Forum Discussion

ShinerBock's avatar
ShinerBock
Explorer
Dec 10, 2017

2018 Ram Cummins Towing 12.5k mpg

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.
Tow Vehicles
  • FishOnOne's avatar
    FishOnOne
    Nomad
    Dec 10, 2017
    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.
  • MFL's avatar
    MFL
    Nomad II
    Dec 10, 2017
    Lots of 6.2 Ford fans, yes, me too. I average about 8.5. I have gotten 10+ a few times, under ideal conditions, with all time low 7.8. My speedometer reads about 2 mph fast at 60 mph, so could make my mpg look just a little better than actual.

    Jerry
  • mich800's avatar
    mich800
    Explorer
    Dec 10, 2017
    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.
  • rhagfo's avatar
    rhagfo
    Explorer III
    Dec 10, 2017
    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.
  • mich800's avatar
    mich800
    Explorer
    Dec 11, 2017
    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's avatar
    rhagfo
    Explorer III
    Dec 11, 2017
    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.
  • Me_Again's avatar
    Me_Again
    Explorer III
    Dec 11, 2017
    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!
  • jus2shy's avatar
    jus2shy
    Explorer
    Dec 11, 2017
    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.

About Travel Trailer Group

44,029 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 13, 2025