Ram and Chevy MPG Test Part 2

[FishOnOne]

Test run ~100 miles with very little wind. Obviously this is not a comparison since these trucks are not similar.

Ram: 16.8 mpg (5.7 E-Torque Rebel)
Chevy: 24.2 mpg (2.7 Turbo)

Link


Noteworthy:
The Ram was previously tested by TFL making significant understated fuel economy performance, but was assumed the engine wasn't broken in.

The Chevy was previously tested by Car and Driver again making significant understated fuel economy and was actually worse than the 5.3.

[RGar974417]

I have a 2018 Nissan Titan XD with the Cummins 5.0 diesel. The best mileage I have gotten so far is 22.5. I saw another mileage test among Chevy,Ford,Dodge and Nissan. Chevy was first,Nissan 2nd ,Ford 3rd and Dodge last. But I believe it was a test of combined city/highway.

[1320Fastback]

eflyersteve wrote:

GWolfe wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
^ Yup, and u can roll coal!! Double win!

I'll admit to short shifting passing a few others while towing up mountains.

What is so cool about "rolling coal"? I know what it is I just don't get it.

Nothing is cool except in their own minds. Probably the same ilk that put huge semi stacks through their bed cause they think they have a 'real' truck.

I've never found a ram that I couldn't catch after someone rolled coal on me. And that includes my wr250 single cylinder motorcycle.

I don't get stacks either. I use my truck as a actual truck all the time and need to tie off to the front corners a few times a week.

[eflyersteve]

GWolfe wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
^ Yup, and u can roll coal!! Double win!

I'll admit to short shifting passing a few others while towing up mountains.

What is so cool about "rolling coal"? I know what it is I just don't get it.

Nothing is cool except in their own minds. Probably the same ilk that put huge semi stacks through their bed cause they think they have a 'real' truck.

I've never found a ram that I couldn't catch after someone rolled coal on me. And that includes my wr250 single cylinder motorcycle.

[FishOnOne]

mich800 wrote:

ib516 wrote:

Sort of.

The numbers Ram quote on the window sticker they slap on the Rebel for the EPA mpg are for a Ram 1500 4x4, Hemi, E-Torque, crew cab, short bed.

What Ram doesn't do (but should) is test a Rebel model specifically and give it it's own EPA mpg rating like Chevy does with the Trail Boss, which gets a lower mpg rating than a regular Chevy 4x4.

The Rebel is lifted, has no chin spoiler, and has off road tires. I bet it gets 2-3 mpg less than the same powertrain in the same cab and bed configuration in a "normal" Ram 1500 4x4, and even less than one equipped with the "lowering at highway speed" air suspension.

I am also questioning the etorque as a fuel saver. I have not noticed any seat of the pants improvement in power or mpg. It is much smoother on the restart for stop/start.

I agree... the improvement is probably mostly aimed at the stop/start process. Having said that I wouldn't pay for this option and would apply that money towards other features.

[1320Fastback]

GWolfe wrote:

1320Fastback wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
^ Yup, and u can roll coal!! Double win!

I'll admit to short shifting passing a few others while towing up mountains.

What is so cool about "rolling coal"? I know what it is I just don't get it.

Nothing really, I guess the first few times it's fun because it's different but now you just watch your fuel gauge go down and think of all the $$$ that just went out the pipe.

[mich800]

ib516 wrote:

Sort of.

The numbers Ram quote on the window sticker they slap on the Rebel for the EPA mpg are for a Ram 1500 4x4, Hemi, E-Torque, crew cab, short bed.

What Ram doesn't do (but should) is test a Rebel model specifically and give it it's own EPA mpg rating like Chevy does with the Trail Boss, which gets a lower mpg rating than a regular Chevy 4x4.

The Rebel is lifted, has no chin spoiler, and has off road tires. I bet it gets 2-3 mpg less than the same powertrain in the same cab and bed configuration in a "normal" Ram 1500 4x4, and even less than one equipped with the "lowering at highway speed" air suspension.

I am also questioning the etorque as a fuel saver. I have not noticed any seat of the pants improvement in power or mpg. It is much smoother on the restart for stop/start.

[FishOnOne]

ib516 wrote:
They posted another video and re-ran the test. Turns out Andre was using the manual shift mode which defeats the 4 cyl mode. They got 17.8 mpg on the retest. Still pretty short of 22 mpg though. I wonder if it would make 20 if they went 60 mph?

They messed up - mpg shocker part 3

interesting update ....

[ib516]

mich800 wrote:

GWolfe wrote:
The problem with the Rams EPA numbers is the fact that Ram got those numbers using a regular Ram truck and not a Rebel. The off road package and tires sure don't do the Rebel any favors. TFL talks a little about it here starting at about 4.40.

Re-watch the retest video. According to them at the 4 minute mark the EPA rating on their window sticker is in fact for the Rebel version. So it comes down to are they correct on that original video or this most recent one.

Sort of.

The numbers Ram quote on the window sticker they slap on the Rebel for the EPA mpg are for a Ram 1500 4x4, Hemi, E-Torque, crew cab, short bed.

What Ram doesn't do (but should) is test a Rebel model specifically and give it it's own EPA mpg rating like Chevy does with the Trail Boss, which gets a lower mpg rating than a regular Chevy 4x4.

The Rebel is lifted, has no chin spoiler, and has off road tires. I bet it gets 2-3 mpg less than the same powertrain in the same cab and bed configuration in a "normal" Ram 1500 4x4, and even less than one equipped with the "lowering at highway speed" air suspension.

[mich800]

GWolfe wrote:
The problem with the Rams EPA numbers is the fact that Ram got those numbers using a regular Ram truck and not a Rebel. The off road package and tires sure don't do the Rebel any favors. TFL talks a little about it here starting at about 4.40.

Re-watch the retest video. According to them at the 4 minute mark the EPA rating on their window sticker is in fact for the Rebel version. So it comes down to are they correct on that original video or this most recent one.

[GWolfe]

1320Fastback wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
^ Yup, and u can roll coal!! Double win!

I'll admit to short shifting passing a few others while towing up mountains.

What is so cool about "rolling coal"? I know what it is I just don't get it.

[GWolfe]

The problem with the Rams EPA numbers is the fact that Ram got those numbers using a regular Ram truck and not a Rebel. The off road package and tires sure don't do the Rebel any favors. TFL talks a little about it here starting at about 4.40.

[1320Fastback]

Grit dog wrote:
^ Yup, and u can roll coal!! Double win!

I'll admit to short shifting passing a few others while towing up mountains.

[mich800]

ib516 wrote:
They posted another video and re-ran the test. Turns out Andre was using the manual shift mode which defeats the 4 cyl mode. They got 17.8 mpg on the retest. Still pretty short of 22 mpg though. I wonder if it would make 20 if they went 60 mph?

They messed up - mpg shocker part 3

I think they would. But still they should get better than the city rating for the loop they performed.

[ib516]

They posted another video and re-ran the test. Turns out Andre was using the manual shift mode which defeats the 4 cyl mode. They got 17.8 mpg on the retest. Still pretty short of 22 mpg though. I wonder if it would make 20 if they went 60 mph?

They messed up - mpg shocker part 3