Here ya go:
http://www.turbodieselregister.com/f...d.php?t=137555
http://www.turbodieselregister.com/f...d.php?t=133841

Compare those numbers to what guys are posting over at TheDieselPlace(GM) or TheDieselStop(Ford) and you will see they are very similar. I don't know what "secret paper" you have but its kind of hard to disprove what everyone is reporting for their "real world" numbers.

 

Although I obviously dont have the time DS has on his hands to dig up links, when i do get a minute Ill try and find the one im talking about.
The links you provided more or less reinforce my point, take a minute and average those numbers. Just as I said, under 2000 rpm, or 65 mph , CTD is putting down approx 19 mpg.
IN some cases more, in some cases less.

Show me a consensus of owners of ford or chevy getting those numbers. the V block is simply less efficient.
If you want to continue debating it fine, by the way , what do you drive? and how many of the 3 have you owned?

I have driven , owned , and worked on all 3. I chose to stick with the CTD because I drive a ton and while the others had there good features, highway milage wasnt one of them.
Oh and as for your guys with "real world " numbers, all I can say is sucks to be you, who knows , again maybe with your californy emissions?

 

I have a 2003 Ford F250 crew cab long bed with the 7.3L and on a recent trip to Myrtle Beach SC I got 16mpg. That was running cruise most of the way in SC at 85mph on interstate and above 2000rpm. I was happy with that. I hate SC roads but you can really get-r-done compared to NC.

 

This is kind of off topic, but these emissions guidelines are getting stupid. My neighbor works for Freightliner and they are pretty much having to completely redesign their trucks to fit in cadillatic converters. He had to go to a two week workshop thing just to learn the differences between the current generation trucks and the next generation trucks.