TDR responses to mileage a member disservice

[Silver]

RKrueger

The TDR, in my opinion, has done an excellent job of addressing fuel mileage issues. I "lurked" on this site for over 2 before I even owned CTD, and I was never under the impression that the TDR was a research or testing facility. As I understand it, the TDR is more of a place for CTD enthusiasts to learn from each others' experiences.



When automobile manufacturers post the "estimated" MPG figures on the window sticker, I am fully aware that more than likely I will not be ble to reproduce those numbers. If the corporation that engineers and builds these trucks cannot give an accurate MPG, then I don't expect anyone else would be able to.



I don't think controlled tests are the answer. There are just too many variables involved (including quality control) to come up with a standard result that would apply to most trucks. I'm sure, like me, you've read hundreds of threads on MPG. If you have, then you've also noticed (as the others have stated) that not everyone sees the same results with the same mods. Given that fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for theTDR to publish MPG results.



When I'm looking for MPG answers, I PM others with the same setup as me or the setup I want to be running. Then I take into account variables such as altitude, weather, terrain, driving habits, etc. I believe the actual experiences of how ever many thousand TDR members is a much more reliable resource for information than any one company's controlled tests.



PS- I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just posting my perspective.

 

[pathaymond]

May I say this.

I do what I do to my truck because I feel it will help me acheive my Performance goals. Before the tdr I did not have a clue what I could have done with my 93 cummins. which I wish I had kept. anyway I am thankfull to every one on the tdr that has posted there experiences be they seat of the pants or scientific they do make each of us owners lives more interesting. I could frankly care less about mpg pulling a dead horse up a long hill as long as my truck does it to my satisfaction. And thanks again Tdr MY trucks performs for now as perfect as I feel it needs to. Ask me what my mpg is I could not guess and come close. I do not care and never will it takes energy to move objects and I like to move things pretty fast . Thanks again to all the posters and folks Like ifflem who have endured many miles of tdr time. I hope one day I can be as helpfull. May there be many BOMBS to come and may progress in technology and bombing always go forward. The real test is the experiences of each and every owner and member that contributes his experience to the other members. Long live the tdr. and its members. Our boundries are our imaginations!!!

Regards Patrick

 

[Steve Roseman]

Originally posted by RKrueger

We should provide some level of base information to help in this regard. If you don't, it's the customer paying out the bucks, and not having a shred of information that was derived through technical means, anotherwords, a crap shoot.

We have nothing now, anything We do is a positive step.

So who is financing this? Who is going to profit, how are they going to profit? I have to agree completely with Silver's last post, I will do my own research.

Best MPG=24, worst MPG=16. Check for mods in signature and use judgement for your own application.

 

[RobbyRam]

I can only write about my personal experience with my Y2K 3500 Xtracab. It got lousy milage in stock form, around 13 mpgs avg. However, when I installed DD2's, an 'EZ' and a DTT Valve Body, my milage went up immediately, at the pump, to avg 18+ mpg's.



My long trip all freeway milage is over 20+, sometimes 23+ mpg's. For example, I drove my loaded for a roofing job rig from Sacramento, CA to Bishop, CA, over the Sierras at 70 mph, and drove around for 2 days there, and then drove back to Sacramento on less than one tank of gas. Over 625 miles!



Since I've been a subscriber longer than most on this particular thread, I can tell you that I've had time over the years to read numerous "what kind of milage?" threads, and you all are right to conclude that none are conclusive. But I don't care; I'm happy with mine, and now that I have the 'Edge Comp', and a full 'DTT transmission,' I suspect my milage will go down a bit, but it's worth it!

Bob in Sacramento

 

[danandamy]

People ask me all the time about what kind of milage I get. Never fails, they ask what I get when I'm pullling Pulling what? Weighing how much? Pulling on flat land or in the hills? When I pull my 33' travel trailer I usual cruise about 78 -80 mph so yes, I'm going to burn more fuel than grampa with the good sam sticker doin' 50 in the hammer lane It's all relative. I don't drive like you so how are you going to compare milage?



dan

 

[LSMITH]

Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

"Will wonders never cease? I agree with Gary!!!"



I've been getting WAY too many comments like this lately - a sure sign that either too many are coming around to MY way of thinking, or else *I* am coming around to theirs!

You living at a lower altitude lately Gary? I agree with you on that one too:--)

 

[merryman]

Missed something

I guess I must have missed that part where Patton said he was starting a bureau of testing and standards lab.

I have been going along thinking I was getting more good out of TDR than I was paying for. (No Patton, I am not suggesting a subscription price increase)-------If I had know about the testing service, I would have expected even more :>)

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

I am only one writer for TDR, but I feel you missed the point of the TDR in your initial, very critical post. As others have said in this thread, we are a club of enthusiasts, not Consumers Union producing Consumer Reports. n Even so, there have been a lot of good articles by various writers covering the topics you brought up. Your post said what WE should do for YOU several times, such as:



"I think TDR can do a much better job of responding to mileage inquiries by it's members than it has up to this point. I really am getting a little tired of having a serious question answered with a contrite response concerning the members driving habits.

I think it's time for TDR to start taking these questions seriously and address the subject from a technical perspective with all necessary research and testing that you would extend to any normal "power increase" type article. "



You need to get back issues of the TDR. Many magazines recycle the same topics annually, such as gun mags, car mags, 4x4 mags, housekeeping mags, etc. Every year or so you read about the . 270 vs. . 30/06 in one form or another. Each year you read how great Chevy and Ford are, and other mags tell you to buy a BMW or something yet again. TDR does not do that, at least not very much. You would benefit from buying past issues and you would also find that many of your criticisms WERE addressed in the past. Just as with scientific magazines, all issues should be archived since you won't read my article on Dana Differentials every year. You need to have Issue 24. In addressing your points below, I will refer only to my articles. If you happen to despise my writing style or diaagree with everything I write, that is fine. There are lots of other writers and some of them address similar points in their own way and with their own testing. I am simply noting my articles as that is easier for me to remember and locate for this response. In looking back, however, I found numerous good articles by other writers, and can recommend them to you.





"1. Full-flow air filters and flow-through exhausts. "

Issue 23, pp. 38ff and 37, pp. 26ff.



"2. Power Modules ( EZ, Bully Dog, etc)"

Powe increases were covered with different slants many times: see Issue 39, pp. 98ff and references therein to a handful of other articles going as far back as Issue 23.



"3. Fuel Additives"

Premium Diesel fuel was covered in Issue 27, pp. 42ff. Additives were directly covered recently by another writer.



"4. Synthetic Oils"

Issue 33, p. 17. (others have written much more on this topic than I have).



"5. Injectors"

Covered in various power articles, including Fuel Economy with Power, Issue 29 , pp. 30ff. Also Issue 37, pp. 14ff.



"6. Auto Transmission Upgrades"

Summarized briefly in Drivetrain Upgrades, Issue 30, pp. 36ff. Again, others have written more--more thorougly and more comprehensively.



"This list is only a sampling of things taken from the TDR mag, and talking to TDR suppliers. So I think it's time the Editors took this subject a little more seriously than they have in the past. "



How far back into the past have you researched your position? I feel the TDR has done well at combining testing with user-friendly presentations and entertainment.



" I have seen many inquiries by members on this subject [mileage], and never seen one sincere, technically oriented response by another member other than to take your foot off the pedal. "

Again, Issue 29, pp. 30ff; I should point out that Robert Patton wrote "How to Drive" in Issue 33, pp. 28ff.



In summary, I suggest you peruse the back issues and enjoy your membership! I hope the above references will help.

 

[R-N-R]

Okay, I've seen a few threads with less than helpful responses. This is a forum for enthusiasts, responses depend on who is on when a thread is posted and how fast it gets buried. I've been away for two days, the forum has 222 new posts since I last logged in. If I don't get enough response, or the answer I'm looking for, I can always bring my post back to the top (TTT).



I joined the TDR last year right after buying my first CTD. I posted a thread about the 7 mpg ??? I was seeing when towing my TT. I received 929 views and 31 posts (including my own responses). I received information about my driving, things to check, and upgrades. After just purchasing my RAM, I would have been disappointed to only have received responses that suggested I invest $$ into the new truck to increase the mpg. I was happy with the responses to my question about poor mpg.



btw, I recently started "bombing" the truck. 2/3 of my driving is in town within a 15 mile radius. On the freeway I am seeing a marked improvement in my mileage (overhead console). However when I calculate the mileage at the pump, due to my typical driving pattern, I do not expect to realize a significant gain. Which results do I post? The calculated method is more accurate. Wouldn't that response be an injustice to installing performance products? And I am very confident that my highway and towing mileage will be improved with the mods.



just my . 02



Bill



btw, I agree, bombing might just change driving habits... .

 

[RKrueger]

Well, I think I read most of the responses, and most were what I expected

I stand by the points that I made. Installing components to gain power and testing for the power actually produced is a theme I have seen many times in TDR. The same thing could also be done to test for fuel efficiency increases.

There is no guarantee you receive the power increase that is derived through testing and vendors' advertising, just the same way that there is no guarantee that if the installation of a set of injectors on a stock truck yields 4mpg increase, that you will see that on your truck. Everybody is already aware of this, and we really could dispense with this part of the discussion.

Joe Donnelly. So nice of you to join in.

I've seen quite a few of your articles as a matter of fact. While I can't remember them verbatim, the last one serves my point. When somebody asks you about increasing the power on their truck, you have a wealth of information and specific technical information to pass along. You don't have that same kind of technical information regarding questions about mileage, however. I'm sure you would just as freely pass similar imformation along concerning mileage, but for now, it really isn't available because nobody is testing for it, not specifically. You say you're not Consumer Reports, but yet you don't hesitate to site specific hp increases for various modifications. Where'd you get this information? Testing? ... or guessing?

Quite a few people responded with this comment: (paraphrase) " TDR isn't in the business of testing" Yet in Joe Donnelly's last article, he says "A while ago we dyno tested the stock clutch fan... " Am I to understand that TDR does indeed have access to a dyno? Apparently it does.

Look, all I'm saying is that there has been a number of inquiries on increasing the fuel efficiency of their vehicle, and there is more that can be said to accomplish this other than exercising prudent driving habits and checking tire pressures. ( Yes, they are extremely important )

There are engineered add-ons that will produce an increase in mileage in most vehicles primarily because they improve the efficiency of the powerplant.

There are fuel additives that, among other things, increase the cetane of the fuel, and will increase your overall mileage. ( I'll personally vouch for that )

There are synthetic lubricants that will affect your mileage, especially in the colder climates.

Anotherwords, there are engineering-based methods for increasing the fuel economy of your vehicle as well as for increasing the power, so there is actually more than can be said beyond watching your driving habits.

For the same reasons that Joe tests the hp savings of running with no fan on a dyno, we could just as well test for fuel efficiency.

 

[RKrueger]

Silver,

Me too. . While I've been a member for 9 months or so, I logged a lot of time on the web site when I bought my '99, as it is publically viewable. It's a terrific site, with a lot personal experience in the database.

I agree they have no "official" testing facility, but the writers do seem to find a dyno when they need it to test power output.

I absolutely concur that not everybody will get the same results. I've said this in almost every post. But that is no reason not to test for results. A lot of people are assuming that because the testing cannot guarantee the results, then the testing is null and void. That's ridiculous.

The difference is measurement. If Joe Donnally's dyno ( whoever's dyno it actually is... ) tests a 4" flow-thru exhaust with an AFE Mega-Cannon for mileage, and he gets +3mpg ( over stock ) on the test truck, then people who will buy this combo for just that reason will go out and start measuring their mileage. Obviously, some will complain the results, testing, whatever, was faulty, because they didn't get the same results. Not a problem...

But when these same people went out and bought their new injectors that advertised +60hp and +100lbs ft. of torque increase, did they complain? Nope. The reason is because they didn't measure the increase. They felt the truck go faster, move quicker, and their senses told them they got what they paid for. But did they??

How do they know? If some of these people actually knew their truck only achieved +40hp, not +60, would they come back and complain the tests were bogus?

Would their comments then be the same as the ones directed at my posts, that we shouldn't test at all if we can't guarantee the results? Who knows... .

Any knowledge derived through testing will lend further credibility to claims of increased mileage by the vendor along with the personal experiences of those that may already use the product.

 

[Pit Bull]

Originally posted by RKrueger





There's a lot of article potential here. The results could be derived through dyno testing. I am personally aware of the cost-benefit ratio of adding particular components to achieve an increase in fuel efficiency, but this is not for TDR to decide, it's strictly a member decision. TDR should install the device, dyno the results, publish the street price, and show members how many miles they would have to drive before they actually started seeing a return on their investment (R. O. I) There is probably a great many members that travel 20K+ miles a year for one reason or another. Others may not be so concerned with the initial outlay if they can bump up their mileage figures by 2 - 4. Let each of us decide.

You report the facts.



Regards,

Robert

Robert, Good idea. I bet if you contacted the editor they would welcome you doing this and writing articles stating your results. I for one look forward to reading them.

 

[RKrueger]

Believe me, if I could, I would. I have no access to a dyno, and that's really what we need to do the tests to eliminate as much of the "human interaction" as possible from the equation. I've had some vendors email me personally concerning this post, so I think some of them would probably contribute their product for testing if it was done with as much professionalism as feasibly possible and published the results without bias.

If I could figure out a way to accomplish this, I would be more than happy to write a contributing article. Joe obviously has contacts with a dyno, and with his previous contracting credentials, I'm sure he could get the same positive response from the vendors as I would, undoubtedly more. We gotta start somewhere

 

[Steve Roseman]

Re: Re: TDR responses to mileage a member disservice

Originally posted by Pit Bull

Robert, Good idea. I bet if you contacted the editor they would welcome you doing this and writing articles stating your results. I for one look forward to reading them.

I'll second that. Nice of you to donate your time and your truck, Robert. It's too bad the vendors couldn't pay you for the testing, that would bring out questions of bias.

 

[illflem]

I'm not sure how a dyno would relate to real world mpgs myself.

There was a recent thread here on US Gear boxes and different ratio rear ends vs. mpgs where many folks related that lower rpms didn't always equal better mileage. I know my 12 valves take a major dump in fuel economy over 2k rpm so you would assume that lower rpms would play a big role in mpgs, not so, speed seems to figure into the equation more than rpms at some point. My best mpgs ever was over

winding, hilly terrain at 45 mph, rpms always over 2k in third gear for 400 miles, I thought for sure it was going to be my worst mileage.

Perhaps rather than a dyno if someone was to invest in one of these Floscan devices then try different mods they could come up with some good data. A Floscan will accurately measure mpgs down to 0. 1 increments and can even be connected to a GPS to measure accurate distance traveled. A far cry from the overhead computer.

 

[RKrueger]

The Floscan device is an excellent idea, I agree 100%. The only reason I suggested a dyno, was so we could "drive" the vehicle for a certain distance, eliminate head or tailwinds, driver irregularities, traffic interruptions which would necessitate a change in throttle or even brake, and even road surface irregularities themselves, all contributing slighlty to skewed results.

I'm not positive, but I understand that a dyno can be programmed with load, simulating a hill and such. That might come into play under certain circumstances, as long as the programmed pattern was reproducable and "made sense" in a real driving scenario. I haven't given up on this yet, I'm still trying to come up with some way to get this done.

As a German Engineer said to me once when I posed a question to him, " Now I must over-think this! "



Great idea, illflem!

 

[RKrueger]

Quick note to illflem:

Checked out the Floscan stuff, looked so nice I thought I'd add one to the truck.

Wow :--) Are those babies pricey! I think I'd rather put on a new set of Alcoa wheels and use my calculator for the mileage



Robert

 

[illflem]

I'd love to have one as would many others here but that price is pretty hard to justify. Need to find a sponsor...

 

[duaneparks]

Originally posted by RKrueger

The Floscan device is an excellent idea, I agree 100%. The only reason I suggested a dyno, was so we could "drive" the vehicle for a certain distance, eliminate head or tailwinds, driver irregularities, traffic interruptions which would necessitate a change in throttle or even brake, and even road surface irregularities themselves, all contributing slighlty to skewed results.

I'm not positive, but I understand that a dyno can be programmed with load, simulating a hill and such. That might come into play under certain circumstances, as long as the programmed pattern was reproducable and "made sense" in a real driving scenario. I haven't given up on this yet, I'm still trying to come up with some way to get this done.

As a German Engineer said to me once when I posed a question to him, " Now I must over-think this! "



Great idea, illflem!

I'm not trying to start anything here, and I may be speaking for others out there... (or maybe I'm on my own)



I see these type tests that you suggest as being similar to the EPA tests for determining mileage, and thus not worth the trouble. Reason being, they're not "real world" results. Your testing methodology would give one set of results that would theoretically factor out human error, but I live in a world *with* human error (much of which is my own!) and am more interested in results with it factored in, not out.



On top of that, we as a membership live all over, in every different type of terrain you can imagine. How will your tests account for that? I live in Houston, thus the only hills I climb are bridges. My truck operates in a temperate climate with a TON of humidity. How will your test results relate to my "real world" results? How will my real world results compare to, say, someone in Tennessee where there are hills, less humidity, cooler temperatures, higher altitudes, and curvy roads?



To add yet another spin to this, some of us tow, others don't. I personally have only towed a 49 CJ2a on a tow dolly with my truck twice. Others only use their trucks to tow 33' travel trailers. Still others tow their boats, or their landscaping trailers, or their car haulers, all of which are done in different climates/terrain/conditions. Will your tests simulate all these towing situations and more?



I believe the trends to which you refer earlier are in the posts already, but you have to dig to find them. I for one found all the info I felt necessary regarding my particular set of BOMB's-to-date by using the "search" feature on this site.



I appreciate where you are going with this, and there may be those out there interested in it. I, for one, am most interested in what other people who use their truck like I do see in "real world" gains.



Seriously, no offense intended. JMHO, YMMV, and good luck in your endeavor.



Duane

 

[RKrueger]

Absolutely no problem at all, Duane.

The only legitimate method to test any components, regardless of it's technical application, is to eliminate the human factor as much as possible. Otherwise, the tests are totally meaningless and might as well not be done at all. That is standard procedure in any testing.

You have to interpret the results, and know how they may be best applied to your personal driving habits, weather conditions, vehicle condition, terrain, load, et all. All of these things can improve, degrade, ortherwise alter the results that you may obtain with the installation of the same device. Even your installation procedure may differ slightly from the test, and thereby alter the results.

It's kinda like an airplane. An airplane is certified to carry a certain weight under certain conditions of temperature and pressure.

It's up to the pilot to understand that if he tries to take off from Denver, CO, on a hot day, he can't carry as much weight as the book says he can, but it's not the fault of the testing of the aircraft.

The pilot has deviated from the conditions at test time. It certainly doesn't mean they're irrelevant, it establishes a known point at which the data is true. If you change things, it's up to you to understand how that will affect your results.

If we ( I'm not sure who "we" is yet ) test a set of injectors on a dyno on a 70 deg day and simulate 65 mph on flat ground, then it's up to you to understand how these changes will affect your results:



What if I drive 60mph?

What if it's 40 deg outside?

What if I pull my 3000lb trailer?

... and on and on.



But if we take "a truck", stick it on the dyno with stock injectors on a 70 degree day, low humidity, 30" of pressure, and at 65 mph our Floscan indicates 17. 0 mpg , and then, within an hour, do the same test again with new injectors, and the results say 20. 0 mpg, that has established a baseline result of +3 mpg.

You may get +4 mpg if you drive 55 mph, or you may get less if your truck is configured differently from the test truck.

The point is that we tested the "component" itself, left out driving habits and other factors which cannot be consistently replicated.



On the lighter side, nobody should get too antsy about when they're going to see some test results done. I'm still working on just how to get this going...