Gas mileage

[6of36]

I didn't buy my truck for it's fuel mileage, and definitely don't expect 20+ mpg, especially with all the modifications I have done, very few of which would even possibly help. But I do track mileage.

Same. I keep track of mileage, but I'm not disappointed at all.

 

[Darksteel165]

Yeah that "fact" your talking about isnt a fact bud. Its an estimate and if you were as smart as you talked you would know that window stickers are NOT 100% accurate. IN FACT... engineers have tested time and time again and realized (depending the brand vehicle).... its anywhere from 6-12% HIGHER than what is reality MPG. Some may be closer than the others. HOWEVER it all depends on "attitude". there is SO MANY variables as im sure you know that can decrease that ESTIMATE even lower.

Show me a single window sticker that is as grossly differnet as Ram is.
Your Camry was spot on, you said 36 mpg, and it said 26-39.
My Ram says 18-22 and it gets neither.

The mileage on the sticker, is for the model, not the specific truck. Right off the bat, the 3.92 loses 18% from the 3.21. Add more heavy options, lower farther.

Different trims can get differnet EPA ratings on the window sticker, it's not an uncommon sight.
The range should be for any of the options for Ram should prob be like 14-22 mpg

 

[6of36]

Show me a single window sticker that is as grossly differnet as Ram is.
Your Camry was spot on, you said 36 mpg, and it said 26-39.
My Ram says 18-22 and it gets neither.


Different trims can get differnet EPA ratings on the window sticker, it's not an uncommon sight.
The range should be for any of the options for Ram should prob be like 14-22 mpg

Google how the EPA rates vehicles. Their tests are nowhere near reality. But I didn't get a 3.92, because I don't tow more than 7,000 lbs., and I knew it would get 18% worse mileage. If you wanted mileage, you should have gotten a 3.21, unless you tow 10,000 lbs.

 

[Slutzk]

Why would you think everyone thinks like you?

Pretty stupid huh? like i said i genuinely didnt think so being that im "new" to trucks, compared to some of yall folks. i just figured you own a truck, is what it is.

I bought a truck to do truck things, like pull a trailer. I can't do that with a puddle jumper. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in getting decent fuel efficiency wherever possible though I don't obsess with it either.

Good for you man. no pavment princess in your drive way

 

[Slutzk]

I didn't buy my truck for it's fuel mileage, and definitely don't expect 20+ mpg, especially with all the modifications I have done, very few of which would even possibly help. But I do track mileage.

fair enough brother

 

[spyder]

There isn't.
The person I quoted said they didn't want an extra 2' behind them, and 6'4 is the biggest 1500 bed, but didn't have Ramboxes so i took the 5'7".
I would of taken an 8' bed on a 1500 in a heartbeat, I like driving boats.

I would have gone 1 ton Megacab if they made it with an 8' bed. I never had a problem parking my 8' bed truck or my Megacab.

 

[spyder]

Since i joined this forum not too long ago.... i seriously never realized how many people genuinely care about gas and milage. i legit never cared or even paid attention. i have the mentality that i seriously thought EVERYONE had which is... dude im driving a truck thats lifted with big tires what am i supposed to expect? 17mpg and 20mpg TO ME doesnt make much a difference nor do i care i just get in and drive. now the car i drive to work, it goes from my house to my job and thats it and THAT is where i pay attention b.c its a Toyota Camery and its traveling for work only and i get 36mpg. My truck... im not expecting that in no way. its just crazy to me that people actually do everything they possibly can with these heavy big trucks and try to squeeze 1 or 2 mpg then have the audacity to complain about it, or flood the internet asking questions as if there isnt already a million therads on this. Again just never realized it.

The difference in 17 and 20 mpg is a $264/month difference at current fuel prices, for the amount of driving I do. That's not insignificant.

If I only drove it on Sundays I wouldn't care at all. My Challenger gets less than 10 and my Bronco gets right at 10 and I don't complain one bit. But the fuel savings I get from getting just under 20 instead of the 14 I was getting from my Rebel is $600/month, which is $7200/year, which is an awful lot of elk hunts or a trip to Australia or, in 2 years, enough to put a 6.1 or 6.4 in the Challenger so I can make more power and get 20 mpg in it too. Numbers don't lie, but Ram does.

 

[Bt10]

I don’t… I don’t even know where to start with this one…

Guess I’m one of those non car people.

If you know what you're looking at, start here. You can use my last 4 credits of hptuners :

 

[CalvinC]

Is that an Impala SS running away from a Foxbody at the strip?

Hopefully I’m right in taking your point to be that you are indeed a car guy who’s tuned their own vehicle, just as I have done for 2 of my own vehicles as well.

But that further confuses me… you’d know?

I’ll grant folks that say higher octanes than tuned for gives you nothing (measurable), but I can’t get on board with losses. Not on a mass production engine.

If you’re not advancing the spark and adjusting the tables for higher octane, all you’re loosing is money.

 

[Jako]

Technically, 91-93 octane on an 89 tune will have less power because of the delay to ignition advance. What these non car people feel as smoother running is actually the less "rowdy", less than fully capable, power reduction.

From a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT, 3rd & 5th diamond.

 

[CalvinC]

Automakers covering their rears and doing the consumer no favors with mush mouth wording.

Between those 2 bullets they are saying you might wanna consider premium, but not too premium, or you could have issues.

Indeed, best not put high test 120 octane race juice in my 5.2 magnum.

 

[Wirerat]

The mileage on the sticker, is for the model, not the specific truck. Right off the bat, the 3.92 loses 18% from the 3.21. Add more heavy options, lower farther.

18% difference in gear is not equal to 18% difference in mpg. It's more complex than that.

 

[Darksteel165]

From a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT, 3rd & 5th diamond.
View attachment 169888

That was from the last generation of engine. The current 5.7 is from 2003 forward. They don't even recommend 87 anymore and recommend 89 octane for example.

 

[23RAM]

Google how the EPA rates vehicles. Their tests are nowhere near reality.

I find their tests are fairly accurate for the specific conditions they rate and they apply to my summer conditions. But it may not be the same conditions that you drive under.

I've compared all of my vehicles with highway runs and city driving and I'm able to match the EPA estimates without much trouble. For instance, I did a pure highway run to prove that it's possible to get over 21mpg cruising on the highway with 3.92 gears, and that exceeds my window sticker which is 21 on the highway (personal best was 23.6 but average is 21-22 in the summer). So RAM didn't lie or fudge the numbers. Window sticker says 15 in the city, and I get 17 in my area with few stops and stretches of 30-40mph zones. In Los Angeles traffic I'm sure I'd get 1-2mpg.

But I didn't get a 3.92, because I don't tow more than 7,000 lbs., and I knew it would get 18% worse mileage. If you wanted mileage, you should have gotten a 3.21, unless you tow 10,000 lbs.

I got the 3.92's specifically for frequent towing. While the axle ratio is shorter, it only looses about 1mpg on the highway as long as you keep it under 2,000rpm or about 68mph. If I run at 75+mph mileage drops like a stone due to VVT kicking in and I would get about 18% less mileage or 3-4mpg less. Up here the posted limit is 62mph so cruising at 65-68 works fine and I get decent mileage consistently.

 

[Idahoktm]

That was from the last generation of engine. The current 5.7 is from 2003 forward. They don't even recommend 87 anymore and recommend 89 octane for example.

89 is recommended for optimum performance and fuel economy. 87 is fine in most circumstances and it states so in the manual.

 

[23RAM]

89 is recommended for optimum performance and fuel economy. 87 is fine in most circumstances and it states so in the manual.

I concur...87 runs fine as stated and I've found no noticeable mileage difference running 89. If I was towing 10k every day, I'd run 89.

 

[GMetal]

I didn't buy my truck for the MPG except this thing called a Window sticker, it has words and statements that are provided as fact
I am lucky if I get 17 mpg on the highway when my truck was bone stock with EXACTLY what is listed on this document.
I just filled up and got mostly city miles this tank and I got 12.5mpg (I only care what highway miles show as there should be no variation on highway miles as there are no stoplights and I don't drive in traffic)
View attachment 169881

You say you have a Toyota Camry that gets 36 mpg?
Yes that checks out per the window sticker, there is no lying here just legit numbers that mean something.
How would you feel if you got 27 highway mpg when that sticker shows 39?
View attachment 169882

You have top read the fine print by your name where it uses terms like "estimate" and "standard trucks range from 14-27mpg" lol. They should have a range from driving like grandma to floor it at every light and remote start every time "estimates"

 

[Darksteel165]

89 is recommended for optimum performance and fuel economy. 87 is fine in most circumstances and it states so in the manual.

View attachment 169890

Did you not look at the picture I was quoting?
It recommended 87 and said to not use higher grades.
The picture you just posted clearly states 89 is recommended, confirming what I just said...

 

[Darksteel165]

You have top read the fine print by your name where it uses terms like "estimate" and "standard trucks range from 14-27mpg" lol. They should have a range from driving like grandma to floor it at every light and remote start every time "estimates"

It says other pickup trucks range from 14-27, not Ram.

 

[theblet]

Did you not look at the picture I was quoting?
It recommended 87 and said to not use higher grades.
The picture you just posted clearly states 89 is recommended, confirming what I just said...

Yup. its recommended for optimum performance and fuel economy, but is designed to work with 87.