Horrific Gas Mileage Hemi eTorque

[TFLtruck]

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.

Look, we’re not accusing anyone of anything. I know what was said, I came up with the dialogue. The stickers says 17 19 22. Nothing says otherwise in regards to the truck that number applies to.

Frankly, when we were sold the truck with the knowledge it is rated, I repeat, RATED at 22 and returned 18 (of course, in the real world), yeah, we were more than a little shocked. I think, honestly, that’s why this whole thread exists actually.

Look we are by no means the end all be all in MPG ratings. We of course have flaws in our tests and procedures, we recognize that (hence why we did a third loop). We are simply doing our very best to come up with valid tests and report the honest results. You can interpret those results as you may.

We greatly appreciate you guys for watching. This forum is a great resource for owners and enthusiasts alike. Thanks all for being part of the conversation!

The Fast Lane Truck Team

 

[grooves12]

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.

EPA testing is flawed.... rear end ratio has a SIGNIFICANT impact on MPG, and the EPA only tests ONE variant (3.21 standard gear ratio.) It seems to me, they should test options known to have significant impacts on MPG and rate them accordingly.

The fact that the rebels are getting about 20% worse gas mileage than sticker with around a 20% difference in final gear ratio compared to the tested configuration is not surprising.

 

[SacRebel]

Personally, I think TFL did a fine job of testing the fuel economy and they were fair in their assessment. But with that said it was still an end-user test not by a professional following EPA guidelines blah blah blah. So I think it's unfair to hold them to higher standards with that in mind.

When I purchased my Rebel fuel economy wasn't on the top of my list, but it was certainly in the back of my mind. I knew I wasn't going to see the same numbers as on the sticker but here I am 1,500 miles and I'm averaging 12.3 mpg lifetime 80% city and no hauling. The one road trip I did take I set cruise at 74 and got 15 mpg after 60 miles. I guess if I dropped it to 70 mph like TFL I'd be pretty happy with <18 mpg.

One thing you can't exclude when looking at the gas milage is the auto-off of the eTorque. I read somewhere the Hemi uses 1.7 oz. of fuel while at a 90-second stop light. I don't know if those numbers are true but you can't ignore the fuel savings when the engine shuts off. The only way I see this fuel savings is by needing less fill-ups.

 

[Rustydodge]

Look, we’re not accusing anyone of anything. I know what was said, I came up with the dialogue. The stickers says 17 19 22. Nothing says otherwise in regards to the truck that number applies to.

Frankly, when we were sold the truck with the knowledge it is rated, I repeat, RATED at 22 and returned 18 (of course, in the real world), yeah, we were more than a little shocked. I think, honestly, that’s why this whole thread exists actually.

Look we are by no means the end all be all in MPG ratings. We of course have flaws in our tests and procedures, we recognize that (hence why we did a third loop). We are simply doing our very best to come up with valid tests and report the honest results. You can interpret those results as you may.

We greatly appreciate you guys for watching. This forum is a great resource for owners and enthusiasts alike. Thanks all for being part of the conversation!

The Fast Lane Truck Team

But it does say otherwise on the sticker. "Actual results will vary for many reasons".

TFL is among my favorite truck publications. I think you guys do great work. In this instance, my opinion would be that simply stating some facts of why the Rebel returns lower MPG than the EPA rating would have been the best approach. I do not want to see TFL or the comments section degrade to the level of others.

The "MPG Shocker" videos come across a little sensationalized. We tune in to your (and other) publications to enjoy a hobby and get relief from the standard news media crap.

Anyone familiar with these trucks knows that an 18 MPG result is not a shock or disappointment. Now that you've experienced multiple hwy trips returning high teens in CO...i would assume the shock has subsided

 

[rlc2020]

But it does say otherwise on the sticker. "Actual results will vary for many reasons".

TFL is among my favorite truck publications. I think you guys do great work. In this instance, my opinion would be that simply stating some facts of why the Rebel returns lower MPG than the EPA rating would have been the best approach. I do not want to see TFL or the comments section degrade to the level of others.

The "MPG Shocker" videos come across a little sensationalized. We tune in to your (and other) publications to enjoy a hobby and get relief from the standard news media crap.

Anyone familiar with these trucks knows that an 18 MPG result is not a shock or disappointment. Now that you've experienced multiple hwy trips returning high teens in CO...i would assume the shock has subsided

I didn't even look at the sticker when I bought my new Ram, however, I do agree with TFL that the epa rating should at least be close to the real world MPG of the truck.
The only reason I was vocal on their youtube video was because of the "SHOCKER" label attached to it. The only shocker would have been if it EXCEEDED the mpg rating! It seemed like they were angling for Ram to fail when they put the off road version of the hemi truck against a 4cyl chevy in an mpg related video. Test a tradesman v6 etorque 3.21 against the 4cyl Chevy. Chevy will probably win that one too, but at least would be a point to it. NO ONE is buying a 4x4 V8 crew cab Ram with nearly 400hp and off road suspension and tires and then expect decent gas mileage.
Also, etorque does virtually nothing on the highway, it is designed to help out off the line and aid in stop / start. A better test would have been to do a 50/50 city / highway loop to get a realistic number from the truck.

All of this said, We have to give TFL a lot of credit for posting a 3rd video where they addressed most of the concerns that were brought up. It's nice to know that they do listen to the people and can admit when they have made a mistake.
Thank you guys for your videos, I've watched nearly all and gained a lot of knowledge because of it.

 

[Craftman]

I get the same mileage as TFL with my RBL. Still, like the truck, didn't buy it for MPG.

 

[Zinger]

If EPA testing is done on a dyno, how do they account for wind resistance? Do they use a measured cda and calculate it in somehow? The Rebel is very much a rolling brick. If you want to see just how bad it is, turn on your instant MPG meter and duck in behind a tractor trailer on the highway. It SOARS.

 

[Zinger]

I didn't even look at the sticker when I bought my new Ram, however, I do agree with TFL that the epa rating should at least be close to the real world MPG of the truck.
The only reason I was vocal on their youtube video was because of the "SHOCKER" label attached to it. The only shocker would have been if it EXCEEDED the mpg rating! It seemed like they were angling for Ram to fail when they put the off road version of the hemi truck against a 4cyl chevy in an mpg related video. Test a tradesman v6 etorque 3.21 against the 4cyl Chevy. Chevy will probably win that one too, but at least would be a point to it. NO ONE is buying a 4x4 V8 crew cab Ram with nearly 400hp and off road suspension and tires and then expect decent gas mileage.
Also, etorque does virtually nothing on the highway, it is designed to help out off the line and aid in stop / start. A better test would have been to do a 50/50 city / highway loop to get a realistic number from the truck.

All of this said, We have to give TFL a lot of credit for posting a 3rd video where they addressed most of the concerns that were brought up. It's nice to know that they do listen to the people and can admit when they have made a mistake.
Thank you guys for your videos, I've watched nearly all and gained a lot of knowledge because of it.

Didn't they say in the video that it was NOT a comparison test of the two trucks? The point was to have another truck there as a control for the experiment. If the methodology was suspect both trucks should have had worse than EPA rated performance. Since the Chevy actually exceeded the EPA rating it does say something about the Ram and its rating that was much lower.

 

[rlc2020]

Didn't they say in the video that it was NOT a comparison test of the two trucks? The point was to have another truck there as a control for the experiment. If the methodology was suspect both trucks should have had worse than EPA rated performance. Since the Chevy actually exceeded the EPA rating it does say something about the Ram and its rating that was much lower.

They can say what they want, but reporting results from 2 competing trucks in the same video and putting both trucks in thumbnail labeled "SHOCKER"= comparison in my book. There is no need for a control, it was done on purpose to show that the ram got horrible mileage. If it wasn't a comparison then each truck should have had a stand alone video.

Again, I agree that the Ram doesn't come close to it's EPA rating and that is wrong and props to Chevy for doing it right. But why bring Chevy into the mix if not to just bash the ram for getting horrible mileage.

IMO I would take 10mpg hwy over having to live with a 4cyl engine....

 

[RamTruckMan]

I'm not pointing the finger at any one poster. I'd like to say that anybody who insists that people who buy Rebels don't care about MPG is a bit shortsighted. You may not care about it but others may. Ram has uniformly declared eTorque to be a fuel saving device (plus added torque), so much so that it has a fuel calculator on it's site. The MPG is divided by 4x2 and 4x4. The only concession made to trim/options is that individual results may vary (a pop-up from hovering the mouse over the footnote number next to MPG). To summarize: isn't it possible, or even likely that people who may have shied away from Rebel in the past because of fuel economy could, would and will be drawn in by a fuel saving technology marketed that way? It seems a helluva lot more likely than "nobody buys a rebel for mpg". But that's just my 2¢. I think we should stick to the topic and not bash anyone for being disappointed in what was marketed to us. Rebel or Bighorn, 3.21 or 3.92, fuel saving was expected.

EDIT: Likewise on the TFL video... I don't this the intent was to BASH Ram... I think it was showing how far the 2 vehicles stuck to or strayed from their EPA numbers... Those numbers were mandated there for a reason. They do mean something. The video shows a vehicle that's friendly with those sticker numbers and one that's not. In this case, I think "Shocker" is more of an expression of feeling let down by a corporation that is generally believed to be "one of the good guys". Is it a little over the top? Maybe, but sites make money in different ways, and to create a slightly exaggerated headline (that at least fits to some degree) to garner more views is not terribly devious. I don't take it personally

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

 

[Zinger]

They can say what they want, but reporting results from 2 competing trucks in the same video and putting both trucks in thumbnail labeled "SHOCKER"= comparison in my book. There is no need for a control, it was done on purpose to show that the ram got horrible mileage. If it wasn't a comparison then each truck should have had a stand alone video.

Again, I agree that the Ram doesn't come close to it's EPA rating and that is wrong and props to Chevy for doing it right. But why bring Chevy into the mix if not to just bash the ram for getting horrible mileage.

IMO I would take 10mpg hwy over having to live with a 4cyl engine....

That's not how testing works. You always need a control to validate the validity of the testing methodology. You can argue what a good control would be, but in this case they at least used another truck of similar size that was EPA rated, so it's fairly apples-to-apples. Without a control they could just measure from the top of the Ike Gauntlet and claim a Rebel gets 99 miles to the gallon, or conversely from the bottom and say it gets 10. Without a control the results are practically meaningless.

 

[19llhpb]

They can say what they want, but reporting results from 2 competing trucks in the same video and putting both trucks in thumbnail labeled "SHOCKER"= comparison in my book. There is no need for a control, it was done on purpose to show that the ram got horrible mileage. If it wasn't a comparison then each truck should have had a stand alone video.

Again, I agree that the Ram doesn't come close to it's EPA rating and that is wrong and props to Chevy for doing it right. But why bring Chevy into the mix if not to just bash the ram for getting horrible mileage.

IMO I would take 10mpg hwy over having to live with a 4cyl engine....

I guess I’ll chime in here, been just reading this thread and staying quiet! I agree with @rcl2020. Should have tested these trucks individually if they wanted, the thumbnail and title give the impression of a side by side direct comparison. Well no crap the little Chevy would do better. Not a apples to apples comparison and should have taken a different prospective on this. Should have just went ahead and done a off road test afterwards to see who won. Next time use a Prius as a control. I really like TFL and enjoy their videos and believe overall they have a non-bias take and just tell it like it is, but I believe this particular test/video is not the norm for TFL fortunately and I hope this is it. I by no means am defending RAM’s mpg ratings at all but this “test” is distasteful for me towards TFL. Once again, IMO!

 

[rlc2020]

That's not how testing works. You always need a control to validate the validity of the testing methodology. You can argue what a good control would be, but in this case they at least used another truck of similar size that was EPA rated, so it's fairly apples-to-apples. Without a control they could just measure from the top of the Ike Gauntlet and claim a Rebel gets 99 miles to the gallon, or conversely from the bottom and say it gets 10. Without a control the results are practically meaningless.

Obviously there needs to be "control" but that doesn't include a competitors vehicle that they already know gets better mileage and then they claim they aren't comparing. The only reason people here are upset is that they picked the 1 chevy that they knew would do the best and tested it against the Ram that they already know does the worst and then put "SHOCKER" in the video description. This was clearly over stylized and exaggerated to get clicks, not an unbiased reporting of the facts.

The right way to show that the rebel mpg has been falsely advertised would to be to just do a stand alone video. Who cares that the Chevy or any other vehicle for that matter can get a better rating than advertised? How does that affect the Rebel in any way? They knew that this would get people talking and it worked like a charm. A simple video titled "Rebel, not as advertised" would have been fine and I would be cheering them on for pointing out the issues.

This video was clearly done is such a way to make the Ram look bad. They picked the worst model possible, the one that they already knew got horrible mph, they DISABLED mds, you know, the system that increases highway mileage. They only did a highway loop which the etorque basically does nothing to improve.

That is why I and many others complained about it.

 

[cmdr bobert]

Obviously there needs to be "control" but that doesn't include a competitors vehicle that they already know gets better mileage and then they claim they aren't comparing. The only reason people here are upset is that they picked the 1 chevy that they knew would do the best and tested it against the Ram that they already know does the worst and then put "SHOCKER" in the video description. This was clearly over stylized and exaggerated to get clicks, not an unbiased reporting of the facts.

The right way to show that the rebel mpg has been falsely advertised would to be to just do a stand alone video. Who cares that the Chevy or any other vehicle for that matter can get a better rating than advertised? How does that affect the Rebel in any way? They knew that this would get people talking and it worked like a charm. A simple video titled "Rebel, not as advertised" would have been fine and I would be cheering them on for pointing out the issues.

This video was clearly done is such a way to make the Ram look bad. They picked the worst model possible, the one that they already knew got horrible mph, they DISABLED mds, you know, the system that increases highway mileage. They only did a highway loop which the etorque basically does nothing to improve.

That is why I and many others complained about it.

What you're saying borders on being fanatical. It seemed pretty clear to me they chose this Chevy because of the awful results Car and Driver published recently when they tested the same model/engine.

So it's not how do we shock Ram and Ram owners - it's how do 2 trucks which have results that do not meet their EPA ratings perform when we test them. End of story.

And say what you will, Ram is most definitely not marketing their product how you're describing, and that's pretty much illegal in most industries, states and products in the USA. Even Steve Jobs got pummeled with the iPhone 4 for telling people the problem with their phones' reception was that they were holding them wrong.

 

[Rustydodge]

I believe TFL was trying to "duplicate" the C&D test (which was at 75 MPG i think with some wind) because it resulted in some negative press for GM, so they wanted to see how the new 2.7 would do on their loop. The fact that they included a Rebel on the same test was optics, since the trucks are in no way comparable as configured.

I'm sure they will test it while towing as well, which will be a different result.

I believe the EPA dyno attempts to simulate wind resistance, but not sure on those details. The test were modified in 2017 to be more realistic for hybrid vehicles, and as a result many hybrid vehicles had decreased EPA ratings.

A consumer should not look at the EPA ratings and expect identical results. They would be better served using a resource such as Fuelly, if MPG is of concern. That would provide you with information suggesting a Ram 5.7 4x4 8speed s a real world 15-16 MPG truck, as it has been since the 5.7 8speed combo came to be in 2013. Hwy will be higher, city will be lower. Your results will vary.

Etorque was advertised as roughly 10% fuel saver if memory serves. The EPA ratings represent that pretty closely (over 10% city improvement, under 10% hwy improvement).

There is no reason Ram can not use that and suggest fuel savings to the customer. They defined pretty closely and in detail how etorque works. There should be no reason to assume a dramatically better hwy MPG with cruise set going 60+ MPH. Thats a gross misunderstanding of what etorque does.

The rebel is an offroad oriented trim. It is common sense that MPG will be negatively impacted relative to a standard Ram. Off course a rebel buyer may also want good MPG.

Anyone with lifetime hand calculated averages around 10 MPG regardless of driving conditions has something wrong with their truck that i hope is resolved. I don't think there are many people in that boat.

 

[RamTruckMan]

I believe TFL was trying to "duplicate" the C&D test (which was at 75 MPG i think with some wind) because it resulted in some negative press for GM, so they wanted to see how the new 2.7 would do on their loop. The fact that they included a Rebel on the same test was optics, since the trucks are in no way comparable as configured.

I'm sure they will test it while towing as well, which will be a different result.

I believe the EPA dyno attempts to simulate wind resistance, but not sure on those details. The test were modified in 2017 to be more realistic for hybrid vehicles, and as a result many hybrid vehicles had decreased EPA ratings.

A consumer should not look at the EPA ratings and expect identical results. They would be better served using a resource such as Fuelly, if MPG is of concern. That would provide you with information suggesting a Ram 5.7 4x4 8speed s a real world 15-16 MPG truck, as it has been since the 5.7 8speed combo came to be in 2013. Hwy will be higher, city will be lower. Your results will vary.

Etorque was advertised as roughly 10% fuel saver if memory serves. The EPA ratings represent that pretty closely (over 10% city improvement, under 10% hwy improvement).

There is no reason Ram can not use that and suggest fuel savings to the customer. They defined pretty closely and in detail how etorque works. There should be no reason to assume a dramatically better hwy MPG with cruise set going 60+ MPH. Thats a gross misunderstanding of what etorque does.

The rebel is an offroad oriented trim. It is common sense that MPG will be negatively impacted relative to a standard Ram. Off course a rebel buyer may also want good MPG.

Anyone with lifetime hand calculated averages around 10 MPG regardless of driving conditions has something wrong with their truck that i hope is resolved. I don't think there are many people in that boat.

If eTorque doesn't help Highway mileage, why does it have a higher Highway rating?

 

[Rustydodge]

If eTorque doesn't help Highway mileage, why does it have a higher Highway rating?

Reference post #568.

Speeds are varied in the EPA test, avg speed is 48, max speed is 60.

EPA hwy rating only goes up by 1 MPG, which in reality may only be a few tenths difference with rounding involved.

 

[riccnick]

Reference post #568.

Speeds are varied in the EPA test, avg speed is 48, max speed is 60.

EPA hwy rating only goes up by 1 MPG, which in reality may only be a few tenths difference with rounding involved.

The most recent EPA standard tests have a max highway speed of 80 mph, even though the average is still 48mph. (It's supposed to help create a more accurate acceleration curve to better replicate how people drive)

 

[rhill]

Manufacturers are only required to test their largest selling version of a particular truck or car. It is too costly to test every possible combination, such as cab type (regular, quad, or crew), rear axle ratio, options that add weight such as pano sunroofs and ramboxes, types of tires and sizes of tires, off road groups with different heights, air ride or standard coil suspension, and any other possible combination of the above. We also know that to achieve EPA results, a vehicle has to be driven conservatively. Also, outside temp and summer or winter grade gas, all play a role. I just read an article where someone tested either a 2019 Ford Edge or Explorer (can`t remember which), that had a tubochaged 4 cylinder. It waa rated 21 city and 28 highway. At the end of the week's testing, they got 16 mpg. Seems implausible at first, but I am sure they did not drive conservatively. Also turbo engines are only efficient if not being "pushed". Ford's new V6 diesel in their truck is rated 29 mpg hwy in 2WD but only 25 mpg hwy in 4WD. The reason there is a 4 mpg drop vs Ram's 1 mpg drop from 2WD vs 4WD, is because they were going after the best in class mpg title. Ford said they used different tires mainly. Reviewers were shocked that there would be a 4 mpg drop just from going from 2WD to 4WD. Ford said other variables besides tires, such as ride height and weight played an effect. However, they really weren`t able to fully explain it.

 

[riccnick]

Manufacturers are only required to test their largest selling version of a particular truck or car.

Kinda, here's the exact verbiage: