Here I am

E-mail from Cummins on the 04.5 mpg issue

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

rear end whine?

x-MONITOR INSTALL

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm confused, I was told by a Cummins cust. service rep that Cummins engineers were looking into the mpg issues to see if there is any way to improve it with the new emissions setup, and then I get this e-mail from Cummins.



Summary: 2004 Dodge MPG



Solution:



Thanks for your Email message.



Since we build the diesel engines for Dodge and they supply all the other components to build the trucks, we are not in a position to speak for Dodge on expected MPG figures on Dodge trucks and we have been advised that Dodge does not publish figures for the diesel powered trucks. Keep in mind that newer model trucks get heavier and a new vehicle will typically not do well in fuel economy tests.



We know how much fuel the engine will burn, under full load, on the engine dynamometer, which is measured in pounds per horsepower hour, but when the engine is installed into a chassis, those figures no longer apply, due to the various chassis components. Cummins is unable to troubleshoot fuel mileage (MPG) problems on Dodge trucks. All Dodge truck warranties are handled by Dodge.



The engine in the new truck is very new and the piston rings have not had a chance to "seat" yet and some cylinder pressure is getting by the rings into the crankcase, which is what we call "blowby". After you get 500 - 1000 or so miles on it, the engine needs to be "worked" to create some cylinder temperature. If the engine is operated with only light loading, it can take up to 30,000 miles to "seat" the piston rings and this will also affect the fuel consumption rate of the engine. "Seated rings improves combustion characteristics in the cylinder and all the fuel is burned more completely.



There are several variables involved that relate to fuel mileage and since the engine is only one part of the equation, it is very difficult to predict mpg on any specific vehicle. There are several factors such as winter fuel blending, rpm, MPH speed, wind, aerodynamics, load, rear axle ratio, tire size, 4x4, driver habits, etc. , that really have more affect on MPG, than the engine. For optimum fuel economy in a diesel powered vehicle, the engine should be operated about midway between rated speed and peak torque rpm and the vehicle speed should 55 to 65 MPH.



Duallies and 4x4 chassis usually have worse MPG than 4x2 single wheel models. The least desirable combination for fuel economy, would be a 4x4 dually with 4. 53 or higher rear axle ratio and automatic transmission, operating in winter conditions. Single wheel models with manual transmission and 3. 73 rear axle ratio (operated between rate and peak torque rpm running 55 or 65 MPH range) will produce the optimum fuel economy. Also, the odometers are sometimes not accurate or the tachometer gearing can be configured wrong. Since we build the engine and ship it to Dodge, we are not in a position to know the affect of all these other factors.



Keep in mind that a new truck, with new wheel bearings, brakes, transmission, driveline, etc. , may not perform as expected, since these components contribute to MPG. We suspect the mileage will improve after the first few thousand miles after all these components "wear in". A slipping automatic transmission for example would be a major contributor or even a defective odometer. The engine RPM should be an indicator of whether the transmission is slipping, however.



We have talked to hundreds of Dodge owners (1998. 5 to 2003 truck engines) and they have told us MPG figures from 8 to 28 mpg, depending on the above variables. The guy getting 8 mpg was very upset that he could not run 80 MPH, with 35,000 pounds gross weight. On the other end of the spectrum, we tend to question 28 mpg, but believe many are getting in the low 20"s (empty). A sudden increase in fuel consumption might indicate a plugged air filter, if there is excessive black smoke or possibly an automatic transmission problem.



From what other customers have told us, a two-wheel drive, single wheel truck could expect mileage to be 15 to 20 mpg (empty/no heavy load) running at normal highway speeds (some models and conditions may do better). Loaded or pulling a trailer, the mileage may drop to the 8 to 15 mpg range. Duallies and 4 wheel drives or running above normal highway speeds or pulling excessive loads can reduce MPG figures significantly.



We defer RAM mpg fuel economy questions to the Daimler-Chrysler folks, since we only make the engine. We can talk about inherent engine efficiency, but tank fuel economy MPG depends on many factors besides the engine. We noted one comment from the recent USA Today article on the new Ram trucks:



How thirsty? Heavy-duty trucks are not required to display fuel economy numbers. During the test drives, a 3500 Quad Cab with single rear wheels and high-output Cummins showed 16. 4 mpg on its fuel economy computer in 'unladen' driving on hilly two-lane roads. The trailer-towing 3500 with high-output diesel got 9. 8 mpg.



The 5. 7- liter gasoline V-8 truck that spent all day demonstrating the off- road course showed 10. 2 mpg on its readout. The 5. 7 V-8 in a two- wheel-drive, regular-cab Ram recorded 15. 5 mpg in 600 highway miles. The V-10 was not tested. 



We thank you for your interest in Cummins products. Please let us know if you need assistance in locating the nearest Cummins-authorized Dealer or Distributor Service Provider. For assistance in locating a Service Provider, feel free to use Cummins North America Dealer Locator, which can be found on Cummins website:
 
And here is an e-mail from DC on the issue



Thank you for your email to DaimlerChrysler regarding the fuel economy

for your Dodge Ram 2500.



Fuel usage estimates are obtained by the U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency during their emissions certification testing. Each vehicle is

tested by professional drivers under precisely controlled laboratory

conditions.



The mileage figures obtained by the Environmental Protection Agency

should be considered as estimates to be used only for comparison

purposes. The actual mileage you can expect depends on the individual

driving habits of the person using the vehicle, the conditions under

which it is driven, and the vehicle's mechanical condition.



If, after considering all of the factors involved, you still feel that

your vehicle is not operating to its full potential, we suggest you

arrange for your local authorized dealer to perform a detailed check of

your vehicle.



Thank you again for writing.



NOTE: Please do not use the 'Reply' function of your email system. If

you have a need to respond to this message, please visit us at our reply

form (link provided below). Our system is NOT able to accept any emails

at this address.



For any future communications related to this email, please refer to the

following information:

REFERENCE NUMBER: 12203150

REPLY LINK: http://www.chrysler.com/wccsapp/wccs/brand_forms/us/reply.jsp?trk_ID=KMM1073480C0KM&



Sincerely,



La Shon

Senior Staff Representative

DaimlerChrysler Customer Assistance Center
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding that the MPG problem is due to that there is an extra shot of fuel after the main combustion to help keep the fuel hot (like an after-burner) so the catiliyic converter can due its job. This extra shot seems to be the main reason for bad MPG's



John
 
I had concerns when my 03 was new, as the computer showed mileage

in the low teens. Mileage really turned out to be pretty good,

but there were 2 factors that made it look worse in the beginning:



1) The trucks idle a bunch during loading/unloading and dealer positioning. Reset the mileage computer, or you'll have to log a bunch

of miles before the idle factor is averaged out.



2) The new engines are tighter than the one in my 97, and milage

will increase after initial break-in. I now average 18. 6 empty.



Now for a question: Taking the above into account, is mileage on the

new trucks an issue?
 
taking EVERYTHING into account

the answer is YES, it is a huge issue. My '03 was 5 mpg better than this one at the same odometer reading. I'm calculating by the tank, not the overhead. The "DUH" responses from Cummins and Chrysler are amusing.
 
Yes, it's an issue with me because I purchased this truck with the expectation that I would get much better milage.



My best so far is 13. 7 hwy, no load @ 65mph. Im averaging about 12 with 50/50 driving and I seldom take the engine past the 2000 rpm mark, and I have 2300 miles on it.



My brother bought an 04 powerstroke 350 supercrew 4x4 SRW and he is averaging 19 mpg with a little over 4000 miles on it.



That really p..... me off
 
I wonder what would happen if some really smart type people de-programmed the last fuel event from happening. If the fuel isn't going to produce driving force, I wouldn't care if it happened.
 
i have a 600 drw 6 speed fwd 373 gear 7500 lbs. my brother has 04 ford 6. 0 drw 6 speed fwd 4. 10 gear 4 door. dont know what the weight is but should be close. his mileage is just as *****y as ours. i saw 14 on his o/h. his older trucks were better also.
 
Originally posted by MVaden

[My brother bought an 04 powerstroke 350 supercrew 4x4 SRW and he is averaging 19 mpg with a little over 4000 miles on it.



That really p..... me off [/B]

I doubt that. I know several 6. 0 Ford owners and none of them get better than 16mpg empty.
 
Originally posted by MVaden



My brother bought an 04 powerstroke 350 supercrew 4x4 SRW and he is averaging 19 mpg with a little over 4000 miles on it.






I find this extremely hard to believe. I've driven them and got nowhere near 19



Nick
 
mvaden and floorit:

This is great information and it explaines a few things. BUT, they know on how much fuel the 325/600 burns (pounds per horsepower hour) with it`s third shot of fuel. They must also know how much the 305/555 burns without the third shot of fuel I would like to know what the difference is. The way they explain it, is that dodge is responsible for all the mpg problems. But who put the that extra shot of fuel in it and how much does it effect the final mpg? Me and a lot of others would like to know. Hunter
 
MVaden,



Could you please ask Cummins the difference in fuel burned between the 305/555 and the 325/600 engine? Ask them if the "fuel the engine will burn, under full load, on the engine dynamometer" is greater, the same, or less than the 305/555. Values or a percent difference would be ideal.
 
You know, this is exactly what the engine builders (Cummins, CAT, Detroit etc) predicted would happen when the had to meet the new NOX emissions requirements in '04. Their estimates were for a 5% drop in fuel economy. As a result there was a hugh buying frenzy of heavy duty (Class 8) big rigs before the '04 engines were mandated. The trucking industry is not dumb and understand that fuel economy is a big portion of their operating cost.



I think Cummins is being a little less than candid in their letter. They danced around the issue and never compared the dyno fuel economy of the '03 HO to the '04 HO. Since they had to do two things at once, meet emissions and pump up fuel economy, there was bound to be an impact. My best guess considering all the factors would be 10%. If we used 18 MPG as the base '03 number that would put you at about 16 MPG for the '04. I don't know if the '04 has gained any weight, but that could have a minor impact.



My '03 typically does 17. 5 combined driving, and about 19 MPG on the highway (unladen) I would expect a comparable '04 to see about 2 MPG less fuel mileage. 5 MPG less sounds like a more significant problem. Perhaps some diagnostic work at the local dealer is in order if you have at least 10,000 miles on the ODO.



On the bright side, when Edge or other manufacturer come out with a timing/fuel box for the '04. 5 they may be able to correct some of the compromises in the fuel delivery that were needed to achieve the NOX emissions requirements. I'll bet they can get you 1-2 MPG back if you can keep your foot out of it. <grin>
 
The most recent issue of Diesel Progress is interesting. If you read between the lines in several articles it seems that cooled egr is being used in premium applications (e. g. like the ISBE where fuel economy and performance is a key factor) while tricks like multiple late injections are being used where installed cost is the key factor and fuel economy is not so much of a consideration (e. g. the 600 for DC customers). Did DC ask the Dodge community which approach they preferred?



The only effective way to get honest action from Cummins and/or DC is to flat STOP buying their product. If the Dodge community organized a stop buying the 600 campaign that had a significant impact on DC's sales, they would probably fix the problem by substituting the ISBe they should have used in the first place. THANK DC FOR COMPLYING WITH EPA ON THE CHEAP. DON'T BUY 600s UNTIL THE FUEL ECONOMY PROBLEM IS FIXED! IT'S THAT EASY!:
 
Originally posted by DDahl

The most recent issue of Diesel Progress is interesting. If you read between the lines in several articles it seems that cooled egr is being used in premium applications (e. g. like the ISBE where fuel economy and performance is a key factor) while tricks like multiple late injections are being used where installed cost is the key factor and fuel economy is not so much of a consideration (e. g. the 600 for DC customers). Did DC ask the Dodge community which approach they preferred?



The only effective way to get honest action from Cummins and/or DC is to flat STOP buying their product. If the Dodge community organized a stop buying the 600 campaign that had a significant impact on DC's sales, they would probably fix the problem by substituting the ISBe they should have used in the first place. THANK DC FOR COMPLYING WITH EPA ON THE CHEAP. DON'T BUY 600s UNTIL THE FUEL ECONOMY PROBLEM IS FIXED! IT'S THAT EASY!:



OK I am going to PUKE if I here people start complaining that they should have used EGR. For 6 months before the 600 came out just about everyong complained that they were going to be P'oD if Cummins went EGR and they were going to hurry and buy a 555 so they didn't get stuck with out.



I can see this coming already... ... ..... just getting ahead of the game.





The fuel burn ratings between the 555 and 600 would be interesting like mensioned earlier. Personaly I don't think that the third event add that much to total fuel use.



Oh here is another thing, are all of you forgeting the fact that you do have 8% more power then the 555. Pretty darn close to the 10% difference that was mensioned earlier. Sure you are not using all that extra power all the time, but it is being used.



I think that some of you may have lagit problems with your trucks, but their are only a couple. In my own truck I can get 17 or I can get 13 on the same drive depending on how I drive it.
 
Oh, and I would suggest that it is more likely that an aftermarket box (maybe even with a way to remove the post-injection event - for of road use only, of course!) is the more likely permanent solution to 04. 5 mpg issues. Cummins and DC can't make changes (like a reprogram back to 305/555) that would compromise the ability to meet the Jan. '04 regs.



some soon-to-be wealthy box maker, should be figuring a way to remove the post-injection event and add a modest power gain for the towing/mileage conscious crowd.



Dave
 
... and I agree with MOPAR. It is truly the end of the world when I come to TDR to read how gypped we were not to get EGR on our 600s :D ! ... and Clinton was a great President... . !;)



I also agree with the last part of Jim's comment as to fueling boxes. If the source of the reduced mileage is post-injection events than the solution is a software change. Heck, maybe a box will come out that adds no hp but increases mileage. I would buy one.



Still waiting to hear from the posters on TDR who have dropped their 'cat' to see if the mileage changed. Back-pressure is more significant to mileage than most realize.



I'm looking forward to my 600 and I haven't seen anything mileage-wise to be concerned about.



PS: Good letter from Cummins, thanks for posting that, standard corporate-legal "no speak" from D-C.
 
MVaden -- Your new truck has a Cummins. It likes RPMs! The average RPM you want to be at is about 2100/2200. Let it Rev! It'll sound weird until your V8 ears are re-programmed.



Lugging will kill your mileage. I feel like I'm lugging at 1600 or below.



I don't know if that's the 'problem' or not; but keeping RPMs higher will certainly help.



Also; break that sucker in. I drove my '03 36000 miles before I had a chance to hook up to a trailer -- after towing with it this thing runs like a scalded dog and I think my MPG gained atleast 1 MPG. If you don't have a trailer to hook up to; borrow one! I should have to help mine break in earlier. The engine is WAY tighter -- used to have blowby residue from the exhaust -- now burnnig nearly completely clean.



Good Luck!



ps: I wasn't too pleased when I traded my '95 on a '98. 5 that got way worse mileage either ... . been there; done that. When a box came out I plugged it in and all was solved.
 
The average RPM you want to be at is about 2100/2200.



Should I be keeping my truck in "tow/haul" (OD off) when commuting? Most of this is stoplight to stoplight, with speeds rarely exceeding 50. Problem is, she shifts into OD around 45.



With my PSD 6-speed (I know, I know..... :rolleyes: ) I could control this.



Comments, anyone? By the way, I seem to be getting around 13 or so with 350 miles on the engine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top