Ram 3500 MPG test

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

I think it's pretty tough to argue that any one of these new diesels is more dependable than the others and this thread is actually supposed to be about how Ram/Cummins is not even in the same league as Ford when it comes to efficiency. If Cummins isn't concerned about keeping up, Ram might have to try to negotiate a deal with Ford to supply them with engines.

That is if you go off of test like these to rate a vehicles efficiency. There are too many variables when doing tests on different days and even different times of day. A tail wind on one day could make a huge difference on a headwind another day. Case in point, when they tested this same exact truck configuration last year on the same loop towing a 29k fifth wheel horse trailer, they got 8.7 mpg.

If you go off of real world data like Fuelly where people post millions of real world mileage(which matters more than this test), the new Powerstroke 10-speed seems to have merely just caught up with the Cummins. Before 2020, the Powerstroke F250 averaged 14.5 mph while the 2500 Cummins averaged 15.4 mpg. The few 2020 F250 postings(3 members so far) are showing a 15.3 mpg average, but that is too little of a a group still to tell just like the new Cummins 2500. The F350/3500 is harder tot tell because you don't know the mix of DRW and SRW and they are used to tow more than F250/2500s which makes it harder to get a good average.

If you're trying to build a case that Cummins' is mainly concerned about efficiency and durability and is not having to compete with the Powerstroke and Duramax you'll have to do better than that. We had a '98 Ram and an '03 Duramax that we towed almost identical trailers with. The Duramax towing mileage was better but the Ram did significantly better running empty. I was not fond of that old Ram for various reasons but it was excellent on fuel and I had 100% confidence in the engine's dependability. The point is that Cummins has been going the wrong direction with both their fuel efficiency and dependability since '98. It's not a bad thing though, I'm glad they are concerned with keeping up with the competition or we might still have those old 5.9 tractor engines clanging away in our campgrounds and slowing traffic down to a crawl through the mountain passes.

4x4ord wrote:

I think it's pretty tough to argue that any one of these new diesels is more dependable than the others and this thread is actually supposed to be about how Ram/Cummins is not even in the same league as Ford when it comes to efficiency. If Cummins isn't concerned about keeping up, Ram might have to try to negotiate a deal with Ford to supply them with engines.

That is if you go off of test like these to rate a vehicles efficiency. There are too many variables when doing tests on different days and even different times of day. A tail wind on one day could make a huge difference on a headwind another day. Case in point, when they tested this same exact truck configuration last year on the same loop towing a 29k fifth wheel horse trailer, they got 8.7 mpg.

If you go off of real world data like Fuelly where people post millions of real world mileage(which matters more than this test), the new Powerstroke 10-speed seems to have merely just caught up with the Cummins. Before 2020, the Powerstroke F250 averaged 14.5 mph while the 2500 Cummins averaged 15.4 mpg. The few 2020 F250 postings(3 members so far) are showing a 15.3 mpg average, but that is too little of a a group still to tell just like the new Cummins 2500. The F350/3500 is harder tot tell because you don't know the mix of DRW and SRW and they are used to tow more than F250/2500s which makes it harder to get a good average.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
It's actually funny to bank on a pathetic test procedure, IMHO there is simply no way there is a 30% difference in fuel economy.

I will admit that towing at 70 with a lower rpm will net better mpg that is a given or solo. That is why I liked the 3.42/AISIN combo.

So far this may be the only benefit to a 10 speed trans IMHO.

I'm not believing the 30% difference either but I've got nothing to loose if I buy a new Ford. If TFL's test demonstrated that the Ram was getting 30% better mileage than the Ford I'd either be buying a Ram for my next truck or be doing some serious mileage tests of my own before buying anything.

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


You have to remember that Ike times don't matter to Cummins. Their main goal is dependability and efficiency. So while you see being first up a mountain as a goal for competitiveness, they don't. They see being able to get up that mountain day in and day out out in cold or hot temps more efficiently. In my view, Ford is catering to a different kind of customer than Cummins and their is nothing wrong with that.

I think it's pretty tough to argue that any one of these new diesels is more dependable than the others and this thread is actually supposed to be about how Ram/Cummins is not even in the same league as Ford when it comes to efficiency. If Cummins isn't concerned about keeping up, Ram might have to try to negotiate a deal with Ford to supply them with engines.

It was a ~year ago that I reported here that my cousin mentioned to me that the Ram dealer had several owners complain that their 3500 Ram Cummins was making worse fuel economy than their previous trucks and I also asked a couple of hot shot drivers about fuel economy and they told me the same. I was attacked by the usual fan boy and here we are a year later and the Ram 3500 cummins had the worst fuel economy of the bunch.

It's actually funny to bank on a pathetic test procedure, IMHO there is simply no way there is a 30% difference in fuel economy.

I will admit that towing at 70 with a lower rpm will net better mpg that is a given or solo. That is why I liked the 3.42/AISIN combo.

So far this may be the only benefit to a 10 speed trans IMHO.

ShinerBock wrote:


You have to remember that Ike times don't matter to Cummins. Their main goal is dependability and efficiency. So while you see being first up a mountain as a goal for competitiveness, they don't. They see being able to get up that mountain day in and day out out in cold or hot temps more efficiently. In my view, Ford is catering to a different kind of customer than Cummins and their is nothing wrong with that.

I think it's pretty tough to argue that any one of these new diesels is more dependable than the others and this thread is actually supposed to be about how Ram/Cummins is not even in the same league as Ford when it comes to efficiency. If Cummins isn't concerned about keeping up, Ram might have to try to negotiate a deal with Ford to supply them with engines.

No need, that same PM proves his commitment to customers with the 6.0.

(Sorry).

Fish, please explain how durability and dependability has been proven on the 2020 Powerstroke....:h

That project manager must have blown a kiss in your ear! :B

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The Power Stroke Project manager has also stated that dependability, durability and efficiency improvements for it's customers is very important and these recent tests sure back them up.

You just can't help yourself can't you. You know, you and the the Cummins bunch that you are against most of the time aren't too different from each other. Ya'll are just on different sides of the tracks.

LOL... Not passive aggressive at all.

No it wasn't. That was direct.

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


The Power Stroke Project manager has also stated that dependability, durability and efficiency improvements for it's customers is very important and these recent tests sure back them up.

You just can't help yourself can't you. You know, you and the the Cummins bunch that you are against most of the time aren't too different from each other. Ya'll are just on different sides of the tracks.

LOL... Not passive aggressive at all.