2012 Dodge RAM 1500 3.7L V6 4x2 gas mileage

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
A 3.7L 2012 2WD Ram is rated at 14/20 on the EPA cycle. That's actually not terrible...at least the highway rating. Compare that to a 2002 4WD Expedition with the 5.4L at 11/15 (or the 4.6L at 12/16), and the Ram should deliver significantly better fuel economy...like 35% better if your Expy has the 5.4L

Something must have been "off" with that trip. More traffic, more wind, malfunctioning Dodge, something.


My Expedition routinely nails 18.5Mpg highway, easily besting the EPA figures. That may be a contributing factor. However there's no way this truck was getting 20Mpg. That would have put it between the BMW and Expedition, which we know it wasn't.

Wind was not significant, traffic was relatively light, driving style was the same as how I drive everything....

I will add that this truck had a hard time getting out of its own way, it is far from a rocket.

 

[cptbarkey]

just conjecturing here, but yes the 3.7L is terrible on gas. the 3.9 in my opinion was a much better engine in most respects except power of course.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I now have a 10 FX4 with a 5.4 engine 3.73 gears and a 6 speed auto and I get 17.6MPG average on 50/50 mixed city/highway driving.

It seems that the 3.7 is a bad fit for that PU.


Very bad fit.
The ford 5.4 is actually pretty fuel efficient considering its torque output.
I drove an 03 Eddie Bauer edition,4 door crew cab with the full load,leather and tv,for about 6 weeks before I bought my dodge. That truck was extremely responsive at low rpm and easily had more bottom end torque right off the line than my hemi does. The hemi easily has 100 more torque and hp but from a dead stop that ford was way more responsive.
And I was getting 20 mpg easily,measured by the odo and litres consumed,not any mileage counter. I was and am still impressed with the ford 5.4 2v. Great engine and will go the distance as far as durability.
Ford is making the best gas engines available as far as I'm concerned. It seems all of them prove durable and you can just run the mileage up and they just don't quit. From the inline sixxer(300) to the legendary 302/351 and then to the 4.6/5.4 engines. They just beg for more miles.
Now we'll see if the 4v 5.0 can live up to the durability of its predecessors and the turbo 6er.
And all this using a 20 grade oil. Shocking.
I'm not saying their 4 bangers are in the same class as the Japanese,but they are definitely trying.
20 grades.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Colt45ws
Probably the only way to run a PU with a small V6 such as this is with a manual trans. Once you get this low in output, the auto transmission (which is likely the same or very similar to the v8 trans) starts sucking a noticeable amount of powder.


This used to be true, and will remain so in the old school designs still out there. But the new ZF 8 speed box used in the Dodge Ram is rewriting the rule book. Check out the EPA numbers on that truck. And it can TOW!

BTW, just took an engine 100 miles north to my BIL's shop in the back of my 05 Silverado. Well over 100k miles on the girl and she averaged almost 20 mpg with 60% of that at 80 mph on the toll road and the rest very rural. NOT babied.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Another factor could be that it appears that you didn't measure actual fuel consumed, but the amount of money it took to fill it up. I know you know what you're doing, and I'm not at all writing this to insult your intelligence or anything, but simply to point out that there isn't a shortage of variables here that could sway things one way or another.

Running properly, a 3.7L 2WD Ram should easily be the equal of (if not better than) a 5.4L 4WD Expedition in fuel economy. If yours truly wasn't, then there must have been something seriously wrong with how that Ram was running.

 

[Vikas]

All my vehicles are giving lousy mileage lately. Should I be changing my O2 sensors to improve the mileage?
















Here is the rest of the data:-
The van has remote starter and wife makes sure it is warm and toasty by using it all the time. Son takes his car to school which is about 1.5 miles from home.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Another factor could be that it appears that you didn't measure actual fuel consumed, but the amount of money it took to fill it up. I know you know what you're doing, and I'm not at all writing this to insult your intelligence or anything, but simply to point out that there isn't a shortage of variables here that could sway things one way or another.

Running properly, a 3.7L 2WD Ram should easily be the equal of (if not better than) a 5.4L 4WD Expedition in fuel economy. If yours truly wasn't, then there must have been something seriously wrong with how that Ram was running.


Well, another factor is that I'm running all synthetic fluids front to rear in the Expedition and a pan full of AFE 0w30. This truck likely has bulk conventional 5w30 in it.

Fill to fill at the same station, even if we say a litre or two for the sake of variability, we are still looking at $46-$50.00 for this truck, depending in which way you slant the variance. On the Expedition, I'm usually within a dollar or two/litre or two on this trip, so it is generally pretty repeatable for me.

 

[Spazdog]

The 3.7 makes more horsepower than the 4.3 Chevrolet and 4.2 Ford....comes up a little short on torque. Okay, a lot short on torque vs the CPI 4.3s. Makes sense. The 4.3 has .6 extra liter of displacement.

I still do not understand why they didn't just update the 3.9 Magnum. It was competitive with the numbers the TBI 4.3 Chevy was making. Surely they could've made a little more torque and kept it competitive. I've seen more than a few 300,000 mile Dakotas and one full-size plumber's Ram Van with a 3.9

 

[pickler]

it has nothing to do with your engine well it sort of does...but don't listen to anyone saying your engine is not big enough. Big isnt good for fuel economy. i'm a hypermiling geek so i know.

The reason why your mileage was down was because of the cold snap.

1. The oil companies add more butane and other cold start aids to the oil. This chemical evaporates in your fuel tank.

2. The air with the recent cold snap is much much denser and with a truck that big you can feel it. Denser air means more Drag! I wouldn't be surprised if you lost 5-10mpg on the highway versus summer time.

3. Some cars or vehicle get stuck in open loop in extreme low temps and generally consume more gas per horsepower (look up brake specific fuel consumption).

i average 35mpg with my impreza highway cruising in summer and 27mpg in winter.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
All my vehicles are giving lousy mileage lately. Should I be changing my O2 sensors to improve the mileage?




You guys are into a bit of a cold snap aren't you? Would that contribute to lessened mileage?











Here is the rest of the data:-
The van has remote starter and wife makes sure it is warm and toasty by using it all the time. Son takes his car to school which is about 1.5 miles from home.