Here are the 2019 Ram 1500 Hemi eTorque MPG numbers

[Jared B]

Yesterday we told you that the 2019 Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi with mild hybrid eTorque system has entered production. Later on in the day some of our forummembers did some digging around and found some window stickers for a few trucks that have been produced. It appears that the crew cab 4×4 with the 5.7 Hemi is rated at 17 MPG city, 22 MPG highway and 19 MPG combined. That makes the new eTorque Hemi the most fuel efficient V8 pickup in its class. The eTorque Hemi bests the non eTorque equipped truck by 2 MPG city, 1 MPG highway and 2 MPG combined. On top of the fuel efficiency savings the eTorque equipped truck is also availabile to provide up to 130ft lbs of launch torque over the non eTorque equipped version.

2019 Ram 1500 with eTorque Hemi window sticker​

​

5thGenRams will be driving an eTorque equipped truck as soon as possible and will provide a full review.

Thanks to our forum members that dug this information up!

 

[ryelinek]

That’s awesome to hear the numbers are out. Also doesn’t make me regret just getting the standard Hemi. Although the numbers are better it’s not a huge difference to where I want to be a test for a 1st gen engine.

 

[alwi228]

Agree, I'm at peace with having the non etorque engine if we're just going off of MPG's, not a real game changer to me. I bet I'll be whining about my old engine when I feel the instant torque from the etorque for the first time. Excited for you guys that have one on order.

 

[devildodge]

Well, glad to see these numbers and can't wait to hear the reviews.

Now 22 mpg in a 4x4 truck, awesome.

Then the V6 eTorque will be better!

And we still have the HFE truck to be released...Can't wait to see chevy and ford try to beat that.

And then after all these fuel efficient trucks win their awards...

We get the TRX...great times

 

[Rustydodge]

Didn't expect the bump in highway but exactly what i was guessing for city. Please everyone log their miles on fuelly to give some real world data!

 

[cjgerson]

Didn't expect the bump in highway but exactly what i was guessing for city. Please everyone log their miles on fuelly to give some real world data!

Yeah I was guessing 18/21 with 19 combined.

A couple of factors that may have helped the highway would be the improved aerodynamics and possibly increased use MDS.

 

[alacombe]

Maybe I am wrong but 2mpg increase in MPG. That will barely even be noticeable.

 

[habu987]

Maybe I am wrong but 2mpg increase in MPG. That will barely even be noticeable.

It's a ~10% increase in fuel economy. If you put a lot of miles on, that's definitely noticeable, especially if you put on a lot of city miles.

 

[Rustydodge]

Lets compare it with the GM offering:

2018 (regular fuel)
5.3 V8 (355/383), 8 speed 4x4 = 15 city 20 hwy 17 comb
5.3 V8 eassist (+13/+44), 8speed 4x4 = 16 city 21 hwy 18 comb
5.3 V8 eassist 8 speed 4x2 = 18 city 24 hwy 20 comb

2019 (midgrade fuel)
5.7 V8 (395/410), 8 speed 4x4 = 15 city 21 hwy 17 comb
5.7 V8 etorque (+130), 8 speed 4x4 = 17 city 22 hwy 19 comb
5.7 V8 etorque 8 speed 4x2 = 17 city 23 hwy 19 comb

Nicely done Ram. They marketed 10% gain and city was 13.3% gain, hwy was 4.5%, and combined was 12%.

On fuelly 5.3 is mid 16s and hemi is mid 15s so take EPA ratings with a grain of salt.

Edit: added 4x2 numbers. Looks like Ram will have to specify 4x4 as "best in class"

 

[2019REBEL]

Those ratings are pretty close to my V6 in my 2014 so very good numbers. Can't wait to see the numbers for the V6 E-torque.

 

[Rustydodge]

Maybe I am wrong but 2mpg increase in MPG. That will barely even be noticeable.

A 10% MPG improvement for me would be $5 saved every fill up or close to $1000 over the last 4 years I've owned my current truck. So it adds up. To think about it this way, that savings would basically pay for replacement tires.

 

[19llhpb]

To me the MPG gain is not a major factor although it may be somewhat noticeable long term as some of you had mentioned. I’m sure the rather modest mpg gain is in the auto/start stop for city and the ability to hold cylinder deactivation longer on the highway because of the torque assist. My curiosity lies in the added torque itself. How will the torque feel at take off and in the low end rpm’s? Will this thing be a torque “monster” and will it lay you back in the seat so to speak at take off? To me the added torque when you need it is the benefit of this system, gaining a couple mpg’s would just be a positive side effect. If this works as claimed and is reliable, the extra $800 US or so would be well worth it. Can’t wait to drive one! Just my opinion

 

[VoiceOfReason]

I recall seeing a rumor about having eTorque as the only option in the future. I hope that is false. I see the usefulness in it for fuel economy and off the line torque for people who do a lot of towing. However, neither of those are things I would pay an extra $800 for as well as deal with the increase in complexity of such a system. When the warranty runs out, I want things to be as simple as possible and not get in the way of me performing a pulley swap to get more power out of the Hellcat in my Ram (when that is possible, of course).
I applaud the design and engineering teams for a job well done, but it is a feature I can do without and is just one more thing that can go wrong over time. If I were in a state of desperation about gas mileage (I probably wouldn't be buying a brand new truck and likely would not be forking an extra $800 to save money) or did a lot of towing to where the low end torque increase were useful, then that would be one thing, but that is not the case for me.
From a different perspective, see how they perform (as in sales) in the market place before issuing an edict shoving the things down everyone's throats whether they want it or not. Again - could be a junk rumor (don't recall where I saw that) - I certainly hope it is false.

 

[19llhpb]

I recall seeing a rumor about having eTorque as the only option in the future. I hope that is false. I see the usefulness in it for fuel economy and off the line torque for people who do a lot of towing. However, neither of those are things I would pay an extra $800 for as well as deal with the increase in complexity of such a system. When the warranty runs out, I want things to be as simple as possible and not get in the way of me performing a pulley swap to get more power out of the Hellcat in my Ram (when that is possible, of course).
I applaud the design and engineering teams for a job well done, but it is a feature I can do without and is just one more thing that can go wrong over time. If I were in a state of desperation about gas mileage (I probably wouldn't be buying a brand new truck and likely would not be forking an extra $800 to save money) or did a lot of towing to where the low end torque increase were useful, then that would be one thing, but that is not the case for me.
From a different perspective, see how they perform (as in sales) in the market place before issuing an edict shoving the things down everyone's throats whether they want it or not. Again - could be a junk rumor (don't recall where I saw that) - I certainly hope it is false.

Yes, I have posted that possibility in other threads along with other forum members. When I ordered a Longhorn on June 12 the dealer order would only allow for the e-torque. The standard Hemi was still shown as an option but it was “restricted” at that time and could not be selected. Rumors that the standard Hemi would not be available on higher trim levels again until January, if at all. I guess we will see!

 

[sportcoupe]

My 2017 Ram Rebel 5.7L 4wd is advertised as 21 mpg highway. Actual real world is 18 mpg at 70-75 mph most interstates are rated for. That's my experience. IMO FCA overrates these numbers.

 

[SpeedyV]

My 2017 Ram Rebel 5.7L 4wd is advertised as 21 mpg highway. Actual real world is 18 mpg at 70-75 mph most interstates are rated for. That's my experience. IMO FCA overrates these numbers.

FCA doesn't come up with those numbers. The EPA does.

 

[rvsixer]

My 2017 Ram Rebel 5.7L 4wd is advertised as 21 mpg highway. Actual real world is 18 mpg at 70-75 mph most interstates are rated for. That's my experience. IMO FCA overrates these numbers.

This is comparing apples to oranges;
1) FCA tests these vehicles per EPA test cycles, and then reports those results to EPA. If approved, FCA is required to report those numbers to consumers (real world or not).
2) The EPA test cycles are way different than your 70-75mph constant speed test cycle, so don’t result in the same mpg numbers.

 

[alacombe]

FCA doesn't come up with those numbers. The EPA does.

I think the FCA is reporting these numbers to the EPA. EPA does a "check up" on these numbers is they are skeptical hence the ecodiesel

 

[sportcoupe]

This is comparing apples to oranges;
1) FCA tests these vehicles per EPA test cycles, and then reports those results to EPA. If approved, FCA is required to report those numbers to consumers (real world or not).
2) The EPA test cycles are way different than your 70-75mph constant speed test cycle, so don’t result in the same mpg numbers.

Other vehicles I've owned hit the highway mpg number on interstates traveling steady 70-75 mph over distance. Only the Ram has not.

 

[rvsixer]

Other vehicles I've owned hit the highway mpg number on interstates traveling steady 70-75 mph over distance. Only the Ram has not.

That's awesome, I've only seen diesels reach or exceed EPA hwy rating but never had a gasser do it (EPA test leans towards slow hwy speeds and with mixed driving).

But still, there is no tie in with the earlier claim that real world non-EPA 70-75mph hwy mpg has any correlation to the (imo) non-real world EPA test cycle(s) mpg rating.