MPG and Defending the 3.9L (was: found 3 mpg)

From: Terrible Tom (
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 15:06:05 EDT

Zachary Burcham wrote:
> What has he got on that 5.9L? I have NEVER heard of a 5.9L getting
> remotely close to 20 mpg. I thought they got consistant 12-15 figures,
> even in the durango. I have a buddy with a 3/4 ton ram and he's
> averaging 9.5 mpg. I get 22-25 mpg with my 3.9L dak auto, 2WD with A/T
> tires and over 160K on the odo at 70 mph. I'm not calling anyone a
> liar, I've just never heard of a 5.9L getting even close to mid 20s in
> mpg. One buddy got better gas mileage AFTER doing a 408 with 4.56 rear
> end. And he only gets 18 mpg.

Before this turns into a flame war - Keep in mind that MPG numbers vary
greatly due to many different factors. Gear ratio, tire diameter, tire
tread design and compounds, engine size, weight, extra crap we haul
around all the time, and most of all - driving habits. I'm sure if I
drove my Ram like a little old lady, I could get much better MPG
figures. I don't like going slower than 75 on the highways - takes too
long to get places hehehe. Damned cops.

Anyway - as for the performance of the 3.9L - I got between 13-15 city
driving in $hitcago, and could easily reach 20-22 highway depending on
what I was hauling and how fast I was driving. If I recall - I topped
22 when I made my first trip out to the BBQ a couple years ago. And
that was hauling a buncha crap out there with me too.

The 3.9 engines are sufficent. They never have been powerhouse motors
but they have unlocked potential. As many on this list have discovered
there are ways to really squeese out more power from the 3.9 - something
I'm sorry Chrysler never did was refine these engines they way they
could have been. The power to weight ratio that can be reached with a
3.9 is great!

As for the 360 - in a Ram - do not expect to see staggering results in
fuel economy. The Ram is a heavy mother to push around and the 360 does
a great job of it - but fuel economy is where the compromise is. This
is nothing to be shocked over. It's always been this way. Brand new
Ram of the 80s wouldn't see more than 15 MPG tops. MPG went up slightly
when the engines went Magnum.

You will see better MPG numbers on AVERAGE in a Dak than in a Ram
because of the starting point for weight. Ram = heavier than Dak.

***** Countdown to 2004 DML BBQ (83) Days Left! *****

Terrible Tom -- AIM & Yahoo Name: SilverEightynine

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 12:00:17 EDT