2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Questions

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 07:54 PM
  #11  
UnregisteredUser's Avatar
UnregisteredUser
Grand Champion
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 6
From: Meeker, CO
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
On these trucks, the mileage difference between the eights, and the sixes is barely noticeable.......
The smaller engine has to provide as much mechanical energy as the bigger engine to move one of these behemoths down the road, so there's not a lot to gain by reducing engine displacement.
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:12 PM
  #12  
Mad_Scientist's Avatar
Mad_Scientist
Captain
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 632
Likes: 4
From: SE Tx
Default

Originally Posted by UnregisteredUser
The smaller engine has to provide as much mechanical energy as the bigger engine to move one of these behemoths down the road, so there's not a lot to gain by reducing engine displacement.
Didnt take that into account, I withdraw my objection based on your careful explanation and superior experience

info on the interweb puts the 6 at
18/26
and the 5.9 at
16/22
But those are probably lies propagated by chrysler to sell more trucks
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:17 PM
  #13  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,399
Likes: 4,214
From: Clayton MI
Default

Originally Posted by Mad_Scientist
Didnt take that into account, I withdraw my objection based on your careful explanation and superior experience

info on the interweb puts the 6 at
18/26
and the 5.9 at
16/22
But those are probably lies propagated by chrysler to sell more trucks
I never believe EPA ratings.......
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:26 PM
  #14  
Mad_Scientist's Avatar
Mad_Scientist
Captain
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 632
Likes: 4
From: SE Tx
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
I never believe EPA ratings.......
Niether do I, my mental faculties werent at their best (had quite a few) when I posted the objection I had. Didnt think that since the body, frame ect. arent scaled down, the v6 has to move almost the same weight as the 8. Thus, it has to idle higher, and be revved into a higher rpm range to do the same work. Which equals increased fuel consumption


Edit: I remember reading somewhere that the epa is cracking down on this form of false advertisment (bumping the mpgs). They are in the works of a more standardized battery of tests that focus on driving style as it pertains to the real world (not the in-lab tests they do today). Perhaps in the next few years the epa rating will actually reflect what happens out here in reality..... That would mean the government actually did something right though, so hell might freeze first
 

Last edited by Mad_Scientist; Jan 23, 2011 at 08:35 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:27 PM
  #15  
HeyYou's Avatar
HeyYou
Administrator
Veteran: Air Force
Community Favorite
15 Year Member
Community Builder
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,399
Likes: 4,214
From: Clayton MI
Default

Originally Posted by Mad_Scientist
Niether do I, my mental faculties werent at their best (had quite a few) when I posted the objection I had. Didnt think that since the body, frame ect. arent scaled down, the v6 has to move almost the same weight as the 8. Thus, it has to idle higher, and be revved into a higher rpm range to do the same work. Which equals increased fuel consumption
A new dimension of "beer goggles"?
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:38 PM
  #16  
Mad_Scientist's Avatar
Mad_Scientist
Captain
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 632
Likes: 4
From: SE Tx
Default

Originally Posted by HeyYou
A new dimension of "beer goggles"?

LOL, if you only knew. Woke up this morning feeling like morpheus just gave me the blue pill (or was it the red one?)
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 08:53 PM
  #17  
UnregisteredUser's Avatar
UnregisteredUser
Grand Champion
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,011
Likes: 6
From: Meeker, CO
Default

Originally Posted by Mad_Scientist
Woke up this morning feeling like morpheus just gave me the blue pill (or was it the red one?)
You'd never remember the blue pill, so you must be thinking of the red one.

I've freakin' love to get 16/22 MPG out of my old truck.
 
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2011 | 11:51 PM
  #18  
Gav1n8's Avatar
Gav1n8
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
From: Alma, AR
Default

I would litteraly cry if I saw a 5.9 get anything over 20mpgs... I could be going down a 100 mile long hill, place my truck in neutral and let it coast down the damn thing for the duration of it and it still wouldnt pull 20mpgs..
 
Reply
Old Jan 24, 2011 | 12:08 AM
  #19  
Mad_Scientist's Avatar
Mad_Scientist
Captain
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 632
Likes: 4
From: SE Tx
Default

Originally Posted by Gav1n8
I would litteraly cry if I saw a 5.9 get anything over 20mpgs... I could be going down a 100 mile long hill, place my truck in neutral and let it coast down the damn thing for the duration of it and it still wouldnt pull 20mpgs..

LOL Mine would run out of gas on the trip up the 100 mile hill
 
Reply
Old Jan 24, 2011 | 08:32 PM
  #20  
fuzzy_jw's Avatar
fuzzy_jw
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Default

wow thanks for the replys, havent been on lately.

but so i should test out a v8 before the v6 to compare?
well the thing is here in Oklahoma for some reason i cant find a decent truck for my price range, which is very low because im a 18yr that pays for everything.

so the v6 wouldnt get much better mpg than the v8? so why did they even make it??
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.