Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

New Dodge 5.7 Hemi

13567

Comments

  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    My around town average is about 16.5 mpg. My worst mileage, a week with the ATV loaded and nothing but back-and-forth to work, around town, was 15.04 mpg. My best was 21.87. My trip down to my property with the ATV, my son and all our gear was 20.43 down and 20.10 coming back (124 miles each way).

    My to-date average total is 17.71.

    Actually, I've had one other fellow tell me that a 4x4 quad gets better than 16, non-highway. so obviously its possible.

    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    well, anything's possible and i guess the epa ratings must be way off based on those two examples...

    does make it hard to explain why all the car mag testers seem to only get average mpg results of 11 to 13 in all their 4.7l equipped trucks/suvs...
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Still on a campaign to prove your opinion of the 4.7s supposed thirstiness.

    The magazine tests are not true comparative fuel consumption tests. Different drivers, different times, weather, road conditions are not equal state comparisons. Most of these did not include vehicles driven on the same circuit. Even the Consumers' Reports test did not use the same drivers. We do not know how the 4.7s were driven. Does any magazine claim to have done a truly comparative gas mileage test??

    Only the EPA certified sequence tests are true equal state comparative tests.

    How come some report much better than 11-13? Are these people all liars? The EPA rating on my 4.7 equiped Dakota says 15-20. I've broken 20 mpg three times, once at 21.87. By your claim this shouldn't be possible.

    It's funny that the Ford and GM owners I talk to are not getting much better, and most not even as good. What's a 4.3 S10 typically getting? The people I know say they rarely break 20 mpg. Hell, I've done that with the 4.7 and that in a Dakota will run loops around a 4.3 S10. Read some of the 3.0L Ranger owners in the "Gas Mileage" topic.

    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    didn't realize you had a 2wd dusty...

    btw, there is nothing to prove...epa numbers basically tell it all. a dakota quad 4.7l 4x4 is rated no better (and sometimes worse than) significantly larger and more powerful 4x4 trucks like 5.4l supercrews and 5.3l equipped gm supercab trucks. both those 4x4 trucks are rated 18 on the highway...the dakota 17. while not a big difference...when you take into account the size and power difference i think it's huge!!

    my point has always been that the 4.7l is a good engine...but in relative terms to other offerings, it's gas mileage is not very good.

    and i don't see lots of folks running to your side proclaiming excellent mileage figures for their 4.7ls...especially 4x4 folks!

    it will be extremely interesting to see what the hemi half ton is rated, because if it's rated anywhere close to the 4.7l...the 4.7l becomes a mute point.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Is it the difference between the EPA rating, or your "real world" driving experiences? The fact that my mileage results are in the minority doesn't prove your point at all. Because it's the driver that makes the difference. As shipped from the manufacturer, the condition and uniformity of the engine/vehicle condition that would impact fuel mileage is far more consistent than the drivers who drive them. Ninety-nine out of 100 drivers could get 12 mpg, but that doesn't mean that a certain platform doesn't have the potential to do better with another driver.

    I'll stand by the EPA ratings. That is the only uniform test applied to fuel mileage that can be relied on for comparison. But you have been on a crusade in the Dodge forums to establish the 4.7 engine as thirsty, well below the EPA ratings with your lowest reported figure (11-13). You have tried using "real world" anecdotal reports that are exceptionally low when they favor your negative opinion regarding the Dodge 4.7, but ignore or disregard those that are more representative of the EPA rating that will disprove your point. And the reverse appears to be true. You use the highest anecdotal examples for GM and Ford, even though they are nowhere near the typical "real world" driving experiences.

    Now, as to the fact that the 4.7 in a Dakota is only one mpg different, is not the whole story. What are the 0-60 times between the two? Since I have a close friend with a 5.3 Silverado Ext Cab, I can emphatically tell you that its no match for speed or available power.

    The fact is that trucks are equiped in such a way as to provide a performance level because the manufactureres expect that the vehicle will be used for their intended purposes, that of pulling a load. If you look across the broad spectrum of trucks, from small to large, the EPA ratings do not have as wide a difference as might be found in passenger cars. That's why some with 3.0 Ford Ranger's are reporting 14-15 mpg around town, while much larger trucks with bigger engines are often getting the same.

    Besides, the one mpg difference between a 4.7 Dakota and another truck isn't all that strange. What's the difference between a 4.6 and 5.3 F150 Supercrew?

    Dusty
  • mledtjemledtje Member Posts: 1,123
    The EPA mileage numbers are a good way to compare vehicles under that set of operating conditions.

    Will it reflect the mileage you will get? Depends - if you drive the way the EPA has set up the test, then yes it will. Most people get different numbers.

    Mileage is heavily dependent on conditions. Tire size, gear ratios, air pressure, cruising speed, throttle position, how fast you accelerate, and more.

    My milage generally exceeds EPA numbers. My Silverado (1500 4x4 4.8L 5 spd 3.73) was rated 15/19 by the EPA. I get 16-17 around town and 22-24 on the highway. My other Silverado (2500 4x4 6.0L 5spd 3.73 with a popup camper) weighs 7440# and delivers 15-16 on the highway (no EPA rating). That doesn't mean you will get the same mileage on the same roads. I shift early (1500-2000), have a light foot on the throttle, use very little brake, change speeds only when needed, keep air pressure up in my tires, cruise at Speed Limit + 5 mph, and get passed by almost everyone. If I drove like some of my freinds, I could get it down to 12-13 (or less) around town and 15-16 on the highway. But, I'm not in a hurry - I have nothing to prove about how quick my truck is.

    Some engines get better mileage than others. Some drivers get better mileage than others. Your results are the ones that matter to you.

    My dad has had Chevy's for quite awhile. Now he has a Grand Cherokee and a 1500 Silverado. He's looking seriously at a Hemi for his next truck. And I keep eyeing the SD Fords. But, for now, I'm happy with my two Silverado's.

    The 4.7 is a modern engine and should get good economy. The older 5.2/5.9 engines had a reputation as gas hogs, but not the newer ones.

    Mike L
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    dusty,

    if based on your experience you wish to proclaim the 4.7l "thrifty", that's your right. based on what i've read and heard, i think i'll stick to "relatively" thirsty (especially for 4x4 versions). and i'd bet the vast majority of 4x4 4.7l owners would agree with me...probably even some 4x2 folks...
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I have never used the word "thrifty" in any context relative to the 4.7 Dodge motor. My point is that your crusade against the 4.7 engine is unjust, biased, and a little sophomoric.

    Unsolicited anecdotal reports about gas mileage with the 4.7 Dodge do not establish how they are driven. Are you about to contend that there is an average driving technique that can be used as a standard for all truck owners, and therefore that means the anecdotal reports on the Dodge 4.7 must be emperically representive? Well, that's exactly what you're trying to promugulate, that there's a mean average to driving style. There is not. Anecdotal fuel consumption reports, regardless how plentiful either way, tell us nothing about the conditions in which they were realized. The fact alone that we are talking about trucks would seem to indicate that for most people who own them gas mileage was not the primary criteria when they purchased it!

    Tell me, the GM version gets a better gas mileage rating. Why did you buy the Ford?

    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    dusty,

    what makes you think i'm on a crusade? just because i've said the 4.7l is thirsty does not mean i'm on a crusade for anything. i could be on a crusade just to piss you off, but that's about it.

    my opinion is that the 4.7l for its size and power output is relatively thirsty in the segments where it competes, and even against segments where it doesn't necessarily compete (ie...durango vs tahoe or supercrew) head on but still loses the gas mileage comparison.

    all i'll say further on this subject is that maybe you need to do some research...read some "comparo" tests where 4.7l equipped vehicles are involved...

    in almost every comparo test i've read that involved said engine, it's almost always at the bottom for overall fuel economy. if you want to discount those findings, fine. i'm sure you'd argue that the vehicles in the comparo test were not driven the same or that the magazine has a personal vendetta or something...so be it!
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    .....are not true, equal state comparisons, are they? In those "comparos" none of the vehicles tested WERE tested exactly the same under the same conditions. If they were, please point out where they said they were? They were driven by different drivers (with different driving styles), different road conditions, and weather. That may be all the "comparo' you need to support your preconcieved notions, but it is not a true representation of the vehicle's potential. That does not mean that the magazines have a personal vendetta against the Dodge. Maybe they liked driving the Dodge more aggressively for some reason. I don't know.

    You are on a crusade. For a F150 owner you seem to be spending a lot of time in the Dodge forums submitting one form or another of negative comments.

    I've just looked at all of the posts under "Truck Gas Mileage" and I see that the GM fullsize truck owners are claiming much better gas mileage with the 5.3 than either the Dodge or the Fords. Why didn't you buy the GM version?

    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    dusty,

    what negative comments have i proferred about chryslers other than the 4.7l being thirsty and the quad cab ram having a lackluster backseat? keep in mind i've owned 3 intrepids and leased a 97 4x4 ram. i have nothing against chrysler whatsoever...

    obviously comparo tests can't be done in a laboratory type environment where everything is equal. but, with a number of drivers all driving the compared vehicles at the same time, over the same terrain, on the same streets...and frequently switching off between vehicles...you are gonna get about as good a results as you can expect to get in such a test. and unfortunately for the 4.7l, the mpg results are usually against it...

    as for gm trucks...i'm sure they are nice, but i don't care to drive one. my father's supercab 2wd 5.3l gets great gas mileage on the highway circuit (23-25). i don't care to drive one.
    my supercrew fits my needs perfectly. has a roomy cab and gets better gas mileage than a crewcab gm or quad cab ram/dakota.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    >>obviously comparo tests can't be done in a laboratory type environment where everything is equal.<<

    Then it's not a true comparison, is it?. But that is exactly what the EPA driving sequence test does. Each vehicle tested gets tested using the same driving cycle and same load and environmental conditions. Yes, its done in a lab that simulates both city and highway driving conditions. This is the only fair and reliable way to determine the difference in fuel consumption of different vehicles.

    Do your "comparo" test examples claim that they are empirical tests that treat each vehicle with absolute equality? And where do they state this? I've done some research, my friend, and none of them make that claim. They are all relative tests and are significantly susceptible to driver influence.

    Now, if you chose to buy a Ford even though it got worse gas mileage than a GM truck, then obviously gas mileage wasn't number one on your priority list, was it? So maybe a person buying a Dodge cares more about other things, too. Yet, you spend a lot of effort in the Dodge forums trying to make the point and castigate the 4.7 for being "a gas hog." Unfortunately, you do that by amplifying all of the bad reports, and disavow the good reports. Just the reverse for GM and Ford. You are trying to characterize every 4.7 as never being able to get more than 11-13 mpg, which is just plain sophistry. There have been a number of posts similar to mine, like BCOLCLS in #95, that contradict your assertion. Likewise, there are a number of examples of competitive makes getting far less than others, yet you'd never know it from your posts. You make it sound like everybody's going to get better gas mileage with a something other than the Dodge 4.7.

    I think the potential Dodge buyer can read the EPA ratings and compare on her/his own. If they feel that one or two mpg difference is important to them, then they can move on. As far as being a "gas hog," the 4.7 engine is far from it. There is testimony that this engine can realize the EPA ratings.

    Dusty
  • dave40dave40 Member Posts: 582
    I recorded 23 MPG on my computer driving 55 MPH all highway at about 1500 RPM'S

    3/4 ton Hemi regular cab 4x2 4:10 rear
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    >>obviously comparo tests can't be done in a laboratory type environment where everything is equal.<<

    Then it's not a true comparison, is it?. But that is exactly what the EPA driving sequence test does. Each vehicle tested gets tested using the same driving cycle and same load and environmental conditions. Yes, its done in a lab that simulates both city and highway driving conditions. This is the only fair and reliable way to determine the difference in fuel consumption of different vehicles.

    THE EPA NUMBERS SUPPORT THOSE COMPARO TESTS AND MY PERSONAL OPINIONS...SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY YOU KEEP HARPING ON THIS.

    Do your "comparo" test examples claim that they are empirical tests that treat each vehicle with absolute equality? And where do they state this? I've done some research, my friend, and none of them make that claim. They are all relative tests and are significantly susceptible to driver influence.

    MAYBE SO, BUT BEING ABLE TO COMPARE VEHICLES SIDE BY SIDE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE BEST WAY TO DISCERN DIFFERENCES...INCLUDING REAL WORLD FUEL ECONOMY.

    Now, if you chose to buy a Ford even though it got worse gas mileage than a GM truck, then obviously gas mileage wasn't number one on your priority list, was it? So maybe a person buying a Dodge cares more about other things, too. Yet, you spend a lot of effort in the Dodge forums trying to make the point and castigate the 4.7 for being "a gas hog." Unfortunately, you do that by amplifying all of the bad reports, and disavow the good reports. Just the reverse for GM and Ford. You are trying to characterize every 4.7 as never being able to get more than 11-13 mpg, which is just plain sophistry. There have been a number of posts similar to mine, like BCOLCLS in #95, that contradict your assertion. Likewise, there are a number of examples of competitive makes getting far less than others, yet you'd never know it from your posts. You make it sound like everybody's going to get better gas mileage with a something other than the Dodge 4.7.

    THIS IS A DODGE TOPIC SO I'D THINK WE'D MOSTLY TALK ABOUT DODGES. AND I'VE SEEN RELATIVELY FEW REPORTS OF GOOD MILEAGE NUMBERS HERE AT EDMUNDS OR IN OTHER FORUMS ON OTHER WEBSITES. IT HAS BEEN MY OBSERVATION THAT THOSE HAPPY WITH THEIR MPG HAVE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY BEEN THOSE WITH 2WD VEHICLES.

    I think the potential Dodge buyer can read the EPA ratings and compare on her/his own. If they feel that one or two mpg difference is important to them, then they can move on. As far as being a "gas hog," the 4.7 engine is far from it. There is testimony that this engine can realize the EPA ratings.

    FAIR ENOUGH, BUT MY OPINION HASN'T CHANGED.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    >>THE EPA NUMBERS SUPPORT THOSE COMPARO TESTS AND MY PERSONAL OPINIONS...SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY YOU KEEP HARPING ON THIS.<<

    Because you have been trying to foster the impression that the 4.7 will not/cannot not meet it's EPA rating. Your so-called "comparo" tests that were related by you included one 11 mpg and another 13 mpg. You'd like to stop the conversation there to give the impression that these are in the typical range, so that your crusade to make the 4.7 out as bad as possible has credentials. No, despite your claim, your "comparo" tests DO NOT support the EPA rating. Are you now saying that hasn't been your point?

    >>MAYBE SO, BUT BEING ABLE TO COMPARE VEHICLES SIDE BY SIDE IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE BEST WAY TO DISCERN DIFFERENCES...INCLUDING REAL WORLD FUEL ECONOMY.<<

    Absolute rubbish! The so-called "real world" experiences are not reliable as they only reflect one person'e driving habits and uniquely specific driving conditions. On-line experiences are anecdotal data from unsolicited sources. A first year college student knows that unsolicited reports are always skewed. Sometimes significantly. These are not reliable and are only mildly relative as data. If this was the case, then 86% of Americans want abortion outlawed (CNN-Time on-line poll, April 1998).

    >>THIS IS A DODGE TOPIC SO I'D THINK WE'D MOSTLY TALK ABOUT DODGES.<<

    Sorry, but the question is in fact very valid, since you are the one-man crusader on these Dodge forums trying to make the point about the 4.7 being a "gas hog." If in fact you bought a vehicle that doesn't get as good as mileage, then what is motivating you to be bringing up the point about the 4.7 Dodge all of the time??? I would think that with such fervor to criticize the 4.7 Dodge so much that you'd be looking to get a truck that got the best gas mileage. And that isn't the one you bought! So what's the point, other to try to perpetuate a myth and denegrate either an engine or a truck?

    >>AND I'VE SEEN RELATIVELY FEW REPORTS OF GOOD MILEAGE NUMBERS HERE AT EDMUNDS OR IN OTHER FORUMS ON OTHER WEBSITES.<<

    Okay, so is the true fuel consumption range of a 4.7 equiped vehicle determined by vote? You keep ignoring the fact that driving habit is the most weighted factor in fuel consumption, on any vehicle. As I make the point above, unsolicited anecdotal reports cannot substitute for empirical testing. Oh, I know how important it is for you to keep making the point about the delta between good reports/bad reports, because it is the biggest thread in your flimsy argument.

    >>IT HAS BEEN MY OBSERVATION THAT THOSE HAPPY WITH THEIR MPG HAVE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY BEEN THOSE WITH 2WD VEHICLES.<<

    What? So this is a 4x4 problem only?

    >>FAIR ENOUGH, BUT MY OPINION HASN'T CHANGED. <<

    Oh, I've determined long ago that you are completely immovable on this subject. You have invested so much negative opinion about the 4.7 gas mileage that even a mountain of evidence to the contrary would be embarrassing for you to change your view. However, your persistence in making comment after comment about this subject has produced a dynamic all its own. Believe me, I'm not trying to change your opinion. In fact, at this point that would be the last thing I would want to do. Your current opinion has a value all it's own.

    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    okay dusty, i see you've been arguing with other folks here (other topics - some now read only) about 4.7l fuel mileage and apparently have issues where this is concerned. if it means that much to you to have the last word...you got it. i'm glad your real world driving nets epa numbers...it's entirely unfortunate that "tested" 4.7l engines have performed much worse...
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    >>..okay dusty, i see you've been arguing with other folks here (other topics - some now read only) about 4.7l fuel mileage and apparently have issues where this is concerned<<

    What in the heck are you talking about? What "read only topics?" There are only three currently on the board that I see, none elated to 4.7 gas mileage. And secondly, who else have I been "arguing" with about 4.7 gas mileage???
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    oops, my memory didn't serve me well. i remembered seeing you banter with someone about fuel mileage awhile back and was thinking it was the 4.7l. so, went back and found the read only 2002 dodge ram 5.9l gas mileage topic. (btw, there are about 10 or so read only topics for dodge trucks) that topic was obviously related more to the 360 than the 4.7l.
  • akjbmwakjbmw Member Posts: 231
    There is no "arguing" when one person is totally right and there is no option for doubt or challenge.

    Keep posting all, we need your input too.

    Glad you're doing well Dave40.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    The EPA figures have to be the best way to compare MPG ratings on cars, they at least test under euqal conditions, with the same parameters.

    The 4.7, auto, 4x4 Clubcab Dakota gets 14/18 (a regular cab 4.7, 2wd with 5 speed gets as high a rating as 16/21)
    The 4.7, auto, 4x4 Grand Cherokee gets 15/20
    The 4.7, auto, 4x4 Quadcab Ram gets 14/17 (this is as bad as the 4.7 gets.)
    The 4.7, auto, 4x4 Durango gets 15/20

    So how do those compare to similar Ford and Chevy models? Well the Ram is easy. The 4.7 is the base v-8 and the Ram the full size pickup. The chevy 4.8 with auto and 4x4 gets 14/18 and the similar Ford with the 4.6 gets 15/19. Those really aren't that much different.
    What about similar SUVs from Ford and Chevy? The Trailblazer v-8 gets 14/18 and an explorer v-8 gets 14/19. So the Jeep and Durango beat those by a little.
    These numbers were right off the EPA website with ratings on 2003 models.
    Even the Toyota 4.7 in a 4x4, auto 4runner only gets a 15/19 rating. So it would seem the Dodge 4.7 actually does better in something more fitting to it's size (a Dakota, Jeep, or Durango) but starts working to hard in the biggest 4x4 Rams. I bet the 5.7 Hemi improves the economy buy 1 or 2 mpg in the Ram, and stays about even in the Dakota, Jeep, and Durango when they finally put it there as well.
    The point about making the 4.7 pointless is pretty good. The 5.7 supposedly costs less to build then the 4.7, gets better economy, and has much more power. It seems like they should switch over the 4.7 production lines to 5.7 hemi lines. The 5.7 is physically very similar in size and weight as well. The 4.7 is a fine motor, but the new Hemi is just amazing.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Thanks for the post. I think you'll find the argument will be (has been) that the Dodge 4.7 motor cannot realize the EPA ratings based on accumulated anecdotal experiences. I agree with you that the EPA test sequence is the only non-variable equal state measurement system that can be reliably used to compare makes and models.

    A general comment: Besides being influenced heavily by driving technique, the other problem with unsolicited anecdotal reports is verification. Some people with an emotional attachment or disaffection to a make or model will either remember the very best, or the very worst. Then of course there are those who knowingly give false information, those who will exchange personal integrity for a momentary feeling of superiority. There is no better example than the subject of automobiles of how some are religiously allegiant to certain auto marques and/or wage disparagement against others. Unfortunately, these and other influences exist among the unsolicited anecdotal reports and there's really no way of screening them out. In addition, if a person is not getting the gas mileage they think they should be getting, the response is often to first blame the vehicle, despite the fact that the driver is the primary influence on gas mileage. After all, who wants to believe that they are responsible for poor results!

    Listed below are the EPA fuel mileage ratings of the most popular trucks. Tell me if you notice anything about the ratings:

    Make/Model engine/trans type fuel city/highway

    Ford F150 2WD
    6 cyl, 4.2 L, Man(5), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 4.2 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 20
    8 cyl, 4.6 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 20
    8 cyl, 4.6 L, Man(5), Regular 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 14 19
    Ford Ranger 2WD
    4 cyl, 2.3 L, Man(5), Regular 24 29
    4 cyl, 2.3 L, Auto(5), Regular 23 26
    6 cyl, 3 L, Man(5), Regular 19 23
    6 cyl, 3 L, Auto(5), Regular 17 22
    6 cyl, 4 L, Man(5), Regular 17 22
    6 cyl, 4 L, Auto(5), Regular 16 21
    Chevrolet S10 Pickup
    4 cyl, 2.2 L, Man(5), Regular 22 28
    4 cyl, 2.2 L, Auto(4), Regular 19 25
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 23
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Man(5), Regular 16 24
    Chevrolet C1500 Silverado 2WD
    8 cyl, 4.8 L, Man(5), Regular 16 20
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Man(5), Regular 15 21
    6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.8 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), FLEX-FUEL, Gasoline or E85 Gas 15 19
    8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), LM7, Regular 15 19
    Dodge Dakota 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 18 19
    6 cyl, 3.9 L, Man(5), Regular 15 21
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Man(5), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(5), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 5.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 13 18
    Dodge RAM 1500 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.7 L, Man(5), Regular 16 21
    6 cyl, 3.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 20
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(5), Regular 14 19
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Man(5), Regular 14 19
    8 cyl, 5.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 13 17
    Nissan Frontier V6 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Man(5), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 20
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Man(5), Premium 15 19
    6 cyl, 3.3 L, Auto(4), Premium 15 19
    Toyota Tacoma 2WD
    4 cyl, 2.4 L, Man(5), Regular 22 27
    4 cyl, 2.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 22 25
    4 cyl, 2.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 19 21
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Man(5), Regular 19 24
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 17 20
    Toyota Tundra 2WD
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Man(5), Regular 16 20
    6 cyl, 3.4 L, Auto(4), Regular 16 19
    8 cyl, 4.7 L, Auto(4), Regular 15 19

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    dusty,

    you forgot to post the 4x4 numbers...those are what interest me the most! by the way, do you get a dollar for everytime you use "anecdotal" in a post? :)
  • mledtjemledtje Member Posts: 1,123
    It looks like the fullsize and midsize trucks (6s and 8s) all get about the same mileage, and the smaller trucks (4s especially) get 20-40% better mileage.

    An automatic hurts the mileage of the 4s quite a bit, but only costs about 1mpg on a V8.

    The one engine that gets the worst (and 2nd worst)mileage on the list is the old 5.9L Dodge. No suprise there.

    The 4.7 is about the same as similar Ford and GM engines. 1mpg difference could be as little as .1mpg and being on the break point for rounding off. Not enough to make an issue of.

    Surprising to see the Frontier and Tundra 6's don't return much better mileage than larger 6's and 8's in larger trucks from Ford and GM.

    I would have expected more variation from brand to brand. But, I guess it takes about the same amount of horsepower to move about the same amount of weight.

    Mike L
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Exactly!!

    Unlike passenger cars, the very nature of pickup trucks assumes that some population of their owners have purchased that type of vehicle to do work, other than carry passengers. The manufacturers are cognizant of that and design the vehicle as a package to fullfill a specific fitness-of-purpose role. That includes the ability to haul weight, which is a normal and expected thing for a truck to do.

    Americans, being the impatient souls that we are, generally place a high value on performance over such other things as total operating cost. So, despite the difference in displacement and taxable power, the power delivery system is adjusted to provide a level of power and performance for the design's ability to handle loads. In practical terms this means that smaller displacement/power engines get higher numerical axle ratios, smaller tires, and in general an engine tuned that maximizes it power in the normal driving range. This is why the delta between larger engine/power and smaller engine/power fuel consumption is so low. Despite the emotion, the laws of physics must apply.

    Where this phenomenon is most observant is in the differences between the V6 motors and smaller V8s. You will note that all manufacturers of large trucks have this same pattern.

    Some major pieces of information that are missing in order to really makes sense and practical meaning out of this subject, are the the 0-60 mph times and some other measurement that can demonstrate the engine/vehicle ability to perform with or without a load for each engine-vehicle combination.

    The total performance measurement of any truck platform does not stop with fuel consumption, but also includes GVW capability, load size handling ability, and performance under load. These could be measured with a equal state test measurement criteria that would be a more realistic and meaningful way to compare different vehicles.

    Back in the '30s and '40s someone designed a incline test for commercial vehicles, where a ladened or unladened vehicle was timed trying to climb a hill. A little simple by today's standards, it at least was one way to compare the hauling ability of different vehicles.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    The Dodge 5.9 may barely be the worst gas hog on that list (actually the worst pickup on the EPA list is not a 5.9 Dodge but a 10 city/12 highway 2500 Chevy 2wd.) but it is by far the oldest design. It is a Mopar LA design which came out in 1964. The small block Chevy went out of production in 1999 but started 9 years earlier. The 5.9 will still be used in 2004 so even if it stops production after that it will be with-in 5 years of the beloved Chevys run. Technically the 'A' series motor that preceded (started in 1956) the 'LA' motor was very similar and shared many parts. If you count that as the first Mopar 'small block' then the current 360 design is older then the chevy 350 was in it's last year 1999. Compare that Dodge motor engineered in 1964 to the Chevy motor engineered in 1999 (4.8 and 5.3) and a 2 mpg difference isn't that bad. An interesting side note to this is that the 5.7 Hemi is so close to being a LA 5.9 with new heads it's scary.

    As far as meeting or beating EPA estimates I have one of the exact trucks on dusty's list and I can easily beat the EPA estimates. I can also easily go way under them. Another big difference is what some consider city driving compared to highway driving. If you live in a big city with long runs of streets with 45 mph speed limits and few stoplights you might see pretty awesome city mileage. If you live on a slow, narrow winding hill that you have to lug up and ride the brake all the way down your mileage will look pretty pathetic. I went from a rig that supposedly got much better mileage then my 5.9 Dakota to the Dakota and didn't notice any change in my fuel costs. The old motor had to work to get up the hill and the Dakota just idles up it. Even my 98 neon which we once got 46 mpg on a long trip from California to Montana, was epa rated at 29 city and 41 highway. It could only get 20mpg on my daily city hill climb commute. Considering my Gas hog 5.9 and the fact I only drive 8000 miles per year of which 95% is this daily commute and I hardly consider fuel mileage when shopping for my 'work' rig The neon was only saving me $300-$350 per year in gas! That is comparing a tiny 4 cylinder/5speed compact, to about the worst truck on the list. If you are worried about 1 mpg difference between a 4.7 Dodge and a 4.7 Toyota then you better put 100,000 highway miles a year on you rig for that to even be a consideration.
  • mledtjemledtje Member Posts: 1,123
    The Chevy small block is still in production.

    In 2000, it was still available in the Old Body Style pickups and vans. The vans continued to use it through 2002. And it is still used in medium duty trucks today. At this rate, it may never die!

    1955-2003(at least) = 48+ years. Wonder if the new LS1 style engines will be around that long?

    Mike L
  • akjbmwakjbmw Member Posts: 231
    Hersbird.

    Good post.

    That is the type of qualifying information about the driving conditions that really provide the usable data to compare personal results or choose a type of vehicle. However "anecdotal" it may be.

    Some may drive only on the flat. I don't.
    Some may do only the city parkway at 45 with few stops. I don't.
    Some may do only city streets with a stopsign at every intersection. I don't.
    Some may always leave the stopsign/stoplight with full throttle or in geezer mode. I do both with inconsistency.
    Some may always have a max capacity load or run empty.

    Having similar gas mileage on the flat is one thing, but pulling a long grade without getting run over and still getting reasonable mileage is a plus. As is doing the same thing with a load. This is the area that there are apparently greater differences.

    Bring on the Anecdotes. Just keep adding the usefull details.

    Keep on post'n.
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    for those of you that would like to see the 4.7l get better mileage...check out this article from last summer...

    (cut and paste from daimler media site)

    Small Changes to Engine, Vehicle Add Up to 25 Percent Better Fuel Efficiency

    Auburn Hills, Mich., Jun 13, 2002 - Chrysler Group researchers are using a series of small steps in engineering to produce a giant leap in fuel efficiency that could benefit consumers in the not-too-distant future.

    With a series of engineering changes to Chrysler's standard gasoline-powered, 4.7-liter V-8 engine, researchers have produced an engine with 14 percent better fuel efficiency. The cost of those changes: less than $200 per engine. The project has been nicknamed the MAGIC engine, which stands for Multiple Approaches to Great Internal Combustion. The improvement in fuel efficiency was achieved with no sacrifice in emissions, power, cost, weight, engine life or other engine characteristics such as noise, vibration or harshness.

    "We call it the MAGIC engine, but it's really pure engineering," said Thomas Moore, DaimlerChrysler Vice President and head of the Liberty & Technical Affairs advanced technology research group in Rochester Hills, Michigan. "Our goal was to demonstrate that all these little changes actually work in the real world and add up to major improvements in efficiency. Today we can say that it all works."

    Eight different design and engineering changes were made to the standard engine. "Most of these changes are not new, and individually, they produce miniscule gains in fuel efficiency," Moore said. "The idea of the MAGIC engine is to package them all together so the overall gain is significant."

    As a next step, Chrysler engineers packaged the MAGIC engine into a Dodge Durango SUV with several additional design changes to enhance fuel efficiency. That vehicle, project Apollo, achieves an overall improvement in fuel efficiency of 25 percent. Total additional costs for project Apollo are only about $500 per vehicle.

    Areas of improvement are:
    Increased compression ratio (4 percent) -- resulting in greater efficiency and lower emissions -- through:
    + Intake port air-gap thermal barrier.
    Chrysler Group has applied for a patent for this innovative feature.
    + On-demand piston oil-squirters
    + Precision cooling system
    Charge motion control (5 percent). Use of swirl control valves to enhance flame propagation during warm-up and partial load

    This also enables increased EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation)
    Friction loss reduction (4 percent). Design changes to lower friction at no extra cost:
    + Crankshaft offset
    + Reduced oil-ring tension
    + Shortened coolant jacket
    Parasitic loss reduction (1 percent). New design oil pump with reduced internal leakage and reduced friction
    Chrysler Group engineers used the same incremental approach to fuel efficiency improvements in the Dodge Durango SUV fuel efficiency demonstration vehicle. The Apollo project includes the following enhancements:

    A 12V alternator/restarter to allow transparent shutdown and restarting of a warm engine in stop/start traffic conditions (4 percent)
    Improved cooling technologies, including electronic thermostat, electric water pump, transmission temperature management and multi-mode temperature strategy (5 percent)
    Improved undercarriage aerodynamics (belly pans and air dams) and grille shutters resulting in reduced drag (1.2 percent)
    Electro-hydraulic power steering (1 percent)
    "Engineers have been improving the internal combustion engine for 130 years, so big improvements are hard to come by," Moore said. "We made the big improvement one small step at a time."
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    I did know the 2500 didn't change style until 2000 but though it used something different. I had completely forgot about the van! I bet both the Chevy and the Mopar LA will continue to be used in certain special applications like RV chassis, and in certain markets like Mexico. You can just use up old stock even when the production lines have changed over to new parts. Or better yet, send all the factory tooling down to somewhere like Mexico and let them pump them out for another 40 years like the old VW bug!

    The problem with those changes posted above to gain 25% increased fuel economy for $500 is that they need to be done in mass production from the factory line. You can't just go down to the local NAPA with $500 and expect to make your Durango get 25 mpg rater then 20 mpg. There also also sure to be a few downsides to the changes as well, there always have to be downsides right!

    How did this thread ever get so far off track to focus so much on 4.7 mileage? Is the Hemi so intimidating to the Chevy, Ford, Toyota crowd that they have to spin the subject to something else? The 5.7 Hemi should get 2 mpg better then the 5.9, which means it's EPA rating should be very similar to the 4.7 (which I think we've proven is pretty much par for the course.) This will go up even more if they use the cylinder deactivation in testing now. So mileage will be decent, and when you compare it to the power produced I think it's pretty outstanding. It really the value of the 5.7 ($1200 over the v-6 and $800 over the other v-8) compared to it's incredible torque and HP is just unmatched by GM and Ford. The Ford has a few supercharged 5.4s making more power (for big $$$) and chevy has a soon to be released special SS 6.0 making equal power (also big $$$). But Dodge's 5.7 is starting at that 345 hp. What do you think will happen to those power number if they decided to tweak their motor for more power? Then this inexpensive motor will also soon find it's way in an all aluminum version into mainstream cars as well (the next Intrepid, and 300.) It seems with some simple performance attention from the factory the 5.7 hemi will make more net HP then even the 426 street Hemi did, even considering it was underrated. I don't think it can match the race Hemi's numbers (it was waaaay under-rated), but if it's making 345 net in it's first offering, then that's what about 410 gross? So it would need to get to about 460 gross to match what a street Hemi actually produced. Better cam, intake and exhaust manifolds, and PCM tuning to require 91 octane should get it there simply by changing it's torque curve from one set up for 2500 series truck towing, to one set up for high rpm HP (which is the main reason Chevy HP number look as good as they do.)
  • mledtjemledtje Member Posts: 1,123
    It is sometimes hard to remember what the original subject was when replying to messages.

    The Chevy 2500s changed when the 1500s did. It is just that they continued the old body style trucks a couple of years into the new body style production. I have no idea why they did that, but they did.

    The 5.7 Hemi looks like a great engine. But, so did a whole series of Ford engines - that are long dead! Only time will tell if the engine is as good as it's specs make it appear. I hope it is the best engine ever! Everyone should hope it is a great engine. Because, that will force all the other manufacturers to make better engines to compete, and then everyone wins!

    Mike L
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    Since when did Ford ever have a promising line of motors? They put out a couple of unique very low production race motors, but otherwise they were all pretty much run of the mill stuff. The Current Chevy LT1 is a great motor but they just don't put it in enough applications. Now that the Camaro and firebird are gone, it's just the vette! It will show up in the new GTO which is promising, but why not as an option on the 1500 silverado? The 5.7 Hemi is slated to go in a wide range of Cars and Trucks. You don't need a whole line of motors when one does it so well. I mean you can keep a few other 4 cylinder and 6 cylinders around, but you really don't need any other v-8's. The 4.7 is pretty much useless now. The 5.7 gets equal gas mileage, makes much more power, is physically very similar in size and weight, and even though it cost more as an option it actually costs less to manufacture. I also understand that some of the 2500 Hemi Rams that have been dynoed have shown over 300 HP to the wheels, even as high as 320, which means it makes all of if not more then it's claimed 345hp at the crank.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    >>The 5.7 Hemi should get 2 mpg better then the 5.9, which means it's EPA rating should be very similar to the 4.7 (which I think we've proven is pretty much par for the course.)<<

    Actually, a 5.7 motor rated at 345 hp compared to a 4.7 motor rated at 240 hp cannot get better gas mileage if doing the same amount of work. The laws of physics dictate that as power is increased and utilized, so does fuel consumption.

    I think what you want to say is that the 5.7 hemi motor might be SPECULATED to get the same when placed into certain a vehicle platform. This assumes that the engine speed will be slowed, probably through final drive gearing.

    I don't remember if any of the new RAM 2500-3500 owners with the 5.7 have commented on fuel consumption yet. Have they?

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    several times but I don't recall seeing an answer.
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    over at pickuptruck.com several guys have posted some 2500 hemi numbers. one guy with a 2wd truck claims to have gotten 24 mpp on a recent highway trip (absurd). however most of the guys are reporting less than 13 mpg overall. but the inclination to "put your foot in it" has been reported to be rather high so those numbers may not be representative. btw, chrysler claims the hemi is 10 percent more efficient than the engine it replaces (360) fwiw...
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    isn't much to write home about. 24mpg with a tailwind maybe.
  • emaleemale Member Posts: 1,380
    true, but the hemi has 100 more hp than the 360 and 30 more lb/ft...that does say something!
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    Makes a body RAMbunctious to get behind the wheel of one. 1/2 Ton, SWB, regular cab and 345HP!!! Yowza!
  • scotthemiscotthemi Member Posts: 27
    Talked to my salesman today and my Hemi is built and on the train headed to the dealer. Hopefully, I should have it by next weekend. I'm stoked!
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Do you know when the line started and where your truck is being manufactured?

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • scotthemiscotthemi Member Posts: 27
    I'm not positive. The dealer placed the order on 11/6/02. The timing must have been good because I was told it would be close to 8 weeks.

    I think it was manufactured in Mexico. I know the motors are built there, but I seem to remember the salesman telling me the truck "could" be made in Mexico. He didn't positively know ahead of time where it would be manufactured.
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    Is yours a 1500 series? it should be built in Dodge's St Louis North plant. If your's was a 1500 series Hemi and did already ship you will be about the first in the country to get one! Please keep us posted if your not to busy driving!
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    .............are assembled at the Dodge City plant (Warren, MI) along with the Dakota, the Lago Alberto and the Saltitlo, Mexico plants, and at the St. Louis North plant, St. Louis, MO.

    I believe that order taking for the RAM 1500 with 5.7 Hemi motor began 1 November. My dealer allowed my to see the advance pricing in early October.

    Good luck with your new RAM

    Bests,
    Dusty
  • hersbirdhersbird Member Posts: 323
    I believe the 1500 Hemi Rams are built exclusively in the St Louis North plant.
  • scotthemiscotthemi Member Posts: 27
    Naw, it's a 2500. A few days after I ordered mine, I found out for sure the 1500s would be available soon. I probably would have waited had I known it was going to be so quick. I can always use the extra hauling capacity, but I'll bet that 1500 hemi will be the nicest truck on the road.

    I hope to hear from my dealer in the next day or two. What sucks is I'm out of town, and knowing my luck, my truck will be delivered and I won't get to see it until I get home :(
  • Jason5Jason5 Member Posts: 440
    While I would certainly love an additional rationalization to choose the Hemi 5.7 over a 4.7, I can't propogate inaccuracies. The last time I checked, the old 5.9 (aka "360") rated 11 mpg for an automatic equipped, 4WD Ram. If the new Hemi adheres to the projected 10% increase--that means about 12mpg. Better, but still far from the 4.7 rating of 14 mpg with the same 5 sp automatic as the 5.7.
    My father's 2002 Ram Quad Cab 2WD with the 5.9 and 4 speed auto struggles to achieve 10-12 mpg in daily driving. In other posts we've discussed the imminent power increases for the 4.7. Just for fun, imagine what applying the hemi architecture could do with the 4.7! 280-300HP and 320-340lb feet? DustyK check my calculations!
  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    There must be something wrong with a 5.9 to get 10-12 mpg under normal driving. I have an 01 4x4 quad cab with the 5.9 and I get 10-12 mpg towing a 5500# boat through the mountains. running empty I have never gotten below 12 and that was at -40F and the truck idled longer than it was driven.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Jason,

    Actually, the 4.7 is almost a hemi. It's a polyspherical combustion chamber reminscient of the old 318A engines ('58 - '66). The chamber shape would be "hemispherical" with the exception of a flat bulkhead on one side. If I remember correctly, Chrysler engineers determined that a polyhead motor would be almost as efficient as the same engine in hemi form. From a machining and manufacturing perspective they use to be cheaper to make. That's probably not true anymore.

    A "hemi" in the traditional sense should easily produce 1 horsepower per cublic inch on today's pump gas and without multivalve arrangement. This can be raised further, but fuel and emission dynamics will take effect just as it does with wedge motors. Despite what some hemi-haters will tell you, this combustion chamber will show a torque advantage over a wedge.....properly executed of course.

    As far as the 360 goes, I've heard the gamut of gas mileage reports over the years. I think the 360 suffers from its own torque. The people I know who drive them seem to trend toward the zippy driver-type. With the 360's displacement and being a low-speed torque motor besides, it makes sense to me that less than patient throttle control will easily produce low gas mileage numbers (especially in a 5000 lb truck!).

    My 4.7 Dakota has even surprised me. I recently drove a friend's Dakota with the 318 and was able to do a very quick comparison. This is strictly a "seat-of-the-pants feel. The 318 Dakota seemed to exhibit good low-end torque, but lost it's breath in the upper RPM range. But the 4.7 just keeps pulling through it's RPM range.

    For a person my age, this is embarrassing, but a few weeks ago I was challenged by two young testosterone ladened fellows in a brand X fullsize pickup on RT 104. I am glad to report that the 4.7 Dakota was more than an able soldier. The driver later accused my Dakota of being a "5.9 RT sleeper." And maybe it is.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    I would have to agree with you dusty. I think most people that get poor gas mileage with the 360 try to drive a 5600# truck like a 3000# car and end up with 10 mpg. Myself I normally keep the RPM below 2300 and get better gas mileage than my old 97 F-150 with the 4.6.
  • txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    ago, I belive it was Sport Truck Magazine that was doing an evaluation. Possibly for Sport Truck of the Year. Anyway to my surprise the 4.7 Dakota QC was quicker than a SWB Regular Cab 5.3 GM. And I do remember checking to make sure of the year and it was the 285hp 5.3. It wasn't much but it was quicker.
    345hp! Dam, if that Ram just wasn't so heavy! The 1/2 ton Reg. cab is almost as heavy as a GM Ext cab. Personally I've never known anyone who gets decent mpg with a 5.9.
  • Jason5Jason5 Member Posts: 440
    So...do I ask if that's akin to being "a little pregnant?" Perhaps the comparison is apples to oranges...but if the 4.7 is "almost a hemi" then shouldn't that make it's relatively low HP ratings more suspect? I've heard that the 5.7 Hemi is "almost" but "not really" a hemi in the truest sense of the combustion chamber architecture--but that's not my point.
    We know that some relatively minor changes--increased compression and use of mid grade fuel--make the 4.7 into the 4.7 HO. Pumping out 265 HP (as compared to 235-240) and 325-330 lb ft (as compared to 295-300). Those number meet or exceed, in general, the old 5.9 V-8 in a lighter, more efficient package. I guess I'm wondering what the application of the hemi architecture, dual plugs and recommending mid-grade fuel would garner if applied to the 4.7 or simply a "debored and destroked" 5.7--although you'd loose some efficiency due to the unnecessarily large block and heads in that configuration. Just waxing philosophic I guess...
This discussion has been closed.