Horrific Gas Mileage Hemi eTorque

[RamTruckMan]

Yeah, instant economy is just as low starting off the line. eTorque gets you moving and starts the engine, but its application is brief and the engine takes the load.

If I'm aggressive and launch at the intersection, I can kill the mileage (which is easy to do). When I trade fun for mileage, I don't complain about the mileage.

The more stops and starts you have, the worse your mpg is likely to be. The stops aren't a penalty due to eTorque stop/start. Accelerating that much mass from a stop, and depending on how quickly you get there, is the killer.

I've been picking routes that tend to keep moving, even if they're longer. I find my drive time is pretty much the same.

I'm also finding as the truck breaks in that I'm in MDS much more often. I was actually surprised yesterday as I was climbing a hill and the truck stayed in ECO. The truck rolls very easily on the Michelin Defender LTX tires and doesn't require much throttle to maintain speed.

Only thing: I read somewhere, one of those professional drivers getting eleventy-billion MPG in a pickup, said that getting up to speed smoothly yet quickly is better than babying it up to speed. There's a smooth spot between tramping and lollygagging. I can't find it


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

 

[grooves12]

What really chaps my hide is this brand new 2019 Hemi with a mild hybrid engine gets the exact same mpg as my 2004 Hemi. How do you explain that FCA?

Physics. 2019 Ram is bigger/heavier, more capable, and has significantly more horsepower than your 2004. The fact that it is getting similar gas mileage is a feat of engineering as it is. Trucks buyers care more about the capabilities than gas mileage... so the engineering dollars are spent where they are going to be best served. If people started flocking to other brands/vehicle types over mpg, they would put more effort there, but they aren't so they don't.

 

[RamTruckMan]

Physics. 2019 Ram is bigger/heavier, more capable, and has significantly more horsepower than your 2004. The fact that it is getting similar gas mileage is a feat of engineering as it is. Trucks buyers care more about the capabilities than gas mileage... so the engineering dollars are spent where they are going to be best served. If people started flocking to other brands/vehicle types over mpg, they would put more effort there, but they aren't so they don't.

I'm not going to totally agree with all of your points, although more capability and similar mileage is indeed a feat. The eTorque is, however, marketed as a fuel saving technology with added torque benefits. Because they do realize the customer desire for better mpg. The best capabilities at the best MPG. They're not mutually exclusive


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

 

[OldSkull]

TFL trucks just did another Bad MOGs video on the 2019 Rebel. Best he could get is 16mpg.

 

[OldSkull]

TFL Trucks just posted Another Bad MPGs video on the 2019 Rebel. And they explain how the EPA certifies the Window Sticker MPGs. So there is a problem with these trucks. We should be allowed to take them back if we’re unhappy with the MPGs. I’m still
Getting around 10 MPGs on average.

 

[Rustydodge]

LOL

16+ going 70 with MDS off and almost 18 with MDS on is exactly what you should expect from a rebel in Colorado.

We've already establish the EPA rating on a rebels sticker is NOT for the rebel configuration....should be pretty easy to understand.

Not to mention the EPA highway rating is not at 70 MPG.....if they want to compare to the 22 hwy rating, they should at least be trying to duplicate the exact same hwy EPA test cycle parameters.

TFL is making themselves look stupid IMO trying to make a big deal about this.

And this is a completely different scenario than those reporting abnormally low MPGs consistently

 

[NDanecker]

IMO, fuel mileage is more dependent on driving style then you may think. I believe 3.92 can achieve better overall mileage than 3.21 in a split city/highway scenario if you live near or in hilly terrain and drive 70 mph or under on the highway. This is my theory. MDS seems to kick off around 71 mph no matter what so anything above this you are burning all 8 cylinders. Under 70 you are in ECO mode but with enough RPM's to keep the transmission in 8th and motor near the honey spot. This will keep ECO on longer thus saving fuel. With 3.21 gears you lose the mechanical advantage (less torque to the wheels while in 8th gear) so you'll need more throttle/power/fuel to transverse the hills (this is where my comment of living in a hilly terrain is valid) where you'll either kick out of ECO and/or downshift. Throw in the fact city mileage is better with the 3.92s as you have more gears to work with while keeping the RPMs low which helps increase your overall tank-to-tank average.

My mileage has been sucking wind because I do mostly city, warm-ups/remote starts every cold morning and drive like I stole it. LOL

 

[Rustydodge]

TFL Trucks just posted Another Bad MPGs video on the 2019 Rebel. And they explain how the EPA certifies the Window Sticker MPGs. So there is a problem with these trucks. We should be allowed to take them back if we’re unhappy with the MPGs. I’m still
Getting around 10 MPGs on average.

TFL did a horrendous job.

They all but directly accuse Ram of misleading consumers, yet they are far more responsible in this scenario of misleading folks.

EPA sticker states in plain english "Your results WILL vary". Not they may vary, but will. Why will they vary? Well, that is also stated in plain english on the label by saying "These estimates reflect...EPA methods"....so to understand the ratings, you should understand (and in TFL's case, explain to their viewers) the EPA methods. What are the EPA methods?

Hwy drive cycle: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules

The average speed is 48, and the top speed is 60 mph. Performed on a dyno

Why is this significant? Well, research shows that fuel efficiency will decrease by at least 12% every 10 MPG over 50 MPH (its closer to 15% at speeds above 70). So that alone would mean having cruise set at 70 vs 48 test average would decrease the 22 hwy rating to low 16. Even going 70 vs 60 would decrease the 22 rating to mid 19. This only touches on one potential cause in this link:
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-properties-physics-affect-gas-mileage.html

Add to that the Rebel configuration (let alone the Rebel with options TFL has) isnt the configuration that is certified (different gear ratio, tires, lift, curb weight, etc) and its pretty easy to understand why a Rebel would not get 22 MPG going 70 MPH. They also used different fuel. So TFL continuing their "SHOCKING MPG" crap is poor journalism.

Now add to this TFLs apparent misconception of how etorque works. Etorque will have practically 0 positive MPG impact an a 98 mile, 70 MPH cruise test loop. I would expect there to be a minor positive impact looking at the EPA hwy test cycle, due to the varying and lower speeds, which is exactly what the EPA ratings show (etorque is +1 hwy going from 21 to 22 for 4x4, not to mention that could be only a few tenths actual difference with rounding)

I happen to agree Ram should have a different rating for Rebel (like GM does with Trailboss/AT4). But there is no rule stating Ram has to do this. TFL is acting like they are on some righteous mission to force Ram to add a Rebel specific EPA rating. Yet what do they do when they publish MPG comparison articles? Only list the manufactures best rated configurations...and often only the 2wd configurations....So they do exactly the same thing they accuse Ram of doing in their very own articles.

It would be laughable except people willingly gobble up anything they hear or see published as fact.

That's not so say there very well may be a strange issue happening with a few trucks if your lifetime average is only 10 MPG regardless of the driving conditions.

 

[SacRebel]

We all understand the "your results will vary." But when the actual mpg is 40% below the stated EPA mpg this goes way beyond that statement.

The fact is the Rebel should have had it's own testing done.

 

[Rustydodge]

We all understand the "your results will vary." But when the actual mpg is 40% below the stated EPA mpg this goes way beyond that statement.

The fact is the Rebel should have had it's own testing done.

22 to 17.87 is a 18.77% decrease
22 to 16.8 is a 23.6% decrease

40% below 22 would be 13.2....maybe that is your personal average?

Research shows that fuel efficiency will decrease by at least 12% every 10 MPG over 50 MPH (its closer to 15% at speeds above 70). So that alone would mean having cruise set at 70 vs 48 EPA test average would decrease the 22 hwy rating to 16.2 (a 26% decrease...funy how close that is to what TFL experienced without MDS). Even going 70 vs the 60 max in the test cycle would decrease the 22 rating to mid 19. This only touches on one potential cause of decreased MPG in this link:
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-properties-physics-affect-gas-mileage.html

 

[TFLtruck]

22 to 17.87 is a 18.77% decrease
22 to 16.8 is a 23.6% decrease

40% below 22 would be 13.2....maybe that is your personal average?

Research shows that fuel efficiency will decrease by at least 12% every 10 MPG over 50 MPH (its closer to 15% at speeds above 70). So that alone would mean having cruise set at 70 vs 48 EPA test average would decrease the 22 hwy rating to 16.2 (a 26% decrease...funy how close that is to what TFL experienced without MDS). Even going 70 vs the 60 max in the test cycle would decrease the 22 rating to mid 19. This only touches on one potential cause of decreased MPG in this link:
https://phys.org/news/2015-07-properties-physics-affect-gas-mileage.html

Hey guys,

Thanks for the comments. Here’s the fact: regardless of how the EPA runs their procedures and tests here is the truth.

Using our loop with our speeds and our procedures we have replicated results of EPA highway number CONSISTANTLY (yes, at 70 MPH) on other trucks.

Not 2mpg off. not 3. not 4. Often spot on. As consumers and journalists it is 100% our job to keep manufacturers accountable.

The Rebel has performed consistently less.

Thanks for watching.

 

[Rustydodge]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the comments. Here’s the fact: regardless of how the EPA runs their procedures and tests here is the truth.

Using our loop with our speeds and our procedures we have replicated results of EPA highway number CONSISTANTLY (yes, at 70 MPH) on other trucks.

Not 2mpg off. not 3. not 4. Often spot on. As consumers and journalists it is 100% our job to keep manufacturers accountable.

The Rebel has performed consistently less.

Thanks for watching.

Thank you for responding and welcome to the site.

"The Rebel has performed consistently less." than the other vehicles you have tested, which were configured MUCH MORE CLOSELY to the tested EPA configuration...

I have been following and commenting on your site for some time, and i hope you don't think I'm being hard on you just because it happens to be a Ram truck in this scenario.

I think everyone agrees it would be nice if Ram would have EPA rated the rebel configuration, and thats all you should have said....but you continue your "SHOCKING MPG" journalism approach. Unwise,. It will discredit you among knowledgeable truck enthusiasts who regularly track or care about MPG.

Take if from someone who religiously tracks Fuelly for all full size makes and models....comparing the hwy EPA rating vs your test loop, and then acting dramatic when they don't match, is pretty silly. Heck my personal truck has never cracked 17 on a highway trip.

Report the numbers, and avoid accusing manufactures of grossly misleading customers, unless you are prepared to address all the FACTS that can impact fuel mileage (which you didn't adequately do in either video).

I've mentioned some of those facts in my above responses. Speed alone vs the EPA hwy test cycle is nearly enough to account for the MPG decrease. Here is an excerpt from the link above:

"Scientists at Argonne's sister national lab, Oak Ridge, tested cars' fuel economy at speeds over 50 miles per hour. For each extra 10 mph over, you lose a little over 12 percent of your miles per gallon. That increases as you go faster. Going from 70 to 80 mph costs you 15 percent, not 12. Depending on the make of your car, it could be more or less. Some cars dropped as much as 25 percent."

 

[TFLtruck]

Thank you for responding and welcome to the site.

"The Rebel has performed consistently less." than the other vehicles you have tested, which were configured MUCH MORE CLOSELY to the tested EPA configuration...

I have been following and commenting on your site for some time, and i hope you don't think I'm being hard on you just because it happens to be a Ram truck in this scenario.

I think everyone agrees it would be nice if Ram would have EPA rated the rebel configuration, and thats all you should have said....but you continue your "SHOCKING MPG" journalism approach. Unwise,. It will discredit you among knowledgeable truck enthusiasts who regularly track or care about MPG.

Take if from someone who religiously tracks Fuelly for all full size makes and models....comparing the hwy EPA rating vs your test loop, and then acting dramatic when they don't match, is pretty silly. Heck my personal truck has never cracked 17 on a highway trip.

Report the numbers, and avoid accusing manufactures of grossly misleading customers, unless you are prepared to address all the FACTS that can impact fuel mileage (which you didn't adequately do in either video).

I've mentioned some of those facts in my above responses. Speed alone vs the EPA hwy test cycle is nearly enough to account for the MPG decrease. Here is an excerpt from the link above:

"Scientists at Argonne's sister national lab, Oak Ridge, tested cars' fuel economy at speeds over 50 miles per hour. For each extra 10 mph over, you lose a little over 12 percent of your miles per gallon. That increases as you go faster. Going from 70 to 80 mph costs you 15 percent, not 12. Depending on the make of your car, it could be more or less. Some cars dropped as much as 25 percent."

Okay, let’s break this down:

“MUCH MORE CLOSELY to the tested EPA configuration...”

What truck did they rate? what configuration? It’s up to the manufacturer, and they’re not gonna tell ya which trim. Trust me, had a long conversation with one of the manufacturers about this process. It’s up to them, and doesn’t necessarily mean the “base” or lightest truck.

Let’s not make assumptions what trim/rear end was used.

 

[cruz-in]

IMHO, TFL Trucks does a good job and a service to our community.

Informed consumers just need to take the tests/data for want it is. I believe it is very informative to see how different truck perform on the same 98 mile run. I think viewing the data, in a comparative fashion between trucks (considering the differences in the trucks), is useful to the consumer.

The Ram surprised TFL Trucks because other trucks tested were much closer to their EPA Estimates. IMHO TFL Trucks surprise is a reasonable reaction. .

 

[riccnick]

Let’s not make assumptions what trim/rear end was used.

I think the general assumption is that it wasn't a Rebel? It certainly wasn't a Black Crew Cab Laramie eTorque with 4wd and 3.21 gears, I can tell you that as well, lol.

 

[Rustydodge]

Okay, let’s break this down:

“MUCH MORE CLOSELY to the tested EPA configuration...”

What truck did they rate? what configuration? It’s up to the manufacturer, and they’re not gonna tell ya which trim. Trust me, had a long conversation with one of the manufacturers about this process. It’s up to them, and doesn’t necessarily mean the “base” or lightest truck.

Let’s not make assumptions what trim/rear end was used.

Huh? I'm the one making assumptions?

I'm not the automotive publication assuming the EPA rating on the Rebel sticker is for a Rebel configuration...then accusing a manufacturer of misleading their consumers....

Your part 3 video basically accuses Ram of fraud for not having an asterisk on the sticker.

I'm simply trying to explain to everyone why your ACTUAL RESULTS WILL VARY...you know...like the sticker says.

I'm also not naive enough to believe that you may know more than me, due to conversations directly with Ram. If Ram told you that the EPA rating applies directly to a Ram Rebel configuration (with the lift, tires, 3.92 gears, etc) then your accusations may have merit. The results, however, could still be explained by differing conditions from the EPA test cycle...so misleading customers insinuation still a little strong.

Edited to add: Believing the Rebel configuration was not the certified configuration is logical....the rebel would never get the same rating....just like the trailboss doesn't get the same rating. I don't really feel i'm making some big assumption there....

 

[RamTruckMan]

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.ex...ackDesc=Results page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=3 EPA tests include AC and loads.


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

 

[Hammer1]

I just did another round trip to Harrisonburg VA from Lancaster Pa. I had 1/4 tank of 87 and filled up with 93. I got the worst mpg to date using the higher octane fuel. 16 mpg was all I got going between 70 and 80. I won't be using anything other then 87

 

[TFLtruck]

Huh? I'm the one making assumptions?

I'm not the automotive publication assuming the EPA rating on the Rebel sticker is for a Rebel configuration...then accusing a manufacturer of misleading their consumers....

Your part 3 video basically accuses Ram of fraud for not having an asterisk on the sticker.

I'm simply trying to explain to everyone why your ACTUAL RESULTS WILL VARY...you know...like the sticker says.

I'm also not naive enough to believe that you may know more than me, due to conversations directly with Ram. If Ram told you that the EPA rating applies directly do a Ram Rebel configuration (with the lift, tires, 3.92 gears, etc) then your accusations may have merit.

Not accusing of fraud. We are reporting facts. Is there an asterisk on our sticker I don’t know about?

and...

“Huh? I'm the one making assumptions?

I'm not the automotive publication assuming the EPA rating on the Rebel sticker is for a Rebel configuration...”

So are you saying our sticker is wrong? Are you saying the MPG rating on the sticker of our Ram Rebel 5.7 eTorque is in fact not the numbers for a Ram Rebel 5.7 eTorque? Then what do the numbers apply to? Because I’m pretty sure the sticker applies to the truck???

 

[Rustydodge]

Not accusing of fraud. We are reporting facts. Is there an asterisk on our sticker I don’t know about?

and...

“Huh? I'm the one making assumptions?

I'm not the automotive publication assuming the EPA rating on the Rebel sticker is for a Rebel configuration...”

So are you saying our sticker is wrong? Are you saying the MPG rating on the sticker of our Ram Rebel 5.7 eTorque is in fact not the numbers for a Ram Rebel 5.7 eTorque? Then what do the numbers apply to? Because I’m pretty sure the sticker applies to the truck???

You may want to become more familiar with the content of your videos

At about 4:24 speaker mentions lack of asterisk....as if there should be one...and since there is not....ram is misleading customers.

I never said the sticker is wrong, I am saying the rating on the sticker of your rebel applies to a 2019 Ram 1500 4wd 5.7 etorque with 4x4 on midgrade gasoline. It likely does not apply to the Rebel configuration or the options that are included with the rebel or your specific vehicle as configured

It is simply a logical assumption because the rating is not lower (like it is with the trailboss). I think you also allude to that in the video?

Report facts, without hyperbole. If Ram doesn't have to provide a rating specific to the rebel configuration, i fail to see the shock.