Horrific Gas Mileage Hemi eTorque

[cruz-in]

TFL Trucks just posted an interesting video on "real world" towing mileage. Truck is a 2019 Rebel, Hemi, etorque, 3.92.


Click Here For 5thgenrams Thread on Video

 

[kjn86]

I feel like I'm getting the worst mpg of anybody. Now granted my new Rebel has only 700 miles on it, but so far I'm only getting around 10.5 MPG. I do probably 80% city driving and I'm being light-footed on the accelerator. I really hope it improves because I paid a lot more for the eTorque engine with the understanding I would be getting 17 MPG.

I suspect FCA will probably have a class-action lawsuit in the future for misrepresenting the fuel economy.

I get 10.5 also. Got all the TSBs done, top tier gas (89), NEVER mash the accelerator and drive conservatively, 95% stop and go, short trip suburb city driving.

I was doing the math that if it got 15 MPG, I would be ecstatic. So let's compare with analysis to make me feel better about my 10.5 MPG:

I am currently getting 23 gallons x 10.5 MPG = 241 gallons per tank. At $2.60/gallon for 89 here, a full tank costs $61.87 (round to $62). Let's say I use a half tank per week and drive 120 miles in 7 days (17 miles per day average). That is $31 per week, which equals $1612 per year.

If it were 15 MPG, I would get 345 gallons per tank and would be able to drive farther clearly, so I'd use 8 gallons per week for a cost of $21 and an annual cost of $1081.60.

In the scheme of things, that isn't a lot of money ($531) on an annualized basis although in percentage terms, it is bad (42% better fuel economy).

If I drove more and used a full tank, it is now slightly over $1000 per year more in gas. That still isn't that bad but it isn't good either. And this is with historically very low gas prices adjusted for inflation.

Gas could easily be $5+ and we'd be having a more serious conversation, but even with doubling the price of fuel, it still works out for to me spending only $1000 more on gas for 10.5 MPG vs 15 MPG - again, not that much for a year (for probably the kind of people spending $50k+ on new trucks they don't truly need).

This isn't meant to disparage the argument that we should be advertised to correctly. I am in total agreement with it. Rebels with 3.92 and 33-inch Duratracs and a 1" lift should have their own fuel economy rating separate from all V8 1500s. It would probably say 14/19 not 17/22.

 

[Edwards]

Here's another thought on MPG. Do any of you have your transmission temp displayed? I do and I'm still surprised at how long it takes to warm up.
Yes, it's winter but I'm in the Houston area. I've made several trips from cold that were ~20 minutes of 50-60 MPH and when I got there the tranny guage was still only half way to normal.

I don't think this would explain folks getting 10-13 MPG, but it definitely has some impact, especially on cold-start city mileage.

 

[Electrical]

Here's another thought on MPG. Do any of you have your transmission temp displayed? I do and I'm still surprised at how long it takes to warm up.
Yes, it's winter but I'm in the Houston area. I've made several trips from cold that were ~20 minutes of 50-60 MPH and when I got there the tranny guage was still only half way to normal.

I don't think this would explain folks getting 10-13 MPG, but it definitely has some impact, especially on cold-start city mileage.

Funny I just recently noticed this. I have the OEM tranny cooler which surely works against fast warmup in winter. Not sure if all Rams have the tranny cooler?

 

[Gman]

The tranny "cooler" is also the tranny "heater". I remember discussing it in another thread.

ETA: Found it: https://5thgenrams.com/community/threads/3-21-vs-3-92-gear.3704/page-6#post-80591

 

[ExcursionDiesel]

Short trip heavy city driving will always yield the worst economy. Only towing could be worse. Until the truck is at rated operating temperature for the engine, transmission, and differential, the mpg will be lower. Winter makes it worse since it takes longer to reach operating temperature and winter fuel yields lower mpg.

 

[HeliPilot]

My 2017 raptor tranny would still register cold after 20-30 min of driving. This is not unusual for new trucks I guess

 

[Electrical]

The tranny "cooler" is also the tranny "heater". I remember discussing it in another thread.

ETA: Found it: https://5thgenrams.com/community/threads/3-21-vs-3-92-gear.3704/page-6#post-80591

Well I'll be darned. I completely missed this. The video you posted seems to show a good view of coolant lines to the heater. The link I have below (video from 2015) shows how transmission fluid gets to the heater. The heater sits flush on the side of the tranny and there are a couple of internal, O-ringed, removable tubes to seal the fluid path.

Interesting to see this... and not sure if I like it. The EGR cooler on ecoDiesels is one of THE MAIN weakpoints with many owners reporting failure of fluid separation, thus allowing coolant-to-oil, and vice-versa, contamination.

 

[Cattail cruncher]

I get 14 MPG towing the boat and am geting 17 ish with a little city driving. In city milage suuuuuuuucks for sure.

 

[Mstep7]

Just hit 1k miles with limited Hemi 5.7 and truck says 15.2 , with about 950 of that on the hwy! Guess I just got screwed on that gas step down from my old 16 f150 @ 18mpg. And I hate the 26 gallon tank!!

 

[OldSkull]

This argument drives me crazy. (I'm not trying to target just you, I'm speaking in general here)

I'm not asking for 65mpg out of my 5600lb barn door, but this isn't 1965 either. Yes it has 400hp, but it also should be getting between 15 and 23 mpg depending on configuration and speed. It's ADVERTISED that if I pay anywhere between $30,000 and $70,000 for one of these trucks, I will get either 17 or 19 mpg combined. Did I get any money back because my results are between 20 and 25% off? I've achieved at least the city mpg rating as my average in any other vehicle I've owned (except one of the two Subaru's I had, which had a class action lawsuit over fuel economy after I sold it, go figure). If any of us did buy a Prius and then got 40mpg instead of 55, we'd be saying the same thing. What do they do over on the Prius forums? Troll everyone and say "if you wanted good fuel economy you should have bought a Tesla?" It makes zero sense to me. There is an expectation that in exchange for MY MONEY, I will get a vehicle with EVERYTHING listed on the monroney, including the mpg. Imagine if someone dyno tested their truck and it put out 20% less hp than advertised, don't you think people would be pissed? I would be. Its the same thing here. No one's gonna tell me not to worry about fuel economy in a truck, because its a truck. Fuel economy is a measurable metric just like horsepower, payload capacity, interior volume, and anything else they advertise as what you get when you drop $65k at Ram. If any of those other metrics were off by 25% Ram (or any other company) would be out of business.

I completely agree with you. I’m getting 9.1 MPG on average. I’ve hand calculated it a few times and it’s always about the same.
But I shouldn’t even have to hand calculate it. It shouldn’t be 10 MPG less than advertised.
I’m getting 9.1 MPG with and EMPTY bed.
So what would I get when I tow my camper this summer? 5 mpg???
I payed $60,000.00 for this truck. It’s had the TSB updates and they’ve done nothing.
Ram needs to recall these trucks or start handing out gas cards. This is my 3rd Ram since 2012 I doubt I’ll ever buy another Ram.My dealers been No help.
My other 3 Rams didn’t get bad MPGs like this one.

 

[SacRebel]

I get 10.5 also. Got all the TSBs done, top tier gas (89), NEVER mash the accelerator and drive conservatively, 95% stop and go, short trip suburb city driving.

I was doing the math that if it got 15 MPG, I would be ecstatic. So let's compare with analysis to make me feel better about my 10.5 MPG:

I am currently getting 23 gallons x 10.5 MPG = 241 gallons per tank. At $2.60/gallon for 89 here, a full tank costs $61.87 (round to $62). Let's say I use a half tank per week and drive 120 miles in 7 days (17 miles per day average). That is $31 per week, which equals $1612 per year.

If it were 15 MPG, I would get 345 gallons per tank and would be able to drive farther clearly, so I'd use 8 gallons per week for a cost of $21 and an annual cost of $1081.60.

In the scheme of things, that isn't a lot of money ($531) on an annualized basis although in percentage terms, it is bad (42% better fuel economy).

If I drove more and used a full tank, it is now slightly over $1000 per year more in gas. That still isn't that bad but it isn't good either. And this is with historically very low gas prices adjusted for inflation.

Gas could easily be $5+ and we'd be having a more serious conversation, but even with doubling the price of fuel, it still works out for to me spending only $1000 more on gas for 10.5 MPG vs 15 MPG - again, not that much for a year (for probably the kind of people spending $50k+ on new trucks they don't truly need).

This isn't meant to disparage the argument that we should be advertised to correctly. I am in total agreement with it. Rebels with 3.92 and 33-inch Duratracs and a 1" lift should have their own fuel economy rating separate from all V8 1500s. It would probably say 14/19 not 17/22.

I think the poor gas milage affects 4x4 Rebel the worst because of the higher body stance and off-road tires.

Over the weekend, I filled up got on the freeway and drove 70 miles at 77 mph and got 14 mpg. On the way back the next day I drove 74 mph and got 15 mph. Still significantly less that the 22 mpg highway the truck is rated to get. At some point I'll find a highway with a 55 speed limit and see if I can anywhere close to the 22 mpg rating.

 

[riccnick]

I think the poor gas milage affects 4x4 Rebel the worst because of the higher body stance and off-road tires.

Over the weekend, I filled up got on the freeway and drove 70 miles at 77 mph and got 14 mpg. On the way back the next day I drove 74 mph and got 15 mph. Still significantly less that the 22 mpg highway the truck is rated to get. At some point I'll find a highway with a 55 speed limit and see if I can anywhere close to the 22 mpg rating.

To be fair, I wouldn't ever expect any vehicle to achieve its EPA rating at 77mph. Most of my vehicles hit it right at 65-70, with the exception of the aforementioned Subaru, and now, this Ram. At 70 in my ram I'm lucky to see 17 mpg, it gets worse as speed increases (obviously).

Personally, I would never expect to see sticker on a Rebel either (it's not fair that they rate them the same, and buyers should be made aware). When I put 33" tires and a 2" level on my Tundra I lost 2mpg instantly. Same logic applies to the Rebel, it's a regular Ram with a lift and heavy meats. It shouldn't be rated the same as a stock height truck with H/T tires.

 

[RamTruckMan]

To be fair, I wouldn't ever expect any vehicle to achieve its EPA rating at 77mph. Most of my vehicles hit it right at 65-70, with the exception of the aforementioned Subaru, and now, this Ram. At 70 in my ram I'm lucky to see 17 mpg, it gets worse as speed increases (obviously).

Personally, I would never expect to see sticker on a Rebel either (it's not fair that they rate them the same, and buyers should be made aware). When I put 33" tires and a 2" level on my Tundra I lost 2mpg instantly. Same logic applies to the Rebel, it's a regular Ram with a lift and heavy meats. It shouldn't be rated the same as a stock height truck with H/T tires.

I've got stock height and H/T tires and I'm still nowhere close on City or Combined.


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

 

[riccnick]

I've got stock height and H/T tires and I'm still nowhere close on City or Combined.


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

What are you seeing for mileage and under what conditions? (Didn't look to see if you posted already in this thread)

 

[RamTruckMan]

What are you seeing for mileage and under what conditions? (Didn't look to see if you posted already in this thread)

Highway (65-70) I get around 20-21. City near 13, 14. Ultimately, around 14 per tank which is less than the 19 combined and the 17 city. Not stomping the pedal either. So, if I took the truck on a long highway trip it'd be pretty great. Commuting though, it's no better than my '12 Hemi Ram.


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

 

[OldSkull]

Another awesome day getting 8.9 MPGs lol.
I’ll never buy another Ram.
This truck shouldn’t be getting that low of MPGs under Any driving conditions.

 

[RAM1500_SoCal]

Another awesome day getting 8.9 MPGs lol.
I’ll never buy another Ram.
This truck shouldn’t be getting that low of MPGs under Any driving conditions. View attachment 14830

WOW! Guess I should stop complaining about 14 MPG city driving.

 

[OldSkull]

WOW! Guess I should stop complaining about 14 MPG city driving.

It’s crazy how bad it is... lol.
Dealer has been no help either.
Honestly how could I tow a Anything with this truck for a long distance trip if it gets 9 mpg with an empty bed?

It’s had the TSB updates. The dealer service don’t k ow what else to do. I had a 2015 Rebel that got the advertised MPGs, but this one is 10 MPGs off. Ram needs to recall these trucks.

 

[VdMer]

Another awesome day getting 8.9 MPGs lol.
I’ll never buy another Ram.
This truck shouldn’t be getting that low of MPGs under Any driving conditions.

Curious, what style do you have (Limited, Rebel etc), fully stock, Lifted etc? I didn't filter back and it's not in your signature. 9MPGs is terrible, no 2-ways about it. I hover around 17 mpg when mixed 60/40 city/HWY -- which is what I mostly do. The minute that line goes higher toward City, I drop...but only to about 15.5 +/-. No noticeable change with different fuel types 87, 89 or 91. The worst I've seen was 13.7mpg and that was an entire week where I was gone and my wife drove the car. I couldn't figure out why the hell it was so bad with her driving, then I realized that she idles the car a lot! Warms it up (it was a cold week), waits for kids -- on and on. Killed the mpg's.