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

[Chris]

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.

EPA doesn’t rate them; RAM submits the data to the EPA, which is then either approved or not (which leads to other things, such as requesting further data).

You are correct in that it isn’t the way the EPA data is generated; but, as appears to be the case with Ford, that submitted data can still be manipulated to get EPA approval when it may not meet the intent of the EPA rating.

As you are likely aware, the federally regulated EPA ratings came about to combat the deceptive advertised mileage claimed by manufacturers. Since then, it is also used to determine if the manufacturers are meeting federally mandated minimum mileage requirements to avoid fees and other additional activities. If it turns out the manufacturers found a loophole to manipulate those ratings, or worse, outright lie about them (like diesel emissions defeating software), the EPA is not going to be happy.

 

[JDBob35a]

Non-ETorque here but my mileage is getting better. I started off pretty rough. Still not seeing the ECO light very often.

 

[Rustydodge]

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-investigating-possible-issue-fuel-economy-testing/

Ford is reportedly reviewing how it calculates "road load" which is apparently derived from coastdown testing. This is important because that calculation would directly be used during the dynamometer MPG testing. It could have some wide range implications, if all ecoboost engines or trucks have an issue. Likely it is just Ranger though.

EPA ratings are based on 5 different drive cycles. Unsure how each are weighted as EPA isn't clear, but hwy MPG is now "primarily" derived from a 'high speed" US06 supplemental drive cycle (80 MPH max, 48 MPG avg, only 8 miles long). The combined figure is weighted 55% hwy, 45% city. The charts were provided on the "horrible etorque MPG" thread

I doubt this will have any impact on Ram.

3rd gen rams averaged 13ish real world. Switch to 4th and MDS gained about 1 MPG. 4th gen refresh going to ZF 8 speed gained about another 1 MPG getting Ram to mid 15 MPG. I do not believe the 5th gen changes will result in much real world improvement. The weight savings are typically offset by the additional features, options, nicer interior, physically larger truck, etc.

Etorque was advertised as a 10% MPG gain if i recall correctly. EPA results for 4wd showed 13.3%+ for city, +12% combined, and +5% hwy. That is actually pretty strange, since EPA combined figure is weighted more towards the hwy test cycles.

Real world so far, etorque looks to be at +4% with limited data. I think that makes a lot of sense, tracking the history on Fuelly.

Real world lifetime average MPG is going to vary from EPA for many reasons. As we have discussed, the ORG and Rebel were not grouped separately, so they received the same rating as standard 5.7 4wd trucks. This is different than the Ranger, IMO, as even the FX4 is not that much different from the standard EPA rated configuration.

More importantly, anyone who hand calculates their fuel mileage should expect 15-16 MPG average. The fuel you use, tires, lifts, winter, location, etc will all impact this. Your results will vary for many reasons.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

In the right hands, these trucks can achieve better mpg than most report. Most people are going to drive how they want...and then complain.

FCA should have rated vastly different trim and option levels separately. Nobody should expect a V8 3.92 axle 4WD CrewCab off-road equipped truck with larger AT tires to get 21 mpg. Not even close unless they live in flat country and learn to drive for economy (not fun).

 

[Rustydodge]

In the right hands, these trucks can achieve better mpg than most report. Most people are going to drive how they want...and then complain.

FCA should have rated vastly different trim and option levels separately. Nobody should expect a V8 3.92 axle 4WD CrewCab off-road equipped truck with larger AT tires to get 21 mpg. Not even close unless they live in flat country and learn to drive for economy (not fun).

I actually think most people report a higher number than they are actually getting, due to going off the computer instead of hand calculating. That said, I agree there are a few real world results showing Ram 5.7 4wd is capable of 20+ MPG so it is possible. Would be hard with a rebel.

I also agree they should have rated at least the Rebel differently.

Still wondering if ram is using different logic in the PCM for 5th gen MPG. My trip A is reset every fuel up while trip B is never reset. B is optimistic by over 10% (my 3rd gen was right on after 50k miles). Tip A does not drop much with warm up time either, unlike some 5th gen owners have reported. I have also found my mile counter is off relative to interstate mile markers. Truck thinks i'm traveling fewer miles than the mile markers indicate. I have 275/60R20 tires (stock size) so you would think it would be right on.

 

[rhill]

EPA doesn’t rate them; RAM submits the data to the EPA, which is then either approved or not (which leads to other things, such as requesting further data).

You are correct in that it isn’t the way the EPA data is generated; but, as appears to be the case with Ford, that submitted data can still be manipulated to get EPA approval when it may not meet the intent of the EPA rating.

As you are likely aware, the federally regulated EPA ratings came about to combat the deceptive advertised mileage claimed by manufacturers. Since then, it is also used to determine if the manufacturers are meeting federally mandated minimum mileage requirements to avoid fees and other additional activities. If it turns out the manufacturers found a loophole to manipulate those ratings, or worse, outright lie about them (like diesel emissions defeating software), the EPA is not going to be happy.

Yes, I am aware that EPA doesn't actually do the testing, although they can if they want to, if they feel it is necessary to verify. Manufacturers are given strict guidelines to follow under severe financial penalties if they don't. Should have said EPA certifies their result.

 

[rhill]

I actually think most people report a higher number than they are actually getting, due to going off the computer instead of hand calculating. That said, I agree there are a few real world results showing Ram 5.7 4wd is capable of 20+ MPG so it is possible. Would be hard with a rebel.

I also agree they should have rated at least the Rebel differently.

Still wondering if ram is using different logic in the PCM for 5th gen MPG. My trip A is reset every fuel up while trip B is never reset. B is optimistic by over 10% (my 3rd gen was right on after 50k miles). Tip A does not drop much with warm up time either, unlike some 5th gen owners have reported. I have also found my mile counter is off relative to interstate mile markers. Truck thinks i'm traveling fewer miles than the mile markers indicate. I have 275/60R20 tires (stock size) so you would think it would be right on.

I noticed on TFL truck video that the trip meter was showing 96.6 miles, where they used a gps calculated fihgure of 98 miles. They didn't say anything about that. They showed the trip meter to show what the computer calculated for mpg, but didn't say anything about the distance actually showing less than the 98 miles they used in their calculation.

 

[rhill]

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.

The EPA requires that they must test the biggest seller in each subgroup, and can use that figure for all the other vehicles in that subgroup. They can't arbitrarily pick the model they think will be most efficient. At least by that reasoning, a majority of people will at least get a model that has been tested. The rest will not.

 

[Ortiz7983]

I’m at 8,000 miles. My truck shows 12.9-13.0 mpg. What the hell am i doing wrong? This is just to low. I’m not punching it all the time either. This is crazy. Maybe the remote start hurts it? But if it does, to bring it that low?

 

[CouchAssault]

I’m at 8,000 miles. My truck shows 12.9-13.0 mpg. What the hell am i doing wrong? This is just to low. I’m not punching it all the time either. This is crazy. Maybe the remote start hurts it? But if it does, to bring it that low?

the remote start KILLS mpg. i'm not sure if the truck's mpg display is accurate or not when remote starting.

 

[Ortiz7983]

the remote start KILLS mpg. i'm not sure if the truck's mpg display is accurate or not when remote starting.

Oh well. It is what it is. Either way, I drive about 55-65 miles a day. With traffic on the way back home. I still get through the week with a full tank of gas and sometimes takes me through the weekend. Works for me. What I’m going to do is post the a video of the ECO light when it comes on and off. I feel like if I step on it every lightly, the ECO light shouldn’t turn off. But I’ll let you guys decide if it’s normal or not.

 

[Rustydodge]

Oh well. It is what it is. Either way, I drive about 55-65 miles a day. With traffic on the way back home. I still get through the week with a full tank of gas and sometimes takes me through the weekend. Works for me. What I’m going to do is post the a video of the ECO light when it comes on and off. I feel like if I step on it every lightly, the ECO light shouldn’t turn off. But I’ll let you guys decide if it’s normal or not.

It is normal for eco to turn off with very slight throttle when traveling over 55. Especially with even minor cross winds or head winds. At 65, with 0 wind, my eco doesn't turn on unless going flat or downhill. I typically drive with MDS/eco disabled though, because i hate how it sounds/feels under 45 MPH.

 

[Hlpyhlperton]

I have an e torque limited and I am getting 11.6 mpg. I can't imagine the e torque is saving me 2mpg, which makes me wonder why I paid extra for it.

 

[Rustydodge]

I have an e torque limited and I am getting 11.6 mpg. I can't imagine the e torque is saving me 2mpg, which makes me wonder why I paid extra for it.

Welcome to the forum.

I would encourage you to read the etorque operating parameters so you can better understand what and when FE improvements can be expected from the system. In common real world scenarios, no more than 10% improvement should be expected IMO despite the 13% city improvement shown by the EPA rating. In other scenarios, 0 improvement should be expected.

I would also encourage providing additional details either regarding your truck or your operational parameters. Otherwise you wont be able to get beneficial feedback.

 

[glenB]

EPA isn't investigating anything, Ford is

 

[rhill]

EPA isn't investigating anything, Ford is

Correct!

 

[RamRiderLTD]

Well I got 17.8 MPG on a highway trip on level ground. Hand calculated. Still not great but better then what I was getting. I have the 3.21 rear and I used my cruise control 90% of the time.

 

[duke2001]

Well I got 17.8 MPG on a highway trip on level ground. Hand calculated. Still not great but better then what I was getting. I have the 3.21 rear and I used my cruise control 90% of the time.

What kind of speeds were you maintaining?

 

[Dusty1948]

In the right hands, these trucks can achieve better mpg than most report. Most people are going to drive how they want...and then complain.

FCA should have rated vastly different trim and option levels separately. Nobody should expect a V8 3.92 axle 4WD CrewCab off-road equipped truck with larger AT tires to get 21 mpg. Not even close unless they live in flat country and learn to drive for economy (not fun).

Let's be honest here. Driving style and terrain are the primary variables in determining fuel consumption. I've know people that complain about the Ford EcoBoost 3.5 motors being terrible on fuel, yet others have no issue. It's human nature to blame something other than ourselves. From my observation there's a lot of testosterone pushing down on the accelerator pedals for a lot of people. My gas mileage definitely improved with age...my age.

Best regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 010807 miles.

 

[RamRiderLTD]

What kind of speeds were you maintaining?

Adaptive Cruise set between 75-79. Traffic was decent so for the most part I maintained speed.