Gas Milage Report

[mpurkey]

To add to the gas mileage debate/discussion I thought this may be of interest to some. I should note that my speed on highway is rarely above 70 mph and city driving is lots of red lights and stop and go



.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patsy1099]

That’s pretty much what I see from my rebel, 15-16 in mixed driving. 17-18 on longer trips if I’m not gassing it too much (and going downhill)

 

[Willwork4truck]

Seems fine for the Rebel. Heck, there’s regular Laramie‘s with 3.92‘s that are reporting worse with their fuelly Data.

 

[Mustangmike66]

This is what I’ve got thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SD Rebel]

That's actually excellent compared to what I'm seeing. But I live in a hilly place full of elevation changes even on city streets so my mpg is going to suck.

 

[Matthbert5150]

What app is this that you are using?

2019 Ram 1500 Laramie Rambox, 5.7l 4x4 3.92, Pano Sunroof, level 2 w/ 12", black appearance package, adv. Safety group, Power running boards, full ceramic tint
6" ProComp Stage 1 lift kit with 35x12.50r20 Nitto Ridge Grappler tires
20x10 - 24 fuel hostage wheels
Tazer DT, Lomax cover, Bed Rug.

*Future Mods"
Borla s-type exhaust, Mishimoto Catch Can

 

[SpeedyV]

What app is this that you are using?

2019 Ram 1500 Laramie Rambox, 5.7l 4x4 3.92, Pano Sunroof, level 2 w/ 12", black appearance package, adv. Safety group, Power running boards, full ceramic tint
6" ProComp Stage 1 lift kit with 35x12.50r20 Nitto Ridge Grappler tires
20x10 - 24 fuel hostage wheels
Tazer DT, Lomax cover, Bed Rug.

*Future Mods"
Borla s-type exhaust, Mishimoto Catch Can

Fuelly...see signature

 

[Matthbert5150]

Fuelly...see signature

Thank you

2019 Ram 1500 Laramie Rambox, 5.7l 4x4 3.92, Pano Sunroof, level 2 w/ 12", black appearance package, adv. Safety group, Power running boards, full ceramic tint
6" ProComp Stage 1 lift kit with 35x12.50r20 Nitto Ridge Grappler tires
20x10 - 24 fuel hostage wheels
Tazer DT, Lomax cover, Bed Rug.

*Future Mods"
Borla s-type exhaust, Mishimoto Catch Can

 

[Micko24]

I just filled my truck for the first time. 26 gallons.. trip computer says I avg 15mpg. Hand calculated it this morning and its at 16.1 mpg that’s with 438miles to date. I’m happy with it... I was so close on buying a 2020 tundra before this Rebel... glad I didn’t.

 

[Sullyman]

I like my 2019 1500 4WD Rebel 5.7 w/Etorque but I am disappointed with the gas mileage. I have owned it for several months now and have just turned over 2,000 miles. I came over to the Ram Rebel after owning several GMC 1500 4WD Sierras with 6.2L engines (latest was a 2018 that I traded in on the Rebel). Liked the looks and interior of the Rebel so decided to give it a try. I live where the Interstate speed limit is 80 mph. In the Sierras I would drive 80 mph on the Interstate and highway driving only (no city driving included) I would average 22 to 22.5 mpg. In the Rebel I drive 70 to 75 mph on the Interstate (rather than 80 mph) and only average 15.7 mpg highway driving. I have kept it under 80 mph because I suspected the mpg would probably go lower. I decide to drive 80 mph the other day on the Interstate and unfortunately as I suspected averaged only 13.2 mpg highway driving. I drove about 150 miles on the same route I have driven in the Sierras. I get that the Rebel and Sierra are two different trucks (both have their strong points) but a 9 mpg difference is a bit of a disappointment (22.5 mpg at 80 mph Sierra 6.2L vs 13.2 mpg at 80 mph Rebel 5.7L).

 

[Patsy1099]

You got 22.5 mpg in your Sierra doing 80mph? That’s incredible. I didn’t even think their posted hwy mpg was that high.

 

[ppowell1983]

I’ve not been the happiest with the MPG from my 2019 Ram Limited without eTorque. My 2018 Ram Rebel got similar if not 1-2mpg better on the highway than this truck. Both have 4x4, air suspension and 3.92 gears. It baffles me because i don’t drive them differently. But in the grand scheme of things I don’t care, this truck is so awesome.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edgarrian]

I figured Id throw in my .02 worth. I just got done driving from Watford City, ND to Darlington, IN. It was a 1387 mile trip. I did it in 3 days. I wasn't pressing for time as I was meeting my wife at her parents house in illinois. I had three days to get there. My trip went through the badlands of SD. It was I believe only 35 miles. Nice scenery. I saw some elk and bighorn ram. Anyway I hand calculated. My best was 18.5 for 300 miles. My worst was 15.1 for 180 miles. My overall was 16.6 for the trip. I did notice my onboard was showing 19.8MPG during my 18.5. I figured it was off. Not bad. Speed and weather of course have a lot to do with MPG.

 

[Neokane]

Went on my first major road trip..
From the Iowa to Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) .. pretty disappointed with overall MPG.
Total trip (minus last tank because I haven't fuel back up yet) was 1770 miles and used 113.47 gals of fuel for an average of 15.6 MPG.
I was running with the cruise set at around 77-79.
3.92 rear-end
Pretty sad actually. no where near the 21MPG highway or 17 combined

I will update when I fill up tomorrow.

 

[Willwork4truck]

Went on my first major road trip..
From the Iowa to Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) .. pretty disappointed with overall MPG.
Total trip (minus last tank because I haven't fuel back up yet) was 1770 miles and used 113.47 gals of fuel for an average of 15.6 MPG.
I was running with the cruise set at around 77-79.
3.92 rear-end
Pretty sad actually. no where near the 21MPG highway or 17 combined

I will update when I fill up tomorrow.

Thanks for the report, with details. It would be nice if long-term fuelly users with 3.92 would post up there averages in a thread devoted to that gearset.
Remember though, that's only a 32 gallon difference at 15mpg vs 22mpg ($80 give or take), and the benefits of the 3.92 in mts or towing/heavily laden are to be considered as well. It's a big spread between 3.21 and 3.92 for sure.
I think those who bought the 3.92 were right to do so, not many of us use a $60K truck to just get groceries. If you use your truck as a truck, 3.92 may well be the better choice.
Ford was right to offer a 3.55 and 3.73 in many of their F150's, we need that in-between gearing. Are you listening RAM?

 

[Konrad]

Went on my first major road trip..
From the Iowa to Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) .. pretty disappointed with overall MPG.
Total trip (minus last tank because I haven't fuel back up yet) was 1770 miles and used 113.47 gals of fuel for an average of 15.6 MPG.
I was running with the cruise set at around 77-79.
3.92 rear-end
Pretty sad actually. no where near the 21MPG highway or 17 combined

I will update when I fill up tomorrow.

I'm sorry, but what exactly were you expecting doing 80mph? I'd say 15.6 is decent at that speed. Aerodynamic drag is your big enemy with large vehicles and it grows almost exponentially with the speed, meaning every extra 10mph doubles the drag, so at 80 it's approximately 8 times higher than at EPA's highway testing speed of 50mph... Slow down by 15mph and your mpg will skyrocket. And you'll reach your destination only couple minutes later.

I have no problem keeping my mpg at 23ish doing 65 on the interstate.

People seem to have totally unreal expectations. It's a truck! It's not really designed for speed and it's not designed for fuel economy.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SColang22]

Thanks for the report, with details. It would be nice if long-term fuelly users with 3.92 would post up there averages in a thread devoted to that gearset.
Remember though, that's only a 32 gallon difference at 15mpg vs 22mpg ($80 give or take), and the benefits of the 3.92 in mts or towing/heavily laden are to be considered as well. It's a big spread between 3.21 and 3.92 for sure.
I think those who bought the 3.92 were right to do so, not many of us use a $60K truck to just get groceries. If you use your truck as a truck, 3.92 may well be the better choice.
Ford was right to offer a 3.55 and 3.73 in many of their F150's, we need that in-between gearing. Are you listening RAM?

I take a different view. I have a place in Utah and towing my boat (Nitro ZV21 about 7,500lbs) up and down the mountains with 3.21. 0 issues. Averaged 10mpg. To me if you are consistently pulling 10klbs+ with a 1500 you should have got a 2500. But to say getting a 3.21 is for getting groceries is far off. Ford also has a different transmission which is why their gearing is different. Shoot tundras got 4.10 in the rear but their tow rating is 9,500 cause of the 6 speed they run.

I've been averaging 18 MPG (60% highway) but on long trips doing 70-75 im getting 23mpg.

 

[Neokane]

I'm sorry, but what exactly were you expecting doing 80mph? I'd say 15.6 is decent at that speed. Aerodynamic drag is your big enemy with large vehicles and it grows almost exponentially with the speed, meaning every extra 10mph doubles the drag, so at 80 it's approximately 8 times higher than at EPA's highway testing speed of 50mph... Slow down by 15mph and your mpg will skyrocket. And you'll reach your destination only couple minutes later.

I have no problem keeping my mpg at 23ish doing 65 on the interstate.



People seem to have totally unreal expectations. It's a truck! It's not really designed for speed and it's not designed for fuel economy.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A few minutes later??
When you travel 800 miles one way, 80 vs 70 vs 60 - 10 hours vs 11.42 vs 13.33 hours..
also your 23MPG is with the 3.21 rear-end.

 

[Neokane]

I take a different view. I have a place in Utah and towing my boat (Nitro ZV21 about 7,500lbs) up and down the mountains with 3.21. 0 issues. Averaged 10mpg. To me if you are consistently pulling 10klbs+ with a 1500 you should have got a 2500. But to say getting a 3.21 is for getting groceries is far off. Ford also has a different transmission which is why their gearing is different. Shoot tundras got 4.10 in the rear but their tow rating is 9,500 cause of the 6 speed they run.

I've been averaging 18 MPG (60% highway) but on long trips doing 70-75 im getting 23mpg.

I had a tundra with the 4.10 rear-end and 5.7. I got better mpg driving to Montana. (17ish MPG) driving 80 mph.

 

[Willwork4truck]

I take a different view. I have a place in Utah and towing my boat (Nitro ZV21 about 7,500lbs) up and down the mountains with 3.21. 0 issues. Averaged 10mpg. To me if you are consistently pulling 10klbs+ with a 1500 you should have got a 2500. But to say getting a 3.21 is for getting groceries is far off. Ford also has a different transmission which is why their gearing is different. Shoot tundras got 4.10 in the rear but their tow rating is 9,500 cause of the 6 speed they run.

I've been averaging 18 MPG (60% highway) but on long trips doing 70-75 im getting 23mpg.

Understood that Fords 10 speed is different. I had the 6 speed F150 and the 3.55 was a good choice with the little 2.7 ecoboost. Some of their trims don't even offer the 2.7 or the 3.55 axle.

We are in the minority (probably) of grocery-getter truck users. It's what she wanted (DIL bought one too) so that's the gearing we looked for (3.21) as the 3.92 would have been a waste.

I would agree that those consistently pulling heavy should use a 250/2500 but many won't. They want their creature comforts and ride quality that the 150/1500's have more of. Maybe
Ford's new 7.3 gas will change some of the diesel crowd's minds, it would be closer to us having a 6.4 available in a 1500 for RAM (but there isn't).

I'm glad to hear that your 3.21 tows well and gets 10. That's a great indication that the gearing and available tq works well with the ZF 8 speed. Don't get me wrong, our 3.21 will do it, just likely locked out of 8th, which is really 7th in a 3.92.

I will stay out of the 3.92 vs 3.21 wars on the forum, my only real "beef" is that we should have had a choice of the 3.55. I'd have taken that with the hemi as a good compromise.
Choice is good, and ultimately you will make do with the truck you have.
Compared to my 77 GMC 1 ton with 210 hp small block 400, 3 speed auto and 4.10 gears, this is 10x the truck in all areas except payload.