We Test a Chevy and Ram Built for Fuel Economy: The Results Are Disappointing & Surprisingly Good
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 02. 2019
- ( tfltruck.com ) We Test a Chevy and Ram Built for Fuel Economy: The Results Are Disappointing & Surprisingly Good
(www.platinumship.com) TFLtruck is brought to you by Platinum Ship, where your delivery is handled with the latest equipment optimized for maximum yield of efficiency and capability, and our Logistics Team continuously monitors routes and road conditions to keep our drivers, your products, and our equipment safe and on schedule. Contact Platinum Ship for your next shipment and let us exceed your expectations.
( www.TFLtruck.com ) We Test a Chevy and Ram Built for Fuel Economy, and Results Are Disappointing & Surprisingly Good
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tfltruck )
Twitter: ( / tfltruck )
The Fast Lane Car: ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics: ( / classicsunleashed ) - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Thanks for watching! Check out part 1 of our Ram Rebel MPG test here: czcams.com/video/x_i3c10QE9U/video.html
Has the oil been changed in the Ram yet? Thanks Carlos
My Rebel Etorque and transmission software just got updated on Friday. Hopefully it will help a little for MPG. Shifting is a lot better now. Has your Rebels software been updated yet?
I can see chevy having a mpg problem on some of them cause of valve problems
For the love of god can you please up the liters per 100 km on the screen when people say mpg
@@justinnewman1997 www.calculateme.com/gas-mileage/us-mpg-to-liters-per-100-km
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between the Chevy 2.7 Turbo 4 and the Ford 2.7 EcoBoost 6 to see which got better fuel economy
TFL Guys: I see that you tested the truck with Max gear manually set (you can see it at 7:00). That DISABLES cylinder deactivation mode. You need to keep it in D, or else highway MPG will be off.
I hope they see this. I’m not even a RAM fan, but I want a real result
I've been calling this out for a while, now, but they're yet to see it.
What’s up with that TFL, it’s clear in the Video
oozk good eye
😂😂😂😂
I 've been waiting for this thanks TFL.
Can’t wait to see the 2.7 Silverado on the IKE!!!
Haha 😂 😁 going to be painful
Silverado 2.7L Ike Gauntlet is coming soon.
Same here
I am from the future. 4mpg.
It will be slower but better mpg for sure
I recognize the Rebel is not built for fuel economy, and quite frankly I love the Rebel either way, but the EPA seriously needs to reevaluate the numbers for this truck. There is no way a Hemi V-8, even with E-torque will ever get 22 MPG when the truck is lifted from the factory, and has those off-road tires. Not unless it's all downhill with a tailwind. Thanks TFLTruck for the test, and I hope the EPA gets their s**t together
I neglected to mention the 3.92 gear ratio of the Rebel. That will seriously impact fuel economy, especially at those speeds. Many highway systems have limits between 50 and 65, especially around where I am from (PA). I think a test around those speeds would be very nice to see and compare to this test.
I get about 18ish on the freeway and 14-16 in town maybe less if I want to hear it rumble along. I have about 1800 miles on it. Also using 91 in it as well with a regular 5.7. Love this truck!
the EPA doesnt do anything...what happens is the manufacturers self report to the EPA who then certifies the results...its been decades since the EPA has done any tests themselves
@@philtripe I understand. What I am saying is that they should go back to doing their own tests, themselves to verify the number the manufacturers give.
@@zackshick11 ,come to Texas and speed limit on most roads where I live is 70 to 75 mph.
I sat in the RAM REBEL 12 for the first time and pictures almost don't do it justice. That MPG isn't the greatest, but most off road specialty trucks suffer compared to what they are rated. I think that EPA rating is for all 1500s with the 5.7 V8 with eTorque and they didn't do the Rebel seperately. The Ram is still an AWESOME truck and a Dream truck as far as 1500 size trucks go. I wish that I could afford the 55-59k price tag. Heck I wish that I could afford my mid size Dream truck in the Chevy Colorado ZR2. Like someone already said, I wonder if Car and Driver tested their 2.7 Turbo 4 at sea level vs you guys up there in the Denver mountain air? Thanks for sharing this video guys, I always like some real world testing. 2.7 Silverado on the IKE I can feel it is soon, as long as the weather cooperates.
Andre, your testing is accurate. I have the same identical 2019 Ram Rebel with e-torque as your test model. I currently have 6,000 miles on it. Mine also has the air suspension that is supposed to help with mpg on the highway with the aero mode. The best I have ever gotten is 18 mpg in pure, easy highway driving. Most of the time I average 17 - 17.5 mpg. My 2007 Ram with the 5.7 Hemi got better mpg than this one has. The e-torque is a joke, I wish I had waited and ordered one with the standard Hemi. Unfortunately, at the time, all the dealers were ordering e-torque and that’s all that was available.
The only thing thirstier than a Rebel is a Tundra or Sequoia 😂
They didnt keep the Rebel on just D(rive), but had it on its highest 8th gear. So this gave it faulty numbers. They need to do a retest on just D section instead of manually selecting the gears.
TITAN
Tundra nd seqoua are so ugly
My Tundra averaged about 18 Hwy, city though...
@@MontysMotos mine as well. AND we have 4:30 rear end, with a mere 6 speed trans.
I don't care what tires or final drive, and how many stickers and badges your truck has. If you advertise 22 MPG, buyers should get 22 MPG.
Preach
I really like the new Ram, but you're right. I love how people are talking about tires and ride height, and other things being unique to the Rebel that impact mileage, as if that's an excuse for false advertising.
@mrehargett No, it is false advertising. If so much impacts mileage, then separate it from the others and post more accurate numbers. Really, it was off by nearly 25%. Things like this make the EPA standards a joke.
@mrehargett It's not false advertising if it's stuck on the window of a brand new, factory truck in the showroom?
I completely agree, GM needs to advertise it correctly. 22mpg when customers end up getting 24mpg is unacceptable.
Awesome, was actually looking for that. Thanks guys! These are real world tests because not all of us are dragging a trailer around.
The ram 1500 eco diesel is amazing with gas mileage. We drove from grand junction to Denver with 5 people and luggage and averaged 22.7 lots of luggage packed tight.
I would assume the ram would get 22mpg running highway tires, standard suspension, and highway gears. 3.92 gears and a mud terrain tire will kill at least 4mpg alone.
They drove 8th gear and deactivated cylinder deactivation. This test is dishonest.
@@zamora3D they redid the test and it didn't change much. Like Lake School said all the other options kill mpg. My thoughts are in 200,000 miles that hemi will still be chugging along, the Chevy on the other hand is unproven as of yet.
in 200000 miles that ram will be on its 12 transmission, but the engine still runs.
Its a ZF8 the transmission will be fine.
3.92 gears lifted off-road tires. That's actually really good.
I’m watching in the UK, where neither truck is available, but it’s always interesting to see how the battle between big displacement and tech are fairing in the good old US of A. Keep it going TFLT
I like how the way you make your mpg reviews. Gives me idea how to calculate mine.
I knew the Silverado would perform better in real world testing. The internet was hating so hard on this motor with what it's rated from the EPA and C&D's test. Impressive numbers.. Now if only GM would let me build one how I wanted it with that motor in it.
@@nateopotatoe8742 Either a Leather Seat RST or a high country..I'd even settle for a premier. Every option plus the 22'' accessory wheels.
What’s the purpose in getting a 4cyl pickup truck? Why not just get an CUV?
I also want a 4 cylinder Silverado! Forget all the hate! Everyone saying what's the purpose of a 4 banger in a full size truck? For a full size truck that can tow pretty much what a the same truck would tow 10 15 years ago with a v8 mind you.... and way more power to boot.... come on! Why not? It's kinda like asking why get a half ton that can tow 12000k pounds ? Why not get a 3/4 ton? See what I mean.....
@Armand Davis Did you watch the video? See the MPG? Okay, so that opens up this truck to someone (like me) who'd find themselves better off with a ridgeline over a 5.3 Silverado. I don't NEED the V8.. I drive around 90% of the time by myself with no load.. I'd feel so wasteful running around in a huge truck with a V8 motor just to move my 200lb self. So before this turbo 4.. i'd likely buy a ridgeline or a Colorado. This truck is awesome cause It can do 99% of what the V8 trucks can do while averaging close to 25mpg and not looking like a Ridgeline. SOLD.
@@nateopotatoe8742 I have until Q1 of next year before I need to place an order.. so hopefully they make some changes or I may end up with an E-Torque! I saw online last night that you can get the 4 cyl with leather.. didn't see any with the full center console though.
Now do a mpg head to head between the f150 with the 2.7, and the Silverado with the 2.7. 6 cyl turbo vs 4 cyl turbo
Love these real world mpg tests. Thanks
Wasn’t getting good mileage on my 2019 Ram 4x4 but I passed 2500 miles during the trip and from Phoenix to Vegas and back to Phoenix and I got 19.9mpg
That's interesting how the Chevy did better than advertised and the Ram got almost 5.5 mpg worse just out of curiosity what would happen if you did the test V8 to V8
we don't know exactly how the trucks were equipped when they did the epa test. v tfl truck.
"As advertised" was probably done at sea level?
@@Cliff00936 we will never know. they never said how the trucks were equipped only engine size. v how the epa tested the trucks to get the epa mileage
@@Cliff00936 that chevy truck look like a 2 wheel drive truck v a ram rebal 4 wheel drive truck
my mistake the chevy is 4 wheel drive also
How many 2.7 Silverado sales did Chevrolet lose because of Car & Driver's bogus mpg test...
Bullshit always stinks
...but I think very few people want a 4- cylinder full-size truck, anyway...now an inline six...then I'd be interested....:)
Exactly
@Rick James5678 any use of throttle on a v8 tanks mpg. Because going over peak torque causes a deficit in efficiency leading to more fuel consumption. The 2.7l also has a much harder torque curve much flatter so when you need to hit your torque its sooner allowing better accel without needing to rev like a 5.3 does which normally needs to hit 3000 rpm to hit peak torque. The 5.3 is less efficient because its na and needs to rev higher to hit the most efficient rpm area. The 2.7l is more efficient because it's high efficiency range starts way lower and goes higher.
@@dyer2cycle i6s suck in trucks low torque man.
I have a 2.7 Crew Cab and I love it. Around town I’m getting about 20 mpg on the highway I get about 26.5 mpg drove with the whole family from NC to TX and now from NC to FL and it’s amazing for road trips. I can also load just about anything in the bed for any weekend project home.
I have the new rebel and have similar results. Best was 17.5 mpg and a lifetime average of 14.4. At 9,000 miles. Absolutely badass truck and I don’t care about the mileage.
I want to see a comparably equipped F150 Ecoboost against the Chevy run!!
Why? I like Ford, the Dealers around here keep Me from them I tried to price a "yearend Ecoboost, the Salesman keep lying to Me about,I told Him to forget it( mine would be Coyote power now_ the "trickster' is amazing)
As much as I love the V-8 rumble in my '66 Mustang, I also love my F-150 V-6 Ecoboost. Excellent highway mpgs for a 6,000 lb beast. I must say 24mpg at 70mph is fantastic, great job Chevrolet (GM). Now just work on a face lift so it looks as good as the F-150 and Rebel lol. JMO but any truck from the main 3 USA or Toyota and you have a winner.
I absolutely love this channel! I'm just as shocked as Andre is at the Rebel's MPG. I was expecting at least 20mpg.
My 2017 z71 averaged 21 mpg when it was new. Then came a leveling kit and taller mud terrains. Dropped it to 17 mpg. Totally worth it. Lol!
In all my years and experience with Dodge/Ram. They have always been horrific on gas mileage.
Roy Allen but the most fun to drive 😜
Yes, I would tend agree. Except for the 3.6 with the 8 speed. I have the 4x4 version and can't seem to get less than 19 mpg. Most of the time is over 20. Pretty good for a 4x4. This is with mixed city and highway driving.
I've been looking at Ram's and talking with friends that own them. According to my friends, they all said they are not getting the fuel rating listed on the truck.
If your looking for good gas mileage dont but a truck they all suck.
@@Sawyer94.. Yea I know , fourteen trucks and counting! Just would like to see them be honest about gas mileage .
I got around 20 mpg out of my hemi. That's really good for a V8 truck!
Depending what you're doing with it consider the 3.6 V6. Mine is consistently over 20 mpg.
How do they drive though? A lot of truck guys drive like I do with my Camaro,
That's great mileage on the Chevy! I would have to consider that for a full size truck with that kind of result. I don't tow anything, but I do like the room of a bigger truck.
I have a 2017 Ram Sport and am very happy with the fuel mileage. I can run 26mpg Canadian on the highway, but when i had it lifted with mud tires on it it dropped to 19 mpg so I switched it back to stock.
I get 18 mpg on a good day with my gen 2 Tacoma. I'd take 16.8 with all that extra power.
TheJoncic cool thanks for sharing
Exactly the reason I didn't buy Tacoma, poor power output and poor fuel economy. It made more sense to buy full size, with V8, more power and the same fuel consumption...
@@KapitanPisoar1 I still love my Tacoma. The reliability cannot be beat plus I have big tires on it which doesnt help MPG. That being said Toyota does lack in fuel efficiency even on the new Tacomas.
KapitanPisoar1 I have an older taco manual. I can do 20 mpg with it. I know it’s not great but the v6 has enough owner to climb and tow a few thousand. Has 194k and didn’t cause me any trouble yet so I’ll run it into the ground
I get 21 on my canyon with the V6 now imagine the diesel that out ranks you import pickup
Still waiting for details on the 3.0l diesel!
Ram 1500 2012 5.7 hemi with 6speed 140,000+ miles, I've notice that running 89 octane for 1167.4 miles to be exact I get an average of 21mpg or more of speeds around 65 n 80 mph. Threw the trip
My 2012 ram sport averaged 21.2 from CA to CO. My rebel isn't as good but it's an off road minded truck. Was the rebel in aero mode or normal, tires, auto, additional options than tested? A lot more on that rebel than what was tested with by Ram.
Do not forget that Motor Trend and Car and Driver typically do not get near the advertised fuel economy because of the heavy foot syndrome. If you drive the car or truck like a race car you will get considerably worse gas mileage no matter what the brand of vehicle is.
Speed kills mpg
No doubt and especially for turbo engines your going to lose a lot of mileage to even a 5mph speed increase
A bolt on isn't going to help you at 70MPH everyone knows that, youd be better without it on a highway trip. And I knew something was wrong with C&D's report on the 2.7 GM usually does better than the EPA in the real world
My 2006 ram 1500 5.7 with at the time stock engine with 190k miles was getting almost 20 mpg on the highway
I noticed you did yours at 70mph, C&D does theirs at 75. I own a small turbo in a CR-V and have noticed as have others that MPG drops significantly when speeding up to 75. I believe the additional drag causes the engine to have to start using boost or shorter CVT ratio and FE drops from 33-34 to 29-30. Comparing runs would be interesting experience at those speeds.
Wow Silverado not bad for a road trip truck
james sams most people buy trucks for a road trip. They buy it to work. Your better off with a car for road trip.
@@decayofalberta1520 no most people buy them to drive to work, yes they would be better off with a car.
The 4.3 does just as good. Rented a 17 4x4 4.3 for a rode trip, drove 3000 miles mostly highway at 75-80mph and averaged 24mpg. I was truly impressed with the 4.3 both in power and mpg.
@@decayofalberta1520 I use my truck for both. No sense in sacrificing space and capability. You never know when you might run across something that can't fit inside the trunk of your car.
Mr Chevy Nova 6.0 I’m not saying it a bad choice for a everybody. I realize that truck are the it thing. Trucks are out selling car now. Everyone are buying trucks. Even if it just to get the groceries. You do you. I grew up around acreages and farmers. The old school way. The truck was used to work and my step fathers run about vehicle. We used the car for road trips, driving around the city. Unless we we’re camping the whole road trip. Then we used the truck. That right no hotels for us. When I drive from Fairview, AB to Edmonton, AB. I take my Jetta. You can’t beat 50mpg vs 18mpg from my 89 f-150. $40 vs $120ish for fuel. Plus I get closer parking spot.
My girlfriend has a 2017 Ram 1500 big horn with the 5.7 hemi and it only gets like 17 mpg.
My father has a 2015 Ram 1500 Express, 4x4, 8 speed, 20 inch wheels, and he averages 18 around town and gets low 20s on the highway. Not too bad I think. My 93 GMT400 Chevy 1500 with the 350 in it gets high teens, but its lifted 6” and on 33” tires.
epic video real calculations!
Andre is the best. Always fun to hear what he has to say.
4 banger or not, Chevy always with the real world results lol
Chevy can do good mileage( I am not even a Chevy Guy)
I personally wouldn't buy this setup Silverado, but I can absolutely see a market for it. Unlike the majority of the other pickups that claim to be after fuel efficiency, this one's actually living up to it. I think that's because in reality the engineers designed it to be adequate as a truck, but excel at getting good gas mileage. It seems like Ford and Dodge both tried to get both variables or at least a compromise out of there more fuel efficient spec trucks. And as to be expected, it just doesn't work out the same way.
I was just reading an article yesterday that said in 2018, 75% of the F150 trucks that Ford sold were V6 turbocharged versions. I'm sure a lot of them were probably the 3.5 EcoBoost, but there's no way all of them were. I'm sure a lot of them were the smaller units like the 2.7 v6 that have more of an emphasis on fuel economy.
Chevrolet on the other hand by a massive amount has the 5.3 as the most popular engine in their half tons. It obviously has not been as fuel efficient as even their smaller V6 is, but they tend to offer the 5.3 in packages that come with other amenities for only a grand or sometimes it's even included as a promotion. At any rate, it massively outnumbers the V6 and the 6.2 option which I believe General Motors makes harder to get intentionally to boost the Cafe standards in the half ton Silverado.
Yet despite this, you can go to a majority of websites where people keep track of the average fuel economy they're getting on both the half ton Silverado and the F-150, and even though Ford at least in 2018 seem to average about a third of a mile to the gallon better than the 1/2 ton Silverados, it says a lot for General Motors. They haven't had a pick up like this before. Now even if they sell even a small percentage of these, it's going to change that average significantly. If the majority or at least half of the F-150s on the road had at least some intention of being highly fuel-efficient based on the whole claim to the EcoBoost, and all they can do is barely eke out a slight advantage over the extreme commonplace and overly reliable 5.3 v8 that's offered in the Silverado, I would say Ford's going to have to really commit to building a truck that is in fact fuel efficient as a first priority, and not a second or third.
It's looking to me like this Silverado with the 2.7 is going to be the real deal if you want to save gas and don't want a diesel Colorado.
If they managed to sell a lot of these, I think that should be all the proof Ford and Dodge need to build something that's at least similar. Realistically speaking, not everybody needs 4 million foot pounds of torque. This 4-cylinder Silverado has way more power than trucks did with twice the engine several decades ago. If anything it's overkill for the amount of fuel economy it gets.
Chevys 5.3 competes with the 2.7tt not the 3.5tt. The 2.7 gets much better fuel economy than the 3.5. Compared to the 5.3 the 2.7 is noticeably more fuel efficient. Not only that it reaches peak torque much earlier in the rpm than the 5.3 and its a quicker truck. You also get the 10r80 transmission with the 2.7 while the 5.3 is stuck with the old 8 speed.
So the 2.7 is a couple mpgs better, half a second quicker in the quarter mile and has two more gears.
The gm 2.7 competes with the f150 3.5 NA. And there in that category I would agree that its a better engine in every way.
The engine that competes with gms 6.2 is fords 3.5tt. And there the story is the same as the 5.3 vs 2.7 except for the transmissions being the same. Better mpg and quicker.
That leaves fords 5.0 to not have a true competitor from gm. However when you look at the car world you can compare the mustang 5.0 and camaro 6.2. Camaro just slightly lighter and same 10r80 transmissions on both shows them to be pretty equal in straight line times. However in the truck world even though the 5.0 is considered a lower tier engine compared to the 6.2 its actually faster in a straight line and pretty close to fords own 3.5tt. It also is rated a couple mpg all around. And then if you want to include rams 5.7, engine is right in between gms 5.3 and 6.2.
So after looking at all this ford doesnt have to do anything. They beat all the trucks numbers wise. Just like ranger is the most powerful and efficient gas truck in its segment. What really needs to be done is chevy needs the 5.3 to come with the 10r80. That just seems weird and greedy, that transmission would benefit it in every single way. Put the 2.7tt into the Colorado with the 10r80. Id take that over a Ranger. And ram needs to put the 6.4 in the 1500 so they can compete with 3.5tt, 5.0, and 6.2.
I like your methods. 100% good
I noticed a mpg difference after my first oil change (5000miles). This was for my Ram 1500 and my Durango V 6.
If u installed bigger tires on ur truck, how do u know to set the psi at?
Will Chevy consider putting the turbo 4 cylinder in the new Colorado as an engine option?
This motor would probably get 26+ mpg or better in the colorado.. so it would be competing with the sales of the 2.8 duramax at that point
i just seen a video from tfl on the 2020 acadia with a turbo three seater? i wonder if it is the same engine?
@@larrytaylor1222 the Acadia is only a 2.0 turbo
That’s the truck it should of been in, not the big twins.
I believe the 2.7 was specifically designed for 1/2 ton applications
Between the Hemi with the mild hybrid and the 3.0 Eco Diesel, I don't trust Dodge/Ram.
I’ve got a 2016 Ram Extended Cab 4WD with a Hemi. I get about 24 MPG on the interstate regularly.
I like the music overlay ... nice
Doesn’t the turbo create a better atmosphere for the engine in high altitudes?
You are correct. An engine with a power adder (turbo, super charger, nitrous) will be more efficient and not lose as much HP as a naturally aspirated engine. I've always used about 2% loss per 1000' elevation for turbo'd engines and 3% loss per 1000' elevation for N/A engines.
@@natedog51 Eh, the most efficient state for a gas spark ignition engine is basically when the intake manifold is at or around atmospheric. That means no boost, but no pumping losses. A small turbo engine at altitude is going to rely heavily on the turbo just to move the truck along at highway speeds, which should have given an even worse result than C&D, so obviously something else is going on here.
And not losing as much power at altitude has nothing to do with efficiency. It has to do with cramming more air pressure into the engine so you can then inject more fuel and make it all burn. Gasoline engines will generally get worse fuel economy with turbos, all things equal. Diesels, however, are the opposite.
everywere
Yes but in theory the more air you force into the engine the more fuel is required, that’s why the eco boost v6 rips up the Ike but doesn’t turn in crazy good fuel economy, more air requires more fuel.
Any turbo will run better st altitude, it's called "turbo normalizing" (yes that's a real term), I bet the other test was done near sea level, meaning All the boost was used as boost whereas in the TFL test some of the boost was used to normalize the engine, smaller amount of boost, less fuel used better mpg
The problem is you bought a ram and expected to get good fuel economy
Jeremy quiring lol thats a 4 cylinder
@@-beastbryce-6273 Ummmm...the RAM does NOT have a 4 cylinder.
No, they problem is they compared a customized truck meant for off-roading to a base model truck.
You should see the tundra mpg..muahahah
@@-beastbryce-6273 yeah that a hemi with the E-torque system the chevy had a inline 4
To all those commenting on EPA numbers, I didn't research it but I'm assuming The epa numbers are based on a ram 1500 trim level X and if you got that trim / option level you would get the epa numbers. The issue is the rebel is optimized for off road it has high gear ratios, big tires, sets higher, more complex drive train. which all accounts for lower fuel economy. If you consider the options on the truck it actually did very well. The e-torque does nothing for this test it only improves city mpg.
Ya know, at 9:38 Andrea made a good point. Because I have a 2019 RAM 1500, and on the highway I consistently get 23mpg. With that being said, it's a very different truck than the Rebel. I have a Laramie with the 5.7 v8, but mine has the regular all season tires and the 3:21 rear diff, and possibly lower than the Rebel. The only other thing that's different, is that my highway speed is around 60 instead of 70.
Oh, and I'm basically at sea level, my alt-Barometer says I'm 30 inches above sea level. lol
When will y'all test 2.7 vs 2.7? Ford vs Chevy .
The Ford 2.7 will demolish. I mean it demolishes v8's.
It’s a twin turbo v6 this is a single turbo 4 banger lol
Chevy ain't ready for that kind of competition.
Ford would win easily!
That’s the real battle. 2.7 vs 2.7 towing, racing and mpg. We’re all waiting for it
Impressive, Chevy. What I expected from the Dodge
Christopher Snider Ram u idiot
@@coreythefam6455 FIAT...and they're junk
PlatinumLawnServices GRINGO Motors doesn’t know what quality is like it or not you’re just mad cause it’s the truth. Also I’m a Chevy fan too drive an 95 Chevrolet truck
@@coreythefam6455 Whoa man. That's kind of racist and the 90s trucks were awesome! The tbi that's in your truck wasn't a powerhouse but super reliable.
PlatinumLawnServices thank you. yeah u can’t kill them 350s I’d say say Chevrolet was hot in the 90s and 2000. Dodge is alright not a fan of ford lol
You said you can’t order the ram with the etorque engine anymore. What’s the reason for this? Was there a defect? Thanks for the input
Have you guys done the mpg test on the 2019 Ram 1500 V6 and limited 5.7 etorque?
Ram rebel... build for fuel economy? So literally any other trim, without off road tires and a 3.21 rear end wouldn't be more towards fuel economy?
It doesnt matter,all trucks get excuses from their respective fans,trail boss gets slammed by raptor fan boys for being a terrible off roader compared to the raptor (it wasn't built for it
Fact of the matter is, the truck AS IS, being advertised at a fuel economy spec that is not achievable. Unacceptable
@@jessehernandez5043 is the MPG calculated on the base model before various options
@@ruquik i know, doesnt change the fact that this specific truck is claiming those numbers. Shouldnt be the consumers problem
if something says it gets 22mpg and can barely get 17mpg seems a bit fishy doesnt it? Gm never lies about their mpg. I know that for a fact because my yukon gets the exact same 23mpg as advertised or sometimes even 25 if i have wind behind me. You're just another soy boy
It’s definitely due to elevation. The Silverado is force inducted. Therefore, off the bat, the Silverado should have better mpg at this elevation!
Would reduce performance output but typically not fuel mileage.
I recently purchased a 2019 Sierra with the 2.7T, I did a 54 miles (88km) loop around my city, cruise set at 65mph (105kph) and i avarage 23.5 mpg (28mpg imperial) Oh and i did that run twice, once with a full tank of regular 87 gasoline and the other run with a full tank of supreme 91. I had less then a 1/4 tank left when I fill it up with supreme.. and the result were 10L per 100km, (23.5 us/28 can) for both runs!
6:31 Andre "What?!?" Funny how he does that, especially in a drag race when his competitor unexpectedly pulls ahead of him. ;-)
Please do drag race between these two trucks.
Chev is lighter with more output and more gears. Wont even be competitive especially at elevation.
@@craigquann No they both have 8 gears.
@@ApocalypsesDawn are you sure? My understanding is the dodge v6 has a 6 speed and the v8 has the 8 speed... but I'm not 100%. But still give the win to the chev
If its between these exact two trucks the ram will wipe the floor with the silverado.
@@the40735 Don't be so sure. A mile above sea level makes a big difference. I remember when the traverse beat the Durango hemi at altitude.
I would be quite happy with 24mpg. I have a Hyundai Santa fe and I'd be lucky if I get 18mpg
I agree I drive a 2011 Acadia Denali and average 17.7 or 18 if barley touch the pedal
I get 19-20 in my 2000 bmw 323i and it’s a 2.5l our 550i with the 4.8l gets 18. 2013 f150 with 3.5 ecoboost gets 16-17 all depends on how much it’s remote started in the winter. Best it’s in 20s worse is 14-15 after idling for hours a week
I had a 2.8 Diesel Colorado, I saw jump in fuel mileage once I hit 7K. Had to figure that the engine was finally broke in. I rarely saw the mileage dip below 30 MPG after that.
Tell Michael I have exact same watch, got it 4 years ago, different bracelet, good taste 👍🏻.
My 2019 RAM gets same mileage about 17mpg on highway ( I have about 4100 miles no E-torque ) and 13-14 in city. Let's wait for a summer.
My 6.7 Cummins gets 20.5 avg idle and all.4x4. Crew cab
Mine did too, and I had a limited mega cab.
@@JohnDoe-nz6bk 😊
My 2018 2500 crew cab with 6.7 just pulled 21 mph at 70 on a 300 mile trip with with leveling kit and 35 inch tires
Darren Wilkins I had a 2 inch level kit on mine as well, but the stock tires. Mine had the 3:23 gears though.
My 18 raptor gets 14 don’t see me complaining. Smiles per gallon
Until the politicians in your state decide to implement a "zip code" tax, that you pay for the distance you drive from home to work and back. They're in the works around the country as we type ....
I disabled the 4 cyl. Mode in mine and actually got better gas mileage. I bought a tuner. Around town I'm getting 21 mpg.
Winter gas always does worse, IMO. Also the E Torque won’t make any noticeable difference at highway speeds from what I’ve read. Mostly for stop/start scenarios. My Hemi Ram with a 3.92 rear end would get 15-16mpg in the winter, and 18-19.6 in the summer, with the AC running.
You are suppost to go 60mph not 70 they don't measure this at 70 they go 60 when they test these trucks to get there fuel numbers
Chevy always coming through with real world results. I average 19 with my 16 Silverado 6.2, better then what they advertise.
Thats like my 2003 gmc sierra denali quadrasteer. Factory says 16kpl and im getting 12kpl on average. So im pretty happy with that out of my 6.0 v8.
Since eTorque is meant to improve city fuel economy, I’d be interested to see you guys do a test of that to see if it gets anywhere close to the advertised 17 mpg (although I doubt it, based on this highway test). I got a new Ram limited late last year-a 4x4 5.7L with a 3.92 rear end. Based on other long-term reviews I’ve read, I think I dodged a bullet by not getting the eTorque. It seems to be meant only to benefit the manufacturer by raising its average fuel economy numbers through fuzzy math. Based on early reviews, it’s hard to see how a consumer will get the real-world fuel economy improvement to recoup the $1,450 option cost on the V8 eTorque.
My 02 dodge ram 5.9 magnum 4x4 with a rebuild engine and transmission that has 102k miles on it gives me 16miles to the gallon on highway on a good day.
Im shocked a 4cyl with hwy gears and street tires gets better mpg then a factory lifted 4x4 with 392 gears and a 400hp v8! And 33 mud tires lol tell me something i dont know.
You completely missed the point of this. You know they weren't comparing the mpg between the 2 right? But to there factory mpg numbers aswell as to what C&D got from there test vehicles.
You did completely miss the point. I don't care if the truck had 44 inch tires and a 6 inch lift with 4:10 gears if it says 22 mpg it should get 22 mpg!!!
@@dm-lombo1647 nope depends on where and how ur driving it i have one and in wisconsin (not at elevation) at 70 mph my ram gets 24mpg at 80 it gets 20 i went to colorado and got 18 so it really depends and i believe the epa rating are done at 65mph.
@@Michael_ryan91 You have a RAM that gets 24mpg at 80mph? It must be a 6 cylinder. It ain't a Rebel I'll tell you that!
@@dm-lombo1647 if u can read i said at 70 mph 24 at 80 mph 20.
Regular Ram 1500, say bighorn 4x4 should be tested rather than the Rebel. I bet fuel economy will jump up
with regular tires.
Big time
NEGATIVE. I'm getting the same in my Big Horn. with 3.92 gears. Granted it's winter blend fuel (I've always got 2-3mpg worse in any vehicle), so I'm hoping for a shade better come spring.
Dodge is saying ram rebel should be getting those fuel numbers. What don’t you get? It’s the advertised numbers for that exact model and it’s not coming close.
@@chriskarsseboom2200 when buying a rebel..as with any modified truck..mpg should be on the lower part of the priorities list.
We've had a couple Rams in the family and they always get way worse gas milage in the cold. It would be interesting if you continued the trials when it got warmer.
You drove past the Ft. Morgan exit! My home town.
I am quite surprised that the 4 banger turbo in the Silverado did what it did. I expected it would have to scream its head off, given how small the engine is, compared to the huge truck it has to move. GM really must have that engine tuned really well with the transmission.
For a 4 cylinder it is a big engine. You have to remember that they way the modern turbo engine work's, they don't need to revv it like a maniac to get power. They produce almost all its torque at 2k rpm and with almost 350lbft it is more than enough to move the truck.
To cruise 70MPH on highway the engine doesn't have to do much. Send it up the hill and do couple of overtakes and it will match the ram
Look at all the Chevy guys... it's a V8 vs a 4 cylinder guys. I would hope the 4 cylinder wins in a MPG competition. Add a trailer though then let's see the results.
😭😭😭😭. Dont get on the defensive, Its no one's fault ram lies about mpg ratings. This was NOT a 4 cylinder vs 8 cylinder test. This was just a test of epa/manufacturers ratings.
@@MrChevystroker383 why does everyone use multiple emojis these days... pretty stupid, but anyways I'm clearly going on the offensive against the Ram haters. Did the video prove its point, yes. Is it fair to say the Ram rebel doesnt get as good MPG as they said it would, yes. Would I ever buy a 4 cylinder FULL SIZE TRUCK, hell no. But thanks for the update. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
I hope that was enough emojis
@@jordunn131 damn bro, them emojis triggered you huh? One emoji usually don't do justice on how comical a situation is at the moment 😭😭😭.
Look at all the Dodge guys, making up crybaby excuses because Fiat/Chrysler keeps lying and screwing them out of their money with their crap products.
This wasn't a comparison between the two. It was a comparison on the trucks themselves after getting much worse mileage than rated in a different test. The Ram got worse than TFL's own test on the same truck and Chevy 6mgp higher than the Car and Driver test. It is what it is. Both trucks are totally different markets.
Thank you.
Got a Ford 2.7L super cab as a rental and had to take a trip from Cincinnati to Nashville and Got 25.1mpg. Had it in eco mode the whole time.
I don't buy a truck a v8 truck and be concerned about the mileage simple as that I love my 2016 bighorn 4x4 hemi Happy with what I get.
Its definitely the off road package package and gearing that are killing the fuel mileage. The only way I get 20mpg or better on my trail boss is driving under 70mph. Pretty sure the rebel has 10 ply tires as well which are pretty freakin heavy
10 ply? bet not
@@thegonz7833 of it's an 18" wheel then it is. If it's a 20" its not.
@@budworx1639 the rebel is a 17inch or 18inch rim.
they drove it with cylinder deactivation mode off. of course it will get bad mpg.
Just looked it up. 275/70r18 duratrac. They're only made In an e load rating which is 10 ply. Strong tire but bad for fuel mileage
I have the same Rebel. I have about 1,300 miles on it and I’m getting 11.7 mpg with about 80% of it city driving. I know I wasn’t going to get the EPA rating but I’m getting WAY below sticker.
My 2018 GMC Sierra 1500 SLT Crew Cab 4x4 is getting 18.5 mpg city and 24.5 hwy mpg with the 5.3 and eight speed automatic. I am around 400 foot above sea level.
The mild hybrid doesn't give you squat in steady, flat highway ride. It's for stop and go. Come on, guys, you know this. You are just click baiting on the obvious. What's next, "We drove our trucks during the day, and guess what happened? (hint: it was bright outside!)"
mountainhobo It’s still waay off the EPA highway numbers though isn’t it? So much so that I’d be surprised if all of it can be explained by the off road package.
That's because EPA doesn't really test anything (okay, 1 out of 10?), so the numbers are whatever fantasy someone gives them. The point is mentioning repeatedly mild hybrid here is disingenuous because mild hybrid doesn't do anything in flat, steady highway ride. Driving straight 5.7 under those conditions they would probably get better mileage than with the mild hybrid because of lower weight.
I was thinking the same thing.
But I would assume the EPA’s highway numbers are tested based on the same sort of continuous constant speed driving. Unless the highway tests includes some stop start driving which would benefit the etorque system and create higher numbers.
Well supposedly my 2018 ram 1500 sport gets 11 mpg it's a lot worse than the results here with 25,000km lol I'm driving a hummer with a ram badge
2014 Silverado V6 2wd double cab on 33s, I regularly get 21mpg average and around 24+mpg doing 70mph and not hammering it up hills.
Would the Silverado 4 cylinder be a good truck to tow a rzr?
I have a new ram and it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to achieve anything even close to the EPA claims. Lawsuits will happen if I had to guess.
🤣🤣🤣
How many people would like to see a 2020 revival of the Dodge Dakota in the IP and coming midsize truck market
Please JHC no more dakotas those piles of shit lived at my local Ram dealer n on nice days they would phone me n let me take them out for a beer run n it would be towed back, had 2 of the last design and after all these years I still get the cold sweats that I would wake up n c that bucket of shit in my drive way.
Panther Martin77 you speaking English? Gringo
I mean I've always thought they'd look nice and they had thier problem like alot of the recurring mini/mid sized trucks at the time but with the amazing jumps in technology in the past years especially from ram/Dodge I'd think if they did a new v6 and v8 options with a new redesign it be a hell of a truck and make for great competition amongst the mid size truck market especially since those trucks were always more on the larger size of the mid size market
@@coreythefam6455 can u read English ?
Panther Martin77 un huh?
Now test them at 75 mph and see if it makes a difference...than no it at with a trailer too... the 4cly Chevy is a good road truck for highway use
So, I have a 2017 Ram 1500. Crew cab, 4x4 and the Hemi. On pure highway driving, I get 21-22mpg (or 10-11L/100km) all day long. My truck has about 40k kilometres on it, but I've had the same economy since day one, no change after "break in".
I have the SLT trim level, with highway tires instead of off-road tires, and I have that chin spoiler still on.
How close was the Chevy to the back of the ram was it drafting at all? try test the opposite way with a Chevy up front
The trucks were not drafting. Ram was driving first on the way out, Chevy was first on the way back.
The Chevy was drafting behind the Dodge.
The difference between the tests is you guys were doing the full on hypermile thing with the 4-banger Chevy and C&D were doing the opposite.
It’s like any other turbo gasoline engine (I.E. Ecoboost), under light load it doesn’t make any boost and thus sips gas like a small displacement engine should.
However, get into boost and due to richer A/F ratios needed by FI combinations to help keep detonation in check it actually get worse fuel mileage than a naturally aspirated engine that makes similar power.
This engine will be good for low-speed and light load fuel economy (like the EcoBoost) but it will drink *more* gas than the V8 if you lean on it.
This is why there is disparity between The TFL and C&D numbers. C&D always drive like jackasses, you guys drove like grandma.
The Ram is just a gas hog.
@@BC08 Turbos help at Higher elevations .
Kevin McCune Help with power, not with fuel economy.
A newer Chevrolet Suburban will do 22 mpg on a 70 interstate to
No it wont lol not even close
@@thewireman134 my Toronto to Florida trip says different
@@thewireman134 mine is constantly at 22 or slightly higher on the highway
Andy’s right. I have a 15 Escalade ESV (which has the 6.2) and easily get consistently in the 20-24mpg range on long interstate drives. However, I get 19 and change at best in my much smaller and lighter V8 SRX.
I've been getting over 20MPG highway in Chevy trucks for 20 years. Keep it to 62 mph or so and I would get 24 with the AC on in my 2002 Z71 with 3.73 gears.
I have never been in a ram 1500 that got over 19.5 except the eco boost which blew my mind. It never got below 23 in the city and it was 28 hw. Its a shame they have restricted those so much now.
Great result! Please test the ford 2.7 ecoboost with 10 speed!