2025 Ram 1500 MPG Numbers Plus Full-Size Truck MPG Comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- The official 2025 Ram 1500 MPG numbers are out and the results are all over the board. If you are shopping for a new full-size truck and want to know MPG, this is the video for you.
Link to the website: pickuptrucktalk.com/2024/03/2...
Check out our Forum: forum.pickuptrucktalk.com/
Subscribe for more Pickup Truck and SUV videos: th-cam.com/users/pickuptruck...
Join this channel to get access to special perks:
/ @pickuptrucktalk
Interested in owner reviews? Check out this playlist: • Pickup Truck Owner Int...
Trying to find the most reliable trucks and SUVs?: • Pickup Trucks, SUVs Re...
Shop our Cafepress store for new Pickup Truck +SUV Talk gear: www.cafepress.com/pickuptruck...
Find us on Facebook: / pickuptrucktalk
Also, on Instagram: / pickuptrucktalk
And on Twitter: / pickuptrucktalk
Our website is here: www.pickuptrucktalk.com - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Here is the link to the article: pickuptrucktalk.com/2024/03/2025-ram-1500-mpg-new-hurricane-wows-disappoints/
Thanks for the link Tim. I bet the forum over there is going crazy!
Tim, for what it is worth I would much rather you compare your own real world testing. The EPA numbers seems widely off given a person’s use case. I live in eastern Nebraska, surprisingly hilly, windy, not a lot of highway driving, but plenty of interstate - so over 80 mph. I have had three trucks a ford 2020 5.0, ford 2013 3.5, and Toyota 2020 5.7. My lifetime average was 14.3 for the 5.0, 14.9 for the 3.5 and 13.5 on the 5.7. I don’t have a heavy foot, but never get EPA numbers from a turbo given my use.
Sounds like you dont hit EPA numbers regardless of the powertrain. Certainly it does depend on each person's use case, but the ratings are just to compare vehicle to vehicle (and like your experience, the 3.5 Ecoboost is the most efficient, with the 5.0 behind it and the Toyota 5.7 behind that still).
I don't hit EPA numbers and I try as much as I can to stay out of boost. I need a boost gauge. 2016 F150 2.7 Supercrew short box 4wd.
Like you, I’ve struggled with turbos and hitting EPA numbers. N/A V8 and I can hit them all day no matter how I’m driving.
@@ALMX5DPthat’s fair. It just seems like automakers are playing to the EPA test rather than real world mpg. The Tundra is EPA 14 combined and I get 13.5. The fords are 17 or 18 combined and I can’t even get the city average. I could get or exceed the EPA hwy mileage on flat road, no wind, 55 mph. I just rarely see those conditions. People complain about the tundra being a gas hog, but in my experience it is far less worse than the EPA numbers would have you believe.
@@kb9oak749 I have hit the epa numbers once with highway mpg’s, at 26 . The city/suburban mpg is usually at 19 or 19.2. I have a ‘18, supercrew, 2.7 with 3:55 gear, 2 wd. It will get 24.5 to 25.3 most of the time with highway mpg and 73-76 mph, hand calculated as the dash will always says it higher
GMs 3.0 Diesel still the best engine for full size category.
Cause it diesel not gas tho that diesel In it own class
@@843MudMafia. yes it’s a no
brainer to get the diesel
Some people are having a major issue with the oil burning.
That 3.0 will eat itself by 200km
When diesel is around $5 or more in CA I'm ok with the DEF and adding a little oil, as I'm averaging just below 26 mpg average city/hwy in my 2023 Silverado 3.0 Duramax, that can tow over 9K.
Kind of expected. All the newer engines are really about emission reductions.
I was thinking the same.
@@DaveInCanada081 Biden just signed another edict this last week with emissions that are even stricter, it’s all for the use of making folks buy EV
Lol Tim complaining about the FE of the new Ram and it looks pretty darn good to me! My Sierra 1500 2.7 is down 110 hp to the new Hurricane and about the exact same fuel economy, though I can use 87 and I think 89 is recommended for the Ram. I think 18-20 mpg for a 4x4 1/2 ton truck is a wall the manufacturers cannot break. Like Tim mentioned I think it all comes down to emissions and it's my personal opinion that Ram will still be paying the most fines for emissions compared to Ford and GM because Ram makes the most power! That being said I have always been happy with any vehicle as long as it feels peppy and mine does!
Complaining? LOL.
Great video Tim. I really appreciate this information. As a commuter who wants a truck, EPA really matter to me for sure. Really looking forward to hearing the numbers for the upcoming Ramcharger as well.
Tim, my family recently did an extended road trip, 3000 miles round, in our Wagoneer L with the 3.0L. Thing was loaded down with 4 adults, 3 kids, and luggage stacked to the roof. We got 17.6 in stop and go traffic, 20.5-22.6 when all highway including through the Smokey mountains. Last day we had heavy head winds and only managed 17.5 all highway.
Tim, love your videos. Helps a lot when I am trying to decide what to get. Kind of leaning toward the Chevy with Duramax but your video on DEF usage and oil burning scared me a little.e
Tim thank you for this video. I have been very curious about the Hurricane mpg. Not the high output though.
Bought my 09 Ram brand new.. 5,000 hours on the dot (226,000km) had to strip the engine for new cam, lifters, oil pump (the hellcat one was only 50 bucks more), shaved the heads AND exhaust manifolds (no more broken studs or leaks).
Truck getting a bit long in the tooth with some Canadian rust and other wear and tear.
Hopefully will last another year until I see how the Hurricane does, but really like the setup so far.
I get better economy from the hemi than most but also don't hold back when towing.
The standard output will be ideal for me.
I'm actually quite impressed by the S/Os numbers. That's 24 hwy compared to 20 hwy the 6.2l GM trucks get.
But the 3.0 duramax outdoes those numbers. Reaching up to high 20s and even low 30 mpg.
@jonh0130 ya and this will run circles around it as far as power.
@@angrybeavers1175 It won't doing Truck Things. BTW... This is a Truck. This Hurricane engine is very nice though
@bryane2857 that engine isn't made for abuse either its got an internal engine belt lol made for getting groceries
@@angrybeavers1175 I hope gms new small block outs out 400tq and 400 hp and gets 25mpg. That would be a perfect engine.
Thanks Tim, love your passion
Sounds like the standard output is the most affordable. If any vehicles are these days
Another note on the Coyote V8 in a Mustang. From 2023 to the 2004 model year the average dropped from 19 mpg to 18 mpg while the city and highway remained the same at 15/24. However, from 2023 to 2024 the grams of co2 / mile increased from 480 to 492. Likely due to the lower combined fuel economy rating.
I am really looking forward to the Ram REV numbers when they come out. The 6 cylinder and electric hybrid should be an interesting outcome.
Think you mean the Ram Charger, that is the hybrid version. The REV is 100% plug in electric.
Ram charger sounds like it's gonna have a lot of weight
Current truck, 2022 Ram 1500 Laramie Sport loaded 4x4 with 3.92 gearing, at 16,500 miles. Love the truck, it is the 17th truck I have owned and the second RAM. Would I buy a new I6 Huricane if I were in the market? Yes, absolutely, the high output Tungsten. I use premium fuel now as I have a tunner on it and is required. Judging by what the numbers are advertised (including tunner) for my comgination, 420 hp at the crank shaft with 8spd. New Ram HO Hurican at 540 HP and 521 lb ft of torque, without a tunner, heck yes!! I am sure the new hurricane would be getting better than my current combined average 14.6 total MPG, most likely 15.5 combined mpg. Remember, I already use premium fuel. Better truck with newer technology, though my current truck is awesome!! You asked .... Looking forward in seeing the reviews on the RAM REV.
Ive seen a dash showing 5 miles per gallon.. 5.4 to be exact. What an efficient machine.
In 2001 I bought a Chevrolet Silverado 1500 extended cab 6.5 foot bed Z/71 with the 5.3L. Best truck I've ever owned, I sold it with 319,000 miles on it. Original transmission, and engine, no major failures with the transmission and engine. I did end up rebuilding both the front and rear diff at like 230,000 miles along with the transfer case which set me back around $3,500.00. That truck would regularly get 19 mpg on the highway. It seems silly to me that these new trucks barely get better MPGs than that truck did over 20 years ago. With all the fuel saving technology and complexity that they have. I'll bet that all the new trucks are much less reliable too in the long run. They also cost over twice as much.
I have a 2021 Ram 1500 Big Horn 5.7 Hemi E torque 3:21 gears. I get 18-19 mpg in winter and 19-21 in the summer. 90% 2 lane western Pa. roads. Very happy with it. Not interested in a 6 cyl with twin turbo headaches. Thinking I'll be keeping mine for awhile.
Every day truck makers seems to mirror politics in this country (US), they certainly aren't listening to customers and seem dead set on delivering a product no one wants at an increasing cost .. yet they get away with it because the system is rigged that we have no options. The only thing worse than the move to gas turbos in trucks is electric - another idiotic idea that IS NOT green, increases mining globally, and again raises cost for reduced performance (towing, range, infrastructure).
I'm always appreciative of the content Tim, but it certainly raises my frustration factor. I can't believe there isn't some startup out there with an idea - what if we made a truck that was focused on payload, tow capacity and had the performance (range, fuel economy) to make it affordable to drive and with a price tag under $50K. I'm more than willing to go back to a dash from early 2000's, without heated anything, with a payload of at least 3,000# and tow of at least 15,000#. I don't care if you call it heavy duty or light duty .. just make it so it can do it's duty.
Yep and the government is not happy with ev sales so they are tightening the standards for gas vehicles that won't be possible to achieve to force more ev sales and these are facts.
I think people do have the choice to purchase or not (or delay purchase, or purchase used). People often give in without too much resistance though, especially when they eat up marketing from these OEMs telling them what they think they should get.
Very well said and I think you're speaking for the majority of people out there that need trucks to do actual work
Check out Edison Motors. Range extended electric. Go in with an open mind please.
Well said!!
I let you know weeks ago that my local dealer in Anchorage had 19/24 mpg. For sst s/o
Now I really wish you had opted for the HO version of the Hurricane. You long term tests of this truck with the regular engine are going to be very educating.
We're going to need at least two mileage tests. One empty, and one towing around five thousand pounds.
Oh I have several tests planned!
@@Pickuptrucktalk I expected as much. 😎
the 3.0L Hurricane non High Output is the real winner with 420hp and 468tq and gets 2 mpg better than the old 5.7L Hemi hybrid that has 395hp and 410tq! So even being a hybrid and having less HP and TQ and the new twin turbo V6 Hurricane Low Output beats it in mpg and HP and TQ?
Yeah but not reliability mate.
There seems to be a flaw in the EPA test that the manufacturers are required to run. Most vehicles are their most efficient around 60 mph which is typical because that is where manufacturers are tuning the transmissions to get into their final gear to get the best number for the test. If the EPA test was rating HWY milage to 70mph the manufacturers would optimize to that level and consumers would feel it matches "real" conditions better. City tests, I'm sure are equally flawed.
EPA test cycles have been controversial for years now.
Is the 3.6 HFE a new trim/option? You can select that when you build the truck? Those are darn good numbers for someone who doesn't tow much.
It has been out for a few years. I think I first saw it like 7 years ago.
Thank you.@@Pickuptrucktalk
The HO is a halo engine. That’s why it’s only available on the highest and most expensive trim level. They want to sell as few HO equipped trucks as possible. I’m sure they will bring the mild hybrid system to the hurricane engine as well. Ultimately they are going to go hybrid with the hurricane and will detune the power to increase fuel economy.
And those highest trim levels also have the lowest towing and payload ratings of the lineup so that way those H.O. engines last. A 3.0 making that much power and being worked in a regular work truck towing and hauling on the regular won't last as long.
An extra 2 mpg is 9-10% improvement in fuel economy. If somebody told me my gas would be that much cheaper I’d take it.
yes a lot of people don't understand that. 2mpg on a vehicle that only gets 17 mpg is a big deal. A 2 mpg improvement on say a prius that gets 40 mpg not so much. When you talking Semi trucks a 1/2 mpg improvement on can save a trucking company 10's of thousands of dollars.
@@ohioguy4326 exactly 👍
Sadly, in real-life driving conditions, the turbo gas engines dont really do any better than a v8s. The extra power will be nice but this is hardly a step forward. I think the pentistar v6 looks like the best choice over all. Reliable, simple, and does good on fuel.
Agreed except the V6 is only really good for daily driving and lacks for real truck use. With that being said, the Pentastar is what most people need as they use trucks just for daily drivers.🙃
@bryane2857 i totally agree. I would love to rent one for a month and try it out and see if it would be good enough on the farm. But most ppl would for sure be good with it. I rented one years ago and liked it.
@@jamespenner1412 it's durable and pulls lighter loads well. I really don't think there is a bad base engine in any truck these days though.
I’m kinda hoping they will make the standard hurricane available on the Limited trim. Right now it looks like it’s only going to be the HO on Limited up trims.
The fuel economy numbers for the standard output is great, and Tim I have a 21 Tundra, do you think I care about the fuel economy of my truck?
Expect 2 MPG less than what the official numbers are. I have a 2022 Ram 1500 and I get 17 MPG avg in summer and 15 MPG avg in winter. **Edit** should clarify, these numbers are with the 5.7L V8 Hemi with eTorque.
Same here. Although I have not done a really long drive.
That 15 mpg number is what 90% of hemi truck owners get for mileage, but they will swear they get better than that. And I drove one for yrs
I’m assuming that’s with 3.92s
@@gmrtg1414 yes mine has 3.92 gear
@@nordlandak6853 The best I’ve seen on my 24 so far is 19.8 on a 100 mile hwy trip. My 20 without torque and 3.21s seems to be about 2-3 ish better so far. I did a 300 mile trip with my 20 and got 23.2. These trucks will get decent MPGs if you’re on a long hwy trip but mix in any thing else and you’re in the 16-19 range depending on gears.
The Hemi fuel economy numbers were always bullshit. I remember RAM getting into hot water for not re-rating the Rebel Trim. They rated them at 22-24mpg, when in the real world they would struggle to get 18mpg.
I have one and you're right 18 is about it for highway but who with common sense would think the rebel with bigger heavier e rated off road tires, a lift, and no air damn would get the same as regular hemi?
@@angrybeavers1175 Agreed. But GM de-rated the Trailboss/AT4 trucks and RAM didn't bother. That's a shitty move.
@@angrybeavers1175yep. 33s A/Ts, lift, and 3.92 rears should've kicked in the commonsense factor. Ford doesn't re-rate the F150 Tremor 5.0 either, but then again I'm not buying an offroad pickup for fuel economy savings.
@terrencejones9817 I like to think they did it to boost their Cafe/fleet fuel economy numbers to keep big brother happy.
@angrybeavers1175 They probably did. Still a shadey move.
It kinda makes sense that the high output uses a lot more fuel. If I owned one with the high output I’d probably be deeper in that gas pedal than I should. So my mileage would come under the “your mileage may vary”. lol. This engine probably improves emissions mostly just like the other turbo 6’s on the market.
I like the new Hurricane engine. I feel it will be very successful.
Nice comparison, Tim!
After the new CAFE standards set today this engine will go too. Buy now and enjoy these trucks are going way soon
Thanks Brandon
@paulhunter9613 he's on his way out. Trying to make noise on his way out. Banning ice engines by 2030, what a fool lmao.
I don't even know what fuel economy my hemi gets. I never look at it. Just fill it up when needed. I also usually drive in tow/haul to disable the cylinder deactivation.
Do a horsepower and torque comparison on the different trucks... I'm interested... And NOW with no Non Aspirateds left, its all equal above 4,000 feet. I bet TFL is chomping at the bit to do the Ike with the new Hurricane...both SO and HO.
I've always been a fan of inline motors. I think it's great as long as the reliability longevity is there. Which only time will tell, then I think it was a good move.
And Hemi loyalists are a fan of a V8, we know about that proven reliability.
The HO really compares to the 6.4 which was not available in the 1500 so you can't really say the HO gets worse then the 5.7 hemi as it is not really a comparable engine. The SO is comparable with the Hemi and it does get a nice little bump at least on paper.
They should bring back an updated 4th version of the 3.0l EcoDiesel with wider main bearings, redesigned EGR, larger turbo, double the strength and number of head bolts, etc.
I have a 2020 eco D longhorn and was really disappointed that they didn’t continue it. There are so many things I love with this truck that the GM 3lt duramax doesn’t have. Ram boxes ,better interior,ride comfort,audio. The duramax is a great engine but the truck still isn’t as nice if you want a luxury pickup.
@@Marvin-fn7ks I 1000% agree with you. Ram dropping 3.01 diesel vs updating it, is a major market blunder.
Putting the GM I6 3.0l diesel and 10 Speed in a ram 1500 would be awesome.
Hey Tim, does the new ram have a gas exhaust filter like the new tundra?
Let me check.
People that are spending $90,000 plus on their vehicles shouldn't be buying them if they have to worry about fuel $$.
Tim do we know the weight difference between the 25vs 24 models ? They were already over 6k lbs for the loaded Rams ( not TRX)
Hmm… I’m not finding a curb weight online.
I bet if they updated the hemi with direct injection, VVL along with the VVT they'd get similar if not better mpg than a twin turbo.
Its hard to believe with all the technology now days that they can't make a truck that gets better MPG's than they got in the 70's. My father had a 78 Gmc Jimmy 4X4 with a 350-4 speed manual and lock out hubs that would get 16-17 mpg all day long.
Except that these newer vehicles are much bigger and heavier than the old vehicles. If you put a modern power train in an old vehicle you would get even better mileage.
@@db3837
Good point.
My ford 2.7 is a beast when considering fuel economy. I get 22/23 around town and 28/29 on the highway
I have a fully loaded 2020 Rebel w/eTorque. It has more power and speed than I need on any highway in the US, and for any hauling or towing I do. It was $50K out the door, paid-off, and I use regular fuel; why would I spend an arm and a leg just to drive something new? If my needs change, I'll buy a HD, and that will probably be something rebuilt and prior to 2010.
Facts! I won't be buying anything new. If, by chance, I need another truck, it will be a low mileage 2020-2021 Tundra. No direct injection, no cylinder deactivation, no auto stop start, just good old multi port fuel injected v8, bulletproof 6 speed trans and a stout 10.5 inch rear end. 381hp amd 401lb/ft torque at 3600rpm is more than enough power for what its made to do.
As a homeowner not always needing the full capabilities of trucks these days, I would of preferred the engine detuned to previous power capabilities but improve the MPG (call it a "light duty 1500"). Modern trucks are already extremely capable other then better mileage. I'm not crazy about the layout but the GM 3.0 seems my favorite... if I could afford any nicely equipped newer truck at all. Even with all that said, quality and reliability seems a bit hit/miss for the better part of $90K invested.
My 2015 hemi with a couple of bolt ons and custom tuning gets 23 mpg hwy with 400 whp. Not bad for a gas 4wd.
I like the way a turbo engine is compared to a natrually aspirated V8 on HP. Put those same turbos on that V8 and the numbers won't lie. No replacement for displacement!
I’ve always wanted more torque and horsepower and wanted fuel economy that equals a Prius in a full size pickup. You can’t always get what you want. I do appreciate my Tundra’s hybrid power of 437 horsepower and 583 ft/lbs of torque. Now only if I could get those fuel economy numbers.
Powerboost is where its at for best mpg/power balance HANDS down. 420hp and 24mpg combined here...20k miles
I feel like this is 1973/74 again - the beginning of a decade-long decline in the automotive industry. Only this time, instead of choking vehicles with miles of vacuum hoses and other smog equipment, we're getting turbos, hybrid, and other things that will ultimately expand complexity and compromise the longevity of the vehicle. I own a large fleet of vehicles (around 20), ranging in age from 1987 to 2023, and representing many makes, models, and manufacturers (trucks, suvs, sports cars, and regular sedans). In general, the newer the vehicle, the bigger and more expensive the problems are and the lower the overall build quality. This is almost entirely driven by emission regulations rather than engineering that would benefit the consumer. In general, almost every manufacturer is building disposable garbage and this is just the latest example...sadly. In my experience, some of the most reliable vehicles are from the late 1990s to mid/late 2000s.
And what happens when you tow? The 5.7 will do much better MPG, and probably last longer too (less heat issues, iron block etc etc). I'm not saying the 5.7 didn't need to be replaced/updated, just that if they spent all that money on a new v8 with all the current tech (GDI) and changes in the last 20 years, could they not have given similar emissions than these turbos but in a v8 instead?
As much as the new trucks are costing it's crazy that you're actually being5 less mileage in many cases. Power is not a big deal because the power was already good, at least for most people. But if all other trucks are the same as well then that's probably reason Ram didn't try to make them better.
Tim isn't the high output numbers closer the the 6.4L? The one they offer in the scat pack. I think its offered in the 2500
The SRT 6.4L, code named Apache, found in the L body cars had 485 hp. The HD truck 6.4L, code named BGE (Big Gas Engine), has 410 hp. The SST HO is up 55 hp over the Apache 6.4L (540 vs 485) and 46 lb-ft (521 vs 475).
It was only offered in 1500 trucks with the TRX. I didn’t do a comparison because the TRX is dead and should be replaced by the RHO. No sense doing an H/0 to TRX since the Tungsten trim isn’t an apples to apples comparison.
For cars, yes it was offered in some muscle cars and it was offered in the 2500. The 2500 is such a different application and isn’t even close to a 1500 truck anymore.
@Pickuptrucktalk If the 2500 comes out with the high output I think maybe you could compare them then sir
@@tylerproctor4878 impossible. HD trucks don’t have EPA MPG numbers.
@Pickuptrucktalk I wonder of a real world comparison on mpg is possible 🤔
About same mpg as competition but bigger power, seems ok.
Talking about turbo engines compare 3.0 to the Hurricane all close to the same displacement size.
Not sure why they don't offer a plug in hybrid model. I bet they could do one that could get 35 MPG if they really tried. Ford could do a 2.7L PowerBoost plug in hybrid that could push out 35 MPG with the right tuning and a decent size battery.
My take would be the turbos on a lot of these trucks are too small. They are trying too hard to not have any lag. If you size it right these trucks should have near naturally aspirated 6 cylinder type fuel economy if you weren't towing or heavy on the throttle. Then turn on tow mode with more aggressive shift and it's like a V8 both in power and fuel economy.
The only comparison to make with the HO Hurricane would be if Ram put the Scat Pack 392, but they have not. It's a new offering, so treat it as such.
The twin-boosted I-6 with 420hp still delivering >20MPG combined is not too shabby. Sure, under load and tow it will dive considerably, but daily driving should see some type of improvement over the HEMI, even with its MDS system. And 15/21 for the H.O. with standard 3.92 rears, 540hp, and no hybrid assist...I'm not sure we could ask for anything more.
Yeah I think it wasnt quite mentioned that the HO motor is going to be exclusively paired to the most aggressive gearing and heaviest (highest trim) models. So cant quite be an apples to apples comparision with the Hemi. I think it's fine. Yes they are complex, which is a potential downside, but if you want the performance they seem to be pretty compelling. I am looking forward to see how they do towing heavier loads.
I agree those numbers aren't bad at all. Especially the S/O version.
Doesn't seem much better MPG to me mate.
@@PlayWaves1 and to think that we thought was big HP was with the ram R/T with the viper v10 at 500 hp. And it’s done now with a six cyl making 540hp
My whole life and I've had 11 brand new trucks I always thought the mpg should be better... they just never got that much better over the years.... they have improved a little though lol
@leedanielson
I’m not sure what you are expecting as far as better mpg over the yrs. I just sold my ‘98 dodge Ram quad cab, 5.9 awhile back. Had it for 23 yrs from new. It was very consistent with mpg of 12/18. Never got better mpg than that. And I had driven it all over the country. It towed a max of 7800 lb.
My newer ‘18 supercrew, 2.7 f150 will get 19 city and between 24.2 to up to 26hwy, and it’s tows the same maximum tow as my dodge. I would say that is a helluva lot better gas mileage. The dodge was killin me with a tank an quarter of gas per week going to work when it was $4 an higher
@@paulhunter9613 For the average truck on the road The mpg has improved very little over the years.... They could've done so much better if they really wanted to.....
@@leedanielson7452 they are really trying now, look at some of the goofy shit they are attempting now and are having a difficult time at just getting a mpg better. You can only do so much when the vehicle is shaped like a brick and takes so much fuel to drive at 75 mph
No manufacturer has come up with a big mpg truck yet, so you think they are all sandbagging? Idt so
Do the hurricanes use a GPFs like the Ford 5.0 or Toyota 3.4?
F-150 5.0 and Tundra 3.4 have GPFs? Since when?
Only the Euro spec Mustang 5.0 uses a GPF
Don’t know about F150 but Tundra doesn’t. It was a mistake by a TH-camr which he took back and apologized in the next video.
@@ALMX5DP Neither have gas particulate filters at least in North America. The op probably saw the 3rd gen tundra video about the 3.4l V35A-FTS made by some semitruck mechanic on TH-cam where he read the Toyota 3.4l (V35A-FTS type 17) engine specs used in European Lexus and Toyota models where they are required to have GPFs due to the Euro-6 emission standards. The North American models of the 3.4l (V35A-FTS type 21) don't use GPFs as the US has yet to mandate their requirement. Said semitruck mechanic took down the video after multiple people pointed out that he was reading the incorrect spec sheet for the North American version of the engine used in the 3rd gen tundra's.
This is on a similar note, but different vehicle. I've Ford Mustang with the 5.0. It is rated at 15/24. The combined is 19. This seems very low for the city and somewhat low for the highway. In my mixed driving I'm routinely getting 22 mpg or better. On exclusively interstate highway trips I get 29 mpg (70-75 mph). The lowest I've seen is 18 mpg and that was city driving with no time spent on the urban freeways. So, to me the EPA fuel economy for the Mustang is suspect. It's low for the City number and low for the Highway number subjecting the car to the Gas Guzzler Tax (which it is not a guzzler). The F-150 SuperCrew with the 3.5 V6 was rated at 17/23. I never was able to exceed the 23 rating. However, I was able to get the combined 19 mpg in the mixed driving situation (Omaha metro area roads). If it was purely highway (2 lane highway), I could get 21 mpg. No load in the bed and no trailer.
When is everyone going to pull the blanket from over their eyes?
Manufacturers are not getting rid of V8s because of fuel. They are using that as a “reason” and people don’t question it.
It is cheaper to build an inline engine with a turbo than it is a V engine NA. Fewer rods, pistons, half the heads, half the cams etc….
It’s a business move. If the manufacturers actually went for fuel economy they wouldn’t be increasing the size of vehicle (which increases weight, which increases the amount of torque needed to have ‘performance’)
Power is derived from air/fuel. For more power you need more air, with more air you need more fuel. If you want better MPG decrease the weight of vehicle and power (and therefore fuel) can be reduced and have the same amount of performance.
Does the tundra have particulate filters?
I’d never heard of such a thing until Getty put out that video. He has since taken it down. I can follow up if need be, but it seems like that was incorrect information. Overseas they use GDF on a lot of engines.
@@Pickuptrucktalk thanks Tim! I saw that video too and hadn’t heard it before either. Love the content
Brign back the mopar MAX 413 wedge with the spread 4 barrel carbs(cross Y).....at least is was cool at 12mpg!
What mpg did you see on the 2025 ram rebel
It isn’t broken down by trim level.
How does that non HO 6 tow compared to 5.7 Hemi ? Real world towing by feel ?
Better towing feel. I did a video on towing with it on this channel.
I didn't realize the GM 2.7 turbo was so similar fuel economy to the 5.3. Probably better emissions though.
Yes, it was the most unnecessary engine ever. Just as expensive and doesn’t save the owner anything. Not that the 5.3 is some stellar engine, but you have to run the snot out of the 2.7
Mandatory etorque was what kept me from buying a new 2024 RAM. Would love to get the last of the Hemi V8's, but not with that etorque rubber band on it.
1500 Classic Warlock. No Etorque
Not crazy about the Warlock look. I get real picky when someone expects me to spend 40 or 50 grand!@@Jay-ns5ub
I wonder if anyone has priced the 48 volt battery the e torque needs to operate, and how long they generally last?
It’s roughly 900-2700 to replace the battery depending on if you go new or used, dealer or not. It’s covered under warranty until 8yrs/80K. It’s under the Emissions warranty.
My 2014 ram hemi never actually got the advertised fuel economy. The lie o meter on the dash was close to the ratings, but hand calculated was at least 10% worse. I'd expect that the new hurricane will also have a much fatter powerband than the peaky hemi, which had to be revved much harder to get into any power.
The hemi has a great exhaust note, but in my opinion had a much too peaky motor for a heavy truck which explains why it has been outclassed by basically all its competitors for far too long. (100k trx trucks excluded)
Does the Hurricane have stop/start tech and/or MDS?
Start/stop. No MDS. Start/stop is basically standard nowadays.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Thanks!
Turbo maxed out on boost and small displacement to move massive sleds like this will always equal bad fuel economy anyway. Requires a ton of power to move heavy weight. Like making me run a 40yard dash at 300 lbs. apparently it took 5400 watts for me to run it at 8 seconds and mind you, I am not trained to run, I just lift weights lol
Imagine the watts required to move a sled like that? Requires a lot of fuel. Should just put diesels in all trucks…
I’m tired and I’m blabbering but I hope people get the message in their own perspective lol
I also noticed on the window stickers for an F150 and a Mustang, both with the 5.0 liter V8 that the Mustang is rated at 480 grams of co2/mile and the F150 is rated at 472 grams of co2/mile. Now, how is that possible for a vehicle that weighs so much more and has a worse coefficient of drag than the Mustang. Same engine and same transmission (not necessarily geared the same). Moreover, the sticker for my 2019 F150 with the 3.5 is rated the same for grams of co2/mile: 472. So, this can't be about emissions????
Mustang is in a different category for emissions than light-duty trucks.
@@PickuptrucktalkCan you elaborate? I'm observing that various engines are so close or the same that the push/switch to turbocharged engines isn't strictly about emissions. Yes, they are in different EPA categories, but the stickers read much the same on the stats.
@@ksorsomeplace light-duty trucks have to meet different emissions goals vs cars. That's how the current CAFE rules are written.
Pretty much what a lot of people expected out of the I6. An increase at both ends but the mpg increase being minimal. As you showed, all the brands are pretty even across the MPG board but the power for the respective mpg is a greater difference. As for the HO drinking premium, if I could afford a Tungsten, I wouldn't care. Hell, I know people who burn 91 in a 5.7 Hemi.
in-line 6 cylinder engine are great engines, if we’re talking about fuel efficiency then we need to go the extra step to include a direct drive top gear transmission and a faster final drive, overdrive is really old school and unnecessary, it’s basically useless in the wind and hills, only good for going downhill, a direct drive 8 speed would pair up great with turbo engine, a usable pulling combination, able to utilize top gear for a longer period of time, would be a better truck, better the rest
My 2022 gm c seirr a single cab short box gets 18 around town with the best guest mileage of 21. The new hurricane will get better job IMO.
Premium fuel 10% higher
Interesting video! 👍
When you’re sharing your screen and displaying your website, there’s another little video playing in the corner of your site. Can you close that video within the video within the video? I’ve noticed this in the past too, and it’s distracting.
Good feedback. I’ll try to remember.
I didn't read every comment but did anyone mention that the low output hurricane is a $5200 option on a Bighorn
Are you sure about the $5,200 number?
Not seeing that on stickers....
There is not much improvement, but it is a higher cost and more possibility of repairs for 1- 2 mpgs more
8:33 Historically, Toyotas tend to meet or exceed their stated MPG numbers.
My ‘22 Tundra 1794 STD bed gets exactly the numbers stated but with an average 700 lbs of payload in the bed.
My 21 year old Tundra 4x4 4.7L measured tank to tank gets 15 MPG mixed, 18 mostly highway under similar conditions.
I wish I could same the same for my 2023 Tacoma. Sticker says 18 city and 22 hwy. I get 16.5 average.
get the feeling will still get like 6 to 10 towing. so same as my 5.7 hemi. to make power requires fuel. just math.
Interesting
In my world there is a difference between recommended and required.
Greetings Tim, I heard a rumor the 2025 Ford F150 hybrid is rumored to be a much stronger hybrid battery system and superior fuel economy.
I was told Ford is moving away from EV and focusing on advanced hybrid systems.
Any word on your end?
Not true.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Thank you for the clarification. I don’t think my source was correct either.
Didn't you say that premium is "RECOMMENDED" for "BEST" performance? If that is so then premium is not 'REQUIRED" except for best performance. If I want a Tungstan but don't require the high performance then I can just use 87 octane, if you quoted correctly. I don't think that I'd ever buy a vehicle that "REQUIRED' premium fuel.
I6’s aren’t really known for their fuel efficiency. But, considering the power, it’s competitive.
When do you expect to get your New Ram?Real life numbers are what I’m waiting for.
Hopefully a few more months. I’m liking not having a truck payment. LOL
Its unrealistic to expect a 510 hp engine to get good gas mileage.
Anybody got any new information on the RHO??? I’m dying over here 😂
Negative.
Looks like the MPG isn't that much better than the 5.7L Hemi V8 its replacing.
the EPA should just auto approve any diesel engines for use/sale in USA that is at least Euro 6 certified? INEO Grenadier in USA would not have a B57 diesel option!
Wow...Stellantis finally matches mpg numbers achieved by Ford and GM years ago!😁
I realize that it provides more power and is limited by emission constraints so it really is quite impressive.
Great video.
Ford and GM don't make magic motors. These all get the same based on displacement. Ford will not get better mpg out of that 3.5 without going down on hp. Same with all of them. Ram only matched their numbers now because they just made a turbo 6er. There's only so much convertible energy in a gallon of gas.
Do i have it right? The new engine runs cleaner but burns more fuel except in it's lowest hp form?
If this is the case how many more high output burning more fuel will it take to squelch the minimal gains of the new engine? 😂
Auto manufacturers HAVE Broken the 20mpg barrier. They Just haven't figured out that Gas engine wont do it. The Gen 3 Ecodiesel in my 2022 1500 Laramie, 4wd, Full size bed. I get 31-32 Mpg's. The Mini max 6 cyclinder Duramax that Chevy was smart enough To NOT discontinue is the new Best with over 30mpg's also. THAT'S AN AMAZING #. People that have 1500's as work trucks are switching to chevy. If you drive 50-60K a year it pays off Quickly. VW left a bad taste in some peoples mouths for Diesel however, I don't think educated people where scared off. The Jeep owners I know get 28ish with their wrangler and Gladiators. Of course They are all lifted. If these auto makers would just through their efforts into their small diesel platforms they would sell. PROOF?? Look at ALL the inventory of 1/2 tons sitting on lots. How many are Diesel?
Tim i can almost guarentee you thr 3.6 pentastar will beat thr hurricane engine In emmisions
Its their bread and butter engine. And i happen to love them
Probably, but that’s not the point is it. The point is to reduce emissions from the Hemi.