It appears the new 10 speed in the Fords made a significant impact in catching up with the Cummins fuel mileage in the 2500's. Although it is still too little info in all of the new 2020 models to tell. It generally starts leveling out after around 50 vehicles and/or 500k miles recorded. Before this, it swings wildly. Makes me wonder what it will be when they slap the 8 speed in the Ram diesels. 250/2500sFordRamGM350/3500sFordRamGM

Very informative. TY for posting.

It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Without that, how do we know the Ford is any more efficient, rather than more it being a result of more people buying them as family daily drivers? I suspect the lower Ram 3500 numbers are also simply because they are so popular for hot-shotting, especially with the 14k GVWR, where Ford-driving hot-shotters will just opt for the F450 instead. Anyways... sure would be nice if there was a standardized fuel efficiency or CO2 test for light-medium vehicles, under both empty and full GCWR scenarios....

Those are some really sad numbers.

carringb wrote:It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Or even nicer, for folks to realize (not you necessarily or in particular) that overanalyzing fuel mileage is a game of diminishing returns. Unless you're rvnet member "slowmover".The factors you mentioned in your post combined with many others do SOOOO much more to affect fuel mileage than what gears are in the back end of the vehicle or which emblem is on the hood than most people understand.That said, it appears Ford is doing good things mileage wise with their diesels.Almost makes me wanna buy a Ram with a Powerstroke and an Allison instead of the other way around! (That way I still don't get seen by my friends driving a Ford!)

carringb wrote:It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Without that, how do we know the Ford is any more efficient, rather than more it being a result of more people buying them as family daily drivers? I suspect the lower Ram 3500 numbers are also simply because they are so popular for hot-shotting, especially with the 14k GVWR, where Ford-driving hot-shotters will just opt for the F450 instead. Anyways... sure would be nice if there was a standardized fuel efficiency or CO2 test for light-medium vehicles, under both empty and full GCWR scenarios....Exactly, this is well within the margin of error based on different usage patterns, so how you use it and your driving habits are likely to have a bigger impact than the differences shown.

Fuelly mileage of the big three diesels | Good Sam Community

Lwiddis
Explorer II
Sep 30, 2020
Very informative. TY for posting.
carringb
Explorer
Sep 30, 2020
It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Without that, how do we know the Ford is any more efficient, rather than more it being a result of more people buying them as family daily drivers? I suspect the lower Ram 3500 numbers are also simply because they are so popular for hot-shotting, especially with the 14k GVWR, where Ford-driving hot-shotters will just opt for the F450 instead. Anyways... sure would be nice if there was a standardized fuel efficiency or CO2 test for light-medium vehicles, under both empty and full GCWR scenarios....
jdc1
Explorer II
Sep 30, 2020
Those are some really sad numbers.
Grit_dog
Navigator
Sep 30, 2020
carringb wrote:
It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly.

Or even nicer, for folks to realize (not you necessarily or in particular) that overanalyzing fuel mileage is a game of diminishing returns. Unless you're rvnet member "slowmover".

The factors you mentioned in your post combined with many others do SOOOO much more to affect fuel mileage than what gears are in the back end of the vehicle or which emblem is on the hood than most people understand.

That said, it appears Ford is doing good things mileage wise with their diesels.
Almost makes me wanna buy a Ram with a Powerstroke and an Allison instead of the other way around! (That way I still don't get seen by my friends driving a Ford!)
valhalla360
Navigator
Sep 30, 2020
carringb wrote:
It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Without that, how do we know the Ford is any more efficient, rather than more it being a result of more people buying them as family daily drivers? I suspect the lower Ram 3500 numbers are also simply because they are so popular for hot-shotting, especially with the 14k GVWR, where Ford-driving hot-shotters will just opt for the F450 instead. Anyways... sure would be nice if there was a standardized fuel efficiency or CO2 test for light-medium vehicles, under both empty and full GCWR scenarios....

Exactly, this is well within the margin of error based on different usage patterns, so how you use it and your driving habits are likely to have a bigger impact than the differences shown.
ShinerBock
Explorer
Sep 30, 2020
jdc1 wrote:
Those are some really sad numbers.

If you think those numbers are sad, you should see the gas version of those pickups. About 2-3 mpg less for the V8's and 4-5 less for the V10s.

Also, they aren't too for off from the most common engine in the half tons in each brand either.

Ford F150 3.5L Ecoboost

Ram 1500 5.7L Hemi

GM 1500 5.3L
ShinerBock
Explorer
Sep 30, 2020
valhalla360 wrote:
carringb wrote:
It sure would be nice if Fuelly hadan option for towing vs solo driving, since the ratio of those driving types can skew data wildly. Without that, how do we know the Ford is any more efficient, rather than more it being a result of more people buying them as family daily drivers? I suspect the lower Ram 3500 numbers are also simply because they are so popular for hot-shotting, especially with the 14k GVWR, where Ford-driving hot-shotters will just opt for the F450 instead. Anyways... sure would be nice if there was a standardized fuel efficiency or CO2 test for light-medium vehicles, under both empty and full GCWR scenarios....

Exactly, this is well within the margin of error based on different usage patterns, so how you use it and your driving habits are likely to have a bigger impact than the differences shown.

They actually have notes for this in each persons bio of when they tow. However, as I said in my initial statement, as the amount of vehicles reporting in and miles increases, the towing mileage starts to become irrelevant in the total data except for the 350/3500 trucks.
Lwiddis
Explorer II
Sep 30, 2020
Going into town. 60-65 mph. Mostly flat. DW and me. Not much cargo.
smarty
Explorer II
Sep 30, 2020
It ain't about the miles per gallon. It is about what you are towing and what you need to safety tow it with.
RobWNY
Explorer
Sep 30, 2020
Are those towing numbers or a mixture of towing/not towing because I have a 2020 Silverado 2500 Diesel with the 10 speed. When not towing, I get 17.5 around town and 23.5 on the highway. My numbers are by doing the math, not the computer numbers. Granted I only have 2,500 miles on the truck so far but no way the average is 14.4mpg with the GM models. I'm guessing the Fords and Rams are getting much better mileage as well. I can't offer towing mpg's because I haven't done any towing with the truck yet but those ratings seem way off.