At 183,000 miles on my 2000 CC, 4.7, 3.55 geared auto Dakota I got an honest 22.3mpg on a round trip from Atlanta to Orlando this week. Went down Tuesday night and came back Friday afternoon. Almost all highway driving with only about 10 miles on each end in stop and go driving. Mileage figure was calculated from actual gallons used divided into actual miles driven over the trip.

I love my Dakota....

 

i average 17.5-18.5 depending on how much i push it to and from school which is usually 140 miles with mostly highway then some city miles added on best i ever got was 20 but that was when i got the new pcm in and the truck didnt' know how i drive[8D]i still see 19 and sometimes 20 though if i granny it.

 

Averaging 18 combined running 3.92 gears and automatic.

 

Getting right at 18.5 in city and 22-24 on hwy with 4.7 HO and 3.92 gears... of course none of that means sh-- when I have a hemi ram "flash" me its pipes while going into work @ 5am and i have to check his a-- with a 0-60 push on the green light. Heheheee... gee i wonder hp/tq vs weight ratio? and yes my truck is highly modified for the nay sayers.

 

oh yes and I usually granny the f--- out of it cuz the wife usually complains about gas usage and kids in the back seats..... oh well =)

 

iv'e had more crap poured in my tank from my ex. i still get 20 mpg. please tell her to move on. any girls interest i'm the spitting image of kid rock. i'm tired of hearing it.

 

i get 17on higway and below 10 in town.i do mostly higway so it averages out to about 15mpg if i drive somewhat like a normal person. usually its more like 13mpg.i hav the 4.7 and 33in tires wit 3.55gears.

 

I've got a 96 Dakota Sport reg cab 5.2 L 5-speed with 139,000 miles and last i checked it,i was getting 17 m.p.g

 

FYI...

If you have a Flex Fuel (FFV) Dakota, then it's probably cheaper for you to burn pure petroleum than it is to burn e-85. Ethanol burns at a lower BTU than gasoline and so you get an average of 25% less MPG with E-85 than you do with pure gasoline. Consequently, if the price of E-85 isn't at least 25% cheaper than that of regular gasoline, then it's cheaper for you to just burn regular gasoline.

If E-85 is at least 70% ethanol, and gets 25% less BTUs than gasoline, then you could say that for every 2.8% percent of ethanol in gasoline you'll lose 1% BTU. So, the more common E-10 gasoline (that ALL cars can burn) will result in about a 3.5% loss in MPG. So, if the E10 isn't at least 3.5% cheaper than the pure petroleum, then you're better off burning the pure petroleum.

Point being, there's a lot more to fuel costs than simply the price per gallon at the pump. $2.39/gal for E-85 might sound like a great deal compared to paying $2.89/gallon for gasoline, but once you account for reduced BTU MPG loss, the effective price of that E-85 is over $3.00/gallon. I guess you can always consider the extra cents you pay per mile fuel costs to be a donation to the "screw OPEC" fund.

On the plus side, E-85 octane ratings typically vary from 100 to 105. Unfortunately, since they're FFVs they have to burn pure gasoline as well as E85 blend gasoline, so the engines aren't designed to fully take advantage of the greater allowed absolute pressure in the combustion chamber.

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

 

Just bought my truck..im curious to see what it gets being 100% stock with the V8