|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: Mopar-Al]
#1382260
02/06/13 09:40 AM
02/06/13 09:40 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
1992 to 1995 Magnum 5.2 V8s
used EGR to meet the NOx pollution standards
and had advanced ignition timing at highway cruise,
and the flow of exhaust gas above half throttle
raised manifold pressure.
As long as the sparkplugs and oxygen sensor stayed good, the EGR actually helped highway MPG,
And the EGR seldom came on in less than half throttle driving like around town.
In model year 1996,
OBD-II computer control was put in
The EGR was taken off
( save money of parts & reduce carbon plugging)
Ignition timing was substantially retarded as an alternative to control NOx,
And a new catalytic converter design was used that more effectively converted NOx
but required more "pulses" of rich air to fuel ratio
to do this NOx reduction.
So the 1996 lost the sometimes troublesome EGR pipes and valves,
But lost some MPG,
particularly at highway cruise.
If the Ram owner complained of pinging on 87 octane gasoline,
The OBD-II pcm got a
"Death Flash"
At the dealership
Which retarded ignition timing even more
And further hurt
MPG above half throttle.
Custom pcm flashes that
advance ignition timing on 1996 models,
partcularly in the 35 to 80% open throttle range,
will MPG some.
Trick flashes that raise air to fuel ratio at highway cruise
are illegal and sold as "offroad only" in the USA,
but will further raise MPG.
If your oxygen sensors have become partially poisoned with time the air to fuel ratio will be rich.
Bosch brand oxygen sensors
which are the most commonly available at parts stores,
tend to run richer than
the original factory NTK made oxygen sensors,
even when new.
Avoid Bosch for best MPG.
Car Quest stores can get the NTK ones.
How can you tell if every thing is right?
A good condition
1996 5.2 v8 4wd Ram 46RE auto with 3.55 diff
On a level concrete highway
with wind less than 5 mph
40 psi plain rib tread 245 75 R 16 tires
Should get better than
18 MPG
At a steady 60 mph
A 2wd should get
2 MPG better than equal weight
4wd.
Chrysler later admitted in official press releases that the front axle CAD system had enough friction to hurt MPG by 2, compared to old manual front hubs.
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: 360view]
#1382261
02/07/13 04:06 PM
02/07/13 04:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
100% of the cars I have blocked the EGR on got better MPG including my 92 318 dakota. It (EGR)causes the fuel to burn slower as in after it has left the combustion chamber and can no longer apply pressure to the piston. The later re-designed cam does the same thing as EGR but does it all the time so if slowing down combustion is good then they should get better MPG but instead they get worse.
The main reason they use so much more fuel than the older trucks is they are bigger and heavier and more powerful. Weight hurts MPG in all conditions except straight level steady speed driving. It costs mpg when you go up a hill, accelerate or decelerate on the highway or in town. They also have a bigger frontal area and even though they did employ a few aero tricks on them they still take more energy to push through the wind.
Older trucks had a lot more variables that could help or hurt MPG, a "bad" carb tune could help MPG if the right stuff was plugged up and ignition timing could be advanced or retarded so easy that one rig could easily put up better numbers than another and even better than the rating. The new MPFI system is a big ordeal to change it around much so the best and the worst should be a lot more consistent.
And after much fear of buying a 4x4 I finally broke down and bought one and the MPG don't seem to be any different unless it is engaged but then again the only time I engage it is in very cold temps with lots of snow and even then it is not 2 MPG different.
You can slot the crank sensor mounting bolt holes and advance the timing a couple degrees to help MPG.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: bigblock4x4]
#1382264
02/08/13 10:04 AM
02/08/13 10:04 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
When i swapped 3.21 gears into my original 3.55 Ram i gained 1 MPG. I also was surprised to find that when towing and climbing steep highway grades the 3.21 in 2nd gear worked even better 3.55 is probably right for a 5.2 with a .69 overdrive, but i think that 5.9 V8s should have had .60 overdrives and V10s . 50 overdrives. EGR can give a MPG boost in the range of 2 to 8% but if the sparkplugs or other ignition parts are not in top condition EGR can increase missfires, which can increase from the normal 5% peak pressure variation, to high enough to wipe out any fuel economy gain. It only takes one cylinder being off. Lean burn can give bigger gains, 4 to 20% Lean burn and EGR are close cousins technically, Both both stress getting good ignition, and both probably do best with tiny alloy tipped dual spark plugs, coil on plug, and high quench, swirl and tumble cyl heads. Most Magnum V8s prior to year 2000 came from the factory with "pretty and neat" looking routing of ignition wires that unfortunately caused inherent crossfires, particularly on cylinders 5-7 http://dodgeram.info/tsb/1998/18-48-98/18-48-98-v8.htmI now wonder what a careful test of several Rams convoy style would show about the fuel economy penalty of those crossfires?
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: Mopar-Al]
#1382265
02/08/13 10:13 AM
02/08/13 10:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck
Not enough dumb comments...yet
|
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
|
I'd think you could pull at least 19hwy. City is very dependant on stop and starts. My old 95 dak sport w/ 5.2 5 speed and 3.92's avgd about 22mph hwy and 17 in town. I'd think the heavier ram would be maybe 19-16??? I had the MP computer, headers and complete 3" free flowing exhaust. The computer didn't make mileage worse, but you did have to run 91 or better.
As others mentioned, it's getting old, so you might want to tune it up, swap out the old PCV, check the Throttle body. Mine was nasty around 120k, cleaned it out...not sure a 96 has an EGR??? Run a couple of cans of injector cleaner thru it too.
Good luck
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#1382266
02/08/13 11:50 AM
02/08/13 11:50 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
Having reading posts online that at least one
1996 5.9v8 Ram owner
who wrote reliable and technically accurate posts
said that he had bought and installed a
MP performance PCM engine control computer and
not only felt better engine throttle response,
but could run it on Regular 87 octane gasoline,
So when I saw a 1995 MP PCM 5.9 auto trans for sale used for $200 i bought it.
I did feel noticeably better throttle response and acceleration with it running 92 octane.
However, on dry hot summer days
it pinged at full throttle at 3600 rpm and above,
even on Sunoco 96 Premium.
Over more than 30,000 miles of recorded gas mileage,
it got
15 MPG average on Premium
whereas before i had been getting
15.5 MPG with the stock PCM on Regular,
.... However i now realize that this was also the time when 10% ethanol blend gasoline was being introduced,
and of course
the engine and truck was getting older and more worn.
Also later i realized that
the other Ram owner who first tried the MP PCM lived at 5000+ feet high altitude in the Western USA whereas
i was at 700 feet above sea level in NC and seldom drove roads above 2500 feet.
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: 360view]
#1382267
02/08/13 11:57 AM
02/08/13 11:57 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,327
Toronto (YYZ) Ontario
YYZ
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,327
Toronto (YYZ) Ontario
|
Quote:
How can you tell if every thing is right?
A good condition
1996 5.2 v8 4wd Ram 46RE auto with 3.55 diff
On a level concrete highway
with wind less than 5 mph
40 psi plain rib tread 245 75 R 16 tires
Should get better than
18 MPG
At a steady 60 mph
A 2wd should get
2 MPG better than equal weight
4wd.
That is consistent with the mileage that my old '96 5.2/2WD/auto CC/SB with 3.55s got. A steady highway cruise would net around 20-21 US MPG
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: YYZ]
#1382268
02/08/13 02:20 PM
02/08/13 02:20 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,903
Oregon
hooziewhatsit
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,903
Oregon
|
I've been wondering about the benefits of adding EGR to a performance build of a new engine. Say a roller 360 or 408 with good quench, higher compression than stock, and completely tweak-able sequential EFI. 'It seems' like having a poor mans variable displacement system via EGR should improve mileage, unless it slows the burn and other stuff down to negate any benefits. BUT, if it was a new build specifically designed for mileage AND power, could it work? Where does the intake actually get the exhaust gases from? Does it come from a pipe from the exhaust manifold? ie, it won't work with headers, without some customization? Otherwise, it would be awesome if this intake came with a 4bbl type mounting flange. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/dcc-5007398ab/media/rotatingmodel/make/dodge
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#1382269
02/08/13 04:07 PM
02/08/13 04:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck
Not enough dumb comments...yet
|
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
|
Quote:
I've been wondering about the benefits of adding EGR to a performance build of a new engine. Say a roller 360 or 408 with good quench, higher compression than stock, and completely tweak-able sequential EFI.
'It seems' like having a poor mans variable displacement system via EGR should improve mileage, unless it slows the burn and other stuff down to negate any benefits. BUT, if it was a new build specifically designed for mileage AND power, could it work?
Where does the intake actually get the exhaust gases from? Does it come from a pipe from the exhaust manifold? ie, it won't work with headers, without some customization?
Otherwise, it would be awesome if this intake came with a 4bbl type mounting flange.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/dcc-5007398ab/media/rotatingmodel/make/dodge
 I removed the EGR form my 88 ramcharger and got better mileage. 17.1mpg
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: Mr.Yuck]
#1382270
02/08/13 05:26 PM
02/08/13 05:26 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,582
Rust Belt, SW PA
Silver70
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 18,582
Rust Belt, SW PA
|
My 96 360 4x4 ext cab shortbed would get 15 average after I put a high flow cat on it. Before that it was 13. I used a 2wd 318 and towed like 6500lbs plus from Detroit and got over 10mpg... been a few years, but I think it was closer to 12-13. I've always tried to drive vehicles to get the best mpg's I could without having to spend money. Guess back in the day, driving to college and being broke, I learned quick 
68 Road Runner, 69 Belvedere, 71 Challenger Vert
340 barracuda, 01 Ram CTD, 95 Ram, 04 Ram, 85 Daytona turbo Z
66 GTO, 06 Magnum RT AWD. 07 Ram CTD, 07 Ram
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: Mopar-Al]
#1382271
02/08/13 06:27 PM
02/08/13 06:27 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,064
Iowa
76dodgeboy
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,064
Iowa
|
Quote:
Why does this 318 use so much fuel? Around 14 in town maybe a little less at times. Not much better on the hwy. Like about 16mpg. The older trucks did better without a 4 speed auto and lock up clutch. Is it the cam design? Would a tighter bottom end cam be a solution? 355 gears came in the truck. Just seems it should be better. Does a performance chip of some sort help? The truck runs great and the original window sticker says this is about what it would get for fuel mileage.
That seems pretty good to me. Wife 01 doesn't even get that highway
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#1382272
02/08/13 08:17 PM
02/08/13 08:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
Quote:
I've been wondering about the benefits of adding EGR to a performance build of a new engine. Say a roller 360 or 408 with good quench, higher compression than stock, and completely tweak-able sequential EFI.
'It seems' like having a poor mans variable displacement system via EGR should improve mileage, unless it slows the burn and other stuff down to negate any benefits. BUT, if it was a new build specifically designed for mileage AND power, could it work?
Where does the intake actually get the exhaust gases from? Does it come from a pipe from the exhaust manifold?
If you have the choice on an engine that does not have to meet pollution standards, go with lean burn instead of EGR.
Both lean burn and EGR get their improvement the same way, they add extra gas to the intake manifold.
In EGR this extra gas is nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water in the form of steam, plus some soot that may partially contaminate the engine oil over time.
In Lean Burn this extra gas is nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor. There is no soot to dirty the oil.
With lean burn the intake temperatures stay lower and the extra oxygen can combust a bit more fuel too.
EGR in the Magnums comes right off the passenger side exhaust manifold and is hot.
The cooler the EGR
the less it lowers available Torque.
The Toyota 4.6 V8 uses cooler EGR.
Many new diesels use cooled EGR.
I have thought of modifying my EGR by disconnecting from the exhaust manifold,
and running a Cunifer half inch diameter line to back behind both the cat and muffler where the exhaust gas has expanded and cooled.
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: 360view]
#1382273
02/08/13 11:23 PM
02/08/13 11:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
If you had to have EGR then the best place to get it would be after the cat so it has less soot and the long tube could cool it some and if you wanted it even cooler you could run it through a Durango PS cooler (made of steel). I am still not convinced that slowing the burn is good for MPG.
Leaning the mix actually helps it burn faster and hotter just like when you turn up the oxygen in a cutting torch. It allows a later ignition point that helps reduce negative TQ on the piston. It also serves to reduce vaccume in the intake and reduce negative pressure fighting the piston.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: hooziewhatsit]
#1382276
02/10/13 06:36 PM
02/10/13 06:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
When pushing the limits of lean you need to mix the fuel very good and it needs to be very precisely controlled (or keep the fuel stratified near the plug)as a little too lean and you can melt stuff or cause misfires. It also can be a little harder to light it off so a hotter ignition system helps. The factory lean burn system was fine while it worked, the problem was the system it self was not so reliable and would sometimes run too lean or not run at all. Also for good operation at the lean limit you need to have very precisely controlled fuel distribution.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 96 ram fuel mileage
[Re: 360view]
#1382277
02/11/13 10:59 AM
02/11/13 10:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
a few links for more reading on Lean Burn an article laying out the potential and history: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=221888...... Operating gasoline aircraft engines "Lean of Peak Temperature of Exhaust Gas" is common to save fuel and there are schools that instruct about how to do it, and companies that will sell customized fuel injectors sized for each individual cylinder of specific engines to match the typical air flow variation of that engine's intake manifold runners: http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/are_you_wasting_avgas_196816-1.htmlsample quote Here are some numbers. Our turbocharged Mooney 231 burns about 13.5 GPH in the mid-teens to fly at a true airspeed of about 165 knots, leaned rich-of-peak. Operated lean-of-peak TIT, the airspeed drops 10 knots to about 155 knots or a little less, on a fuel flow of 9 GPH. The rich setting delivers about 12 Nautical Miles Per Gallon, the lean setting about 17 NMPG, a 42-percent improvement in economy. Looked at another way, flying lean-of-peak EGTs is like having not quite half again as much fuel capacity without paying for it. end quote --------- The Chrysler Lean Burn system patent 4,104,998 from Aug 8 1978 by inventor Gordon W Fenn as assigned to Chrysler: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4104998.htmlNote that this system lists air to fuel ratios of 17 to 18. Advise that you skip down to 'Background of the Invention' and then look at the images. The last of the drawings show graphs of how they were adjusting ignition timing based on rpm, throttle, air temperature, coolant temperature, and so forth. Lack of an oxygen sensor hurt this Chrysler old time system, as did lack of electronic component reliability, and clear and easy to understand official FSM instructions about how to troubleshoot the system parts with a volt-ohm meter... no digital trouble codes could be spit out by the primitive computer back then.
|
|
|
|
|
