Horrific Gas Mileage Hemi eTorque

[ExcursionDiesel]

Huh? My 2019 gets better fuel mileage than the 2011.

Mine gets better mileage as well. The eTorque works best under certain driving conditions that some drivers avoid. Gradual stops using light braking, easy starts with shifts under 2k rpm...generally driving for better economy. There is no benefit for aggressive drivers.

 

[upstateram]

Won’t be trying 87, but I started out on 93 and have lost at least 1-2 mpg going to 89. I remain skeptical about this, since the truck is supposedly tuned for 89, but the math has been consistent across a few tanks now. Continuing to baby the truck and monitor results...

Going from, say, 15mpg average to 16.5mpg is a 10% improvement. Where I live, premium fuel is 23% more expensive. So from that perspective, the extra mpg's aren't worth the extra cost.

It's also worth mentioning that some (but definitely not all) stations are selling "pure" gasoline as the premium grade, unmixed with ethanol. It's certainly true of certain stations around here. There's just more energy in gasoline than in ethanol -- that could account for some of the difference you see, if indeed you are buying from stations that are selling pure gas at 93.

 

[SpeedyV]

Going from, say, 15mpg average to 16.5mpg is a 10% improvement. Where I live, premium fuel is 23% more expensive. So from that perspective, the extra mpg's aren't worth the extra cost.

It's also worth mentioning that some (but definitely not all) stations are selling "pure" gasoline as the premium grade, unmixed with ethanol. It's certainly true of certain stations around here. There's just more energy in gasoline than in ethanol -- that could account for some of the difference you see, if indeed you are buying from stations that are selling pure gas at 93.

It's possible, but I'm seeing the difference at the same station, where I would expect—but cannot confirm—that fuel mixes would be similar at different octane levels. Still keeping an open mind...

 

[Electrical]

Won’t be trying 87, but I started out on 93 and have lost at least 1-2 mpg going to 89. I remain skeptical about this, since the truck is supposedly tuned for 89, but the math has been consistent across a few tanks now. Continuing to baby the truck and monitor results...

We know the Hemi in the Ram is mapped quite a bit "hotter" than the Hemi in other vehicles. Ram Hemi is 395/410, everything else is 360/390.

Yet both recommended mid-grade.

I would not have anticipated it... but I would not be surprised if the Ram Hemi prefers higher octane.

 

[Zinger]

I did my first fill up today. 50/50 city/highway and hand calculated got 15.1 MPG. The computer said 15 MPG, dead-nuts accurate as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

I did my first fill up today. 50/50 city/highway and hand calculated got 15.1 MPG. The computer said 15 MPG, dead-nuts accurate as far as I'm concerned.

My experience as well. Pretty damn close.

 

[RamTruckMan]

We know the Hemi in the Ram is mapped quite a bit "hotter" than the Hemi in other vehicles. Ram Hemi is 395/410, everything else is 360/390.

Yet both recommended mid-grade.

I would not have anticipated it... but I would not be surprised if the Ram Hemi prefers higher octane.

I had a 2012 Ram 1500 Hemi and it also recommended 89.
On a separate point, to everyone who goes for 93, the manual actually says something like: getting any octane higher than 87 for the 6 cylinder won't yelled any better performance. For the Hemi it says 89 will provide optimal performance. So, 2 points: 1. Why the changeup in wording and possibly meaning? 2. Does 93 really do any better or are the driving habits of those using 93 just coincidentally better? Just some food for thought


2019 Ram 1500 Bighorn | 5.7L eTorque | 3.92 R.A.R.

 

[SpeedyV]

Does 93 really do any better or are the driving habits of those using 93 just coincidentally better?

More food for thought: What if it's the same person and they are absolutely babying the truck on 89 to try and get within 1-2 mpg of what they obtained running 93?!

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

Unless the Hemi is pulling timing due to the knock sensors, I doubt 93 helps. If the 93 is a different formulation with less ethanol, then it should yield better economy. I doubt the ECU will advance timing beyond what 89 can handle. A tuner can advance the timing and require higher octane.

 

[SpeedyV]

Unless the Hemi is pulling timing due to the knock sensors, I doubt 93 helps. If the 93 is a different formulation with less ethanol, then it should yield better economy. I doubt the ECU will advance timing beyond what 89 can handle. A tuner can advance the timing and require higher octane.

I agree...I'm just stating empirically that I haven't been able to match the mileage obtained on a few tankfuls of 93 with any of my tankfuls of 89 to date. It's difficult to nail down the reason why with so many variables (fuel source, ethanol content, weather conditions, driving patterns, engine PCM, engine tolerances, etc.). I'm giving it time to see if there continues to be a pattern, but I don't put that many miles on, so it's going to take a while.

 

[Electrical]

Bigger stat samples, Speedy.

One tank of 89 versus one tank of 93... questionable.

Five tank average of 89 versus five tank average of 93... more meaningful?

 

[SpeedyV]

Bigger stat samples, Speedy.

One tank of 89 versus one tank of 93... questionable.

Five tank average of 89 versus five tank average of 93... more meaningful?

I think it’s more like 5 and 3 or 4 right now.

 

[RamTruckMan]

Bigger stat samples, Speedy.

One tank of 89 versus one tank of 93... questionable.

Five tank average of 89 versus five tank average of 93... more meaningful?

Definitely more scientific but prolly unobtainable. I think most people who use 93 aren't willing to go down to 89 and not many more would be willing to go the other way... Unless it's one of the Texans who pay 5¢ a gallon anyway.
Oh! Side note, the manual also says anything less than 15% ethanol is OK so the Sheetz Peeps (see what I did there) with 88 at 15% are OK with the book.


2019 Ram 1500 Bighorn | 5.7L eTorque | 3.92 R.A.R.

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

Bigger stat samples, Speedy.

One tank of 89 versus one tank of 93... questionable.

Five tank average of 89 versus five tank average of 93... more meaningful?

I agree. Too many variables. Averaging over time or across a group is the only way. The only other way would be identical long trips under identical conditions except fuel octane.

 

[greatone99]

19 highway non e torque 2019 rebel ,392 gears , 490 miles , city is around 14-15 if I’m lucky

 

[OldSkull]

I’ve had the 3 TSB updates and I’m still getting 10-12 MPGs. I’m so disappointed with my 2019 Rebel... I regret getting the E-Torque. It’s a Crappy System. I see No gas savings.
I actually regret getting the truck.
What’s the point of E Torque? Other than being a pan in the A$$ when I park in the garage?
My 2017 Laramie and 2015 Rebel both got 17-23.
If I’m averaging 12 MPG on a good day...that means Pulling my Dads Boat and Camper will probably yield me around 6-8 MPGs. Which makes it practically Useless for pulling the camper on vacations.
Sorry for the rant... but being 10 MPG off the window sticker is complete BullSh!t.
$58,000 for a truck that I don’t want to drive more than a few miles a week. My dealer don’t know what to do either. How about they start issuing us Gas Cards or buy the trucks back?
Obviously there’s an underlying issue because lots of people are having issues.

 

[Rustydodge]

I’ve had the 3 TSB updates and I’m still getting 10-12 MPGs. I’m so disappointed with my 2019 Rebel... I regret getting the E-Torque. It’s a **** System. I see No gas savings.
I actually regret getting the truck.
My 2017 Laramie and 2015 Rebel both got 17-23.
If I’m averaging 12 MPG on a good day...that means Pulling my Dads Boat and Camper will probably yield me around 6 MPGs. Which means my truck is Useless for pulling the camper on vacations.

Any of those numbers confirmed with hand calculations?

My 4th gen is optimistic. I wonder if your 5th gen is pessimistic, or you computer is programmed to think you have a 32" standard tire, while you actually have the 33s. It would be bizarre to have dramatically less hand calculated MPG than your 4th gen rebel.

I've never reset my 4th gen MPG. it says i get closer to 17 while hand calculated average is 15. Only had my truck for 2500 miles though.

 

[Electrical]

Any of those numbers confirmed with hand calculations?

...

See post #105 here: https://5thgenrams.com/community/threads/etorque-issue.2375/page-6#post-76606

No answer... so, no.

 

[OldSkull]

My wife and I have both hand calculated it a few times now and it’s always pretty close. I average
9-12 MPGs. 12 on a good day. I use 89 and I’ve also tried to drive so conservatively that it’s no fun to drive the truck. I’ve tried Not using the E Torque also.
If I sit at idle for more than a minute in park my MPGs drop to the 8s
Honestly, I have a 1979 Trans Am with a 455 that gets better gas mileage.lol
I wish I would’ve kept my Laramie. These trucks are going to end up in a recall just like the 2008s-2012s.

 

[Luxy72462]

Ya. My mileage is about the same. 12 mpg average on a tank. My 15 Sport averaged around 17 mpg on most tanks. It was consistent on getting 21 mpg on long trips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk