View Poll Results: Which engine would you choose?

5.0 V8 (base): 350 hp/370tq, mpg: 15/20

28.07%

3.5 Ecoboost (+$1000): 365 hp/380tq, mpg: 18/24

28.07%

6.2 V8 (+$1000): 425hp/425tq, mpg: 13/18

43.86%

Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Another future engine poll

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 11, 2009 | 07:32 PM

#46

Bsimmer3000

Posting Guru

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 1,512

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerstroke72

I only about halfway trust the onboard computer when it gives me my average MPG. On our trip this year, I hand calculated most of the time. My trips like that tend to be easier to get good mileage. When we go to FL, I leave around 8 or 9 at night. The kids and wife fall asleep and that generally allows me to be able to drive until I have to fill up again instead of the constant pee breaks when they're all awake. That in itself saves me on the MPGs.

Yeah tell me about the pee breaks. My bro in laws wife on the way to the beach each year has to stop every 30-40 miles. So annoying it's unreal. But back to the engines. My 5.4 with 6 speed gets about 16-17avg at the moment and if the 6.2 can do better than that i would be very surprised. I would have though 15-16avg at very best.

Mar 11, 2009 | 07:39 PM

#47

powerstroke72

Super Moderator

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 24,308

Likes: 42

From: SW Virginia

Yeah, I'm hopeful that it will do better. If I recall correctly, the 6.2 is supposed to have fuel management as well isn't it? If so, it should help out on highway runs.

Mar 11, 2009 | 08:37 PM

#48

Jefff H

Senior User

Joined: Dec 2008

Posts: 199

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerstroke72

Yeah, I'm hopeful that it will do better. If I recall correctly, the 6.2 is supposed to have fuel management as well isn't it? If so, it should help out on highway runs.

What kind of city mileage do you get.

If I remember correctly in one of the shoot outs the GM 6.2 was rated 12/17 W/6speed. I believe it got the poorest mpg in a shootout among the 5.7 Hemi 5.7 Iforce 5.4 Triton and the 5.6 Titan.

I think Toyota stuck the perfect balance between high HP and good fuel economy with the right amount of torque.

However, I do hope the 5.0 proves me wrong.

Mar 11, 2009 | 08:54 PM

#49

powerstroke72

Super Moderator

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 24,308

Likes: 42

From: SW Virginia

Average around town 15-17. Now that can vary and the lowest I've seen is 12. But average is 15-17. Of course, the wife drives it as her DD most all the time unless we go somewhere together. She's rather feather-footed and that's probably good. If I was driving it all the time, it would be around 6-9 average. Either the shootout averages were off some or I got a remarkably efficient one.

Mar 12, 2009 | 08:55 AM

#50

Big Bad

Elder User

Joined: Jun 2007

Posts: 937

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLK94F150

You got me

Mike

I know...

Mar 12, 2009 | 09:02 AM

#51

Big Bad

Elder User

Joined: Jun 2007

Posts: 937

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpdorroh

14/20 is for the 4x2 '09 Ram with Hemi.

The 4x4 is rated for 13/18.

A very well kept secret about the Ram's highway fuel mileage is that the MDS only works to a certain speed. The '07 and '08 Ram's MDS quit working above something like 60-65mph. I drove a used '07 Ram for a day when I was having my truck serviced last year. At lower speeds I could hear the MDS kick in (previous owner had put exhaust on it). However, on the interstate it never kicked in, as I was doing about 75mph. As a result, I ended up getting a less than 15mpg, when it was rated for 17.

I know they supposedly improved this on the new Ram, but I am pretty sure the new MDS won't work above 70mph. The problem is how many of you actually stay below 70mph on the interstate? I think this is why most Rams never get the advertised fuel mileage.

Hopefully if Ford uses MDS on the 6.2 it will be more practical than this.

The 2008+ EPA HWY figures include speeds above 70 mph and actual starts and stops. The 2WD Hemi gets the same mileage the 5.4 does according to the fairly realistic 2008+ EPA figures.

The Hemi is using MDS to get there, while the 5.4 isn't, but it goes to show how certain band-aid technology DOES help!

IMO, Ford really should have invested in a revamped 5.4 4V with iVCT back in 2004 instead of the developing the 3V.

Mar 12, 2009 | 09:20 AM

#52

cpdorroh

Thread Starter

Elder User

Joined: Feb 2009

Posts: 572

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Bad

Fuel Economy Test Schedules

That chart shows a typical "High Speed" simulation test done by the EPA for the revised fuel economy ratings that started in 2008. There is more information on the link above. If you look closely, you will notice that even in the high speed test, speeds are below 70 at least 90% of the time. Thus, on the new Ram, it still does not reflect actual interstate driving conditions where most drivers will be doing above 70, and the MDS is not effective above that speed.

I am by no means trying to argue that technology like MDS does not help. It clearly does help. However, I think it is misleading on the Ram, anyway, because it doesn't work at speeds many people drive. If Ford uses MDS on future engines hopefully it will work out to 80 mph.

Also, if you look on that website, you will see that their top speed for "Highway" testing is still 60 mph.

Mar 12, 2009 | 02:17 PM

#53

Scorpion67

Elder User

Joined: Feb 2008

Posts: 509

Likes: 1

I will go out on a limb here and say:

5.0 V8 with EcoBoost - I will say 520HP/540lb-ft from 1800rpm-4500rpm as per the Taurus SHO curve, using the same specific power/torque per liter as a guide. In reality, the RWD/4x4 setup should be higher. With the same 15/20 mpg as the regular 5.0 V8 (a promise of the EcoBoost technology), and at, say, +$2000