2018 Ram Cummins Towing 12.5k mpg

[ShinerBock]

10.87 mpg! Not great, but not bad considering the brick it was towing. The Ford Powerstroke they tested earlier was 10.05 mpg which still is not bad.

2018 Ram 2500 HD Cummins MPG towing test


How do the gasers compare towing the same 12.5k lb trailer?

Ford 6.2L - 8.59 mpg

Ram 6.4L - 7.34 mpg


Ford F250 and Ram 2500 mpg tow test.

I know, I know, it is not apples to apples since the gasers were base model regular cabs and the diesels were decked out crew cabs 4wds.

[cummins2014]

ShinerBock wrote:
I record my computers mileage and my hand calculated mileage on my aCar app every fill up for tax reasons. When my 14 Ram CTD was stock, the difference between the computers mileage and hand calculated was between 1.5-3 mpg off every time. After I tuned it and worked with my tuner to fix this, it is now within .5 mpg off.

I am not the only one either. if you go to the Cummins forums you will find that many have their computers off as much as mine was stock while others were dead on. Luck of the draw I guess.

At least it is not like old truck. My old Ram 5.9L CTD, my dads 7.3 PSD, and father in law's 6.0L PSD is were off by 2-4 mpg all the time.

My 2014 Ram is consistently off 2-3 mpg , the computer always reads higher then what I get hand calculated . Its actually to the point I really don't need to hand calculate I know within 1 mph of what I am getting.

[ib516]

ShinerBock wrote:
10.87 mpg! Not great, but not bad considering the brick it was towing. The Ford Powerstroke they tested earlier was 10.05 mpg which still is not bad.

2018 Ram 2500 HD Cummins MPG towing test


How do the gasers compare towing the same 12.5k lb trailer?

Ford 6.2L - 8.59 mpg

Ram 6.4L - 7.34 mpg


Ford F250 and Ram 2500 mpg tow test.

Diesels pulling 12.5k lbs - 10 - 11 mpg
Gassers pulling 12.5k lbs - 7 - 9 mpg

Seems about right, and right in line with my experience using both.

[JIMNLIN]

brulaz wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, my uncorrected Evic is 11.2mpgUS towing, 10.8mpgUS corrected.

Not that different from what these guys report.

Have they ever tested GM on this loop?

The best a 98 mile run would give us is a single tank best or worse mpg.
I know many report their trucks gets XX mpg on just a single tank or even a similar 98 mile run like the youtube. I prefer testing over several tanks for any mpg average.

My old '03 Dodge/Cummins evic always shows less mpg than pencil figures. Its been that way since new. I don't reset the evic after every tank.....maybe every 3-5 tanks.

[brulaz]

Getting back to the original topic, my uncorrected Evic is 11.2mpgUS towing, 10.8mpgUS corrected.

Not that different from what these guys report.

Have they ever tested GM on this loop?

[brulaz]

Over 84 fillups, 70% towing, Evic is 4-5% (~0.4 mpgUS) higher than hand-calced.

[blofgren]

I find tanks of fuel that are combined towing and solo REALLY wreak havoc on the computer! :B

I hand calculated my mileage for a while after I bought the truck but I rarely bother anymore.

[ShinerBock]

I record my computers mileage and my hand calculated mileage on my aCar app every fill up for tax reasons. When my 14 Ram CTD was stock, the difference between the computers mileage and hand calculated was between 1.5-3 mpg off every time. After I tuned it and worked with my tuner to fix this, it is now within .5 mpg off.

I am not the only one either. if you go to the Cummins forums you will find that many have their computers off as much as mine was stock while others were dead on. Luck of the draw I guess.

At least it is not like old truck. My old Ram 5.9L CTD, my dads 7.3 PSD, and father in law's 6.0L PSD is were off by 2-4 mpg all the time.

[jus2shy]

Well, I looked at the error for my MPG meter this year. Seems like my average error is 0% (Yes you read that right). With average deviations between -2% and 1%. Pretty darn tight. The only time the meter is off is when I spend half a tank solidly in the city, then the other half solidy freeway driving. Then I get variances of up to 9% off between Dash and Actual.

[Me_Again]

rhagfo wrote:

mich800 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

mich800 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for sharing... It's interesting that some report the on board fuel economy readout is very close to calculated fuel economy and some report theirs are not even close. These both runs from both trucks were very close.

I have found most of the vehicles I have driven from all makes are pretty close. Still need to be aware when doing one tank tests as the click off can really impact the calculation in the short run.

Well on my 16 year old Ram the computer reads high by a consistent 1 mpg to hand calculated.

I should have prefaced that comment with; more recent vehicles within the past decade. Also, the older the vehicle gets the harder it will be for the computer calculation as injectors and the general tune of the engine can stray from the ideal parameters it was designed for.

More or less my point also, the fact that 16 years ago it could be within one MPG, then they should now days be within tenths of a MPG.

NOT!

[rhagfo]

mich800 wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

mich800 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for sharing... It's interesting that some report the on board fuel economy readout is very close to calculated fuel economy and some report theirs are not even close. These both runs from both trucks were very close.

I have found most of the vehicles I have driven from all makes are pretty close. Still need to be aware when doing one tank tests as the click off can really impact the calculation in the short run.

Well on my 16 year old Ram the computer reads high by a consistent 1 mpg to hand calculated.

I should have prefaced that comment with; more recent vehicles within the past decade. Also, the older the vehicle gets the harder it will be for the computer calculation as injectors and the general tune of the engine can stray from the ideal parameters it was designed for.

More or less my point also, the fact that 16 years ago it could be within one MPG, then they should now days be within tenths of a MPG.

[mich800]

rhagfo wrote:

mich800 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for sharing... It's interesting that some report the on board fuel economy readout is very close to calculated fuel economy and some report theirs are not even close. These both runs from both trucks were very close.

I have found most of the vehicles I have driven from all makes are pretty close. Still need to be aware when doing one tank tests as the click off can really impact the calculation in the short run.

Well on my 16 year old Ram the computer reads high by a consistent 1 mpg to hand calculated.

I should have prefaced that comment with; more recent vehicles within the past decade. Also, the older the vehicle gets the harder it will be for the computer calculation as injectors and the general tune of the engine can stray from the ideal parameters it was designed for.

[rhagfo]

mich800 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for sharing... It's interesting that some report the on board fuel economy readout is very close to calculated fuel economy and some report theirs are not even close. These both runs from both trucks were very close.

I have found most of the vehicles I have driven from all makes are pretty close. Still need to be aware when doing one tank tests as the click off can really impact the calculation in the short run.

Well on my 16 year old Ram the computer reads high by a consistent 1 mpg to hand calculated.

[buzzT]

Good point mich800!

[mich800]

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for sharing... It's interesting that some report the on board fuel economy readout is very close to calculated fuel economy and some report theirs are not even close. These both runs from both trucks were very close.

I have found most of the vehicles I have driven from all makes are pretty close. Still need to be aware when doing one tank tests as the click off can really impact the calculation in the short run.