Could the Ford Ranger EPA Fuel Mileage investigation also affect Ram?

[Chris]

This thread is really getting off topic; we already have a million “my mileage” threads and don’t need to rehash that.

Obviously, I can’t control what people post, but I was actually interested in everyone’s opinion on whether or not this investigation is a sign that more stringent investigation is to come for manufacturer reported mileage, and what it could mean for the etorque specifically since so many seem to indicate that the mileage difference between the etorque and non-etorque is trivial, in stark contrast to the 10-15% improved mileage numbers reported by Ram.

Personally, I think that if the EPA determines that the numbers of the Ranger were fraudulently reported to consumers and that leads to some settlement or refund for the current buyers (not sure what the ordering state of those Rangers are, but I can see all non-refundable order deposits suddenly becoming refundable), I can see the etorque owners also getting a partial refund of the cost difference (say 50%, since etorque does more then just improve mileage) between an etorque and non-etorque (assuming an investigation determines the etorque does not provide the claimed mileage improvement).

 

[j517]

I hope they check ram

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

 

[Truckin]

I average 18 combined city/highway. I don’t know how people get these crazy low numbers.

Heavy feet, oversize tires, lift/level kits...Just like me.

 

[CouchAssault]

This thread is really getting off topic; we already have a million “my mileage” threads and don’t need to rehash that.

Obviously, I can’t control what people post, but I was actually interested in everyone’s opinion on whether or not this investigation is a sign that more stringent investigation is to come for manufacturer reported mileage, and what it could mean for the etorque specifically since so many seem to indicate that the mileage difference between the etorque and non-etorque is trivial, in stark contrast to the 10-15% improved mileage numbers reported by Ram.

Personally, I think that if the EPA determines that the numbers of the Ranger were fraudulently reported to consumers and that leads to some settlement or refund for the current buyers (not sure what the ordering state of those Rangers are, but I can see all non-refundable order deposits suddenly becoming refundable), I can see the etorque owners also getting a partial refund of the cost difference (say 50%, since etorque does more then just improve mileage) between an etorque and non-etorque (assuming an investigation determines the etorque does not provide the claimed mileage improvement).

the ford fusion hybrid took a lot of heat for owners not being able to attain epa mileage. i'd imagine that's why ford has hired a outside firm to investigate the ranger. also why the raptor got its own MPG rating. they don't want to be associated with incorrectly rated vehicles.

my post about me getting an update on every dealer visit was more to show ram is trying to fix the e-torque mpg issue. i would think multiple updates would mean they're making progress on the tuning? i just hope they don't do something that hurts performance for the sake of .5 mpg gain

Also, i had a 2011 f150 ecoboost(first model year of the ecoboost), which also has similar MPG complaints. Although they were mostly centered around towing. Ford must have had 10 programming updates for that thing, similar to what ram's doing right now.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

I do remote start in the winter but that shouldn't affect it too much. I heard 1.7 ounces of fuel every 90 seconds at idle in these trucks.

A cold motor runs rich by design and uses more fuel. I read the same thing you did as quoted with eTorque start/stop fuel savings. That's for an engine at operating temperature.

Idle is the least efficient the motor will operate. The throttle plate chokes the motor down to idle and draws maximum vacuum while performing no useful work other than accessories. MPG is ZERO!

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

I'm getting 17 combined. 200 Miles so far. Built 4 weeks ago. Hemi, No eTorque.
I wonder if FCA is going to release a SW update for the eTorque, maybe it's charging all the time.

That said, I LOVE the super-responsiveness from the gas peddle. Never have to floor it to kick ***, and ask questions later. FCA NEVER change this. It's a Hemi.

I HATE the other brands that treat you like an idiot and retard/slow the gas paddle input response to save fuel, and you have to floor it every time you get in those trucks. Ridiculous.

Maybe RAM could add an Eco mode button to slow everything up...but come on we might use it once a year.

If you think the stock throttle is snappy, you would think the Pulsar tuning module is insane on the two higher levels. It also has an economy mode that really detunes the throttle response just like you mentioned.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

Heavy feet, oversize tires, lift/level kits...Just like me.

And people who don't want to take responsibility for their driving habits. Mine gets close to the EPA rating when I drive it accordingly. I have the heaviest truck available with 3.92 axle.

 

[Chris]

the ford fusion hybrid took a lot of heat for owners not being able to attain epa mileage. i'd imagine that's why ford has hired a outside firm to investigate the ranger. also why the raptor got its own MPG rating. they don't want to be associated with incorrectly rated vehicles.

If that was the reason, then Ford would have hired the firm and gotten the data BEFORE publishing the numbers; not only is it expensive to perform a suite of tests to get the necessary data to submit a rating to the EPA and then turn around and perform a second test with data for a revised rating, but it is terrible publicity for the company. This investigation is not something Ford is doing just to give better data; something instigated them into NEEDING to lose the profits on the R&D for the second study, and I heard rumors that it was a whistleblower inside Ford that reported fraud to the EPA that is causing this (though I haven't seen proof of that yet).

my post about me getting an update on every dealer visit was more to show ram is trying to fix the e-torque mpg issue. i would think multiple updates would mean they're making progress on the tuning? i just hope they don't do something that hurts performance for the sake of .5 mpg gain

That would be fine if they were trying to improve on a lower mpg which was already reflected on the sticker; however, if it turns out the sticker is not correct and it is discovered that Ram purposely submitted bad or manipulated data to get the numbers, then no amount of retuning will change the fact that they at best mismarketed vehicles and at worst committed fraud.

I will be very interested in how the Ford story plays out and reverberates to the rest of the industry, just like how the VW Diesel fraud story came back around and directly hit Ram. It likely would be as bad since no environmental concerns and regulations are at play, but still has many consumer ramifications. I believe Ecodiesel owners got $3k refunded in the settlement; if fraud is proven (will likely take a few years and court battles even if it is discovered and proven tomorrow), I can see eTorque owners getting a nice $1k back in a settlement.

 

[blownout1500]

And people who don't want to take responsibility for their driving habits. Mine gets close to the EPA rating when I drive it accordingly. I have the heaviest truck available with 3.92 axle.

Leveled on 35s I got 15.5mpg highway on a recent 300mi road trip. Driving the (cough) “speed limit”.

That’s with an uncalibrated speedo - by my math it’s actually 16.9mpg factoring in the circumference increase from
100.77” (stock 275/65r18) to 110.04” (35x12.5r18). Tires were at 45psi.

For my 300mi return trip I had the tires at 40psi and only got 13.5mpg, which is 14.7mpg calibrated. That was a pretty clear lesson.

I’m getting 10mpg uncalibrated pure city driving here in town (lead foot + big smile). Works out to 10.9mpg by my math. I’m not complaining.

3.92 gears / Crew cab long bed

 

[2wd]

Ram did not handle their EPA rating properly. I don't know the details on what's going on with the Ranger, but apparently GM did it correctly by rating their off road Rebel equivalents as separate trucks. Just like the Rebel, the AT4/TrailBoss have lift kits, heavier tires, removed air dams, etc, and get less MPG than their standard trucks. GM considered these different than their standard trucks and spent the time to rate them separately and get different MPG window stickers for these.

Ram likely used a lightly optioned Tradesmen/BigHorn in ideal conditions to get their MPG values and applied it to all trims (Rebels + standard trims with the Off-Road/North Packages that have heavier tires and lifts, etc).

The issue is not "It's a truck, you're not going to have great MPG." - it's that the MPG/window stickers are not accurate for Ram vs. other truck makers.

 

[SCasey89]

Ram did not handle their EPA rating properly. I don't know the details on what's going on with the Ranger, but apparently GM did it correctly by rating their off road Rebel equivalents as separate trucks. Just like the Rebel, the AT4/TrailBoss have lift kits, heavier tires, removed air dams, etc, and get less MPG than their standard trucks. GM considered these different than their standard trucks and spent the time to rate them separately and get different MPG window stickers for these.

Ram likely used a lightly optioned Tradesmen/BigHorn in ideal conditions to get their MPG values and applied it to all trims (Rebels + standard trims with the Off-Road/North Packages that have heavier tires and lifts, etc).

The issue is not "It's a truck, you're not going to have great MPG." - it's that the MPG/window stickers are not accurate for Ram vs. other truck makers.

This was covered well in this recent TFL Truck video,

 

[19RamLimited]

Fuel mileage in the auto industry is what fast food commercials are to the food industry. You see a great looking hamburger on tv and it is hot and steaming and the veggies are fresh and you go get one and its nothing like the commercial. Its not just RAM its all brands and it should not be allowed.

 

[cmdr bobert]

Fuel mileage in the auto industry is what fast food commercials are to the food industry. You see a great looking hamburger on tv and it is hot and steaming and the veggies are fresh and you go get one and its nothing like the commercial. Its not just RAM its all brands and it should not be allowed.

Agreed, to a point. The problem becomes when you add a $1500 hybrid option you most definitely are going to have heightened expectations from consumers, particularly when you market this engine as a traditional fuel saving eco friendly option.

There should be a very clear and higher fuel economy for this hybrid system and it seems to be falling short regardless of the options and model of 1500 to which it is equipped.

So tl;dr Ram is asking for it in this instance.

 

[19RamLimited]

Agreed, to a point. The problem becomes when you add a $1500 hybrid option you most definitely are going to have heightened expectations from consumers, particularly when you market this engine as a traditional fuel saving eco friendly option.

There should be a very clear and higher fuel economy for this hybrid system and it seems to be falling short regardless of the options and model of 1500 to which it is equipped.

So tl;dr Ram is asking for it in this instance.

I agree.

My 2013 gets the same mileage as my 19. 12-13.5 MPG. I even tried my hardest a few days to get better and could not in my 19. My 13 is a 6 speed. Im just glad I got a 33 gallon on the 19 and a 32 on the 13. Its disappointing but I don't know that I really expected any better. Same engine and expect better results? I just cant seem to think there would be.

I do not feel that it benefits the consumer to be deceived. I feel it is false advertising and a blatant lie. If there is something advertised I shouldn't have to do a special cheat code to get what is advertised. The vehicle should be driven month or two by a real person and what they get is what they get and that should be what is on the sticker. Those that rely on or take the fuel mileage into consideration when buying its not fair to those people. Not all buyers are savvy and do a ton of research they take for granted companies aren't allowed to deceive the consumer.

 

[HeliPilot]

Ive had just about every make and model truck over the past few decades. 100% of them never got the advertised fuel mileage. So, Avg 15-16 mpg in this new limited is actually better than I expected.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

Tires were at 45psi.

For my 300mi return trip I had the tires at 40psi and only got 13.5mpg, which is 14.7mpg calibrated. That was a pretty clear lesson.

Yes. I have the ORG which comes with AT tires. Falken WILDPEAK A/T3WA. I'm running 45 Front, 41 Rear. Max rated PSI is 51.

I've noticed a difference in mpg when I was running 38 Front, 36 Rear. Rolling resistance on a heavy truck matters.

 

[Volkster]

I’m at 12.0-12.2 combined


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same for me after 900 miles. No etorque though but still

 

[NordicNevs]

Same for me after 900 miles. No etorque though but still

Same brother. No e-torque here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

You can go to the Vehicle Info display on the dash and page over to screen that displays total engine run time hours. Divide total miles by running hours to get the average speed traveled. If the result is below 25 or so, that typically indicates a lot of idling, or city driving, or lower speeds for whatever reason. It's just one indicator of driving style. Generally, the lower the average speed, the worse the economy.

 

[rhill]

The problem with TFL running a 98 mile loop at 70 mph to see what highway mpg is, it is not how the EPA rates the highway mileage. This is ok for real world testing, but won't match EPA numbers.