb7 juice to someone with a 2002 d/a & two weeks later he saw 3 mpg improvement not towing. go figure.
have a nice day

Kennedy

11-19-2004, 13:44

If you are reading the display MPG, it is not correct with a module. I've never seen more than a .5 to 1 mpg (verifiable and repeatable) gain from a module

poolman12

11-20-2004, 07:22

J K
The man i sold lb7 juice to had 2002 d/a & reads tdp, said he wanted juice for towing. Told him I felt like he would benefit from juice. Called him about two weeks later to see if he was happy with it. He said he had not towed yet but gained 3 mpg not towing. I didn't ask if he used read out or checked himself. I check actual miles to get mpg & feel like it is fairly accurate. I did not think he would gain much on mpg not towing, so it surprised me. It took a long time to quit putting foot down w/juice so at times my mpg varied quite a bit. He couldn't get out of 4th in Nebraska hills & I told him juice should help get to overdrive & improve mpg. no guarantee.
have a nice day

Lee_klm

11-20-2004, 15:02

As long as I am not beating it, I will get up to 19 on mine calculated by hand. My DIC is surprisinly accurate, but the Hypertech throws that way off. On my last trip the DIC said 23mpg while the actual was 19. My LLY did not get that good of mileage until about 10,000+ miles. 14-16 highway was typical from new up to about 10K. Like anything though, it drops like a rock when you run it hard!

Kennedy

11-21-2004, 06:40

I had 22.5mpg showing on the DIC. I know a LOT of people believe these figuring it measures fuel flow vs.return and miles driven. It actually measures the calculated fuel rate off the datastream, but power modules throw a NON linear curve into the equation. Ever hear of a 25mpg Excursion 7.3? I have, and I quit arguing, as I'm the bad guy for not believing.

rickdlance

11-21-2004, 20:15

Putting miles on them doesn't help, as you can tell by my signature I've done that. Tried Edge and it makes it worse. Also tried new air intake, and 4" exhaust. The only thing that helps is to slow way down. About 50! Not good when you get paid by the mile!

4diesels

11-22-2004, 11:38

As to not believing, after owning a 2001 and a 2003 D/A I don't believe anybody that says they get better than 15mpg with a D/A. I kept the '01 for 97k miles and it never got better. I dumped the '03 with 34k miles and it never got better than 13-14 mostly highway. You must REALLY drive slow to get any better. Happier than a pig in you know what with the 20.2 mpg I got on the first tank of my '05 CTD ;) Enjoy those GM trucks guys tongue.gif

rjschoolcraft

11-22-2004, 11:52

Right! :rolleyes:

OC_DMAX

11-22-2004, 12:02

4diesels wrote: As to not believing, after owning a 2001 and a 2003 D/A I don't believe anybody that says they get better than 15mpg with a D/A. I kept the '01 for 97k miles and it never got better. I dumped the '03 with 34k miles and it never got better than 13-14 mostly highway. You must REALLY drive slow to get any better. Happier than a pig in you know what with the 20.2 mpg I got on the first tank of my '05 CTD

Talking about stretching the truth!!! All you have to do is go to TDR or Diesel Truck Resource websites and read about Dodge Cummins owners complaining about poor milege with the Cummins 600 diesels. So give us a break, OK!

Both the newer Dodges and GM's are down in mileage compared to 2001 to 2003 models. It is a result of emissions.

And by the way, my 2002 DMAX (with EGR/CAT) gets 15 mpg around town, 18-19 mpg on the highway (70-75mph) and 12 mpg towing a 7K pound trailer. Very consistent (hand measured every tank full, don't have a computer in the truck to do it for me).

More Power

11-22-2004, 12:14

I logged every tank of fuel through 20,000 miles in my '01. I definitely saw a slight improvement through 10,000 miles of 1/2 to 1 mpg. Now, I always see 19-20 mpg average on the interstate at 70-75 mph (21.3 being the highest) using summer fuel. Local driving drops the average somewhere in the vicinity of 2 mpg. So much depends on how the truck is driven.

I've seen a 1/2-mpg increase while towing a 7K 27' travel-trailer with an Edge Juice. This I attribute to far fewer downshifts, while keeping speeds at about 70-mph on the Interstate.

I've heard the new Dodge common-rail owners rarely (or never) see the fuel economy produced by the old 12-valve.... :(

MP

fredw

11-22-2004, 13:42

Originally posted by 4diesels:
As to not believing, after owning a 2001 and a 2003 D/A I don't believe anybody that says they get better than 15mpg with a D/A. I kept the '01 for 97k miles and it never got better. I dumped the '03 with 34k miles and it never got better than 13-14 mostly highway. You must REALLY drive slow to get any better. Happier than a pig in you know what with the 20.2 mpg I got on the first tank of my '05 CTD ;) Enjoy those GM trucks guys tongue.gif i think you should put that thing up for sale,or take it in for service, if my duramax was that bad it would be gone, that is like 338 miles a tank, know lots of guys getting in the 500 miles, that is worse than the ford 6.0 :confused:

4diesels

11-22-2004, 19:00

Hey Fred, IT IS GONE! I traded it for a CTD, my third one now. I guess everybody has there own ideas about milage especially when the competition is concerned :rolleyes: I owned two Duramax trucks, I know what they got for milage. I have got 120k miles combined on my '03 HO Doges and they handily beat the Duramax for milage, they did so from new.

Now hook a trailer up. I pulled a 14ft enclosed cargo trailer with about 500lbs of houshold goods with the '03 Duramax. My Buddy pulled my '71 Buick on an open car hauler. Same trip, in tandem, from central MN to SW Colorado. Hand calculated the Chev got 11.6 and the Dodge got 14.8. Both automatics, both 3.73 rears, both on ~33" tall tires (285/75-16 Chev and 285/70-17 Dodge)

BTW, I happen to read the TDR forums, remember I have a few of those trucks ;)

Just can't help poking at you guys on this forum. I have always posted the truth here. It hasn't always been pretty and when it isn't I get accused of all sorts of BS. Truth is, I had more problems with the Chev trucks period. I get better fuel economy, better real world towing power, and better reliability from the CTD. That is why I own three of them and no GMs anymore. It isn't like I am trolling guys, I popped for nearly a $100k worth of GM trucks before making this call. So...to each his own I guess. I happen to be a very happy CTD convert. Oh...and tomorrow I will have the dealer calibrate my trucks speedo and odo for larger tires, THEY can do that, They also enabled high idle control via my cruise control, couldn't do that with the Chev either.

Happy trails!

OC_DMAX

11-22-2004, 19:45

4diesels,

With regard to mileage, I know what my truck does (and its reported above). I have kept track of every tank. As MorePower posts and I have read on the Dodge sites, the Cummins 600 has disappointed more than a few with mileage. Most are reporting less than 20 mpg on the highway. And it drops substantially once you get up around 75 mph (though maybe the 33 inch tires have helped you out here).

Your comparison above is not valid. I pull a boat/trailer (total weight about 5000 pounds) and my truck gets 14.5 mpg. Very repeatable out to the Colorado River/Lakes in the summer time (Mead/Mojave). There is less wind resisitance. Pulling my travel trailer (substantially more wind resistance) and the mileage drops to 12 mpg. Compare apple with apples (not apples and oranges).

Someday, I may own a Dodge (who knows?). However, I will not continually bag my DMAX days because the ownership experience has been good for me. It gets a little old after a while.

BTW, did you use to post on this forum as "Trussman" several years ago?

[ 11-22-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: OC_DMAX ]

rjschoolcraft

11-22-2004, 22:27

Having read 4diesel's posts over the last few months, it's clear that he thinks he is the only one who's opinion is any good and the rest of us are idiots. Oh well. There is always one like that in the bunch. No Dodge or Ford has won the hill climb yet. It's pretty clear also that he never gave the Chevy's a chance because he's biased to the goat. At least I admit my bias. ;) I love my Chevy trucks! :D

4diesels...keep railing. It's rather amusing. :rolleyes:

4diesels

11-23-2004, 09:05

Ron, Buddy....I'll gladly keep going :D

So you figure I didn't give the Chevys a chance? How in the heck did you come to that conclusion? I put 97k miles on the '01 and 34k miles on the '03. At what point did I fail to "give them a chance"? How many miles with a D-Max do you have under your belt?

Oc, I see you point on wind resistance. Problem is the Chev was pulling the lesser of the two for resistance and wieght, OUCH! The cargo trailer was barely above the cab and narrower than the truck. The car hauler wieghed 5 times as much and was wider than the truck and that old Buick isn't exactly smooth like an enclosed cargo trailer.

If I was so biased against them why did I buy a second one? The package has merits, I wish I could take the seats with me. I wish I could have the full back seat in a four door. I also wish I didn't have four warranty claims in 30k miles :(

The notion that the Cummins milage drops with speed misses me. I ran my '03 quad averaging 80-90mph for a whole day across Nebraska. It returned 19.6 mpg for that day. Running like that in either D-max I had returned 13 or so. You guys crack me up. Your heads are so buried in the sand. Have any of you ever owned one of the new Dodge trucks? Seems to me I am about the only one around here with extensive first hand experience with both. Somehow I am the one with the unfounded bias? Nooooo I'm the one who has put a substantial number of miles on both. Discredit me as you wish, the really funny part is that your points are based on your second or third hand opinions. Funnier yet, the stuff you guys complain about has been done by Dodge, better fuel economy, high idle control, ability to set for different tires sizes (and no BS greif about changing the tires from the manufacturer). I just think you can't see the forest through the trees.

Brad Pelot

11-23-2004, 09:58

4diesel. You seem to have had some bad luck, as I have heard of some that don't get that good of milage. I have also had 2 of these trucks. One of the first 2001's and an 03. I have put about 45000 on the 01 and currently have 44000 on the 03. Milage between the two has been almost exactly the same. 16 to 17.5 in mixed driving and 18 to 20.7 on the freeway. 20.7 was at 75 mph and was the best tank I have seen. And 15 to 17 in the winter in mixed driving. Under average conditions I will get anywhere from 10 to 14.2 pulling 26 foot enclosed, 8.5 feet wide 9.5 feet tall, wieghing 4000 to 7000 pounds. At speeds of 65 to 78 mph.I have several friends that own these trucks, and most report similar milage.
I believe that the cummins will get a little better milage while towing, than the D-Max.

These are FACTS. I figure every tank and fill up to the brim every time.

Just for the record I think the cummins is an excellent choice also.

Kennedy

11-23-2004, 10:09

I seem to recall White Truck commenting on 20+ mpg with his 04 LLY on his MT trip...

White Truck

11-23-2004, 21:04

My trip to Montana yielded an average mileage of 18.3. This was driving at a typical speed of 75 mph for most of the time, although I did see 20mpg on a couple of tanks during the trip. I have the steering wheel controls, so can observe the calulated fuel usage on the DIC. In the 3800 miles or so I drove, the DIC showed a difference of .2 mpg or 5 gallons compared with my calclulations. I have gotten about 21 mpg with both trucks, but only if I drive 55-58 mph. This isn't my typical speed, though. :eek: I got 14.7 mpg towing my trailer, a flatbed grossing 12K, with my LB7. I made the identical trip this fall with my LLY and got 14.3 mpg, but the trailer grossed at 13,200 this time. Overall, I haven't noticed any significant difference in the mileage of the 2 trucks.

c5dura

11-24-2004, 12:17

You guys should consider yourselves lucky. I have a '02 3500 LB Crew and I've yet to get 400 miles to a tank, running empty on the highway! I get about 12.5 - 13.1 miles/gallon.

I guess that's just the nature of the beast with the 3500's vs. 2500's although I wouldn't have thought an extra pair of wheel and flared fenders would make that big a difference.

Truck has been parked for the last 2 month w/ 35,900 on the odo, patiently waiting for the new steering box to become readily available to fix my front end play.

Cliffee

11-24-2004, 22:21

I just picked up an 05. Last tank cruising at 70 on freeway yeilded 19.6 mph. The truck only has 800mi. Mi 03 always got over 20.
Milage isn't everything. Before purchasing my 05 I drove the Dodge 3 times and did some homework. For one the interior is VERY CHEAP! Its also smaller. Its basically an extended cab with rear doors. The Chevy is years ahead of it on comfort. Dodge's also have lots of tranny problems. The cummins is also louder.
Oh and bye the way my dealer is offering a program for 265's. Speedo and all!!!
Every Dodge dealer I visited practically begged my to take one. They had many on their lot. The GM/Chevy D/A is much harder to come by. I wonder why that is?

mdadgar

11-25-2004, 10:43

I've got an '02 CC LB 4x4 and I generally get about 15mpg running on the highway at 70mph. I've NEVER gotten better than that. I had one tank at 20.02 running at 55mph. But in normal cruising I never break 16mpg.

Generally, I'm at about 14mpg combined city/highway on every tank. I've got them tracked back about 15K miles (used to have it all the way back to 9 miles but lost some data).

My mileage has been slowly declining over the last year or two, too. GM could care less.

I tow a 22' enclosed trailer with a 4' V-nose that weighs 8000 lbs fully loaded. I get 10.5-11mpg towing that.

I think those people who claim they're regularly getting 20mpg are either exaggerating a bit or just bad at math.

- Mark

4diesels

11-25-2004, 14:36

Cliffe, Making statements about the Dodge trannys being a problem is like me saying the aluminum heads on your Duramax are going to blow, it just isn't true. The 48re tranny in the '03 and up Dodges has become the most problem free tranny or the three. Make the rounds to the tranny shops, times have changed ;) Oh, and my Allison in the '03 burned its fluid black with very little light towing. I fought with GM for three days over getting it taken care of to my satisfaction. In the end it went bye bye.

Yes, I wish I could have taken the Chevs interior, especially the seats and space, with me. But the '05 Cummins is quite a bit quieter than the D-max at idle. It is worlds better under heavy load where the D-max rattles like crazy and the Dodge just hums along.

Your dealers begging you to take one is funny. There is a new post on the TDR of a guy who was unable to place an order until January because they can't keep up with demand. Probably harder to get a Duramax because the injectors are so hard to get :eek: with all those failures.

And my dealer is able to do my 285 tires and my buddies 315's.

Just trying to keep it honest smile.gif

Cliffee

11-26-2004, 09:21

4diesels,

You obviously have your own opinion as distorted as it may be. I'm glad you are happy with your "Dodge". I think its time you take your negative comments about GM over to a Dodge site. Most people here are very happy with their trucks.
I don't think anyone here listens to you, myself included!

Regards.

Dewey Faircloth

11-26-2004, 15:16

I am very pleased with my truck.
Also pleased with my Suburban.
Could have bought any brand.
GM has made my day.

WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!!!

4diesels

11-26-2004, 19:02

Cliffe, Most people here are too blinded by some mystical GM force to have the intelligence to consider anything else. I owned two, both where junk by comparison. You should really TRY something else once......naww

I realized the other day after fighting with GM customer service for the third day straight....I have had to deal with them on every GM truck I have ever owned...1990 Suburban, 1994 Suburban, 1996 Suburban, 2001 D/A and 2003 D/A. Must just be me.....naww tongue.gif

Now I just chuckle to myself when I see them on the road. I had a pretty decent laugh when I saw my old D/A being test driven today at the Dodge dealer. I ALMOST went and warned the guy about the failing Allison (with 34k miles on it) and to be prepared for an injector failure, probably another steering shaft failure, maybe the service 4x4 light will come back on, or the switch in the tranny will fail and limp it home in third like my '01. Honest to god I don't have any problems with the other manufacturers, certainly not like I have with GM. Glad you like your trucks but, if I can spare one person the anguish of owning one of these, my work is done tongue.gif I just can't believe you guys read this board, and all the problems and STILL argue for these trucks. It doesn't have to be this way guys, there are better built machines out there.

jbplock

11-27-2004, 02:33

Please stay on topic...

The title of this thread is Mileage for 2004 LLY

Kennedy

11-28-2004, 07:16

I've been working with a guy who is only getting 10-12mpg pulling a small single axle trailer. He had it to the dealer for a checkup a couple of times. Technician called me to report that on a 99 mile round trip, their driver used 3.x gallnons netting 32.6 mpg. Naturally, I think that this is flawed data, but even if you slash it in half...

For the record, the Tech topped it off himself before and after...