I give up, what in the world were you expecting? You bought one of the heaviest trucks you could find, with the aerodynamics of a giant brick, but enough engine to pull it...

Didn't you do any research before trading in your Corolla?

Btw, for anyone is interested, the new Car&Driver has some info in an editorial about how the Govt determines its mileage figures and how unrealistic the test conditions are (e.g., very low speeds for both city and highway, along with VERY VERY slow accelerations.) Because of the slow speeds used in the tests, vehicles like trucks suffer disproportionately in comparison to when they are driven in the real world, whereas aerodynamic vehicles do far better, some exceeding the Govt figures. For example, my C-5 Vette with nearly identical engine performance as my hemi Ram gets 31mpg at 72mph in cruise and second overdrive. As the famed industrial engineer Raymond Loewy said, "Weight is the enemy," along with poor aeros, of course.

All the best.

 

"For example, my C-5 Vette with nearly identical engine performance as my hemi Ram gets 31mpg at 72mph in cruise and second overdrive. As the famed industrial engineer Raymond Loewy said, "Weight is the enemy," along with poor aeros, of course. "

Yep. My 96 Z-28 with the LT1 350 could get nearly 30 mpg (highway) at 72 mph which blew my mind and it would still do 150 mph.

 

Yup, Stump_breaker, another great example. Unfortunately, it takes energy to move this much mass through the air, especially with alacrity.

"Physics... it's the law!"

 

My console reading has been a consistent 15.0 mpg w/o towing anything, and I drive a mix of highway/country roads. After I had dual exhaust put on about three weeks ago, the console has been reading a consistent 15.5, same driving conditions. I've never bothered to check the mpg manually. But like the others were saying, what did you expect? I didn't buy my truck for the gas mileage. If I was worried about that I would have just kept my little 4-banger S-10. You just can't have everything. Want better gas mileage? Buy a little compact car. Want a nice truck? Drive your Ram.

 

Ok i get the point. I knew the ram i was buying was a gas guzzler, but 10.1 is really crappy. my 2003 ram was getting 18 mpg. Thanks to all that have replied

 

got money to buy the car must have mmmoney for gas[8D]

 

I can give ya an example, I have an 04 QC ram, 3.92 LSD, 20" and i average 16 in town and about 20 on the highway. only reason i can think is this: mine's a 2 wheel drive, dont have the added weight of 4x4. it does make a difference. but then again, i dont need a 4x4.

 

reddemon-I kinda have to agree with you that something is not quite right. I can't really give you any reason though. Did you try changing octane or brand of gas? Do you do a lot of short trips so the engine never warms up? I had a Buick in high school that got 7-9 mpg with all 5-10 mile trips,but if I went on a trip (freeway) I would get over 15 mpg. My first tank through my Power Wagon gave me over 13 mph, which was actually more than I expected. This was all back road driving (45-60 mph) with occasional full throttle acceleration from 35mph to 65 mph.

You also talked about the low single digit mpg when you picked the truck up. The reason for this is all the short trips the truck makes during shipping; out of factory to stroage lot, out of storage lot to truck, off truck to train, off train to another truck, off truck at dealer, dealer parks it, goes through dealer prep, back to lot, YOU finally drive it, then they go wash it, and finally you take delivery. WHEW!!. See all them short trips? I may not be 100% correct on the chain but I'm sure you get my point.

Also, engines are not even hot tested anymore (started) after they are assembled at the engine assembly plant. They are cold tested which checks for oil pressure, leaks, and other things. I'm not sure all it does because that is done in a different dept. than mine. The first time it gets started is in the truck assembly plant when, I believe, it is leaving the line. If it doesn't start it is just pushed off the line until a mechanic can look at it. Just a little info.

 

HEMI= Bad gas milage, HEMI with 3.92 gears and LSD=Even worse gas milage.

On a serious note, this engine has to pull a truck that is as areodynamic as a brick at high way speeds, so MPG will suffer.

When you compare this engine to the old 5.2/5.9 magnums it does get better milage. My '97 RAM 150 with 4x4 5.9 manual trans never got over 14 MPG on the highway, and never got over 12 MPG towing my trailer, loaded or empty. Think it got around 9 to 10 MPG in the city.

For an even better horsepower comparo, i owned a '95 ram 350 single rear wheels with the 8.0 v10 4x4 with standard trans that only averaged 11 MPG driving at the then posted 55 limit, 60 mph or higher put me in the single digits MPG and around town it was down right sorry. Think i remember it being 5 to 6 MPG. This engine was the strongest gas truck engine at the time and made 305 hp, if i remember correctly. So for 345 hp and 18 MPG with the HEMI i'm not complaining at all.

And another thing i noticed with my '03 and my '05 is that for some reason you have to reset the MPG on the over head. I think it shows a average MPG, when you reset it, it shows real time as it goes up or down with the engine rpms, and highway/city speeds. And i have noticed that even after you reset it it goes back to displaying the average after a few minutes.

 

what is funny is that the overhead is far more accurate than going by the mileage per tank. The console is merely reading the current use of fuel by the motor as well as the current vehicle speed. That is about as to the second as you can get....whereas when you "fill" your tank, you alway put a tick more or a little less in...every pump is different as are the vapor recovery systems/overfil protectors that shut the pump off.

What is hard with the console is that it's real-time measure is not always indicative regarding average. The consoles in our fords just do a rolling average and it's easier to live with IMHO.