Well whats so heavy about a ram vs a durango? The durango does have more
body then the ram, and you must remember that passenger vehicles are geared
more for driving then the way trucks are geared for pulling heavier loads.
It all reverts back to what they put in the gearing and what the final tire
diameter is of the vehicle being tested. Just because you run 35's, doesnt
mean you have to get 5 mpg, there is always something to help you, change
the gears to 5.xx and at least go back to double digits maybe high teens..
Its all in what you want... If you run 35's and keep the stock gears you
will eat gas, whether you have a 4 banger ina zuki or v10 in a ram....
Bill Day
billday@consolidated.net
http://users.consolidated.net/billday/
A rich man isn't always wealthy, he just has all the love he wants and can
give..
AIM - BadManD73 (Catch me if you can!)
'95 Ext Cab 3.9L Mag 4x4 Flame Red
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zachary Burcham" <roadking_dakota@hotmail.com>
To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:00 AM
Subject: DML: RE: Defending 3.9L (WAS "Found 3 mpg")
I was by no means trying to start a flame war. But if I read it right a guy
was getting mid 20 mpg in a Ram with the 5.9L and I've just never heard of
5.9s getting out of the teens. I'm glad to hear that at least one person is
getting 20 out of a durango but I was just wondering about the mid 20s out
of the Ram 5.9L. I love my V6, reasonable power and low 20s on mpg on the
highway is nice, upper teens in town. Like i said, not trying to start a
war, I just don't see a heavy ram, pulling mid 20s with a 5.9L.
Here's the sentence I was interested in:
"I have a friend with a late-model Ram club cab with a 5.9L and he gets
mid 20's out on the highway it's embarassing.
If any one is looking to buy a Dakota, AVOID THE 3.9L at all costs!"
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:09:32 -0400
From: "Bill Knight" <billk5008@hotmail.com>
Subject: DML: Re: MPG and Defending the 3.9L (was: found 3 mpg)
I agree, I had a 97 Dakota SLT 3.9L automatic, stock tires. Not sure the
gear ratio in rear. When I bought it I ws getting 17 highway. Installed
K&N homebrew, free flowing muffler, 3923 plugs, and homemade tonnau cover
and went to 21 miles per galon on the highway. Now have a 2000 Durango SLT
5.9L automatic, stock tires. Not sure what I started with but did the 3923
plugs indexed, K&N drop in filter and synthetic oil in engine and get 20MPG
highway doing the speed limit with A/C going. Keys to mileage is proper
tune up, proper tire inflation, and easy on the gas peddle.
"Terrible Tom" <SilverEightynine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:408EAF1D.9010106@aol.com...
>
>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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, by AVG. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/04
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 12:00:18 EDT