2012 Dodge RAM 1500 3.7L V6 4x2 gas mileage

[OVERKILL]

We have a couple of these trucks for guys at work and I ended up driving one of them up to Toronto yesterday. I've made the trip about a million and one times, so I'm familiar with how much fuel my vehicles use doing it. At current gas prices, BMW would be around $25.00, Expedition would be $42.00. This truck cost me $48.00 in fuel, which I was surprised at, since being lighter, only 2 wheel drive, and having a V6, I figured it would get far better mileage than the Expedition, but it didn't. Anybody own one of these that can comment?

 

[Hermann]

PU trucks are flying bricks. What were the MPG numbers. Under very windy high speed conditions, sometimes my 4 cly Tacoma will only get 23 MPG or so Other times 27. With poor aerodynamics mileage will vary a lot.

 

[crazyoildude]

we rebuild a lot of the 3.7 engines i see them all the time but never measured gas mileage

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Hermann
PU trucks are flying bricks. What were the MPG numbers. Under very windy high speed conditions, sometimes my 4 cly Tacoma will only get 23 MPG or so Other times 27. With poor aerodynamics mileage will vary a lot.


I didn't bother tracking the mileage, though I could look it up, as I've made the trip to the same location and back a great number of times. I was just going by what it took me to fill the tank.

 

[georgemiller]

Have a Dodge conversion van 2500 3.9 L v6, average 13 miles per gallon. Had the Ford conversion van with the big v8 I think it was a 360. That only got 8 miles to the gallon.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: georgemiller
Have a Dodge conversion van 2500 3.9 L v6, average 13 miles per gallon. Had the Ford conversion van with the big v8 I think it was a 360. That only got 8 miles to the gallon.


What year? Probably a 351W or a 460. Though could have been a 400M I guess.

We have a mid 2000's Ford E350 van that is setup as a people mover with 10 passenger seating. It rides like a lumber wagon (1-ton suspension and 10-ply tires do that) and is geared ridiculously with 4.11's in the pot. It has a 5.4L backed by the 4R100. It is bad on fuel, but not all that much worse than the Expedition. Meaning it is only slightly worse than this truck, LOL!

 

[[email protected]]

Isnt it the 2013 or 2014 RAM they were boasting about getting 25 hwy mpg when equipped with the 8 speed AT?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: georgemiller
Have a Dodge conversion van 2500 3.9 L v6, average 13 miles per gallon. Had the Ford conversion van with the big v8 I think it was a 360. That only got 8 miles to the gallon.


What year? Probably a 351W or a 460. Though could have been a 400M I guess.

We have a mid 2000's Ford E350 van that is setup as a people mover with 10 passenger seating. It rides like a lumber wagon (1-ton suspension and 10-ply tires do that) and is geared ridiculously with 4.11's in the pot. It has a 5.4L backed by the 4R100. It is bad on fuel, but not all that much worse than the Expedition. Meaning it is only slightly worse than this truck, LOL!


There is a Ford 360, but I can't recall ever seeing one in a van. Not sure the FE would have fit in the stub nosed vans and fairly certain it would have had to been stuffed into the cab-over vans

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: georgemiller
Have a Dodge conversion van 2500 3.9 L v6, average 13 miles per gallon. Had the Ford conversion van with the big v8 I think it was a 360. That only got 8 miles to the gallon.


What year? Probably a 351W or a 460. Though could have been a 400M I guess.

We have a mid 2000's Ford E350 van that is setup as a people mover with 10 passenger seating. It rides like a lumber wagon (1-ton suspension and 10-ply tires do that) and is geared ridiculously with 4.11's in the pot. It has a 5.4L backed by the 4R100. It is bad on fuel, but not all that much worse than the Expedition. Meaning it is only slightly worse than this truck, LOL!


There is a Ford 360, but I can't recall ever seeing one in a van. Not sure the FE would have fit in the stub nosed vans and fairly certain it would have had to been stuffed into the cab-over vans


Yes, the Ford 360 was from quite a long time ago, which is why I mentioned more recent engines

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have a couple of these trucks for guys at work and I ended up driving one of them up to Toronto yesterday. I've made the trip about a million and one times, so I'm familiar with how much fuel my vehicles use doing it. At current gas prices, BMW would be around $25.00, Expedition would be $42.00. This truck cost me $48.00 in fuel, which I was surprised at, since being lighter, only 2 wheel drive, and having a V6, I figured it would get far better mileage than the Expedition, but it didn't. Anybody own one of these that can comment?



The 3.7 is seriously overworked in a full-size Ram, and was really only practical for an around-town VERY lightly worked fleet truck. I seriously doubt that 1 in 50 3.7 full-size Rams goes to a private owner instead of a fleet. The 4.7 gets better gas mileage, the Hemi with MDS does about the same as the 4.7 if you keep your foot out of it (but nobody does...)

I'm not a fan of any of the 90-degree V6 engines made by sawing two holes off a v8 like the 3.7 and the 3.9 before it. The best of the bunch was probably the Chevy 4.3, but I'd still rather have a 305 v8 even in a Chevy. They ALL seem to burn way too much fuel for the power they put out.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: [email protected]
Isnt it the 2013 or 2014 RAM they were boasting about getting 25 hwy mpg when equipped with the 8 speed AT?


That would also be a completely different ENGINE (the 3.6 Pentastar versus the old 3.7). 25 out of a Pentastar/8-speed Ram wouldn't surprise me. 15 out of a 3.7 under the exact same conditions wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have a couple of these trucks for guys at work and I ended up driving one of them up to Toronto yesterday. I've made the trip about a million and one times, so I'm familiar with how much fuel my vehicles use doing it. At current gas prices, BMW would be around $25.00, Expedition would be $42.00. This truck cost me $48.00 in fuel, which I was surprised at, since being lighter, only 2 wheel drive, and having a V6, I figured it would get far better mileage than the Expedition, but it didn't. Anybody own one of these that can comment?



The 3.7 is seriously overworked in a full-size Ram, and was really only practical for an around-town VERY lightly worked fleet truck. I seriously doubt that 1 in 50 3.7 full-size Rams goes to a private owner instead of a fleet. The 4.7 gets better gas mileage, the Hemi with MDS does about the same as the 4.7 if you keep your foot out of it (but nobody does...)

I'm not a fan of any of the 90-degree V6 engines made by sawing two holes off a v8 like the 3.7 and the 3.9 before it. The best of the bunch was probably the Chevy 4.3, but I'd still rather have a 305 v8 even in a Chevy. They ALL seem to burn way too much fuel for the power they put out.


This would probably be considered a small fleet if that helps

And thanks for your input, that was pretty much what I was thinking. It certainly didn't feel like an appropriate engine for this truck. We have a few 5.7's and a few 4.7L trucks as well and those engines feel a lot more appropriate for the chassis, though I've never made this trip driving one of them, so I don't know how they compare consumption-wise.

Our small fleet is a bit of a mixed bag, though we haven't bought any GM's other than a van since 2003. We have a number of F-150's and RAM 1500's that we've cycled into the fleet over the last two years. This was to replace a couple of Nissan's and our older RAM 1500's and F-150's.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
We have a couple of these trucks for guys at work and I ended up driving one of them up to Toronto yesterday. I've made the trip about a million and one times, so I'm familiar with how much fuel my vehicles use doing it. At current gas prices, BMW would be around $25.00, Expedition would be $42.00. This truck cost me $48.00 in fuel, which I was surprised at, since being lighter, only 2 wheel drive, and having a V6, I figured it would get far better mileage than the Expedition, but it didn't. Anybody own one of these that can comment?


I had the 3.7 in a 2004 Dodge truck with 5 speed manual. The most mpg I ever got was 21, which was 55-60, steady for about 3 hours. Higher speeds dropped mpg down to less than 18.

I agree with all the posts above that it's an underpowered engine for a full size truck. I sold mine with only 29k.

 

[SLCraig]

I like Mopars but that 3.7 sucks.
I used to drive a Dakota with that engine and even that truck felt slow and got garbage MPG.

4.7 should be the minimum engine in a RAM without a doubt.
Too bad that truck does not have the 3.6.. The 3.7 is probably the last engine I'd own from Chrysler over the last number of years. Total pig.

 

[SteveSRT8]

My Dad always said a small engine in a big vehicle was a bad choice as you would always be beating on it to get going.

It has proven to be good advice over the years, still true today except in isolated instances. The newer many speed transmissions are really helping in this regard.

But the simple fact is the throttle is open too much on many of these under-sized powertrains to ever get good economy or good life, especially as vehicles seem to get heavier and heavier.

 

[Colt45ws]

Probably the only way to run a PU with a small V6 such as this is with a manual trans. Once you get this low in output, the auto transmission (which is likely the same or very similar to the v8 trans) starts sucking a noticeable amount of powder.

 

[Clevy]

Kinda on topic.
New edge mustangs. The 3.8 sixxer gets roughly the same mileage as the gt in my experience,when driven normally.
On the highway mine actually got 26 mpg with 3.90 gears vs my cousin with an 01 sixxer and he got the same mileage last summer on a trip to Calgary.
No matter what it takes a given number of hp to move a vehicle,so when driving normally vehicles need to consume a given amount of fuel to achieve and maintain speed. The only difference I can see is how stressed the engine will be. The vehicle with the bigger engine doesn't work as hard to get there,but will consume the same amount of fuel.
And my dad just bought a 2013 dodge ram hemi. It get 26mpg on the highway when the cylinders deactivate. The new ram with the 8 speed and a sixxer achieves 35 mpg advertised. I've yet to see it happen so I cannot say for sure.
My hemi(no mds) can get 22 mpg if I add my backyard mix of acetone/tc-w3 but averages 18. 10mpg in the city. It takes alot of fuel to move a 6000 pound truck. There is no difference in fuel consumption whether I'm in 2wd vs 4wd and to be honest I got my best mileage number when in 4wd.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Colt45ws
Probably the only way to run a PU with a small V6 such as this is with a manual trans. Once you get this low in output, the auto transmission (which is likely the same or very similar to the v8 trans) starts sucking a noticeable amount of powder.


Agreed. Less parasitic loss in the drivetrain as well.

 

[Hokiefyd]

A 3.7L 2012 2WD Ram is rated at 14/20 on the EPA cycle. That's actually not terrible...at least the highway rating. Compare that to a 2002 4WD Expedition with the 5.4L at 11/15 (or the 4.6L at 12/16), and the Ram should deliver significantly better fuel economy...like 35% better if your Expy has the 5.4L

Something must have been "off" with that trip. More traffic, more wind, malfunctioning Dodge, something.

 

[dave1251]

I now have a 10 FX4 with a 5.4 engine 3.73 gears and a 6 speed auto and I get 17.6MPG average on 50/50 mixed city/highway driving.

It seems that the 3.7 is a bad fit for that PU.