TC Magazine Dodge 3500 gas engine road test

Sounds like they are pretty satisfied with the truck. They state that it does a good job of supporting the weight of those heavy truck campers. The mpg isn't that bad considering the weight of the total package and the wind they are pushing around. My old V10 F250 2wd wouldn't get much better than that empty.

DemingNM2009 wrote:
I really appreciate the reports from TCM. Thanks Gordon and Angela.

Ditto that

I really appreciate the reports from TCM. Thanks Gordon and Angela.

I track fuel mileage religiously, as TCM folks are doing. I also record the MPG that the DIC (Driver Information Center, which is the term GM uses) reads, then I reset it at each fill up. The DIC reading is almost always slightly different, but the differential is never consistent. Part of that could be different conditions when filling the truck, and not filling it to the exact same "level of full" at each fill up.

nycsteve wrote:

RZAR66 wrote:
I am experiencing the same numbers as TCM is. I have almost the same truck as they do with the exception of my trucks 4.10 vs. their 3.73 rear end.

I also get similar #s with a 2011 6.2 Ford gasser. Almost the same truck configuration, but I also have the 4.1 rear. It was my understanding IIRC when researching my purchase that the 4.1 would actually help mileage when hauling a heavy TC in the bed . It would be a slight disadvantage mpg wise when running empty. Im no auto expert but I know I can count on over 10mpg, even topping 11mpg if everything is perfect , highway mileage with the TC at 60mph on level ground with no headwinds. A 1400 mile run down the east coast to Florida averages just over 10mpg , hand calculated. So I question TCM 's conclusions on the 4.1 vs the 3.73 gearing.

I used to have the same truck as you. If I remember correctly I bought mine around the same time you got yours. It was a great truck and I looked to get another one as a dually but the Ford dealers around here could not come close to what I got with Ram price wise so I made the switch. I actually almost got caught up in the diesel hype and was going to get a Cummins but with only hauling a 4500 pound camper it would have been silly of me to pay the diesel premium. I am very happy so far with the Hemi. MPG's are slightly better than my old Ford 6.2.

nycsteve wrote:

RZAR66 wrote:
I am experiencing the same numbers as TCM is. I have almost the same truck as they do with the exception of my trucks 4.10 vs. their 3.73 rear end.

I also get similar #s with a 2011 6.2 Ford gasser. Almost the same truck configuration, but I also have the 4.1 rear. It was my understanding IIRC when researching my purchase that the 4.1 would actually help mileage when hauling a heavy TC in the bed . It would be a slight disadvantage mpg wise when running empty. Im no auto expert but I know I can count on over 10mpg, even topping 11mpg if everything is perfect , highway mileage with the TC at 60mph on level ground with no headwinds. A 1400 mile run down the east coast to Florida averages just over 10mpg , hand calculated. So I question TCM 's conclusions on the 4.1 vs the 3.73 gearing.

You are running a SRW truck with a somewhat lighter camper (vs the AF 990). 2 less wheels makes about a 1mpg difference. I believe the 3.73 gears make about a 1 mpg difference over the 4.3's (I don't think Ford offers 4.1 gears). If I just lock it into 5th gear the mpg drops down to the low 9's. TC mag is trying to make a point about max fuel efficiency with a DRW gasser so they chose the 3.73's, but that choice would not be the right one if they were also towing something, and even if not towing some people would not be happy with the more frequent shifting between 6 and 5.

I was disappointed in the updated facts. Thought maybe I had found my next truck....I couldn't believe TCM would believe their gauge for a second. They have been referred as Lie o meters for years here on RV.net. That said, the gauge in my 06 Ford is eerily accurate.

I just finished a 3100 mile trip averaging 10.072 in my 06 gasser with heavy camper. Maybe I don't need a new truck after all!

Something to keep in mind is that mpg is only one measure of a an engine. That is, think of the comparison of v8 vs v6 in many vehicles. The v6 gets a 1-2 mpg better, but has less acceleration and less longevity because it is working harder. Everyone gets to make their tradeoffs. I like that my diesel has solid acceleration even if I was towing in the highest mountains, but I also prefer acceleration of a v8 compared to a typical v6 and tradeoff the mpg.

RZAR66 wrote:
I am experiencing the same numbers as TCM is. I have almost the same truck as they do with the exception of my trucks 4.10 vs. their 3.73 rear end.

If I was buying a gasoline equipped HD truck it would have 4:10 gears. My first 3 diesels had 4:10 gears and they got decent fuel mileage towing.

I pulled a dozer on a GN trailer 1,250 miles, 3:73 gears, 5th gear at 65 MPH through mountains and flat a got 9 MPG calculated. Total weight was 24,100 lbs. Empty trailer with a total weight of 13,000 lbs. MPG was 13.

5th gear with a 3:73 calculates close to 4:10 gears in 6th on my RAM 3500. It's just that the gearing is coming from the tranny instead of the diff.

RZAR66 wrote:
I am experiencing the same numbers as TCM is. I have almost the same truck as they do with the exception of my trucks 4.10 vs. their 3.73 rear end.

I also get similar #s with a 2011 6.2 Ford gasser. Almost the same truck configuration, but I also have the 4.1 rear. It was my understanding IIRC when researching my purchase that the 4.1 would actually help mileage when hauling a heavy TC in the bed . It would be a slight disadvantage mpg wise when running empty. Im no auto expert but I know I can count on over 10mpg, even topping 11mpg if everything is perfect , highway mileage with the TC at 60mph on level ground with no headwinds. A 1400 mile run down the east coast to Florida averages just over 10mpg , hand calculated. So I question TCM 's conclusions on the 4.1 vs the 3.73 gearing.