โSep-23-2019 11:20 AM
โSep-26-2019 05:38 AM
swines wrote:IdaD wrote:ShinerBock wrote:
Wow, you are getting amazing mileage out of yours considering the average real world combined average on Fuelly.com for 2017-2019 Ridgelines is 20.4 mpg. It is almost unbelievable. ๐
It's almost like anecdotal reports of extremely good fuel economy aren't accurate or something. Weird.
I never seem to get the best mileage either. I just finished a 3750 mile trip with my F350 dually crew cab, 6.7 liter diesel (3.55 rear end) with a Bigfoot 2500, 10.6 camper. The truck averaged 11.8 mpg for the entire trip. I always wonder about people claiming 15+ mpg for the same type of rig and wonder how they manage that...
โSep-25-2019 09:56 PM
IdaD wrote:ShinerBock wrote:
Wow, you are getting amazing mileage out of yours considering the average real world combined average on Fuelly.com for 2017-2019 Ridgelines is 20.4 mpg. It is almost unbelievable. ๐
It's almost like anecdotal reports of extremely good fuel economy aren't accurate or something. Weird.
โSep-25-2019 07:45 PM
โSep-24-2019 02:51 PM
rhagfo wrote:Nutinelse2do wrote:
Yeah, no. Thanks. Weโll keep our Ford Ranger. It has been averaging over 24mpg, and have experienced none of what the author of that article talks about with problems.
Plus, itโs a real truck, and is the most comfortable vehicle we have ever owned, including a 911 turbo Porsche, and a 500 series Mercedes convertible
Just wondering what the yellow sticker payload on your Ranger is?
โSep-24-2019 11:31 AM
Bionic Man wrote:
Shiner, I know youโve mentioned that your Cummins is tuned. Is your Bimmer the same?
If so, it is a given that the computer stated MPG in your cars will be off more than most.
Iโm not saying that the computer is always dead on accurate with factory tuning, but it is closer than with an aftermarket tune.
I also track all my fuel use in an app. On my old 03 CTD the computer was always within 1 MPG prior to tuning with a Smarty Jr. After that it was up to 3 MPG off. My 2012 is reasonably accurate - but only for a rolling 300 or so mile range under similar driving conditions. So itโs accurate on long trips for an OEM tank.
โSep-24-2019 08:17 AM
Groover wrote:
"I bought my 2019 Ridgeline about 6 weeks and 3,000 miles ago and have been nothing but delighted. This is probably due to the fact that I rarely "need" a truck but it sure is nice to have one available. I just returned from a 1,455 mile trip from Tucson to Angel Fire NM and back towing a 10' cargo trailer {14' overall} hauling my Polaris Rzr {Rzr and Trailer weighed in at 2,580#} and I got 16.1 mpg cruising at 65."
From what I personally observe typical speed on the interstates today is around 80mph. The difference in mpg between 65 and 80 in my experience is very significant, generally 25 to 30%.
โSep-24-2019 07:24 AM
โSep-24-2019 06:06 AM
Desert Captain wrote:
ShinerBock;
Not sure why you have such a knot in your knickers... hope you feel better soon.
My reported milage is supported by fuel pump/calculator numbers. By driving intelligently {operative word here being "gently"} it is no problem to get the higher end of the mileage spectrum.
Over the last 6+ years and 51,000+ miles I have gotten 9.5 mpg out of our 2012 V-10 5 speed Torque Shift 24' Nexus Phantom 23 P Class C which includes a small amount {84 hours} of generator time.
Disbelieve as you see fit but proper maintenance and an educated right foot can easily bring the mileage I am experiencing.
If you cannot get similar mileage I can only suggest you try harder.
:C
โSep-24-2019 05:45 AM
Groover wrote:
"I bought my 2019 Ridgeline about 6 weeks and 3,000 miles ago and have been nothing but delighted. This is probably due to the fact that I rarely "need" a truck but it sure is nice to have one available. I just returned from a 1,455 mile trip from Tucson to Angel Fire NM and back towing a 10' cargo trailer {14' overall} hauling my Polaris Rzr {Rzr and Trailer weighed in at 2,580#} and I got 16.1 mpg cruising at 65."
From what I personally observe typical speed on the interstates today is around 80mph. The difference in mpg between 65 and 80 in my experience is very significant, generally 25 to 30%.
โSep-24-2019 04:27 AM
โSep-23-2019 09:22 PM
โSep-23-2019 08:30 PM
Nutinelse2do wrote:
Yeah, no. Thanks. Weโll keep our Ford Ranger. It has been averaging over 24mpg, and have experienced none of what the author of that article talks about with problems.
Plus, itโs a real truck, and is the most comfortable vehicle we have ever owned, including a 911 turbo Porsche, and a 500 series Mercedes convertible
โSep-23-2019 08:02 PM
โSep-23-2019 07:42 PM
ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep Gladiator Overland is $55k? I paid less then that out the door for my 2014 Ram 2500 CTD. I would hate to see how much the Rubicon version costs. Probably another $5k on top of that.