Forum Discussion

ib516's avatar
ib516
Explorer II
Oct 30, 2013

Canadian Truck King Challenge

Some good info here in empty and loaded mpg. They tested with a payload and small trailer behind the small trucks, and with a payload and a big 14,000# 5th wheel RV behind the HD trucks. Real world data.

Canadian Truck King Challenge

Impressive mpg by the Duramax (lowest tq output of the three diesels in the 2500/3500 trucks) - it even beats the 3.5L EcoBoost in empty mpg!

The Ram 3.0L EcoDiesel 1500 was also impressive in the mpg department.
  • ib516 wrote:
    Some good info here in empty and loaded mpg. They tested with a payload and small trailer behind the small trucks, and with a payload and a big 14,000# 5th wheel RV behind the HD trucks. Real world data.

    Canadian Truck King Challenge

    Impressive mpg by the Duramax (lowest tq output of the three diesels in the 2500/3500 trucks) - it even beats the 3.5L EcoBoost in empty mpg!

    The Ram 3.0L EcoDiesel 1500 was also impressive in the mpg department.



    I wasn't expecting any less from the new 1500 diesel and this might make it be a good seller.
    chevman
  • 4x4ord's avatar
    4x4ord
    Explorer III
    I wonder why many of the 1/2 tons got better fuel economy loaded than empty? Seems like sloppy testing. Also, in the diesel category, the mpg tests were done over too short of distance to give results that could accurately be compared unless they forced a regen in each truck prior to the test.
  • I wonder if one of the brands had to buy a new tail gate because of that twist ditch? :B
  • Canadian Truck King Challenge wrote:
    The Truck King challenge testers said "All the trucks hauled well, but the torque of the 2014 Ram 3.0-liter V-6 diesel with an eight-speed transmission stood out from the rest"
  • ib5i6 wrote:
    I am pretty sure the opposite will be true when they are tested head to head in towing performance numbers (that don't involve mpg)

    That was not mentioned, but it would be interesting to see if that was or was not the case.
  • The Ram EcoDiesel easily bests the Ford EcoBoost in the mpg and ride/handling dept. I am pretty sure the opposite will be true when they are tested head to head in towing performance numbers (that don't involve mpg). The F150 also has far more payload. Both are good trucks, though the Ford could stand an update.

    Which truck is right for you depends on what your priorities are.
  • I found this post interesting:
    If you go to the truck king challenge web site, there was some "excess idling" that was noted on the fuel consumption reports. I had posted the link on the "2014 testing season" thread. I'll repost here:
    http://canadiantruckkingchallenge.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/mycarma_ctkc_lightduty_onroad_resultssummary1.pdf
    Looks like some information was left out do to "ease of posting".

    Ford's 5.0 gets similar loaded and towing mpg to the 3.7 V6 and the EB3.5 gets better mpg than the 3.6 V6 and 5.0.
    The 6.2 Chevy isn't much worse than the 5.3 as far as mpg goes. That will help sell that engine if there isn't a huge mpg penalty.
    The Ram 3.6 V6 is pretty good on gas but the VM 3.0 beats it. The Ram 5.7 is one of the worst engines for mpg. The Ram 5.7 gets better towing mpg than the 3.6 V6.
    The only one worse is the Tundra 5.7. Even the Chevy 6.2 gets better mpg.
    If I read the data correctly - this is the listing for mpg:
    #1 - Ecodiesel 3.0
    #2 - 3.6 Pentastar
    #3 - Ecoboost 3.5
    #4 - 3.7 V6 Ford
    #5 - 5.3 Ecotec
    #6 - 6.2 Ecotec
    #7 - 5.7 Hemi
    #8 - 5.7 IForce

    The Ecoboost and Ecodiesel mpg are as follows:

    Empty:
    EB3.5 - 12.2 litres/100km = 23.1 (Imp) or 19.3 (US)
    VM3.0 - 9.1 litres/100km = 31 (Imp) or 25.9 (US)

    Loaded:
    EB3.5 - 12.9 litres/100km = 21.9 (Imp) or 18.2 (US)
    VM3.0 - 10.5 litres/100km = 26.9 (Imp) or 22.4 (US)

    Towing:
    EB3.5 - 19.7 litres/100km = 14.3 (Imp) or 12 (US)
    VM3.0 - 16.1 litres/100km = 17.6 (Imp) or 14.6 (US)