Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) posted:

"yawn" another uninformed comment from someone thats never driven one I used an f350 for setting up and taking down camps, towing generators and big heavy exploration vans with the back fully laden I never measured economy coz I wasnt paying for fuel but I can assure you that comment is BS

Gerhardp1 posted:

Of course you're right.
Any 3 ton vehicle would easily obtain 7.0 litres per hundred. You only have to look at lighter cars such as the Landcruiser and Patrol, both of which frequently top the economy charts at 5.0 litres per hundred.

In the real world, you can calculate ballpark fuel consumption from the weight of the vehicle alone. For example, Falcons and Commodores weigh around 1600kg and get 12.0l/100. Cars weighing 1000kg get 6.0, cars weighing 2500kg get 22., and this behemoth without a brick of a camper on the back would weigh probably 3000kg and you're trying to tell me it will get 13.5l/100 - dream on.

You yourself admit you didn't measure economy. I guess you're just one of those geniuses that God put here to put all the rest of the d!ckheads right.

Oh, and by the way, I have driven one, and it drank fuel like the dealership said it would.

snowman posted:

I too own a 7.3td F250. My fuel figures are the same as Val's. I tow a triple horse float or a stock trailer over the snowy mountains on a regular basis.
I'm sure people who own these vehicles would now best as to what fuel econmoy they are getting.

Gerhardp1- You most be one of the REST

chump_boy posted:

So where does my 3 tonne cruiser fit in? I get 10.5L/100km.

Mabey it doesn't weight as much as I think....theres a thought..

By Gerhardp's reasioning, my cruiser should be about 1800kg. Kewl. I might go and park in North Sydney now, so I can pay lower rates in my small vehicle.

Gerhardp, your figures may be fairly right for petrol figures. Diesel figures are a lot better than that.

Cheers

Chump

Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) posted:

it didnt have a camper on the back it had a heavy caravan at the rear an a fully loaded tray and i was giving it crap to see how it goes with the load and I stand by my original comment BS how do i know if I didnt measure economy??? because I would have been walking from a remote area if it used half as much as you reckon----- genius

chump_boy posted:

Davo,

I think Gerhard is one of these special little people that know absolutely everything....just ask them!

Methinks he drives a large petrol 4WD, and drives it pretty hard too, from the sounds of his reasoning. Then his little fuel calculator would be pretty right. Trouble is, it doesn't take into consideration modern diesel engins.

Cheers,

Chump

Gerhardp1 posted:

To Davoe, Snowman, and Chump_boy.

Apologies for your personal insults are accepted.

Read the posts from 2 owners Roofscooter2 and Crackles for believable F250 fuel consumption figures.

chump_boy posted:

Gerhardp,

Apologise for what? You do not drive one of these vehicles, yet you know all about them? Come on now......

This forum is about people sharing their experiences, not what they heard from someone. Everybody drives differently, so fuel figures will be all over the place when talking about different people in the same vehicles. As some of these are work vehicles, some would have different people driving them (ie.. apprentices at a FORD dealership). FUEL FIGURES WILL VARY!!!

Your little fuel calculator doesn't work - hardly a personal insult....

Chump

(PS...I love this nickname - you never know if it is a signature, or a comment....lol)

Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) posted:

Gerhardp, I think i get it now fuel consumption is obviosly a matter of perception vs expectation. The fuel consumption from tose quoted sound pretty good to me for a 7.3l truck
13.5 highway 16 with a tonne on the back 20 with the apprentice flooring it everywhere and towing a caravan(I know I did) and 30 while 4wding (dont know how much sand driving he did but the mags regulary measdure 50+ with petrol engines in sand) all of these figures are not much higher than a patrol or cruiser diesal will return in simular circumstances and well ahead of what a petrol will return with a whole lot more loading capacity and pulling power

colin posted:

ford is pullig out of ossy selling the f series they cant stand up to the australian standards and with the small amount of units being sold not worth their while. info from a ford dealer. Col

AdamC posted:

I agree with the Scooters response. I've had my F250 CC 7.3 XLt for three years now and average 14 to 16 per 100KMS. Recent and long off road excursion saw slightly better consumption than the conservative 80 series Diesel Cruiser and patrol(s). On the highway I bettered the cruisers consumption over 300 odd Ks @ 110KMH (speed was constant other than when the Cruiser needed a nudge up the hills. If you own and or drive non turbo cruiser diesels I am sure you are familiar with that!! The down side of the effie is when you are idling in traffic, thats when the diesel just gets poured into the head to keep all the steel rotating.. BTW, try a scan gauge for realistic consumption figures!!!! It scares you when you put the foot into it!

If we really want to look at a thirsty truck, try a Rangie (petrol) for size.

By 4 now
Adam

Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) posted:

surly it is only the apprentice seeing exactly how 7.3l of turbocharged vehicle goes???? I know i couldnt drive it round the block without making sure it went ok. We had a manuel and changing gears was a heavy affair especially with the redline reached nearly straight away after it hit boost

Crackles posted:

You caught me out Dave. Maybe I did take it up to 155kph just to make sure it went ok & you're right with the gearbox too. Not really a racing shift ;-)