Ram 3500 MPG test

What rpm was the Ford and GM running at 70?

For the record, that stretch of road would usually have a quartering wind.

Hard to argue though, the Ford did better.

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.

It was a 66 mile loop so, if there was a slight tail wind in one direction it would be a slight head wind the other. My 2011 Ford mileage computer was exact and consistent. My 2016 was off by as much as about 10%. It always used less fuel than the computer said but sometimes it was close. My 2017 ... I have checked it on the rare occasion but can't remember which way it reads. I very seldom fill from a metered pump. Even if the Ford computer was accurate it would still have meant it got 17% better fuel economy than the Ram which is huge. Maybe that is the result of putting less energy into the cooling system.

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.

The Ford running at dusk would be less likely to have wind.

That said, not the greatest showing. Maybe I shouldn’t complain about the MPG my truck gets.

4x4ord wrote:

ScottG wrote:
I honestly wouldn't care about any trucks fuel efficiency during the short times I'm climbing a mountain.
I'd rather see mileage results for a 100~200 mile run on a normal stretch highway.

Thats what this test is .... not 100 miles but a 66 mile loop of regular highway driving. I actually would consider a Ram if I thought it would get better fuel economy than the Ford. I'm pretty sure the Ram can display the DPF level so it is very unlikely that the Ram did a burn but maybe? If the Ford will actually go 30% further on a gallon of fuel than the Ram I can't see anyone buying a Ram over a Ford. On the other hand I can't help being somewhat sceptical of these results.

This is my guess as well that the RAM did a DPF regeneration during the loop. I can tell right away when mine is doing a regen. Mileage drops quickly. Based on the mileage I get in my RAM towing a big sail I am pretty sure it did a regen. It takes about 1/2 hour or so to do a regen on the highway in my experience which would mean that it was regenerating for just a bit more than half the drive. Would skew the results badly.

Rob

I have not watched yet. I’m guessing the RAM didn’t do well. I have said it before fill em to the TOP not this BS click squeeze fill.

Hauling a track hoe is not so easy. Extreme test for mileage.
My record for an empty F-350 with 7.3 engine is 23.8 mpg.
That is over 300 miles using cruise control.

That is horrible fuel mileage. Hopefully next time they can test these trucks the same day because many variables like wind and temp can effect mpg. However, it is what it is.

ScottG wrote:
I honestly wouldn't care about any trucks fuel efficiency during the short times I'm climbing a mountain.
I'd rather see mileage results for a 100~200 mile run on a normal stretch highway.

I am more interested in the millions of real world tank to tank fuel miles logged on sites like Fuelly. I feel that is more realistic instead of these tests.

ScottG wrote:
I see the problem. At 14.46 the rear wheels are turning the wrong direction.
That's got to hurt mileage some.

Hehe .... maybe that's what skewed the results.