New Ram mileage...beats ford! And other lame truck talk...

[Prince Valiant]

The new ford v6 pick-up has been (and is) an impressive piece of work...producing more power than their v8's did up until recently while being rated for an impressive 17city/23hwy, it has taken the sting out of owning a v6 fullsize pick-up. Instead of being relegated to just fleet purchases and used as parts haulers, Ford base v6 powertrain affords it's owners a very nice performing truck that works nicely for almost anyone who doesn't need to tow more than 5500lbs.

For the 2013 MY, Ram will put it's new 3.6 v6 under the hoods of the full-size pick up to replace it's old anemic 3.7...while utilizing an 8 speed automatic behind it replacing the 4 speed automatic. Rated similar to the ford in HP (305 to the ford's 302) and torque (268 ft-lbs to the ford's 278), it'll be rated for a very impressive 18city/25hwy. The difference in mileage is unlikely due to the engine though...both the 3.7 and 3.6 are fairly similar with respect to specs...the difference is almost certainly due to factors like the 8 speed vs 6 speed, active aero (grill slats, etc), as well as changes in how the electrical system works (via pulse width modulation) to reduce parasitic drag, etc...as well 2013 trucks will be roughly 75-125lbs lighter than their 2012 counterparts for the most part.

I'll be curious to see what the real world mileage actually turns out to be for *good* drivers who actually typically do get good mileage (tools will always get piss poor mileage, regardless of what their vehicle is rated for) and how this will translate to the Hemi when it get's the 8 speed later in the 2013 MY as well as all the aero/electrical improvements of the v6 and available start/stop system. Rumor has it that they're testing a twin turbo version of the v6 for truck use too, similar to the "ecoboost", though I've heard it won't have as silly a name :goof

Anyone know what is in store for the upcoming new chevy/gmc trucks? I know they're likely coming with an 8 speed/lighter too, but haven't heard what engine will actually be used, whether it's the 3.6 or, and I've heard this too...a revamped version of the old 4.3 v6?

[DNT H8]

Well I can say what has kept us in our G8 and not a SRT 8 300 or challenger is the trans! Put that 8 speed in one of them and the market might change in thier favor. Also Dodge has a long history of having cheap interiors and inferior metals, a rep they need to kill. I love the exterior styling of the NEW Ram over the F-150. But, the F-150 has a great long standing reputation.

[Prince Valiant]

Put that 8 speed in one of them and the market might change in thier favor.by MY 2014, they'll all have them. The problem is they source the trans from ZF also while starting to build it themselves at a new plant in Indiana...as both increase their production capacity, you'll see them in more cars. The 2013MY will be short for many of the cars slated to get the 8 speed...as a matter of fact, the Jeep Grand Cherokee will get this trans for MY 2014, which production is slated to begin in January...the 2013MY will be a very short one for the GC. But for 2014 the GC will have it standard for the v6, hemi, and 6.4 hemi...

[The Shaolin]

I see all these new cars with the active aero grilles....it's a great idea, but I really wonder how durable that is...especially up here when they get packed with ice and snow.

[Prince Valiant]

and how this will translate to the Hemi when it get's the 8 speed later in the 2013 MY as well as all the aero/electrical improvements of the v6 and available start/stop system. Didn't have to wait too long to answer my question...



To our delight, the eight-speed frees the HEMI from its shackles and allows it to become the motor it’s always wanted to be. It’s important we note that when the HEMI is mated to the TorqueFlite, it is estimated to be even more fuel-efficient than V6 EcoBoost-powered Ford F-150s.

Consider the bar raised.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/ram-1500-first-drive-review.html

Now of course, when the all-new f-150 comes out (Ram is just a refresh), they're already saying it'll be over 700lbs lighter than current models. If that's true, that would be a HUGE improvement in economy and performance. I haven't heard how much lighter the all new GM twins will end up being yet. It'll be nice to see half-tons get back down to the low 4,000's in weight again though....like they were years and years ago.

[BAD LS1]

Kind of some yeah buts though aren't there? Does this 25 mpg come along with a 2wd, rcsb though? Surely not a quad cab 4x4 on 20's.

I have a friend with an Ecoboost fx4 and he can't really get it out of the teens for mpg and is 90% hwy driving.

The next gen GMT platform due in 2014 won't be a massive rebuild but will include the genV v8's with direct injection. Who knows where those will be at when those get closer to reality.

[Prince Valiant]

Kind of some yeah buts though aren't there? Does this 25 mpg come along with a 2wd, rcsb though? Surely not a quad cab 4x4 on 20's.Based on how the EPA rates the vehicles, it's almost always the same across the board, but based on it's most efficient version of the vehicle...the regular, non HFE is 17/25, the HFE is 18/25 (HFE's utilize start/stop tech). Have not heard what the 4x4 pick-ups are rated, but wouldn't be surprised to see it similarly drop like the ford 3.7 4x4's in which they're rated at 21hwy vs 23 for 2wd's. EPA will distinguish among 2wd and 4wd, but I've never seen a mileage rating difference b/w RC and EXT cab...not that one doesn't exist in reality. Likewise, you'll never see a mileage rating difference b/w 3.21 gears and 4.10's, though again, reality would demonstrate the difference can be extreme.

This is no different than anything in the pick-up world though...crew cabs being heavier will certainly have a tougher time getting the mileage of a reg cab, though it's hwy mileage can approach that of the lighter reg cab though.

As far as an individual's mileage (ie, your friend w/ the ecoboost), not surprised there...differing individuals get differing mileage. I'm sure the ecoboost could achieve better than rated mileage with a different driver...much like the insight owners who could never get above 55mpg, while others consistently got well above the rated mileage with a similar mix of driving. It bugs my wife a great deal that I consistently get 27-28mpg per tank (mix 30/70 city/hwy) even though the compass is rated 23/27. She finds it difficult to avg 24-25mpg...which is consistent with epa ratings.

All EPA ratings tell us is what each vehicle is capable of in narrow testing standards...it makes an apples to apples testing that takes out the extreme variability of the real world. Will there be real world examples of people getting 13mpg in the new v6 Ram? absolutely there will be...but rather than reveal the efficiency of the truck, it'll tell you more about the driver than anything.

[BAD LS1]

Based on how the EPA rates the vehicles, it's almost always the same across the board, but based on it's most efficient version of the vehicle...the regular, non HFE is 17/25, the HFE is 18/25 (HFE's utilize start/stop tech). Have not heard what the 4x4 pick-ups are rated, but wouldn't be surprised to see it similarly drop like the ford 3.7 4x4's in which they're rated at 21hwy vs 23 for 2wd's. EPA will distinguish among 2wd and 4wd, but I've never seen a mileage rating difference b/w RC and EXT cab...not that one doesn't exist in reality. Likewise, you'll never see a mileage rating difference b/w 3.21 gears and 4.10's, though again, reality would demonstrate the difference can be extreme.

This is no different than anything in the pick-up world though...crew cabs being heavier will certainly have a tougher time getting the mileage of a reg cab, though it's hwy mileage can approach that of the lighter reg cab though.

As far as an individual's mileage (ie, your friend w/ the ecoboost), not surprised there...differing individuals get differing mileage. I'm sure the ecoboost could achieve better than rated mileage with a different driver...much like the insight owners who could never get above 55mpg, while others consistently got well above the rated mileage with a similar mix of driving. It bugs my wife a great deal that I consistently get 27-28mpg per tank (mix 30/70 city/hwy) even though the compass is rated 23/27. She finds it difficult to avg 24-25mpg...which is consistent with epa ratings.

All EPA ratings tell us is what each vehicle is capable of in narrow testing standards...it makes an apples to apples testing that takes out the extreme variability of the real world. Will there be real world examples of people getting 13mpg in the new v6 Ram? absolutely there will be...but rather than reveal the efficiency of the truck, it'll tell you more about the driver than anything.

It seems to be that these days the EPA figures are very lofty though, some vehicles cant get near EPA estimates and some over achieve. My cruze eco manual for example with about a 60/40 mixed driving will yield about 44mpg consistently where its only supposed to return 42mpg freeway. I dont hyper mile it either, just drive nicely, try to keep it out of heavy boost and set the cruise at 65. one long trip yielded 49mpg and added another 175 miles to a tank!

You compare the automatic eco and they cant barely hit 40 lol.

Honestly though, there are some vehicles now matter how nice you drive them dont get anywhere close to that mythical epa #. Just wonder how the hell they came up with it in the first place? Did marketing buy stock in the EPA? hahah

[Russ Jerome]

My new Dodge PU with Aero front end before the plow and winch bumper went on:
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s720x720/526446_10150995719110698_1927548408_n.jpg
Looking for even better milage this time, redoing exhaaust with headers and new gearing for 2012 MY.

[CarrotTop]

My 2012 Eco Screw 6 1/2 bed 4x4 got avg of 22.4 on way home from upnorth. Just below suggested EPA. Yea im happy with it. And had little load in back prob about 500lbs?

Nothing to complain about on my end. And was not babying the gas either. 65-75 all way home.

Have read talks of ford going with Aluminium frame to cut on weight.

http://www.fordinsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?8935-Aluminum-F-150-WSJ-4-traders-com

[wikked]

I understand interior aesthetics take a backseat to mpg's & power numbers... but goddamn anything that is nearly half plastic on the inside is just laughable.

[Gregor]

I dunno if I like the shift knob. Just one more item to freak out and fail.

But I like that the trans will be a 8 speed.

[Prince Valiant]

I understand interior aesthetics take a backseat to mpg's & power numbers... but goddamn anything that is nearly half plastic on the inside is just laughable.um...don't you drive a dsm convertible?

Plus I wouldn't be sure that it's not on par with everything that already out there. I occasionally ride in a 2011 "king ranch" 3/4 ton ford...aside from the seats, portions of armrest, center console, it's hard, sheeny plastic with a tacky grain to it...certainly not anything to brag about. Heck, it even has the faux metal plastic inserts that are supposed to mime brushed aluminum or something, not too dissimilar to my compass.

That said, it's not a bad interior...but to single out one when pretty much most all the pick-ups exhibit similar (or worse) quality is well...as you said, laughable.

[spooln30]

My mom's new 2012 4runner was EPA rated at 18/22 and it probably won't touch 22 ever. It actually seems to get the same if not worse mpg than her 99 4Runner she traded in. I also would like to know how the EPA comes up with thier crazy numbers.

[wikked]

um...don't you drive a dsm convertible?

Yea, from the mid 90's, and it still has less plastic than half the cars made 15 years later :P



That said, it's not a bad interior...but to single out one when pretty much most all the pick-ups exhibit similar (or worse) quality is well...as you said, laughable.

I wasn't singling out one either, I said "anything", meaning, anything :P

[Prince Valiant]

My mom's new 2012 4runner was EPA rated at 18/22 and it probably won't touch 22 ever. It actually seems to get the same if not worse mpg than her 99 4Runner she traded in. I also would like to know how the EPA comes up with thier crazy numbers.
My understanding is factories "certify" it using EPA procedures...basically putting it on a dyno and cycling through the required driving parameters/speed with given equipment running. From this they can measure the exhaust gases which tells them how much fuel they're burning and the mechanical drag of the engine/drivetrain. Then then using the speed and coefficient of drag/frontal area etc as well as density of air at the specified air/pressure and from that figure the mpg.

EPA has a loop specifying acceleration rates, stop times, speeds driven at a given distance, etc, etc, etc...so that all cars that at least were tested under the same exact condition so is valid for comparisons sake, but a given driver is likely to do worse...but some do better.

[spooln30]

Well the 4Runner does get better mpg's while towing vs her old 99 4Runner. It was getting 19 mpg towing the 2 ATV's. The 99 got 14-15 at best. So that being said with towing yes better mpgs. Now she hasnt driven far on the highway w/o towing so well see. It's such a nice truck compared to the 99. The fit and finish is very nice and the 270 HP pulls the trailer with ease.

[BoosTT]

New ram is sweet. Too bad it'll be $40k+. Im hoping 2009 ram prices drop due to the new model, so I can get a deal on a used one.