Got tips for better MPG's from LDT motors?

[Tinwoodsman]

I would put more that pennies in that jar!!!!

 

[Flyingvan911]

My LDS got about 8.5 on the way down to the Oklahoma Rally this past weekend. I think it did a little better (just a tad) on the way back. I ran 50-55 and had the tarp on. I was burning 100% diesel plus a few quarts of motor oil for the IP.

 

[doghead]

Just for reference

 

[m-35tom]

with the od gears i got the best mpg at 55, 12 i think i remember, and around 10 at 60 mph. it really is a matter of rpm and the very poor efficienty of this really old design engine.

tom

 

[JasonS]

The high compression ratio loses more in friction and cylinder leakage losses than it gains.

 

[oddshot]

If you don't go off road, I'd get a set of de-splined hubs for the front, less stuff to turn.

Any idea who is selling hubs these days? ... I have a lathe and etc.

Any idea who is selling de-splined hubs ready to go these days?


I got to replace the boots and etc on the fronts ... might as well do it all at the same time.

oddshot

 

[gimpyrobb]

I would check with George at White Owl Truck Parts for a set of hubs you might be able to de-spline. I got mine from some OLD GUY at a rally.













J/K DH, don't kill me!

 

[Rolling_Eudaimonia]

Just for reference

Yes, the LDT should only make 130hp-- however, most trucks have been rebuilt with LDS 1A injector pumps. So all one needs to get 175-185hp are the bigger 2-hole injectors. Once you get those balanced and tuned I would not be surprised to find the engine making 190hp.

 

[Westech]

My first deuce with 11:00 I would get a solid 12 MPG.
I adjusted the valves once a year, kept all the filters changed and all the fluids topped off and clean.

The deuce I have now I see a good 8-9 MPG and that has been while towing my camper of Death.
I do have lockouts in the front and running 30W in the trans.
I will be switching to lighter oils in the differentials and transfercase as needed.
I have NOT adjusted my valves yet but will be doing so in a month or so.

The multi fuel is not a inefficient engine. In-fact it is relatively efficient engine. At idle the engine will use around 1/2 a gallon a hour or less to idle (about the same as my Dmax engine) and propel 15-20K pounds the road at 50-55 MPH at 9 ish MPG.
A over the road tractor at 60K will pull 5-6 MPG and 80K 4-5. So the deuce is really not all that out of line for what it is doing.
Most full size gas trucks get in the low to mid teens in MPG and they weigh under 8K pounds!
For what your moving I think a deuce is just fine.

 

[BadMastard]

I drove a 70 m109a3 ldt whistler to Seattle from Salt Lake City. When I started the trip, I was running about 8mpg. The further I went, the better the mileage got. By trips end I was at 10 mpg, and I'm running singled out 11's all around. My two cents was the motor just gets better as you run it more. But that may be a very biased opinion, as I love driving my truck!

 

[AMX]

I drove my M35a3 over 300 miles at 50-55mph, averaged 11mpg. I was pleased.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

I can get my deuce 500 miles on 7 gallons of fuel... so that makes it... 71.4MPG!!!!

It just depends on how you move it!

I can't find my pictures of deuces on flatcars, had to use the TM drawing

 

[JasonS]

The multi fuel is not a inefficient engine. In-fact it is relatively efficient engine. .

LOL. I guess it depends on what you consider efficient. Let's put some numbers to this and settle it once and for all:

The 5.9 cummins with VP44 IP has a minimum BSFC of 0.334 lb/BHP-HR at 2000 rpm. HP at this speed is 175.

The LDS-465 has a minimum BSFC of 0.4 lb/BHP-HR at 2000 rpm. HP at this speed is 167 HP.

 

[doghead]

LOL. I guess it depends on what you consider efficient. Let's put some numbers to this and settle it once and for all:

The 5.9 cummins with VP44 IP has a minimum BSFC of 0.334 lb/BHP-HR at 2000 rpm. HP at this speed is 175.

The LDS-465 has a minimum BSFC of 0.4 lb/BHP-HR at 2000 rpm. HP at this speed is 167 HP.

OK, for us idiots, which one is better?

 

[JasonS]

OK, for us idiots, which one is better?

The one which uses the lowest amount of fuel per horsepower, the Cummins.

I don't understand the resistance to accepting the multi for what it it; a cheap and reasonably reliable engine. It isn't like it's your wife and you have to lie about how she looks, LOL.

 

[doghead]

So, your saying that because the Cummins 5.9 uses .066 lbs of fuel per hour less than the LDT and it makes 8hp more, thats better? Sure don't sound like much. Considering the going rate(price) of a used motor($500-700 LDT or $1000-3500 5.9), I think you get more bang for the buck with the LDT and get very close power and performance.

 

[Westech]

See I told you!

 

[JasonS]

So, your saying that because the Cummins 5.9 uses .066 lbs of fuel per hour less than the LDT and it makes 8hp more, thats better? Sure don't sound like much. Considering the going rate(price) of a used motor($500-700 LDT or $1000-3500 5.9), I think you get more bang for the buck with the LDT and get very close power and performance.

Where did I say one was better? The discussion was efficiency; not which one is better. Didn't I state that the multi was a "cheap and reasonably reliable" engine?

 

[doghead]

I used the term better, in place of efficient. I thought that is what you were leading toward. I guess I misunderstood your post. Thats why I asked for clarification for us dummies(me).

Personally, I'm shocked how close they are.

 

[JasonS]

Honestly, am disssapointed in the 5.9 cummins in my dodge to the point of getting rid of it. The only good thing about the VP44 IP is that it is easy to replace.