Ram 3500 MPG test

blofgren wrote:

2001400ex wrote:

blofgren wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
^^^^^ Why do you like gas?

That engine seems to get similar mileage to what the newer diesels are getting and there is much less to go wrong. Granted, there is less power but it would likely suffice for most people.

I plan on keeping my current truck until death do us part or we don't have a large fifth wheel any more, but if something were to happen to it such as it being stolen or written off, I would be giving the Ford 7.3L a very hard look.

No. They don't get similar mileage. At all. Lol this year was pulling 30k pounds.

Look back at the 16k towing test of the 7.3L; I don't think any of the new diesels would do all that much better on fuel economy pulling a similar load than it did. It's not like the 1990's when diesels were much better on fuel than their gas counterparts.

30k is a lot different than 16k. The 90s? Other than 08-10 when diesels had Regen issues, they've still been significantly higher mpg. I can get 12 mpg with my 15k fifth wheel if I'm keeping it around 60. If gas is 10 mpg, that's 20%.

2001400ex wrote:

blofgren wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
^^^^^ Why do you like gas?

That engine seems to get similar mileage to what the newer diesels are getting and there is much less to go wrong. Granted, there is less power but it would likely suffice for most people.

I plan on keeping my current truck until death do us part or we don't have a large fifth wheel any more, but if something were to happen to it such as it being stolen or written off, I would be giving the Ford 7.3L a very hard look.

No. They don't get similar mileage. At all. Lol this year was pulling 30k pounds.

Look back at the 16k towing test of the 7.3L; I don't think any of the new diesels would do all that much better on fuel economy pulling a similar load than it did. It's not like the 1990's when diesels were much better on fuel than their gas counterparts.

blofgren wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
^^^^^ Why do you like gas?

That engine seems to get similar mileage to what the newer diesels are getting and there is much less to go wrong. Granted, there is less power but it would likely suffice for most people.

I plan on keeping my current truck until death do us part or we don't have a large fifth wheel any more, but if something were to happen to it such as it being stolen or written off, I would be giving the Ford 7.3L a very hard look.

No. They don't get similar mileage. At all. Lol this year was pulling 30k pounds.

I think the new Ford diesel is getting better mileage than any other Ford diesel and quite possibly better than any of the 6.7 Cummins engines. I don't think the 7.3 will come close to the mileage of the diesels.

4x4ord wrote:
^^^^^ Why do you like gas?

That engine seems to get similar mileage to what the newer diesels are getting and there is much less to go wrong. Granted, there is less power but it would likely suffice for most people.

I plan on keeping my current truck until death do us part or we don't have a large fifth wheel any more, but if something were to happen to it such as it being stolen or written off, I would be giving the Ford 7.3L a very hard look.

Not saying it was not bouncing. It appeared less. Bottom line they start talking about it Nd never finished giving an opinion.

The dumb AZZ thing is they test these on different days.

I know first hand the difference in having the factory rear air loaded with 6k pin weight compared to another Ram without bags. Difference is more than noticeable.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Watched it.

They mentioned the ride quality of the other trucks but didn't say anything about the RAM??? It appeared they were getting jerked around less, thoughts?

When in the low MPG my computer is very close. I do believe it was getting 6.3mph. I DON'T believe the others MPG. 70 mph towing that weight that is reality. Now do the other two have RPM's less than 2k at 70??? If so that would help some. They mentioned wind, sorry YES even with that type of load the wind IS a factor. Did they have a tail wind with the others???

REALLY sad they did the tests on separate days. Wind and temps do make some difference.

NO I don't believe the DEF numbers either!

Did anyone notice the bone heads did NOT have ALT ride height set? 40" to the fender is HIGH. Mine sets at 38 3/4" in ALT ride.

When I watched all three. They all three were getting thrown around about equally. They didn't show much video inside the ram but you could easily see it bouncing.

4x4ord wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

larry barnhart wrote:
I can't imagine doing that for mileage checks.If the filler tube shows fuel after the 2nd hit the tank is full. Chevman

What they are doing is NOT accurate. You can't see into these newer truck fill holes. There is a flapper down a bit.

They don't even stick the nozzle all the way into the hole all the time as this will make a difference when it shuts off.

YOUR truck I am sure you can look down into the hole and see the fuel just like my 98 and 01 RAM's are.

I can see the GM and Ford getting better mileage if their rpm's are lower than the RAM's at 70 as 4X said the Ford is.

Bottom line I sure would NOT buy a truck based on their VERY unreliable testing.

I agree. This test is not a sure thing, However, I would not ignore it either, I would either say "well I could care less whether I buy a Ford or Ram and if I get the Ford I might save $13000 on fuel over the next 10 years .... therefore I am buying the Ford." Alternately I could see saying "I really like the Ram air ride, the Cummins name and the Ram interior. It's not worth $13k though so I need to check into this mileage thing more closely before I'm going to buy a truck." But to say "I could care less what my truck gets for mileage" seems idiotic to me.

I agree with 4x4ord. Mileage is one of many important factors for buying a certain pickup.

However, on the flip side, I do not put much weight in test that are not performed on the same day or in same conditions. Having towed for many years, I know that a windy day with a terrible headwind could make a significant difference versus a a tailwind or even not wind at all. In fact, it has made as much as a 3 mpg difference towing my trailer 160 miles down to the coast on a windy day versus a calm day. Heck, even the TFL guys have gotten completely different mpg numbers on different days with the exact same truck in the past. So you just got to take tests like these with a grain of salt.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
Ford would have been running about 1670 rpm and Ram about 1900. I'm going to need more convincing before I"m going to believe that the Ford gets that much better fuel economy than Ram just like I'm needing more convincing that the Ram exhaust brake is that much stronger than Ford's.

My tachometer says 2,000rpm at 70 so the Ford running 1,670 would for sure get better mileage. That much difference with the wind who knows, I doubt it.


Seriously these guys need to learn how to fill up a truck!!! To be "PRECISE" they could have a 5 gallon container filled and mark the tank where the 5 gallons comes to, fill truck tank with nozzle til it shuts off. Fill to the top with the 5. Empty the 5 into the chase truck or have a second tank empty and then fill it with 5g.

Now take the run come back to the same pump so the truck is setting the same. Have a container with exactly 5 gallons in it. Now fill the tank til it clicks, now pour from the 5 into the truck til it's FULL. Now fill the 5 that you just used back to it's full line using the same pump to determine exactly how much fuel is used.

I know this sounds complicated but in reality it is not and would give EXACT amount of fuel used.

Do the same with the DEF, it's simply stupid trying to get an accurate number with the DEF pumps.

In a diesel pickup when towing, the lower RPM doesn't mean better fuel mileage. My 08 Duramax would get much lower mpg at 1,700 rpms in 6th over 2,000 rpms in 5th when towing. Reason is at 1,700 it is lugging and dumping fuel to keep up. EGTs much higher as well at 1,700 rpms. (Assuming flat ground).

I do agree their tests are lame. They are also using the fast fill pumps which are not consistent and subject to the amount of foaming you get. I also complain that they need to get a banks idash to check to see if they are in Regen. They also need to do 3-4 runs in each to account for variations in the test.

I don't think the ram gets that much worse MPG as I don't believe the Ford gets that much better. All three used a ton of def.

They also should run miles and miles to see how often it regens, but I find they are too lazy to do any of those changes. Hell they can't even remember to bring their DB meter half the trips.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

larry barnhart wrote:
I can't imagine doing that for mileage checks.If the filler tube shows fuel after the 2nd hit the tank is full. Chevman

What they are doing is NOT accurate. You can't see into these newer truck fill holes. There is a flapper down a bit.

They don't even stick the nozzle all the way into the hole all the time as this will make a difference when it shuts off.

YOUR truck I am sure you can look down into the hole and see the fuel just like my 98 and 01 RAM's are.

I can see the GM and Ford getting better mileage if their rpm's are lower than the RAM's at 70 as 4X said the Ford is.

Bottom line I sure would NOT buy a truck based on their VERY unreliable testing.

I agree. This test is not a sure thing, However, I would not ignore it either, I would either say "well I could care less whether I buy a Ford or Ram and if I get the Ford I might save $13000 on fuel over the next 10 years .... therefore I am buying the Ford." Alternately I could see saying "I really like the Ram air ride, the Cummins name and the Ram interior. It's not worth $13k though so I need to check into this mileage thing more closely before I'm going to buy a truck." But to say "I could care less what my truck gets for mileage" seems idiotic to me.