Milage sucks

[Don]

The creature comforts are really nice, but I would trade back to a 5. 9 if I could locate a good one and not lose my shirt. I have 14k on the clock and don't see it getting any better. Planning on putting on free wheel hubs on and hoping to gain a couple miles to the gallon, but that may be pouring good money after bad. Got to try something the milage is killing me!

Don:{

 

[Slow Six]

I don't like the mileage on my 2012 but I love the truck plus my 6. 7 pulls better than my previous 5. 9s that were turned up. As long as mileage is the only downfall I can live with it. All the emissions crap hurts mileage plus fuel makes power. I tried all the gimmicks on my last two trucks to gain mileage but the end result was a lighter wallet so I am leaving this truck stock. It will be interesting to see if the 2013s using DEF will have better mileage but I won't consider trading up untill the are proven.

 

[crabjoe]

May I suggest that you wait until the 2013 3500s are on the road then possibly trade up, instead of dumping more $$ into what you have, to try and get better mileage? The reason for my suggestion is because it does seem, at least on the 2500s, fuel mileage has gone up with SCR. People with '13 2500s are reporting 17+ mpg in over all driving and this is on engines that are still tight. It seems SCR is allowing for similar mileage to the 5. 9s.

 

[DF5152]

The creature comforts are really nice, but I would trade back to a 5. 9 if I could locate a good one and not lose my shirt. I have 14k on the clock and don't see it getting any better. Planning on putting on free wheel hubs on and hoping to gain a couple miles to the gallon, but that may be pouring good money after bad. Got to try something the milage is killing me!

Don:{

I wouldnt waste the money on the hub kit i had it on the last truck and it didnt make that much of a difference. MY 10 is horrible wish i could get my 5. 9 back. it was better in every respect with the exception of a few features.

 

[Terry Jay]

I have a '12 3500 DRW 3. 73 4x4. At 38,000 miles it is getting 10 towing 15,000lb 5th, and around 16. 5 highway. The towing miles were last summer from WA to IN to MT to AK to MT to WA. That ran around 12,000 miles. All are actual gallons used and actual miles traveled calculations.

The '07 5. 9 2500 got 13 pulling a 10,000lb trailer and 20 highway. Same travel patterns. And there are some serious grades on those routes.

The '12 is much better as a towing machine due to the exhaust brake and Tow/Haul interaction. There is very little use of the service brakes on the downhills, and the choice of gears just makes it better. There are a couple of 11% grades that I never liked with the 5,9 that are easy with the 6. 7. YMMV.

 

[Cummins12V98]

2011 HO Dually 3:42 gears, auto 28K combined load 9. 5 mpg West Coast hand calc. Love the truck it pulls great 6% grades 55mph or more. Solo mileage 15 or so at 70, truck weighs around 9K with tool box, hitch and two adults.

My 98 12V 2500 4X4 combined 20,500# averaged 10. 5 so for 7,500# more weight and loosing 1 mpg I am real happy!

 

[HBarlow]

It is painful to refill the fuel tank of our Rams but I submit the fact that makes it so painful is the per gallon cost of diesel not the fuel mileage of the 6. 7 powered trucks. Some of us pull the receipt out of the fuel pump, look at the total, and blame the fuel mileage of our heavy and powerful trucks when the real blame should be directed at government decisions and policies that increase the price at the pump.

If someone averages 20,000 miles/year of driving the cost increase caused by a 2 mpg reduction in average fuel economy is only going to amount to a couple hundred dollars. The cost increase attributable to a doubling of the price of diesel fuel amounts to a couple of thousand dollars per year.

 

[Jim W]

The creature comforts are really nice, but I would trade back to a 5. 9 if I could locate a good one and not lose my shirt. I have 14k on the clock and don't see it getting any better. Planning on putting on free wheel hubs on and hoping to gain a couple miles to the gallon, but that may be pouring good money after bad. Got to try something the milage is killing me!
Don:{

I have followed this thread and I am wondering what the mileage is that the poster does not like on his truck? He does not post the towing mileage or the non-towing mileage. So what is it?

Jim W.

 

[EDankievitch]

I did the free spin hubs, they help just not as much as on the older (5. 9ltr) trucks. The biggest killer of Mpg's on the 6. 7 is the Re-gen cycle. When the truck is not in Re-gen it will give 18 to 22 Mpg soon as it goes into the Re-gen that number drops down to 11 to 14. I know that they are trying to knock out the Nitrouisoxide (sp?) by running the timing retarded but it causes the production of more soot. I'm in hopes that some one like Banks or Smarty will come up with a programmer that will allow for more timing advance. On the 2013's they are using the DEF system to knock out the nitrousoxide and the engine is tuned to run as it should. When a diesel is tuned right it will not make much soot, less soot less need to clean the DPF. Less need to clean the DPF less Re-gen's. It all equals better MPG's. I've driven the 2013's the performance is night and day from the 2012's the engine does not feel choked to death. I would trade my 12 in for a 13 but I'm very upside down with my finances..... Story of my life... . LOl

 

[Don]

Harvey you are correct about the government decisions and policies about fuel and the tax placed on it. Since those folks in government that we elect and or reelect just seem to spend more and then tax more to make up for their wasteful spending it is not going to get any better. The other part is related and that is all the regulations place on the trucks from EPA which is why we have all that junk hanging on the exhaust system that causes these great trucks to get such poor milage.
Don

 

[wyosteve]

Not to sound like I'm criticizing the OP, but why did you buy a 2012? The mileage issues are well known and discussed extensively for quite some time. I knew going into my '12 that mileage would suffer compared to my 04. 5, but the other benefits outweighed the poorer mileage. As someone mentioned, it only amounts to a few hundred dollars per year for most folks. Small price to pay for the benefits in my opinion.

 

[HBarlow]

Another random thought on the fuel mileage issue:

We're lucky we currently have the fuel guzzling big diesels to pull our heavy trailers. If the expletive deleted government gets its way we'll be forced to drive two seater electric cars with Briggs and Stratton one cylinders to provide back up charging when their batteries run down after 30 miles of travel.

We'll all have government mandated wind generators in our front yards to light our homes and recharge(?) our cars.

Don, I apologize for stealing your thread to post my anti-government rant.

 

[EGroeneveld]

I do 20K miles a year on my truck. In town for work and daily life is usually empty. But 80% of my miles are towing and/or hauling the truck camper. I have learned to just plan for 11mpg all the time with my truck. It being a 4*4, CrewCab, dually, long bed, 4. 10geared and loaded up Laramie is just the worst combo for mileage, i could have done. Still love the truck.

 

[mwilson]

I did a lot thinking and calculating before switching commuting duties from either of my 4WD CTD's in favor of Gizmo, the TDI.



It really didn't make that much difference in cost even at 130 miles per day to go to a car that gave fuel mileage in the mid 20s for example, you have to leap into the high 30s for it to make sense.



On Winter fuel...



Either truck was $33. 00 or so per day. In reality that is at a 15 to 17 mpg average.



Gizmo is $13. 00 or so per day. In reality that is at a 37 to 42 mpg average.



So with that being said a couple of miles per gallon between a 5. 9 or a 6. 7 really is not that big a deal in straight up fuel cost. One should not get hung up on that.



That's just my thinking anyways.



Mike.

 

[rrnut-2]

To deal with the cost of mediocre mileage, 16mpg commuting, the truck stays in the driveway and only does "truck" duties. The wife claimed the new VW TDI and I get the Furd Contour for commuting. 47mpg and 30mpg respectively.

Jim B

 

[Regcabguy]

It is painful to refill the fuel tank of our Rams but I submit the fact that makes it so painful is the per gallon cost of diesel not the fuel mileage of the 6. 7 powered trucks. Some of us pull the receipt out of the fuel pump, look at the total, and blame the fuel mileage of our heavy and powerful trucks when the real blame should be directed at government decisions and policies that increase the price at the pump.

If someone averages 20,000 miles/year of driving the cost increase caused by a 2 mpg reduction in average fuel economy is only going to amount to a couple hundred dollars. The cost increase attributable to a doubling of the price of diesel fuel amounts to a couple of thousand dollars per year.

Add on 3. 8 cents/gallon here in July due to our conservation efforts. Less fuel sold=less revenue says the Board of Equalization. Nazis.

 

[Terry Jay]

Empty truck weight is 4. 5 tons and it gets 16+mpg. Towing weight is 12 tons an it gets 10 mpg. So what is miles per ton? 4. 5X16 = 72 miles per ton. 12X10 = 120 miles per ton. Now compare that to a car. These are efficient work vehicles in tow and haul, but not as commuters.

 

[CRath]

Normally I wouldn't post to a thread like this as there doesn't seem to be much we can do about the mileage of our 4th Gen trucks but in light of the responses I feel compelled to go back in history.



I am far from rich and I dislike my mileage as much as anyone out there and can't help but think the engineers will have to start focusing on efficiency more than power very soon if they aren't all ready, but lets take a look at the progression of diesels. Remember the old days of light pickup diesels... the 6. 2's the 6. 9's just to name a couple. Pretty good on milage but soooo low on power... by todays standard but they were powerhouses of their day. As a mechanic for the military I still work on more 6. 2's and 6. 5's than I care to think about and I know how crappy they are... by todays standard.



My first diesel... 97 Ram 5spd low 20'smpg empty 440lbft... great truck. My second diesel 01 dually 6spd HO high teens mpg empty 505lbft much better puller not so effecient, more refined. My current truck... 11 dually 6spd auto mid to lower teens empty 650lbft wonderfull puller, even less fuel effecient but so much more refined and comfortable, it makes my last truck look like a wagon. What have I gained for my loss of milage... extreme comfort, easier towing, quiet engine, no more shifting up and down grades or city traffic, and no more exhaust smell. Power comes at a cost and so does a clean diesel.



Now for thoses EPA critics... a reminder... I am not rich and I do feel pain when I fill my truck up just like the next guy... who remembers the pictures from the 50's of the smog that was created by millions of cars without emmisions controls and images of tractor-trailers going down the road spewing black smoke to put out the little power they produced (remember... smoke is unburned or partially burned fuel). If anyone has spent time overseas in a country like Korea for instance you will see cars and trucks spewing smoke as most of them are diesels and very little emmisions regulations and the air is very polluted and stinks horribly. Is that what we want in this country... not me. we all think that our one truck without emmisions won't hurt anything but when you combine millions of those people thinking the same thing you have lots of smog and a filthy country. When was the last time someone sat in a traffic jam and had their eyes burning from the carbon monoxide... yuck. Gas engines went through their emmisions growing pains in the 70's and 80's... now it's the diesels turn. I gripe about my mileage too... every single tankful... but I try to remember how far we have come and what our diesels do for us. Fuel prices... . well thats a completely different story. Just trying to be a glass half full kind of guy... CRATH

 

[mwilson]

Normally I wouldn't post to a thread like this as there doesn't seem to be much we can do about the mileage of our 4th Gen trucks but in light of the responses I feel compelled to go back in history.



I am far from rich and I dislike my mileage as much as anyone out there and can't help but think the engineers will have to start focusing on efficiency more than power very soon if they aren't all ready, but lets take a look at the progression of diesels. Remember the old days of light pickup diesels... the 6. 2's the 6. 9's just to name a couple. Pretty good on milage but soooo low on power... by todays standard but they were powerhouses of their day. As a mechanic for the military I still work on more 6. 2's and 6. 5's than I care to think about and I know how crappy they are... by todays standard.



My first diesel... 97 Ram 5spd low 20'smpg empty 440lbft... great truck. My second diesel 01 dually 6spd HO high teens mpg empty 505lbft much better puller not so effecient, more refined. My current truck... 11 dually 6spd auto mid to lower teens empty 650lbft wonderfull puller, even less fuel effecient but so much more refined and comfortable, it makes my last truck look like a wagon. What have I gained for my loss of milage... extreme comfort, easier towing, quiet engine, no more shifting up and down grades or city traffic, and no more exhaust smell. Power comes at a cost and so does a clean diesel.



Now for thoses EPA critics... a reminder... I am not rich and I do feel pain when I fill my truck up just like the next guy... who remembers the pictures from the 50's of the smog that was created by millions of cars without emmisions controls and images of tractor-trailers going down the road spewing black smoke to put out the little power they produced (remember... smoke is unburned or partially burned fuel). If anyone has spent time overseas in a country like Korea for instance you will see cars and trucks spewing smoke as most of them are diesels and very little emmisions regulations and the air is very polluted and stinks horribly. Is that what we want in this country... not me. we all think that our one truck without emmisions won't hurt anything but when you combine millions of those people thinking the same thing you have lots of smog and a filthy country. When was the last time someone sat in a traffic jam and had their eyes burning from the carbon monoxide... yuck. Gas engines went through their emmisions growing pains in the 70's and 80's... now it's the diesels turn. I gripe about my mileage too... every single tankful... but I try to remember how far we have come and what our diesels do for us. Fuel prices... . well thats a completely different story. Just trying to be a glass half full kind of guy... CRATH

Well written and an excellent point of view.



Just like the CARB rules for the Thermo King and Carrier units, there is nothing on God's Green Earth as nasty as an older reefer unit coming up on high speed. It will burn your eyes in about 10 seconds in a closed bay. Now just imagine 100 of them lined up waiting to unload at a warehouse, then multiply that times the thousands of warehouses in California alone. If CARB had not gone after the older units things would not improve for a long time. I have been to Las Vegas and Phoenix, seen the cloud of crap moving East from California and makes me think that they had to do something. Not that they are the only contributor to poor air but I am willing to bet that trucks and trailer units are responsible for a great deal of it.



This is not offered as an excuse for anything else that Kommiefornia has done, by the way... ...







If someone have never done so drive down the Jersey Pike and roll your windows down from Exit 14 to Exit 10 and let me know what that smells like...



Being from Maine with pretty clean air and plenty of trees that area of Jersey makes me think that Hell most likely has a similar stench.



Mike.

 

[rscurtis]

You make some excellent points, and I agree with most of them. The problem with the Punishment Agency is not what they've done, but how they have taken standards from the sublime to the ridiculous. They strive for "zero" emissions regardless of the cost, rather than something that's 95% clean, which is easily attainable (especially today). I have heard it said that if it weren't for the EPA, we'd still be driving cars with points and carburetors- that could be true. They have also suffered "mission creep", evolving from the business of "air cleaning" to "technology forcing"- witness the loads of electric cars that no one wants.