wnorman1192.......Interesting comment. Very good.

IMO.......Comparing the Nissan, Ford, Dodge and Chevy engines, I would think only a "fair" comparison could be done by looking at similar engines. Although I do own a 2001 F150 with a 5.4 L, I am not familiar with the other brands or the newer 3 valve 5.4 from Ford.

I would think a " fair engine comparison", would be based on similar size of vehicles the engine is in, similar cubic inches, OHV, SOHC, DOHC valve trains, initial cost of engine, (is it an option), etc. Anything other than that would be comparing apples to oranges. Finally, the sticker price of the vehicle. One would think if they paid $4,000 more for a "similarly equipped vehicle" they would also be getting more? Well at least the Japanese manufacturers think so and their owners. ???

Manufacturers will always be one uping each other.

 

In full size trucks with V-8 engines over 5 liters, I think the fuel mileage issue is a red herring. It's all about horsepower, torque, total weight, gear ratios and driving habits. There are so many variables here, you can easily make one truck look better or worse than another.

My Armada (5800 lbs with me and usual stuff aboard) gets 11 mpg around town and about 14.5-15 on the highway. I have a heavy right foot and because the engine and tranny like it, I probably get into the throttle more than I should. I cruise in the left lane on the Interstate, which usually means 75-80 mph just to keep up around here. The truck has the tow package with lower gearing.

The 5.4L 2 valve Expedition it replaced also had Ford's tow package with 3.73 gears. It got 11 mph around town and 14.0 on the highway. I don't consider the 1/2 to 1 mpg better highway mileage of the Nissan to be better - it's statistically insignificant. You don't even want to know what the mpg is when towing a heavy load with either truck, but I can say there is no real advantage between brands - both are and were bad. If you tow a lot and mileage is a factor, go diesel.

If you are buying one of these truck, any brand, for the gas mileage, I think you are looking at the wrong issue. I agree that if anyone is getting 20 mpg with the HEMI, they are either not being honest (with all respect) are using a flawed measuring technique.

 

I would never be dishonest to try to make my truck look better than it is. I simply state the facts as they are, and yes I do get crummy city mileage but highway is a different story. I do, no matter how hard it is to believe, get over 20 mpg when the entire tank is used on the highway at 70-75 mph. My truck's configuration is conducive to better highway mpg than most. It is a regular cab short bed 3.55 gears with almost no options. At 70 mph the engine is turning less than 1600rpms. This is figured manually and with the overhead computer, which is always within 1 mpg if it is reset at the pump when i fill up. Sure, if I reset the computer when cruising at 70 mph it says that I am getting over 25mpg, and that is a flawed manner to get your true highway mileage (even though it does show what you are getting at that point in time). I never said that I get over 25 mpg highway, but I do get over 20. Even on the highway, your driving style will still play a significant role. I took a trip down to Orlando, and was in a hurry to get there. I merged onto the interestate agressively and never dropped below 80 unless there was alot of traffic. I averaged a little over 17mpg. On the way back, I merged slowly onto the interstate and set my cruise a little above 70, and achieved over 20mpg. Not really that hard to believe when you look at gearing, driving style and weight.

 

Wnorman1192 - I apologize. I did not mean for my post to come out sounding that way. A light truck with a higher gear ratio and without fourwheel drive, should not be compared to our bigger, heavier 4x4 rigs, or in my case a 5800 lb SUV. My mistake.

And, in fairness, one of my close friends has a 300C HEMI which has the gismo that shuts off unneeded cylinders. He is getting very good mileage in his car. I think that feature may be coming to the light trucks - I know it is in the new Jeep Grand Cherokee. Probably won't help at all when carrying a load or pulling a trailer, however.

In all, I do think that when pickups and SUV's of the same weight are compared, especially those with four wheel drive, they are all getting pretty bad mileage and all are pretty close to each other.

Again, accept my apology for the mistake. I sort of threw the baby out with the bath water there.

 

Why do so many people comment on a truck or engine if they've never driven them? All of these new engines are a great design and after reading that article posted on the first page it was pretty evident they were comparing apples to oranges. They had two trucks with full time 4wd against trucks with selectable 4wd. To get accurate towing and acceleration times they should've either had all trucks be selectable 4x4, or put the 2 trucks that weren't full time 4x4 into 4x4 for the tests. You loose a lot of power if the engine is pushing all 4 wheels compared to 2. As far as anything else goes-gas mileage isn't going to be good in any truck, people don't buy trucks for gas mileage, and after driving all of these trucks except for the Nissan I would say the very first post in this thread is dead on with the descriptions of the engines. Before you go bashing another truck/engine, go drive one and then make a well informed reply.

 

Sorry if I tend to bash Dodge. I have just seen to many things on the truck that tend to make me want to critisize Dodge. A lot off these new 150s are getting some descent mileage 15 to 19 miles per gallon. I dont think Dodge could match those numbers.

 

Armada,

No apology needed. I don't take things personally. I do agree that full size trucks with similar weights and engines all get pretty comparable fuel mileage. It all boils down to driving style and terrain. No one engine is a gas guzzler while the others are gas misers.

150Ford,

Again, any of todays full size trucks could match those numbers given the same driving habits and conditions, including dodge. Like I said, I do it all of the time.

BigBlue,

I am like you and have never seen a test between truly equally equipped full size pickups. There are always one or two with AWD or bigger wheels or different axle ratio's. I would like to see one test with all of these variables as equal as absolutely possible.

 

You don't "think", but I'm pretty sure owners regularly get those numbers on the highway with both the Dodge and the Chevy. Around town the Dodge is mostly good for only 13-15.

 

Not much talk here about the 5.3. It seems that most agree that it is completely outclassed. Does anyone know if Chevy has any plans of replacing the 5.3 with a new engine? Chevy usually outpowers the competition, but since the heat has been turned up the last few years they have fallen behind. I'm sure that whatever they replace the 5.3 with will probably up the bar. The 4.8 and 5.3 are so close in size and power, it would make since to drop the 4.8 in 1/2 tons and make the 5.3 the base motor. Make the 6.0 the top 1/2 ton engine and they would be back in business. The 6.0 is a very powerful engine and would be awesome in a reg cab short bed silverado.

 

I think for 2006 Chevy/GMC is going to completely redesign their trucks with new engines or at least an upgrade in power from them. I know for a fact the new duramax is going to have 320ish HP/ 610lb/ft torque.

 

[QUOTE=bigbluebronco43] They had two trucks with full time 4wd against trucks with selectable 4wd. To get accurate towing and acceleration times they should've either had all trucks be selectable 4x4, or put the 2 trucks that weren't full time 4x4 into 4x4 for the tests. You loose a lot of power if the engine is pushing all 4 wheels compared to 2. QUOTE]


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure none of these trucks are full-time 4wd.

 

Laramie Rams have optional AWD available on the 04 and 05 trucks.

 

Good point....but I don't remember the Laramie AWD being brought up! The vast majority of dodge trucks sold are conventional 4x4.

 

I don't own a 4x4 Dodge Hemi, but from the posts I have read here and other forums, it seems that it is a full time system.

But, I am not convinced that it really makes any significant difference. Theoretically, there might be some friction losses in the drive train, but traction would be better. I know that full time all wheel drive in performance autos has not hurt their acceleration times and is considered an asset.

I run the Nissan in "auto" mode all the time, and did so with the Ford Expedition. The Expedition had a limited slip rear diff. The Nissan has something called VDC - vehicle dynamic control, which shifts torque to the left rear if the right tries to slip and can cut power to the engine if slip is too bad. If it is in "auto" mode, that power goes to the front.

Returning to engine performance, I don't have any convincing evidence that a 4x4 in either auto mode or in rear wheel mode only will have any significant advantage over an awd opponent in acceleration tests. I could stand to be corrected, but I just haven't seen it. I know that 0-60 and quarter mile times for Nissan Titans seem to be about the same whether the "auto" or rear wheel mode is chosen or whether the "VDC" is turned on or off. There have been a lot of Nissan owners experimenting with all of this, and it does not seem to make any significant difference in acceleration or engine performance as long as you don't have a slippery surface and don't break the tires loose.

 

I have a 99 Ram 1500 extended cab with a 5.2L in it. The best mileage I've ever got was 18.5 mpg. That was on Interstate 5 with the cruise control on 73 mph and the tailgate down. I just towed my mustang back from Sonoma this weekend and got 12.4 mpg. The Dodge is just a hugely inefficient gas fiend. I must add that the 5.2L had absolutely no power while towing. I will be upgrading to a PSD as soon as the mustang project is done.