Ram 3500 MPG test

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Towing at 70 is the real difference in fuel economy here and I would say this is where the 10 speed trans comes into play. Drop the speed to 60 the RAM will still be in 6th at 1,750, what gear will the Ford be in and what rpm?

Can't remember what RPM is the Ford doing at 70 on flat, ground I assume in 10th?

Cummins is doing 2k at 70 in 6th with 4.10's, what would the rpm's be if the RAM had 3.42's at 70?

To get an idea as to what the 10 speed would do for the Cummins all you'd have to do is drive your Ram down the road towing a heavy load at 1700 rpm in high gear and reset your milage meter...... drive a few miles and see what your average trip mileage was. Then go back and drive the exact same stretch of road at the same speed in 5th gear (about 2095 rpm) and see what your trip meter says for mpg. There is always people claiming they lock out high gear while towing and don't see any loss in mileage. I've never believed these claims, but at the same time I don't think the increased fuel usage is going to be anywhere near 30%.

Me Again wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
what would the rpm's be if the RAM had 3.42's at 70?

Probably around 1500. 80 is 1750. I will check the next time I am on Highway 60. Of course the SRW have 33" tires so a duallie will be a little higher with their shorter tires.

I looked at old photos, couldn't find one at 70 but did find this one. :B

Looks like about 7-8 mpg.

Cummins12V98 wrote:


The fuel economy test method is plain STUPID and I have said so for years even with RAM doing the best.

What even more stupid is believing that Ford magically shook out an honest 2mpg more than the previous model, all while adding more power at the same time!

Only OCD people give a rat's arse about whether they're getting 14.567 mpg or 14.765 mpg anyway.
Unreal that this thread has gone on this long...

Cummins12V98 wrote:
what would the rpm's be if the RAM had 3.42's at 70?

Probably around 1500. 80 is 1750. I will check the next time I am on Highway 60. Of course the SRW have 33" tires so a duallie will be a little higher with their shorter tires.

Towing at 70 is the real difference in fuel economy here and I would say this is where the 10 speed trans comes into play. Drop the speed to 60 the RAM will still be in 6th at 1,750, what gear will the Ford be in and what rpm?

Can't remember what RPM is the Ford doing at 70 on flat, ground I assume in 10th?

Cummins is doing 2k at 70 in 6th with 4.10's, what would the rpm's be if the RAM had 3.42's at 70?

ShinerBock wrote:
How many math formula's has 4x4 gone through to explain the PSD's past shortcomings as well?

You mean the guy that thinks a 7 years average determines how Cummins engines went into the 2019 models?

In 4.5+ years and 65K I have only been aware of one regen with my 2015. And it was after the fact. I had just bought a new TT was taking to get the china bomb tires replaced with Goodyear Endurance tires. On a flat stretch for I-5 I was watching MPG with the EVIC and it was really low. On the way back I looked again and it was where I thought it should be. Later that day I came to the conclusion it had been in regen on the way to the tire store.

So I would say that unless they are monitoring regens on each truck on such a short test loop, there is no valid conclusion of MPG.

Lets put 30 gals of fuel in each with identical trailers and drive them West on I-10 from Phoenix and see which one runs out of fuel first. Good flat land test. Second test would be to head North out of Phoenix on I-17. These two test would give you some real world comparisons.

FishOnOne wrote:


Here we go you guys keep dragging me into this hopeless conversation.

And you guys didn't do the same last year? How many math formula's has 4x4 gone through to explain the PSD's past shortcomings as well?

4x4ord wrote:


I guess I wasn't paying enough attention... I didn't realize the Ram was going against the wind both directions and the Ford had a tail wind in both directions. That could certainly affect the fuel economy. Those TFL guys.:S

Never said that the Ram was goings against the wind both ways so I am not sure where you got that. What I did say is that we don't know the conditions of the two different days and there are too many variables to say this is the exact mileage one should expect when towing with the new Cummins. Truth is there are many variables such as high winds versus no wind, wind direction, wet roads versus dry, and so on. To base all of your buying decisions on one test performed on different days under different conditions versus hundreds of thousands of real world mileage is pure asinine.

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
No matter how you look at it, past sales numbers isn't going to help you squeeze 30% more miles out of a gallon of fuel. Unless the Cummins can compete in mpg the sales numbers are going to be dropping pretty significantly.

That is if you go by tests that are performed on different days and different conditions rather than real world fuel economy from millions of miles not just 70. I bet a million dollars that if it were the Ford that got 30% less fuel mileage and these tests were performed on different days and different condition then you and Fish would be crying foul as well.

Here we go you guys keep dragging me into this hopeless conversation. This test is over and the results have been posted and maybe next year there will be changes and the results will be different.

This isn’t the first time the power stroke made better fuel economy than the cummins and duramax.