Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / August 2006
How many MPG does the Dodge Ram 4.7 Reg. cab 4x4 get?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
realmccoykennels - 10 Aug 2006 19:16 GMT Im looking to get a 02' or 03' 4.7L Reg Cab 4x4 Dodge Ram and I just wanted to know how many MPG to expect out of it.
HomeBrewer - 11 Aug 2006 00:06 GMT 13-15 MPG if you're lucky.
> Im looking to get a 02' or 03' 4.7L Reg Cab 4x4 Dodge Ram and I just > wanted > to know how many MPG to expect out of it. SnoMan - 11 Aug 2006 02:20 GMT > 13-15 MPG if you're lucky. Yes, if MPG is a big concern for you, you can not put a small engine is a big heavy CC and expect miracles in MPG area. I doubt it would do much better (if at all) than a like truck that was Hemi powered. You need a smaller truck like a dakota if you want good performance and MPG from a 4.7. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
realmccoykennels - 11 Aug 2006 03:37 GMT >> 13-15 MPG if you're lucky. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com I like the Dakotas but those Rams are the best looking trucks in my opinion. I hear a lot of people saying different numbers when it comes to MPG on different message boards, any where from 19-10. You dont know who to beleive but if it is possible to get 15 I would be happy with that.
Chris Thompson - 11 Aug 2006 03:46 GMT I would be skeptical of anything over 13, my personal experience with dodge trucks (gas burners anyways) is fairly low MPG. if you want my honest opinion on the fuel mileage matter, buy a Cummins powered ram in the year models your looking at. you wont be sorry. I'm personally seeing 19 mpg on average around town. 18 if I run her hard. and have seen 21 on a trip where I kept it round 65 or less.
my current truck is a 05 2500 6 speed.
my wife had a Durango with the 360 and only got 12, witch she was really disappointed with because the truck I had at the time was a 99 8.0 liter v10 and was getting 10 - 11 with my lead foot.
 Signature ---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD
Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs.
>>> 13-15 MPG if you're lucky. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > beleive > but if it is possible to get 15 I would be happy with that. JS - 13 Aug 2006 19:39 GMT > I like the Dakotas but those Rams are the best looking trucks in my opinion. > I hear a lot of people saying different numbers when it comes to MPG on > different message boards, any where from 19-10. You dont know who to beleive > but if it is possible to get 15 I would be happy with that. I didn't know a discount-brand spic-built pickup truck could be used as a fashion accessory? Your trailer park must be a low budget production.
JS
GeekBoy - 15 Aug 2006 00:06 GMT >> I like the Dakotas but those Rams are the best looking trucks in my >> opinion. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I didn't know a discount-brand spic-built pickup truck could be used as a > fashion accessory? Your trailer park must be a low budget production. Not all Ram trucks are built in Mexico. Go back to school and get a refund on that hillbilly "education" you got.
> JS
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Addison's - 11 Aug 2006 03:49 GMT >> 13-15 MPG if you're lucky. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I normally got 13-15 in the city and 16-18 on the highway. I had a 2003 quad-cab 1500 with the 4.7L. If you want a pickup with better gas mileage, get a Ford Ranger or similar. If you want to tow, then you ain't goin' get great mileage. I purchased the 1500 over a Dakota because it had a "full" 6-foot bed without a bed-extender and it had more room. Yeah, the Dakota has similar tow ratings, but it's definitely not as roomy as the 1500.
M2CW, Hawkeye65
Hp - 11 Aug 2006 13:08 GMT My 04 ram quadcab with hemi and 3.55 gears gets 11.8 around town. This is after adding a K&N air intake system and a Gibson dual extreme exhaust system.
>>> 13-15 MPG if you're lucky. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > M2CW, > Hawkeye65 SnoMan - 11 Aug 2006 14:30 GMT >My 04 ram quadcab with hemi and 3.55 gears gets 11.8 around town. This is >after adding a K&N air intake system and a Gibson dual extreme exhaust >system. Beleive it or not these mods, especaily the exhaust mod hurt your MPG in town. There is a lot of misconceptions out there on what duals or custom exhaust do to engine efficency and MPG. If it was that easy to gain HP and MPG they would come that way from factory given the pressure they are under for fleet MPG averages but there are those that think detriot is stupid about this. Modern engine are well tuned from intake to exhaust tip and when you start "improving" it, you usually make it your MPG worse especailly in town. I could explain why too. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
realmccoykennels - 11 Aug 2006 14:58 GMT >>My 04 ram quadcab with hemi and 3.55 gears gets 11.8 around town. This is >>after adding a K&N air intake system and a Gibson dual extreme exhaust [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >from intake to exhaust tip and when you start "improving" it, you >usually make it your MPG worse especailly in town. I could explain why
>too. >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com Thanks for the imput from everyone. Im probably going to stick with getting a Ram and drive it like a granny. LOL!!
SnoMan - 11 Aug 2006 21:48 GMT >>>My 04 ram quadcab with hemi and 3.55 gears gets 11.8 around town. This is >>>after adding a K&N air intake system and a Gibson dual extreme exhaust [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >a Ram and drive it like a granny. > LOL!! Me, I am done buying new big iron. O have a few older ones long paided for and in excellant shape that I use when I need them otherwise it is 4 bangers for daily chores which saves money and makes the big iron last a lot longer too. Anything I buy new is going to be cheap to run because gas is only going to cost more as time goes on. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
GeekBoy - 13 Aug 2006 07:54 GMT >>>>My 04 ram quadcab with hemi and 3.55 gears gets 11.8 around town. This >>>>is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > last a lot longer too. Anything I buy new is going to be cheap to run > because gas is only going to cost more as time goes on. That's why you buy a diesel and start growing your own fuel.
> ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SnoMan - 13 Aug 2006 14:00 GMT >That's why you buy a diesel and start growing your own fuel. You can grow you own fuel for a gas engine too and when the cellulous/ethanol process gets on line you can make it about 5 times cheaper than with current distillation processes for ethanol and not use food source for fuel like you have to with Bio and current Ethanol. Honestly I think the future for a light diesel is bleak in coming years because it cannot adapt to different fuels like a "gas" motor can. A gas motor design can be run on Gas, Alchol, P-series fuels, Hydrogen, Methane (Natural gas) and Propane just to name a few. Bio Diesel fuel has problems of its own and it will never been a viable long term solution, just a "curiousity" for a while. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Chris Thompson - 13 Aug 2006 15:44 GMT >>That's why you buy a diesel and start growing your own fuel. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Bio is more than just a curiosity, and it does not have to use "food sources" to make it. there is a company making bio not far from me that claim to use the trimmed chicken fat from a chicken plant near here, for one example. now tell me is that a food stock you would want to use?
 Signature ---------------------------- -Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD
Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs.
SnoMan - 13 Aug 2006 17:07 GMT >Bio is more than just a curiosity, and it does not have to use "food >sources" to make it. there is a company making bio not far from me that >claim to use the trimmed chicken fat from a chicken plant near here, for one >example. now tell me is that a food stock you would want to use? THey are using food products that would otherwise wind up in animal feed. Nothing is wasted from animal processing plants and was not before it was being used for BIO. BIO will never be a long term solution and like I said it is just a side track right now and little more. Sure somebody may make some money on it now but it will not be viable long term. You can take that to the bank.It is easy to make methanol from coal with distructive distilaltion but it is harder to make a diesel type fuel from it as it really needs to be made for a oil base stock. Diesel fuel supplies are being pinched more daily as it is also heat oil and current Admin pushed unwisely to have hundreds of new power plants built fueled by oil to support big oil lobbies (which further taxes supply) other than coal which we have the largest reserves of in the world. (a 300 to 500 year known supply) To give you even more insight on the problem here and Big Oils grip on government today, one ton of coal trades at about $50 a ton now and when you measure the BTU energy content of this (like for powering power plants) it costs about $350 for the same amount of energy in crude oil or about $450 for the refined heating oil/diesel fuel products at current trade prices. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Nosey - 14 Aug 2006 14:51 GMT > >Bio is more than just a curiosity, and it does not have to use "food > >sources" to make it. there is a company making bio not far from me that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > or about $450 for the refined heating oil/diesel fuel products at > current trade prices. Biodiesel may not be the only answer but it's a start. As long as it can be produced by the home-brewer cheaper than buying diesel fuel at pump prices, it won't go away. Commercially produced biodiesel is being sold at the pumps at an increasing rate. The ideal situation for the longevity of biodiesel would be to sell the commerically produced product at the pump for less than what home-brewers can make it for. I'm not the type of person you would call an enviornmentalist. I do care about pollution and I don't go out of my way to intentionally harm the planet, but a tree-hugger I am not. If diesel fuel prices at the pump didn't go over $2.00 a gallon I probably would have never looked into biodiesel. Well, it did and now I'm making my own fuel for much less than that. Doing so raised my awareness of other energy alternatives too. I wouldn't say it changed my life, but it did change my way of thinking somewhat. Even if biodiesel is only a short term "side track" it sure helps /my/ fuel bill and it puts alternative energy a bit closer to the spotlight. The linked article below is long, but worth reading. It details some of the problems and some possible solutions of replacing all of the petroleum oil burned in the US for transportation with biodiesel (gasoline included). It's probably not going to happen but it addresses some of the issues you mentioned. Also, biodiesel burns very well in home oil furnaces. If I had an oil furnace it would be burning biodiesel this winter.
Coal? How much cleaner does coal burn than oil? I'd be curious to see an emissions comparison as used to fuel power generation facilities.
Widescale biodiesel production article from University of New Hampshire, Physics Department: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
 Signature Ken
SnoMan - 14 Aug 2006 17:18 GMT >Coal? How much cleaner does coal burn than oil? I'd be curious to see >an emissions comparison as used to fuel power generation facilities. Coal require more scrubbers to be clean but they both give off the same amount of CO2 and maybe when oil was 20/barrel it was cheaper to use oil but given oils volitilty and limited supply and price differentail it would still be cheaper than oil even if you spent a lot on scrubbers. The problem is the fer powerfull oil lobby that controls DC more than you know and they do not want to loose that control and let coal step in and current admin is not going to let it happen either b3ecause big oil is a big financer of current controlling party and they do not want to loose their backing. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
GeekBoy - 14 Aug 2006 23:35 GMT >>Coal? How much cleaner does coal burn than oil? I'd be curious to see >>an emissions comparison as used to fuel power generation facilities. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > happen either b3ecause big oil is a big financer of current > controlling party and they do not want to loose their backing. The supply of oil is not limited. According to data it should be at $29 a barrel looking at historical prices to supply history.
> ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SnoMan - 15 Aug 2006 02:50 GMT >The supply of oil is not limited. According to data it should be at $29 a >barrel looking at historical prices to supply history. Where are you at Mars??? It is very limited and world demand will exceed world production in the next year or so and then prices will really climb.(it is predicted by some very smart people that we will see $100/barrel or more by end of 2007) It is a real pipe dream to think otherwise. In the US alone we use the equivlent of 125,000 semi tanker truck loads a day and growing and on the global level it is about 500,000 truck loads a day. You honestly beleive this is limitless? Bizzare. BTW we consume little over 25% of the worlds oil and have only 5% of population and our thristy is going to choke use one day because they only way the public will consever is when it gets to costly to buy it. Just since 2001 or lust for big iron and other energy needs has increase our oil consumption from about 20 million barrels a day to almost 25 million and growing and we not make less that 40% of what we use and it is driopping too. By 2020 the Dept of energy predict that we will produce only about 20% of the oil we need. The writing is on the wall but many choose to ignore it. When gas hits 4 to 5 bucks a gallon those 40K SUV's will not be worth squat. Choose wisely because you might get stuck with it in a few years. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
GeekBoy - 15 Aug 2006 05:23 GMT >>The supply of oil is not limited. According to data it should be at $29 a >>barrel looking at historical prices to supply history. > > Where are you at Mars??? It is very limited and world demand will Read it and weep:
August 13, 2006 Investing Is a Futures Stampede Keeping Oil Prices High? By NORM ALSTER BY now, even a casual student of current affairs can reel off plenty of reasons for high oil prices: soaring demand, dwindling supplies, conflict in the Middle East and, most recently, the partial closing of an Alaskan oil field.
Ben P. Dell, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, would place another factor at the top of the list: the money that has been surging into the commodities futures markets. Mr. Dell published a report last month suggesting that a stampede of institutional investors, mainly pension funds, into commodities is actually the chief cause of the rise in oil prices, which he called "a bubble."
The report has generated more reaction than any other oil research published by the firm in the last three years, Mr. Dell said. And not all of it has been positive. Some oil experts say that while the flood of money has had some effect on spot prices, it is by no means as important as Mr. Dell maintains.
"I think the idea of speculation being the main driver of higher oil prices ignores the fact that in the real world there are a whole host of things to worry about," said Robert J. Weiner, professor of international business at George Washington University.
Similarly, Jan Stuart, global oil economist at UBS, said factors like geopolitics were more significant. Further, he said, "I'm not calling it a bubble." For his part, Mr. Dell acknowledged that geopolitical concerns - particularly fear of a possible disruption in supplies by Iran - were having an impact on prices. But he said that such issues did not entirely explain oil prices, which, in his view, should be trending downward based on supply-and-demand fundamentals.
Despite some short-term fluctuations, inventory levels in the United States, for example, are "well above the upper end of the average range," according to a recent Energy Department report. Growth in global demand has cooled, and new oil supplies have padded what had been a threadbare cushion of supply over demand.
"You're growing supply," Mr. Dell said. "You're growing inventories. And demand growth is slowing. But the price keeps going up."
The reason for this anomaly, he said, may be found in financial markets, specifically in the billions of dollars that investors, mainly pension funds and other typically conservative institutions, have poured into commodities in recent years.
Commodities futures that track indexes like the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index or Dow Jones AIG Commodity Index have become fashionable for many investors. Their reasoning is that this asset class, though volatile, affords portfolio protection because it has often performed well when stocks and bonds have been weak.
Close to $100 billion will be invested by pension funds and other institutions in futures contracts tied to the commodities indexes this year, up from less than $20 billion three years ago, according to Goldman Sachs.
Pension funds, whose charters often prohibit short-selling, have been exerting upward pressure on futures prices, several analysts said. "They want to be long. They want to stay long and 'don't bother me with it.' " said William H. Brown III, president of WHB Energy Research in Chappaqua, N.Y. "It definitely adds a positive bias to the market."
This persistent upward pull on futures prices creates an arbitrage opportunity that drags the price of spot oil higher as well, according to Mr. Dell. With futures prices higher than the spot price, why not buy oil, store it and then sell it forward in the futures market at a profit? Mr. Dell and others argue that this is precisely what's happening.
"It's a typical commodities play currently being employed in oil markets," said Sal Gilbertie, a trader at Fimat USA in New York.
Similarly, Phillip Verlander, an independent energy economist, said that on Aug. 4, for example, it was possible to "buy heating oil in New York Harbor at $2 a gallon and store it and sell a future to deliver it in December for $2.24," and that many traders were doing so.
Mr. Dell said that current oil prices were a bubble comparable to the tech investment bubble of several years ago - and that the oil bubble was likely to burst before very long.
Others on Wall Street agreed that the flood of institutional dollars had had some effect, but they disagreed about just how much. Edward L. Morse, chief energy economist at Lehman Brothers, said, "There is no doubt in my mind that there's an impact from a new class of investors into commodity markets, especially pension funds and also speculative investors including hedge funds." That impact can at times be as much as $10 a barrel, but "fundamentals play a much bigger role," he added.
In a similar vein, Mr. Stuart of UBS said: "Explosive growth in commodity-related financial investments has translated into sharply higher prices and higher trading volumes on long-term oil futures. In effect, financial buyers have become consumers of oil, contributing to the persistence of high prices."
But he said that tight supplies, China's growing appetite for oil and other considerations were more important. "The arbitrage that's available is only one of the factors supporting the price of oil," he said. Mr. Stuart expects the average price of oil to hold around $69 a barrel next year; oil has been trading around $75 recently.
ON the other hand, Mr. Brown of WHB Energy Research supports Mr. Dell's view of current price levels. He has studied the historical correlation of oil prices with inventory levels and, at current levels, oil should sell for just $27 a barrel, he said. The impact of passive, long-term investors "is in my view $33 a barrel," he said, with other factors, like flagging production in the North Sea and in Nigeria accounting for much of the rest of the gap. Still, he says he does not expect prices to tumble unless there was "a major slowdown or even reversal of demand growth."
Mr. Dell said that prices could weaken once global storage capacity filled up, limiting the possibility of arbitrage profits. He said that this could happen within four to six months but emphasized that it would be hard to predict precisely when oil prices might move down.
In Cushing, Okla, a giant oil storage hub, the tanks are indeed filling up. "In today's environment, all the major tankage owners are being very well utilized," said Rick Sandahl, senior vice president for market development at Enbridge Inc. He said that 80 to 90 percent of his company's storage capacity of 12.5 million barrels was in use. Asked if his customers seemed to be hoarding oil to take advantage of a price arbitrage, Mr. Sandahl replied: "I would think it's a factor in their decisions."
Investors who believe that oil prices are ready for a fall would want to avoid mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that are linked to commodities indexes. Mr. Dell said that stock investors should "underweight" oil, recommending only such "defensive" plays as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Total and Apache, all of which, he said, have "considerable excess cash flow beyond their capital spending needs." As such, he added, they could withstand a drop in oil prices "and still deliver their growth plans."
> exceed world production in the next year or so and then prices will > really climb.(it is predicted by some very smart people that we will [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
GeekBoy - 14 Aug 2006 23:29 GMT >>That's why you buy a diesel and start growing your own fuel. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Its a lot easier to simply grow oil bearing plants then quickly squeeze the seeds for the oil rather than the painful long process of distilling and wating.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HoDad - 11 Aug 2006 23:03 GMT > Thanks for the imput from everyone. Im probably going to stick with getting > a Ram and drive it like a granny. > LOL!! I have an '03 QC 1500 4X4 with manual trans and 3.55 gears. I get 19 mpg on the highway, and about 13 around town. Unfortunately, most of my driving is around town. I love this truck, though. HD
realmccoykennels - 13 Aug 2006 18:08 GMT >> Thanks for the imput from everyone. Im probably going to stick with getting >> a Ram and drive it like a granny. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >around town. I love this truck, though. >HD Is the automatic trans going to make that much of a difference?
HoDad - 14 Aug 2006 23:42 GMT > >> Thanks for the imput from everyone. Im probably going to stick with getting > >> a Ram and drive it like a granny. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is the automatic trans going to make that much of a difference? Probably about the same for city driving, maybe a mile or two less highway, would be my guess. HD
Scott - 13 Aug 2006 19:26 GMT > Im looking to get a 02' or 03' 4.7L Reg Cab 4x4 Dodge Ram and I just wanted > to know how many MPG to expect out of it. I know a guy with a toyota tundra with the 4.7. He's lucky to get 14 MPG. I got a 92' Power ram 150 4X4 with the 318C.I. I get about 16-17 driving here in the mountains of north carolina, and sometimes run it a little hard.
|
|
|