Rebel Gas Hog

[ChadT]

mike of 45-55 highway and town driving, I am averaging 17.5-17.7 mpg....
got to keep your foot off the pedal, and stop mashing it... use the cruise where it makes sense.

I just tried this last night on a highway drive home.
My MPG for the trip when I arrived? 19.9
That's right, 19.9
The computer is way, way more efficient than I am with the throttle, even when I'm trying to be. with my foot this drive was probably good for 17.5mpg, here I am looking at 19.9
Eco-mode was on way more too. (Rebel, no air suspension, stock tires, magnaflow exhaust.)
I was absolutely floored.

I've never seen anything close to that with my foot, even when trying my hardest.
I've done my absolute best to ease into the throttle on some drives, I've done my best to try to guess that ratio of "get up to speed quickly, don't stay at 2500rpm that long to get up to speed", I've done my best to try to find that 7th and 8th gear sweet spot.
The computer is better at that with this system. Way better. Even with hills, perhaps especially so.

Also I think I did not quite realize just how often I was tempted to blast up a hill by the V8 rumble
I'm guessing that the truck/transmission learned my driving habits and figured, "Have as much power on tap as possible for this guy, because when the old guy in 1995 crown victoria doing 50 in a 65 decides to move out of the left lane, it's about to go down."
The computer prioritizes the fuel economy, and it does a much better job than I ever did at delivering that on highway drives.

I implore you guys to give it a try if you haven't!

 

[SilverSurfer15]

Can’t drive 55 in a 75 zone though.

 

[ChadT]

I will neither confirm nor deny how high last night's speeds were, but I will say that the computer proved more efficient than I was, even when they got a bit on the high side. What I'm saying is: Hey it might be interesting to you and worth a try!

I'm really floored.
I'm not a cruise control guy, never really used it on any vehicle, not even the 4th Gen Ram I had.
I hadn't given it a try on this one either, until last night at a friend's recommendation.

It did way better than I would have! and I tried everything

 

[SynAckuL]

I was a little scared, given all of the people quoting low MPGs. But, I've gotten about 14 MPG mixed, and that's what my F-150 3.5L EcoBoost got, so I'm not upset. Most of my driving is sitting and waiting in traffic, though I get about a 28 mile round trip on the interstate to work. 65 MPH is where the truck seems to like to be for me, though I usually go a little faster than that.

 

[hammer722]

Had my rebel for just over a week. So far i've been about 40/60 city and highway driving and I'm locked in at 16 mpg. I have noticed that the slightest release of the gas pedal can make the mpg shoot up considerably. I've been leaving my gauge cluster set to the mpg instant view and just by backing off the pedal a tiny bit i can get to 20+ mpg pretty easily without losing speed. Kinda weird how sensitive the throttle position is.

 

[ZeroSeVen]

Mostly city driving at 55 MPH roads... mileage is just a little over 1200 miles and I'm averaging 14.1-14.3 mpg with 89 octane fuel... I took it for a 3 hour drive to San Diego and was averaging 18-19 mpg

 

[SD Rebel]

I've so far haven't been average anything above 14 mpg with my Rebel, but then again it's only got 150 miles on it and I've been doing break in driving, mostly town driving and some highway.

Compared to my previous 2.7L Ecoboost, it does feel a touch less responsive and about 4 mpg lower, but it's still a fresh motor. I expect some improvement as it breaks in. Also, the large 33" tires and the 3.92 rear axle is probably the biggest contributor to the lower mpg. I don't expect the 22 highway, which is a blanket mpg by the EPA covering most models. With these big tires and high axle ratio, I'm not expecting to get anywhere near that mpg.

Honestly, if I get 16 mpg average, which is within 2-3 mpg of my previous Ecoboost 2.7L w/ 30.5" tires, I would be a happy camper.

 

[DivrGuy]

I just tried this last night on a highway drive home.
My MPG for the trip when I arrived? 19.9
That's right, 19.9
The computer is way, way more efficient than I am with the throttle, even when I'm trying to be. with my foot this drive was probably good for 17.5mpg, here I am looking at 19.9
Eco-mode was on way more too. (Rebel, no air suspension, stock tires, magnaflow exhaust.)
I was absolutely floored.

I've never seen anything close to that with my foot, even when trying my hardest.
I've done my absolute best to ease into the throttle on some drives, I've done my best to try to guess that ratio of "get up to speed quickly, don't stay at 2500rpm that long to get up to speed", I've done my best to try to find that 7th and 8th gear sweet spot.
The computer is better at that with this system. Way better. Even with hills, perhaps especially so.

Also I think I did not quite realize just how often I was tempted to blast up a hill by the V8 rumble
I'm guessing that the truck/transmission learned my driving habits and figured, "Have as much power on tap as possible for this guy, because when the old guy in 1995 crown victoria doing 50 in a 65 decides to move out of the left lane, it's about to go down."
The computer prioritizes the fuel economy, and it does a much better job than I ever did at delivering that on highway drives.

I implore you guys to give it a try if you haven't!

I'm not sure what your revelation is here. Is this your first time using cruise control and you feel that's what improved your mileage?

 

[ChadT]

I'm not sure what your revelation is here. Is this your first time using cruise control and you feel that's what improved your mileage?

Honestly, I don't believe you're lost as to what I'm saying after two loonng posts like that.
So I actually believe this is more of a snarky back-handed remark vs an honest question.

But I could be wrong. So instead of un-gloving and going full internet about it, I offer you this.
- I have two long posts on this topic. Give them a re-read, take your own conclusion from them.

Those posts stand for themselves, they are hardly mystery novels.

 

[Ruben73]

I have a 2007 ram 1500 sport QC 4x4 and I have been running 93 octane since I got it new in 2007 and for whatever reason I think the gas last longer in that than my 19 rebel. In the 07 I have a diablo tune, disabled MDS, magnaflow Y pipe , catback exhaust and K&N CAI with 34" tires. In My Reblel 12A just a Borla Atak cat back. I put 93 In Her today to see if there is a difference. Could just be me

 

[DivrGuy]

Honestly, I don't believe you're lost as to what I'm saying after two loonng posts like that.
So I actually believe this is more of a snarky back-handed remark vs an honest question.

But I could be wrong. So instead of un-gloving and going full internet about it, I offer you this.
- I have two long posts on this topic. Give them a re-read, take your own conclusion from them.

Those posts stand for themselves, they are hardly mystery novels.

Wow...no...it was an honest question. I was just surprised that using cc would up your mileage that much. I use it all the time and have never seen 19.9. I was going to ask about speed and such, if it was the use of cruise control that you were talking about. Nevermind...

 

[ChadT]

Wow...no...it was an honest question. I was just surprised that using cc would up your mileage that much. I use it all the time and have never seen 19.9. I was going to ask about speed and such, if it was the use of cruise control that you were talking about. Nevermind...

Hey no problem! I have too many internet miles, normally when someone says that they were throwing an egg, we have no beef man, it's alright
Check it out:

This cruise control APPEARS capable of possible better MPG via knowing the EXACT minimum throttle when going up hills, getting up to speed, maintaining speed, and telling the engine to go into eco-mode. Cruise control was able to put the engine into eco-mode faster, and with greater regularity than I was able to get with my foot. This makes me believe when it feels the foot, the computers prioritize power due to learning my driving patterns. The computer likely understands my foot better than I do.
So, even when I'm trying to be efficient, the computer "knows better" and figures, "no don't relax, torque on demand, keep it in V8 don't let it go down to 4 cylinders."

This leads me to guess that ONE of the reasons many Rebel drivers are seeing such poor MPG vs EPA numbers, beyond "one model certification", is that the computer has prioritized power for human drivers vs MPG in cruise control. That our computers ARE capable of getting better MPG on the exact same drives than we are, due to how it can manage fuel consumption vs our feet guessing what the truck wants.

That it is capable of delivering better numbers in a matter not typical with normal cruise control of cars in years past, and perhaps if a bunch of guys try it and we see a few, "Oh wow I didn't think it was going to work that well?" posts, we might have found something.
Or perhaps I'm the only one and the search continues

No problemo man, we're allright.

 

[DivrGuy]

Hey no problem! I have too many internet miles, normally when someone says that they were throwing an egg, we have no beef man, it's alright
Check it out:

This cruise control APPEARS capable of possible better MPG via knowing the EXACT minimum throttle when going up hills, getting up to speed, maintaining speed, and telling the engine to go into eco-mode. Cruise control was able to put the engine into eco-mode faster, and with greater regularity than I was able to get with my foot. This makes me believe when it feels the foot, the computers prioritize power due to learning my driving patterns. The computer likely understands my foot better than I do.
So, even when I'm trying to be efficient, the computer "knows better" and figures, "no don't relax, torque on demand, keep it in V8 don't let it go down to 4 cylinders."

This leads me to guess that ONE of the reasons many Rebel drivers are seeing such poor MPG vs EPA numbers, beyond "one model certification", is that the computer has prioritized power for human drivers vs MPG in cruise control. That our computers ARE capable of getting better MPG on the exact same drives than we are, due to how it can manage fuel consumption vs our feet guessing what the truck wants.

That it is capable of delivering better numbers in a matter not typical with normal cruise control of cars in years past, and perhaps if a bunch of guys try it and we see a few, "Oh wow I didn't think it was going to work that well?" posts, we might have found something.
Or perhaps I'm the only one and the search continues

No problemo man, we're allright.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm sure they do have much more logic built into cruise control now than the days of the vacuum-operated cruise on carbureted cars.

I use cruise most all the time. I'm near sea level and pretty flat roads. Best I've gotten was 18.5 running at 60 mph, and I would see 19 flicker on the instant mileage on occasion. Maybe if I tried 55, it might inch up near 19. What speed were you running your cruise when you got 19.9?

I see guys driving off-road-package trucks of other models reporting better mileage. Personally I think the Duratracs are the biggest thing hurting the Rebels. LT rated means heavier weight on the tire (which is farther away from the rotational axis, so a heavier tire hurts more than a heavier wheel), 18 inch wheel with 33 inch tire means taller sidewalls, more aggressive tread than the street tires and even the Falken's. Each of those things alone means higher rolling resistance. I do remember seeing a guy who swapped out his tires and wheels for a set of Rebel take-off's on his truck and reported losing about 2.5 mpg IIRC.

I just noticed you have a catback. I'm wondering if that is helping some.

 

[SilverSurfer15]

So on my truck, I do better than the cruise control like it’s always been. At least in the 75-80 range. Because I can ease out and drop a few mpg uphill vs going half tilt every time. If I were to hold the speeds, then maybe it would do better?

BUT with that being said, I could see the cruise beating me for sure at say 55-65 on flat ground. Or any scenario where there isn’t a lot of rolling resistance. I use it in those scenarios, but I’m just not in them enough to really test this theory. I’m either romping on it in traffic or running 75 on the highway.

Not disagreeing with you, just stating my experience. I usually get better than average mpg in anything I drive, but not this lol. It certainly doesn’t help that I have carven exhaust either.

I also believe the tires are a huge contributing factor here, they are heavy and aggressive. Aka super resistant to rolling. It’s already been said by one guy who went up in size, but less aggressive on tread that mileage didnt drop. I think if you swapped out to some kind of mild all terrain tire you might actually see some improvements, assuming they weighed the same or less.

 

[DivrGuy]

... I think if you swapped out to some kind of mild all terrain tire you might actually see some improvements, assuming they weighed the same or less.

And I keep contemplating that very thing. I've been researching AT tires that are less aggressive and lighter weight, but on a 20 inch wheel. It's hard to find 33 inch tires for an 18 inch wheel that aren't full street tires and aren't LT rated. And I've read that taller sidewalls cause more rolling resistance. So in 20 inch, the best rated alternative I've found is the Goodyear TrailRunner AT. A 33-inch version of it is like 10 pounds lighter than the size Duratracs on our truck, Consumer Reports rated it very highly and better than average on rolling resistance. A 20-inch wheel will be heavier than 18, but I think if you keep it under 40 lbs it will still be better off. Like I said earlier, a heavier tire hurts more than a heavier wheel. I just haven't convinced myself to pull the trigger. Right now, I could get enough out of the stock tires/wheels to pay for the new wheels or new tires. Part of me keeps saying, forget it, wait until the tires wear out, then replace the tires and wheels.

 

[SilverSurfer15]

A 20” wheel doesn’t have to weigh more than a 18” wheel. But what you will likely butt up against is that cheap cast wheels of any size are heavy as where the OEM wheels are designed to be lighter weight.

I think just getting rid of the mud tire tread will help. The weight would be an extra bonus.

 

[ChadT]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm sure they do have much more logic built into cruise control now than the days of the vacuum-operated cruise on carbureted cars.

I use cruise most all the time. I'm near sea level and pretty flat roads. Best I've gotten was 18.5 running at 60 mph, and I would see 19 flicker on the instant mileage on occasion. Maybe if I tried 55, it might inch up near 19. What speed were you running your cruise when you got 19.9?

I was running at 64-65mph for that run.

I see guys driving off-road-package trucks of other models reporting better mileage. Personally I think the Duratracs are the biggest thing hurting the Rebels. LT rated means heavier weight on the tire (which is farther away from the rotational axis, so a heavier tire hurts more than a heavier wheel), 18 inch wheel with 33 inch tire means taller sidewalls, more aggressive tread than the street tires and even the Falken's. Each of those things alone means higher rolling resistance. I do remember seeing a guy who swapped out his tires and wheels for a set of Rebel take-off's on his truck and reported losing about 2.5 mpg IIRC.

I just noticed you have a catback. I'm wondering if that is helping some.

So I had a generation 4 rebel, I had BF Goodrich KO2s on it.
With both tires the roadtrip MPGs were in the 19s. With this truck I was in the 17s, basically until recently.

I've chalked up one of the differences to the air suspension, which I don't have on this truck! I'm guessing driving habit differences can be a factor, whether I want to think of it that way or not. And I'm in agreement on the tires part - I think in a post I had on here awhile back I probably said similar in different words!
I think the rotational mass, the M/T pattern situation, that rolling resistance can't be insignificant.

When it comes time for a new set of tires, For the sake of testing I will likely try a different tread pattern and report back.
I do think the "sportier" and less knobby the tire, the better the MPG gain, theoretically at least.

 

[SD Rebel]

Without a doubt, the tires is the biggest thing, then the 3.92 axle and finally the 2 inches of additional right height (compared to standard RAMs) which is 1" from the suspension and 1" from the tires.

I think if they outfitted the Rebel with 33" M/T tires, such as Michelin M/S tires typically found on TRD Tundras, instead of the Duratracs we would see about 1-2 mpg, then another 1-2 if they offered the 3.21 axle ratio. However, won't be quite as fun right?