Rebel Gas Hog

[IndianaRam]

Of course we didn’t buy a truck for the economy. We bought despite the economy....at least I did. But if the truck was listed as getting 18 mpg, for example, and it actually only got 3 mpg....would that be just cause to show concern or disappointment? My point is that while we are not naive enough to believe a full-size truck is going to get great economy, it’s not right that it only delivers 60% of the EPA estimate on the sticker.

Here’s the deal....at least for me. I probably would’ve bought this truck anyway knowing it’d only get 11 mpg, but I’m not pleased about finding it out after the paperwork was signed when I expected better. It’s the only thing I don’t like about my truck and I just wish Ram were more upfront about it. At a minimum, I would’ve made sure to get the larger tank

That's what I'm saying, exactly what Tommy R. is saying. I can careless about gas mileage, but at least tell me the truth on what my truck is going to get before I buy it. I'm expecting between 15-22, not the 12-16 that I'm getting.

 

[Raptor2099]

In PA I noticed a couple dealers had their Rebels rated 14-16-19 on their websites. Although the window sticker was still 17-19-22, so it looks like the dealers were being a little more honest than FCA. I get roughly 17 MPG combined myself with roughly 1200 miles on the truck so far. Don't expect it to get any better but it's equal or a bit better than my last truck's MPG believe it or not, so I'm very happy with this as it's much more powerful and fun to drive. (I had an old Tacoma)

 

[DanSkan]

When I bought my 2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid the sticker stated 45 mpg city and 45 mpg highway. We could easily get the 45 mpg city but not over 40 mpg highway.

Apparently there must have been enough complaints (or lawsuits) against Ford for the stated high mpg that was not achievable because the next year, out of the blue, we received a check for over $1000 with a letter stating that the highway mpg rating was changed to 40 mpg and sorry for any ...…….

I'm waiting for my check from Ram and I check my mailbox every day. Nope didn't come today either, maybe it will come tomorrow.

At least we average 28 mpg combined between both vehicles.

 

[ChadT]

In PA I noticed a couple dealers had their Rebels rated 14-16-19 on their websites. Although the window sticker was still 17-19-22, so it looks like the dealers were being a little more honest than FCA. I get roughly 17 MPG combined myself with roughly 1200 miles on the truck so far. Don't expect it to get any better but it's equal or a bit better than my last truck's MPG believe it or not, so I'm very happy with this as it's much more powerful and fun to drive. (I had an old Tacoma)

I'm wondering if there's a re-rating coming, and if those numbers are what we're looking at.

Here's my understanding:
- The 4th gen Rams had GREAT aero for their generation
- The 4th gen Rebels all had air suspension, which was supposedly good for an extra 1mpg on the highway. The designers were proud that despite the E-rated A/T tires, and the offroad style bumper minus air dam? the Rebel had the same performance characteristics of the regular trucks. I do think part of this was the Toyo AT tires. I hate those things, no traction in wet conditions once it got cold. I switched to BFG KO2s, no problems since. Same driver, same roads. If anything I was willing to drive it a little more aggressively and still had no issues.
- The 5th gen appears to have better aero, and a tad lighter. I'm thinking they assumed that it would be closer to the regular trucks like last time.
But what's going on in these new Rams, they have retractable air dams, they have less rolling resistance of regular tires, you name it.
Or they have air suspensions, same deal. (From the looks of it, these 5th gens sit a little higher in the middle of the truck, I'm wondering if that impacts things as well.)

On rebels without either, they're higher up, and I PERSONALLY am of the opinion that these goodyear tires, with their excellent howl at speed, have something to do with it. IMHO in ****ty stuff these are significantly better than the Toyo AT2s in every way.
But I think we get more wind resistance, more rolling resistance.
I think the eco-mode does not kick in on the highways the same way (particularly minus air dam and minus air suspension) with the extra wind resistance from the height and all. Again I had a 4th gen rebel, even during the break in period I had better highway mileage than I seem to be getting right now.

For those with e-torque, supposedly that doesn't impact the highway mileage right?
Hence the same highway mileage us regular rebel guys get.
But better city "stop and go" mileage.

I think they goofed. I don't think they deceived us on purpose, I think the engineers (human beings) under-estimated or miscalculated.
Or, perhaps the MPG numbers are for rebels with air suspension that lower on the highway. Something like that.

 

[Ratchetman]

Some good points to ponder. Off road tires, off road suspension, no air dam, 3.92 gears. I'm going to cry a little at the pump but smile when driving.

 

[Gkmathiesen]

I'm wondering if there's a re-rating coming, and if those numbers are what we're looking at.

Here's my understanding:
- The 4th gen Rams had GREAT aero for their generation
- The 4th gen Rebels all had air suspension, which was supposedly good for an extra 1mpg on the highway. The designers were proud that despite the E-rated A/T tires, and the offroad style bumper minus air dam? the Rebel had the same performance characteristics of the regular trucks. I do think part of this was the Toyo AT tires. I hate those things, no traction in wet conditions once it got cold. I switched to BFG KO2s, no problems since. Same driver, same roads. If anything I was willing to drive it a little more aggressively and still had no issues.
- The 5th gen appears to have better aero, and a tad lighter. I'm thinking they assumed that it would be closer to the regular trucks like last time.
But what's going on in these new Rams, they have retractable air dams, they have less rolling resistance of regular tires, you name it.
Or they have air suspensions, same deal. (From the looks of it, these 5th gens sit a little higher in the middle of the truck, I'm wondering if that impacts things as well.)

On rebels without either, they're higher up, and I PERSONALLY am of the opinion that these goodyear tires, with their excellent howl at speed, have something to do with it. IMHO in ****ty stuff these are significantly better than the Toyo AT2s in every way.
But I think we get more wind resistance, more rolling resistance.
I think the eco-mode does not kick in on the highways the same way (particularly minus air dam and minus air suspension) with the extra wind resistance from the height and all. Again I had a 4th gen rebel, even during the break in period I had better highway mileage than I seem to be getting right now.

For those with e-torque, supposedly that doesn't impact the highway mileage right?
Hence the same highway mileage us regular rebel guys get.
But better city "stop and go" mileage.

I think they goofed. I don't think they deceived us on purpose, I think the engineers (human beings) under-estimated or miscalculated.
Or, perhaps the MPG numbers are for rebels with air suspension that lower on the highway. Something like that.

I just started using the "fulley App" but I just drove 4 1/2 hours from Bethesda, MD to my house in southern VA on the back roads(average speed 60MPH, never over 65) and I was getting 19-21 MPG the entire way.

 

[Futta112]

I just started using the "fulley App" but I just drove 4 1/2 hours from Bethesda, MD to my house in southern VA on the back roads(average speed 60MPH, never over 65) and I was getting 19-21 MPG the entire way.

With a rebel? My daily commute is 60mph. A whopping 13ish mpg.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gkmathiesen]

With a rebel? My daily commute is 60mph. A whopping 13ish mpg.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah man, I've been lucky. They are finicky though, the wind has to be right and no hammering on the gas. However, even with the worst conditions, I don't get lower than 16-16.5 MPG.

 

[JohnUSA]

Some good points to ponder. Off road tires, off road suspension, no air dam, 3.92 gears. I'm going to cry a little at the pump but smile when driving.

This.
Mic drop.

 

[Kadarnall]

You really can't compare the Sierra to the Rebel though (Apples to Kiwi's). I traded my 2017 Sierra SLT (basically a Denali without the fancy shocks), and while this truck is definitely harder on gas than my 5.3 - it's miles ahead in terms of torque/power and comfort. I definitely feel your pain, my 5.3 was very efficient compared to this engine.

I had a 13"f150 fx4 5.0 with a 6" stage 2 pro comp, exhaust, intake, 91 performance tune, 35s and was getting 12.5 mpg. Prior to all that 16.5 mpg (city driving). I shouldnt have to drive in a zero friction environment to get the stated mpgs.

 

[ChadT]

This.
Mic drop.

I think the other thing at play here, I believe someone else mentioned it?
The computer calculator is more accurate and less optimistic than the last generations.
I don't think that's insignificant.

In almost entirely city driving, at 3,500miles, and I drive it to hear the aftermarket exhaust more often than not?
And that includes really amping it up on the highway, Eco is almost never on. It's enjoyable for me, but again, eco isn't on much, and it's due to MY driving patterns.

I'm getting 14.5-14.9mpg.
To me that seems about right.

 

[DivrGuy]

Mine is stock with about 1k miles. Best I've gotten was on a day trip with my wife. Driving at 60 mph along stretches of Hwy 98 along the gulf coast of FL, about as flat as a road gets, the computer instant mileage would show 18 mpg and sometimes flicker 19. Average for the entire trip (nearly all highway), computer said 17.8, my calculation said 17.5. Driving on the interstate at 70 shows 16 mpg. My overall average since I've had it (mostly around town) is about 14.5. ECO light only comes on when I'm going downhill.

Do yourselves a favor....turn off the mpg displays on your screen setup and leave it off. I love driving the truck, and once I didn't have that MPG staring back at me every time I glanced down, I started enjoying the ride a lot more. If I want to hear the V8 rumble, I press the gas. When it gets low, I fill it up. Don't know if my mileage sucks for not. If I can't afford the gas, I shouldn't have spent 50k+ on a truck.

 

[Kadarnall]

Mine is stock with about 1k miles. Best I've gotten was on a day trip with my wife. Driving at 60 mph along stretches of Hwy 98 along the gulf coast of FL, about as flat as a road gets, the computer instant mileage would show 18 mpg and sometimes flicker 19. Average for the entire trip (nearly all highway), computer said 17.8, my calculation said 17.5. Driving on the interstate at 70 shows 16 mpg. My overall average since I've had it (mostly around town) is about 14.5. ECO light only comes on when I'm going downhill.

Do yourselves a favor....turn off the mpg displays on your screen setup and leave it off. I love driving the truck, and once I didn't have that MPG staring back at me every time I glanced down, I started enjoying the ride a lot more. If I want to hear the V8 rumble, I press the gas. When it gets low, I fill it up. Don't know if my mileage sucks for not. If I can't afford the gas, I shouldn't have spent 50k+ on a truck.

100%. Its not so much about the gas and affording it, but misrepresenting the numbers that I personally have an issue with. I think that may be true for most.

 

[Jhill]

When I bought my 2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid the sticker stated 45 mpg city and 45 mpg highway. We could easily get the 45 mpg city but not over 40 mpg highway.

Apparently there must have been enough complaints (or lawsuits) against Ford for the stated high mpg that was not achievable because the next year, out of the blue, we received a check for over $1000 with a letter stating that the highway mpg rating was changed to 40 mpg and sorry for any ...…….

I'm waiting for my check from Ram and I check my mailbox every day. Nope didn't come today either, maybe it will come tomorrow.

At least we average 28 mpg combined between both vehicles.

More likely is a check coming for those of us that bought tons of upgrade level 2 options and by paying extra for tow mirrors, lost power folding, heated function, etc with them. Pay extra to get less..........huh???

 

[SacRebel]

I’m taking it in tomorrow to see why I’m only getting 12 mpg after 2,000 miles.

 

[HeliPilot]

I’m taking it in tomorrow to see why I’m only getting 12 mpg after 2,000 miles.

I know mine is a limited, but my fuel stayed very low until I hit 2500-2700 miles.

 

[DivrGuy]

100%. Its not so much about the gas and affording it, but misrepresenting the numbers that I personally have an issue with. I think that may be true for most.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. The truck I just traded was a Nissan Frontier. They had different ratings on the 2WD vs 4WD models. The difference was only 1 mpg city and hwy, but they posted it on the sticker. I think the only difference with them was the weight, about 500 lbs more for 4WD. Gearing was the same, except for the off-road model which had 1 inch bigger tires but only slightly shorter gearing, just enough to make up for the torque lost to the larger tire diameter. So it evened out. Mine was 4WD and I got what the sticker said, even a little better on the hwy if I babied it.

The tire size difference between the Rebel and other models is only like 3%. But the difference between 3.23 and 3.92 gearing is about 18%. That's a big discrepancy. Now in the case of Rebel, the LT rated tires are significantly heavier than the P rated tires on the other models, so that will increase the need for torque as well, so I'm sure that was figured into the need for using the 3.92 gearing as well. And I'm sure I will be glad for the 3.92 when I start pulling my boat this summer. But you're right....they should have put a different mpg rating on the Rebel. They had to know from testing that it would be significantly lower.

I posted a link to an article on one of the threads here (maybe this one) which showed testing mpg on a truck with p-rated light truck tires and LT rated all-terrain tires. It made a difference of 2.2 mpg. I'm trying to justify to myself purchasing a new set of wheels/tires, and if I do, I may go with a lighter weight setup than the stock set and see if that makes a significant difference in mileage. I don't need LT rated tires for how I use the truck. I'll just get the tires from Discount Tire and if they don't make a big difference in mpg, I'll take them back and throw them through the window and say "order me a set of Ridge Grapplers" like everyone else on this site seems to be doing.

I hope my snarky comment before didn't give anyone the impression that I'm making light of their mpg concerns. I totally get it. I was just posting how I resolved myself to the situation, and how it's made me feel better about it.

 

[SacRebel]

I took it into the dealership today and they couldn’t find anything wrong with it and verified it has the latest software. My next step will be addressing this directly with FCA.

 

[Kadarnall]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. The truck I just traded was a Nissan Frontier. They had different ratings on the 2WD vs 4WD models. The difference was only 1 mpg city and hwy, but they posted it on the sticker. I think the only difference with them was the weight, about 500 lbs more for 4WD. Gearing was the same, except for the off-road model which had 1 inch bigger tires but only slightly shorter gearing, just enough to make up for the torque lost to the larger tire diameter. So it evened out. Mine was 4WD and I got what the sticker said, even a little better on the hwy if I babied it.

The tire size difference between the Rebel and other models is only like 3%. But the difference between 3.23 and 3.92 gearing is about 18%. That's a big discrepancy. Now in the case of Rebel, the LT rated tires are significantly heavier than the P rated tires on the other models, so that will increase the need for torque as well, so I'm sure that was figured into the need for using the 3.92 gearing as well. And I'm sure I will be glad for the 3.92 when I start pulling my boat this summer. But you're right....they should have put a different mpg rating on the Rebel. They had to know from testing that it would be significantly lower.

I posted a link to an article on one of the threads here (maybe this one) which showed testing mpg on a truck with p-rated light truck tires and LT rated all-terrain tires. It made a difference of 2.2 mpg. I'm trying to justify to myself purchasing a new set of wheels/tires, and if I do, I may go with a lighter weight setup than the stock set and see if that makes a significant difference in mileage. I don't need LT rated tires for how I use the truck. I'll just get the tires from Discount Tire and if they don't make a big difference in mpg, I'll take them back and throw them through the window and say "order me a set of Ridge Grapplers" like everyone else on this site seems to be doing.

I hope my snarky comment before didn't give anyone the impression that I'm making light of their mpg concerns. I totally get it. I was just posting how I resolved myself to the situation, and how it's made me feel better about it.

I just lifted my Rebel, put some 35" Toyo R/Ts on it, intake and exhaust. I will let you know what single digit I am at after I drive around for a few days.

 

[edgarrian]

I come from a tundra so 14 was pretty standard. At 75-80mph it wouldn't get that.

I recently purchased a rebel here about 2 months ago. I have 1500 miles on it. I have done the break in stuff that the owners manual says to do. I just drove from Bismarck ND to Tioga ND. Its a 200 mile trip. With some decent inclines. Interstate speed at 75 and all other roads were between 45 and 65. Half of my trip was on the interstate and I was able to get 16.5. Im happy with that.