Ram 2500 gas mileage with hemi?
From : newrvguy
Q: i just bought a 2005 power wagon 2500. i have only driven it 200 km on the highway now since i got it a few days ago and the computer says i am getting 11.8 mpg. this sounds really bad. my window sticker did not show an epa rating and when i called the dealer they just said that it will get the same as the 1500 with hemi with to me sounds like a quit bullshit answer. anybody else out there driving a 2500 ram with hemi that can tell me what kind of city/hwy gas mileage i can expect i imagine that the gas mileage will increase after break in period of the truck right i am also planning on towing a 5500 lb dry travel trailer across country with it and was hoping for 10 mpg with that but if it is 11.8 mpg with no load i am concerned ! that sounds correct. hemi is a gas guzzling performance engine i knew a guy that bouhght one then a few days later took it back in exhange for a diesel .
Replies:
From : roy
sounds like a ball joint idler arm pitman arm or tie rod end. in that order. steve partway through our long roadtrip through the western wilds of scotland my truck 2001 dak started making a new noise and feel. theres a distinct clunk kind of noise which can be felt in the steering wheel. first thing i checked was the power steering fluid which was a bit low so i topped that off. noise is still there. it only seems to happen when the trucks completely warmed up and seems to be triggered by depressing the brake pedal tho it could be the clutch pedal since im generally using them at the same time. at one point there was also a distinct clunkclunkclunk felt in the steering wheel as i accelerated. it would happen in first or second and would only happen once during an acceleration. that hasnt happened since i topped up the fluid but i was still wondering what might be causing that. dunno if its related but the rattle ive reported as being in the back end seems to actually be in the front - realized this when riding as a passenger which i dont do much in my own truck with the window open. from there its clearly coming from somewheres in the vicinity of the right side wheel well. the brakes and suspension were recently checked pronounced good and this made no difference to the rattle. are either of these noises just the kind of general rattle a truck gets to making over time or what should i have a mechanic look at jmc .
From : snoman
wheel chocks on the other hand would be a very good idea i agree! chock it up to experience..... sorry... couldnt help myself! heh heh... i almost chaulked on my iced tea reading that! .
From : snoman
i fully understand what it means max that is not the argument. actually it is the argument. you say you understand we say you dont and we all prove you dont then you argue with us saying you do and it goes round again. no you just choose to think that i dont but we do agree that this has become a pointless circular argument. argument is that even though one can has 50% more than the otherand it sounds like a lot in reality the one can only has 1 more object than the other one. right but in the case of dirt and dust particles its a much larger number than 1 which is the point. the thing is max that it really isnt that much larger. a paper filter blocks 98% of the dirt which is just about all of it so 97% isnt really all that much worse and even by actual volume isnt all that much. now if the paper filter blocked 75% of the dirt then the k&n would only be blocking 50% and that would be huge and look at that the same 50% difference now if the one can had 20 and the other can had 30 you still have the same percentage difference but now the larger can actually has 10 more than the other not just 1. iow these percentages are nothing more than a relationship between two values and even though the percentage may seem large if the numbers making it are very small so is the difference between them. its millions of particles of dust and dirt not one or two when talking about filter effectiveness. but what counts is the amount required to be blocked and both filters fall within acceptable limits. as for the millions exactly how many millions. i dont even think the total was in the millions. your small numbers idea just went to shit. back up these numbers. how many millions and how many millions can pass through since at the time of the test the total allowed was 5% which is 2% more than the k&n allowed to pass. -- max -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : newrvguy
i talked with a guy today with a 2500/hemi and he recommended i wait it out because he got 12 hwy when new but now with 25k on it he is getting 17 hwy newrvguy wrote 11.8 mpg that sounds correct. hemi is a gas guzzling performance engine i knew a guy that bouhght one then a few days later took it back in exhange for a diesel i thought of doing that but i always thought that once you bought a new truck it was yours. with it being driven off the lot and registered with my plate on it wouldnt it have to be sold back to them for like a $5000 loss yep! some people dont care. youll lose a bit less if you sell it on your own. i have a hemi durango 4x4 with 3.55 gears. when it was new i only got about 12mpg highway at 75mph. i get about 17mpg now with 16k on it. around town i get 14.5mpg. towing i get about 10mpg at 65mph pulling a 5000lb trailer. .
From : badger
no but you defended that erroneous statement what statement would that be you were the one to say that it was false and then went out of your way to prove that it was true. now before you completely spin it the key word was produce not create. you never said it was incorrect just jump on my correction because your correction served no purpose but to jump on somebody over semantics. you truly are an idiot incapable of admitting your screw-ups where did i screw up gary when you wrote how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% now spin as you will that statement is dead wrong admit it .
From : christopher thompson
how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired sorry gary that would be you. since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 but you said it did here let me remind you how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% because it does fuzzy math boy. 3 / 2 = 1.5 regardless of the units. 3lb / 2 lb = 1.5lb 3rpm / 2rpm = 1.5rpm 3 ft / 2 ft = 1.5 ft 3 units / 2 units = 1.5 units and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. you want to re-think that or should i just keep humiliating your sorry ass 3 / 2 = 1.5 and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. and like i said you fight like hell when you think that you are right but pretty much drop it otherwise as in the quadcab thread. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : newrvguy
on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i id suggest that you go back and re-read what he wrote 3% / 2 % = 1.5 % .
From : newrvguy
on wed 22 jun 2005 165506 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired sorry gary that would be you. since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 but you said it did here let me remind you how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% because it does fuzzy math boy. 3 / 2 = 1.5 regardless of the units. 3lb / 2 lb = 1.5lb 3rpm / 2rpm = 1.5rpm 3 ft / 2 ft = 1.5 ft 3 units / 2 units = 1.5 units and 3% / 2% = 1.5% any way you try to spin it. nope. the units cancel out. 3 rpm ----- = 1.5 --- no rpm after 1.5 2 rpm a percent is not a unit it is 1/100. so 3% is the same as 3 * 1/100 or 3/100. 3%/2% = 3*1/100 / 2*1/100 = 3/2 = 1.5 yes but now you are doing conversions. you are converting from a percent to a whole number and that in itself makes it fuzzy. i hope that you realize that all percentages are fuzzy by nature because they dont truly represent anything other than a ratio and when you divide multiple percentages you even further distort the truth. i can say a 150% increase which sounds huge but in reality could be very small. i could get a 150% pay increase and if i were a corporate exec stealing $10000000 a year it in fact would be huge but if i was only making minimum wage i would still barely be making enough to put food on the table. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : gene
on wed 22 jun 2005 174139 gmt tbone t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote 3 / 2 = 1.5 thats correct. and when you can disprove that then you win and until then it is just fuzzy math. while 3 may be 150% more than 2 thats incorrect. it can be said that 3 is 150% of 2 or that 3 is 50% greater than 2. 3 / 2 is still only 1.5 regardless of the units attached to those numbers. correct. 1.5 is the same as 150%. the rule is actually simple a percent is 1/100. i .
From : roy
how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% yep 100% correct. - .
From : snoman
hauling his fat ass around. bfg a couple of more holiday meals and he will be changing to 456s.gbmfg roy talk about not keeping my back covered...... vbg that is too easy so i wont.g how ya been roy doin good thanks. tons of ot just waiting for the hot tub to arrive. you got that new cummins broke in yet nope been on the train to work saves a bunch of money on fuel. think i have about 7k on it. vacation the first two weeks of july so it will be used a lot more. have a question for ya. does dc offer a self dimming mirror for the passenger side tow mirror the damn thing is a pia at night it is blinding. the vn moving wall is here for a week. it was here about 6 years ago somthing that should be seen imo. if it is in your area try to see it late at night or early morning it is a totally different deal then. roy denny .
From : snoman
on wed 22 jun 2005 082134 -0400 dave moulton dmoulton@mi-seat.com wrote ill call this a cautionary tale. the jack for my 2002 ram 1500 just broke while in use. its second use. get yourself a decent bottle jack and stash it in the cab somewhere. i will not replace this jack with another identical dodge jack its a poor design weak and hard to use. thankfully i was on my driveway when it broke not on the side of the road. it rolled very slowly forward - i was behind it. still damn scary! it came to rest with the hub on the inside rim of the spare and didnt bend anything. dont have to buy a brake rotor! my neighbor has a floor jack i can borrow. i know i need to get my own! i hate factory supplied jacks... i bought 3 compact floor jacks at walmart for a total of about $90 and keep one in the garage and one in each truck... the problem with a bottle jack is that you dont always have enough clearance to get it in place especially with a flat lowering the truck.. ymmv mac please remove splinters before emailing .
From : woody
i would think that it is the residual smell from the food that was cooked in the used oil. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving there recently were two stories in the connecticut press about burning used cooking oil the first was a woman who was burning waste cooking oil from chinese restrauants... all positive press the second was two- three weeks ago where a guy in winsted ct had converted his vw bug to burn waste cooking oil and a black bear trashed the rear window to get to the oil smell. picture in the paper showed a car i wouldnt wantto drive tochurch in on sunday but he supossedly got great milage when th think heated up and he converted from disel to french fry oil. the down side is his neighbors complained whenever he came home because everyone ended up smelling like they worked at bugger king. jem could the smell be from the oil not burning hot enough or is that just the inherent smell of cooking oil it would be interesting to see a comparison between used cooking oil and fresh cooking oil. .
From : miles
there recently were two stories in the connecticut press about burning used cooking oil the first was a woman who was burning waste cooking oil from chinese restrauants... all positive press the second was two- three weeks ago where a guy in winsted ct had converted his vw bug to burn waste cooking oil and a black bear trashed the rear window to get to the oil smell. picture in the paper showed a car i wouldnt wantto drive tochurch in on sunday but he supossedly got great milage when th think heated up and he converted from disel to french fry oil. the down side is his neighbors complained whenever he came home because everyone ended up smelling like they worked at bugger king. jem could the smell be from the oil not burning hot enough or is that just the inherent smell of cooking oil it would be interesting to see a comparison between used cooking oil and fresh cooking oil. .
From : miles
on wed 22 jun 2005 044751 gmt newrvguy rvrookie@rvrookie.com wrote i just bought a 2005 power wagon 2500. i have only driven it 200 km on the highway now since i got it a few days ago and the computer says i am getting 11.8 mpg. this sounds really bad. my window sticker did not show an epa rating and when i called the dealer they just said that it will get the same as the 1500 with hemi with to me sounds like a quit bullshit answer. anybody else out there driving a 2500 ram with hemi that can tell me what kind of city/hwy gas mileage i can expect i imagine that the gas mileage will increase after break in period of the truck right i am also planning on towing a 5500 lb dry travel trailer across country with it and was hoping for 10 mpg with that but if it is 11.8 mpg with no load i am concerned ! here is a repeat of my post on this subject a while ago. i have a 2004 2500 4x4 reg cab hemi with 5sp standard. in 15k miles the best ever tank was 14.5 mpg highway with no trailer or load. overall average is about 13.5. towing a 6000 lb trailer i get about 10 mpg and our friends with a cummins diesel and a heavier trailer leave us in the dust going up hill while using less fuel. woody; 95fxds .
From : newrvguy
on wed 22 jun 2005 112017 gmt transurgeon nobulltrans@mchsi.dotcom wrote how about 3% / 2% = 1.5% just like 3 / 2 = 1.5 not 150. you are truly math impaired since when does 0.03 / 0.02 = 0.015 do the math boy and stop making an ass of yourself care to try again i dont have to try again you just made my point far my forcefully than i ever could have ! thanks for playing chump ! it must really suck to be you. beekeep .
From : nerdrevenge
why dont you just go after them under the lemon law and get your money back -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving maybe cause its a 2000 model year and out of basic warranty denny .
From : tbone
dude why is this so hard for you to comprehend the 3.55 gears are the best ones for normal driving in that truck. if they were not they wouldnt be there since it costs dc nothing to put a different ratio in when it is being built and if they could get both better mileage and better towing ability for no cost at all there is no sane reason not to do it. your comparisons are invalid since the only dc product you mentioned was a 4 cylinder jeep and everything else was a gm of some type and with what you are saying you seem like a lead foot. denny owns the truck and says that his mileage dropped and he only went to a 3.92 never mind the 4.56 that you are suggesting. i would also like to know where you are getting your rather lame hp ratings from. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving denny1 wrote snoman wrote but tbone you missing the point. when a engine it running well below its ve it still takes the same hp to roll truck down the road and the engine has to work harder and make more torque are lower rpm and reduced efficency to make the hp needed to roll truck. raise the rpm some and engien needs to make less torque to make same hp and is closer to ve to so efficency is better and less fuel is used per hp hour and to take it further if your cruise at say 1700 rpm and have a max torque of 70% of peak availible that give you only about 68 hp at flywheel or about 45 to 50 at wheel which is barely enough to cruise and the eninge will be working as higher cylinder pressure in a unefficent stay to try to make it and be using more fuel to make hp than it should not to mention higher bearing and ring pressure too which can lead to short than optimum life of engine snoman i can give you a real world example of gear changes. in my 95 1500 it came with 3.55 gears and i usually got about 17-17.5 mpg at approx 65-70 mph. i changed the diffs to 3.92 cause i needed more gear for what i use the truck for. since the change my highway mileage has dropped to 14.5-15 mpg running the same speed. denny my 2000 chevy k3500 srw with a 350 gets 16 to 17mpg on hiway with a/c on and about 13 in town with 4.10 gears and stock tires. my 89 4x4 burb with 3.73s and tiny stock tires gets 18mpg at 65 to 70 mph. my wifes 2000 cherokee with 4 banger a 5 speed and 4.10 gears gets 21 to 22 around town and 27 to 29 on highway on the few trips we have taken it on. i drove a 05 1500 silverado loaner with a 5.3 in it a few weeks ago for a few days and it had 3.42 gears and it was a dog on the highway in od and used about as much gas while i had it as my k3500 did which weighed more. in your case i am guessing you had a 318 or 360 which tends to be more efficent at lower rpms unlike the 4.7 we are talking about here. -- posted using the http//www.autoforumz.com interface at authors request articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards topic url http//www.autoforumz.com/dodge-help-mod-2001-1500-quadcab-towing-22-motorboat-ftopict124505.html visit topic url to contact author reg. reqd. report abuse http//www.autoforumz.com/eform.phpp=611908 .