Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / August 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How many MPG does the Dodge Ram 4.7 Reg. cab 4x4 get?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.