“2025 Ram 1500’s New Twin-Turbo Inline-Six Barely Beats Old V8’s Gas Mileage,” writes Jalopnik. “Ram’s New Inline-Six Is Barely More Efficient Than the Old Hemi V-8” quips Motor1. “2025 Ram 1500 High Output I6 Gets Worse MPG Than the Hemi V8” is The Drive‘s headline. It seems the world is appalled by the gas mileage of Ram’s new 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged straight-six, especially compared to the old 5.7-liter V8. But let’s just put that into context, because it’s actually not bad, especially if you consider that the new engine’s gas mileage is on regular unleaded, not mid-grade.
We’ve seen this happen a few times before. An automaker will ditch their V8 for a smaller, boosted engine, and when the fuel economy figures come back only a mile or two per gallon better, everyone says “Oh my god we gave up a V8 for just an MPG!?”
Well, let’s talk about what Ram owners gave up. They let go of a 20+ year-old motor that makes 395 horsepower, 410 lb-ft of torque, and comes with an air-cooled Motor Generator Unit, which the company calls an “eTorque” machine (its job is to provide boost to the engine when necessary, smoother engine start-stop events, and regenerative braking). In other words, it’s a mild hybrid version of an old engine design that has been updated throughout the years. I’m a big fan of it.
In the Hemi’s place is a brand-new inline-six making 420 horsepower and 469 lb-ft of torque — that’s up 25 ponies and 59 lb-ft of torque. The torque, by the way, peaks at 3,500 RPM — or 450 RPM sooner than the Hemi, and what’s more, according to Ram, the new motor and its High Output sibling will produce 90 percent of peak torque “at just 2,350 rpm to aid acceleration and towing,” the Detroit Free Press reported back in 2022 when Stellantis first revealed the motors, which are now found in Jeep (Grand)Wagoneers and Ram 1500s.
Ninety percent of 469 lb-ft is 422, meaning the standard-output Hurricane makes more torque at 2,350 RPM than the Hemi makes anywhere. Low-end torque is very useful for towing, off-roading, and just everyday driving.
I’ve driven the Ram 1500 with both motors, and my headline says what I think: “The 2025 Ram 1500 Is So Good I Don’t Miss The Hemi V8.”
So the new Hurricane engine that replaced the 5.7-liter is more powerful, torquier across the rev range, and it’s not a mild-hybrid. Those don’t bode well for fuel economy, but with twin turbos, and the fact that it’s a new design, maybe it does still eke out better gas mileage than the weaker, 48-volt hybrid Hemi? Indeed, it does just that.
As shown in the first two columns above, the new Ram in two-wheel drive guise scores two MPG better on the highway and one MPG better overall than the outgoing Ram 5.7-liter, and the four-wheel drive model (shown in the two rightmost columns) loses an MPG in the city but gains two MPG highway for the same combined rating as the outgoing 5.7-liter mild-hybrid.
According to the EPA, you can expect to save $500 a year on fuel if you buy the new model in two-wheel drive guise, and despite its congruent overall rating, if you buy a four-wheel drive model you’ll save $400 a year, per the EPA’s estimates. (Note: The 5.7 ratings were done on mid-grade fuel, whereas the new 3.0’s ratings apply to standard fuel, hence the 3.0’s savings with the same MPG ratings).
So you get 25 more horsepower, 59 extra lb-ft of torque (and you gain significant torque down low), plus you save money on gas. That’s a win.
And to be very clear: A single MPG on a pickup truck is a huge deal when you’re talking about absurdly high Vehicle Demand Energies (the energy needed to move a vehicle down the road, accounting for aero drag, rolling resistance, bearing drag, inertial factors, etc.) and the thermodynamic limitations of internal combustion. To gain two MPG highway, and one MPG overall (for the two-wheel drive) is no joke — we’re talking about a 9 percent highway fuel economy for both trucks, and a 5 percent overall fuel economy gain for the two-wheel drive truck. The four-wheel drive truck lost about 6 percent in the city, but remember, the new engine hasn’t yet been hybridized like the 5.7-liter was, and Stellantis has plans for that. From The Detroit Free Press:
[The new 3.0 engines] will rival the output of bigger engines but use as much as 15% less fuel, Bly said. They are compatible with electric boosting to further increase power and reduce emissions, but none of the first engines going on sale will be hybridized, like Stellantis’s current eTorque V8 and V6 models, Bly said.
How much a small mild hybrid system will improve fuel economy, I don’t know for sure, but the 5.7-liter saw a 2 MPG combined hike when it added eTorque:
So I don’t really think it makes a ton of sense to freak out over a new engine that offers more output and hundreds of dollars of annual fuel savings, all on regular unleaded fuel and all without hybridization.
Of course, what’s really going to matter is real-world fuel economy, because though the EPA test is decent, it’s really just a guideline, and what the average person sees in the field can sometimes be significantly different than what’s on the Monroney (And for the record, I’m dubious about real-world benefits of the eTorque mild hybrid system). You can see TFL car doing a short test of the new truck; at 40-something miles per hour on average over a short 40-something mile trip, they got just under 20 MPG. That’s not enough data, of course, but it’s fun to look at. Also fun to look at is the outgoing Ram 1500 eTorque’s real-world fuel economy. Here’s an excerpt from Motor Trend‘s “It’s Time to Talk About Our Long-Term 2019 Ram 1500 Laramie’s Fuel Economy”:
We track every fill-up, and our truck is averaging just shy of 14.6 mpg, nearly 2.5 mpg less than the lowest estimate from either test. Long-term fuel logs can’t account for every variable, so they lack the scientific objectivity of EPA or Real MPG tests, but it’s the only way an owner has to check fuel economy and a pretty reliable indicator of your real-world efficiency. Many owners do it themselves, and seeing their truck averaging 4.5 to 5.0 mpg less than advertised is going to be disappointing at the very least.
[…]
In the first 2,500 miles of driving, our truck averaged 13.9 mpg. Over the most recent 2,500 miles, it’s averaged 16.3 mpg, substantially better but still below the lowest tested rating.
What’s more, it’s never hit its EPA-estimated combined figure, much less its highway figure, outside of Real MPG testing. The best single observed tank rang in at 18.0 mpg, with the next best at 16.9 mpg. Single-tank observed fuel economy, we should note, is much less reliable than long-term fuel tracking, but it’s notable that no single tank has ever reached the EPA’s combined figure.
Whether the new, more complex twin-turbo inline-six engine is better overall than the 5.7-liter will shake out in due time. I understand why, on the face of it, just a bit more power and torque and fuel economy may not seem worth what seems like a more complex motor with more potential failure modes, but ultimately reliability (an area in which the 5.7-liter was hardly perfect — see Hemi Tick and valvetrain issues) and real-world fuel economy will be the deciding factors. Still, at least on paper, the 3.0-liter standard-output engine seems decent. Not amazing, but certainly not as horrible as current media reports would have you think.
View this post on Instagram
I didn’t really discuss the high-output engine yet, but at 540 horsepower and 521 lb-ft of torque, it’s almost exactly right between the 395 horsepower 5.7-liter and the 702 horsepower 6.2-liter Hellcat. Here’s a look at those three motors compared to one another:
Hot damn that 6.2-liter Supercharged Hemi is thirsty. Obviously, it’s making 162 more ponies than the High Output 3.0-liter in the 2025 model, but I mean damn. Five MPG down? Probably worth it for the incredible sound it makes; probably.
Now they need to double this and turn it into a V12. Then we’d have some towing power!
“Oh my god we gave up a V8 for just an MPG!?”
The way some people talk about the reduction in the numbers of cylinders of their preferred vehicles, you’d think someone was taking a cleaver and chopping inches off their penis.
It’s a fucking air pump – not a pumping fuck tube.
Why would anyone focus on a particular element of cars and become a fan of it?!?!?! The audacity they have loving that thing!
Whining about people whining….is still whining.
I love a good pop-up headlamp as much as the next guy – but I’m not offended by a nice thin LED array. Because progress sometimes makes things better.
So if a new 6 hole air pump with an enclosed windmill gets the job done better than a 20 year old 8 hole air pump – or a plug in whirligig does it better than both – why would anyone choose to upset?
“Whining…is…whining”
Captain Obvious couldn’t have said it better.
Hey, keep that cleaver away! I can’t afford to lose any more inches!
They’d better be really good at either seat of the pants power or real life fuel mileage.
In all my conversations with customers, the stubborn set that just want to have a V8 already hate this idea because they know and are quite happy with the hemi, and the folks that are open to the idea of the 3.0 are still cautious because they know all the pitfalls of a brand new, complex engine.
Worse still, I love any straight 6, and im a mopar fanboy, but have you looked under the hood on these? YEEESH theres a MESS of coolant lines and fittings. I fear that when these trucks have 10 years and over 100k on them, they are going to be a nightmare to maintain. Theres just a lot of potential failure points.
The silver lining that gives me a little hope is that the 2.0t (that seems to be pretty closely related) hasnt had too many problems in that regard, but even the oldest of those is only 6 years old at this point.
Time will tell.
10 years and over 100k is 7 years and 64k past the lease term
And right at the point where the customer that buys it secondhand cannot afford a money pit. These manufacturers chase that first customer for thier sales numbers, but it’s the second owner that pays $25-30,000 for an 80,000 mile truck (and needs it to be money well spent) that will decide if he’s going to be a Ram guy forever, or never buy one again.
The big three sit around and just cant understand why Toyotas drive worse, ride worse, get worse fuel mileage, lose comparison tests, and yet constantly gain market share every year.
Because numbers and comparison tests don’t matter if the truck is a piece of shit outside the warranty period.
Despite popular internet belief, Since 2014, Ram has leapfrogged GM and Ford in reliability, and that was a hard fought victory for us Ram sales guys. I really hope they did their homework on this new engine.
In addition to gaining new buyers through used vehicles, resale value will effect new car shoppers and leasers, too, if indirectly.
Apples to oranges, but my 17-year-old, 233k mile turbo Volvo is on its OE turbo and associated hardware. Other than a cam phaser, I’ve had zero issues with this motor.
The only test that matters is the test of time, and the new motor can’t take the test yet.
So you get people who are resistant to change and who grew up thinking “if it ain’t broke…” It’s 100% understandable to me to feel that way. Theres lots of targets to hit to fight climate issues other than a v-8 in a truck that would be much more effective.
That said, you can’t NOT ever progress and try new things. I think they should have offered the v-8 for the first year or two, it would also give people more confidence buying a new model year. Then, after 3 years of proving itself, hopefully with a few high milage examples and phase out the v-8 with real world data to combat the haters.
I still think the EPA would be much better off going after the marine shipping industry and fishing industry if they wanted to make any actual progress. Or maybe all the lead fuel in jets still, or the entire fucking concept of private jets. Maybe the feds and political elites should get rid of all their private jet use first? That might be something worth doing. But, its better to convince people they are killing the world instead of big companies so lets shame regular Joe just getting to work.
Yeah, I’m supposed to feel guilty driving my 30mpg sports car while rich assholes fly halfway across the world on their own jet for an expensive meal. Yeah, passenger vehicles are a large share of overall pollution, but they’re also far more numerous than other sources and (in more developed countries) with much tighter pollution regulations that are only getting tighter while so many of these other industries that are massively larger single point polluters get a shrug. What about all these stupid rockets billionaires launch because they’re so insecure and bored that there’s nothing left for them to do between all the “hard work*” they’ve done to “earn” their money but to try to prove to the other billionaires that they can swing their very metaphorical dicks in a wider arc than the others? That’s millions of annual auto emissions per launch so some jackass can look through a window and see the same damn thing I can on any ubiquitous display.
*Present at the HQ lording over everyone and listening to the obsequious laugh at their bad jokes to the point where they actually believe that they’re funny and sexually harassing attractive underlings that HR will protect them from if they dare to complain.
Shhh you guys are going to trigger our neoliberal members, we are a family here (with a few special uncles)
In his book Fire Weather, John Vaillant makes the point that a very small group of people decided to destroy the planet, out of pure greed, while none of us had any say in the matter.
I dislike private jets as much as the next working person, but I gotta point out that there is no lead in jet fuel. You must be thinking of the leaded gasoline that nearly all piston-engined airplanes burn. For jets, the relevant issues would probably be the production of noise, CO2, and particulate matter.
That is certainly true.
I can’t stand the phrase “real world mpg”.
The difference between the published mpg and the “real world mpg” is a measure of how little the driver cares about fuel efficiency.
You can match published figures with very little effort (unless you live up a mountain), but many people don’t. I don’t hit the published 0-60 or top speed every drive (or any drive, at least not in the last ten years or so) but my “real world” numbers are down to me not trying.
Yes, boosted engines are more efficient if you avoid using the boost, turbo downsizing is a strategy to give you efficiency off boost as well as performance on boost. But you can’t have both on the same drive.
Eh that may be true in the aggregate but it’s undeniable that some engines seem to be designed just for the test and no one seems to be able to get the listed mileage.
An example is the Kia/Hyundai 1.6L turbo that they use in hybrids and small cars. Also there were lawsuits back in the day over the Ford C-Max variants and they voluntarily lowered the EPA estimate.
Beyond that I would argue that people look at the EPA figures as what they should expect to get. If the test is only valid when hypermiling, the test should be changed to reflect the average driver imo.
The C-Max problem was more that they just used the same figures from the Fusion Hybrid even though the C-Max is taller and has a worse Cd.
I design engines for OEMs. They are definitely designed and optimised to give good numbers on the test cycle. Whatever the test cycle was we would optimise the engine for it.
If we changed the test to include more performance and higher speeds maybe we’d get lighter cars with better aero, but the manufacturers don’t get to pick the test, that’s the government/voters.
I don’t drive like the test cycle, but I can choose to whenever I want to get better mpg, or I can choose to hypermile and beat the target. Mostly I drive like a loon, because it’s fun.
Should published economy figures be the value that a disinterested driver achieves by default, or a figure that’s achievable with a tiny amount of effort? Every other performance number requires appropriate driving to attain.
Why there isn’t an “eco” button in every ICE car that limits performance to match the test cycle I don’t know. Like launch control or drift mode but for less fun instead of more.
Oh I’m not blaming the OEMs for responding to incentives. The fault is with government agencies. Voters aren’t really to blame imo because these decisions are made by people that by and large are unaccountable to the public at least in the USA.
I would, however, bet a decent amount of money that most people have no idea how the test cycle works and even more so how to optimize for fuel economy in general. I think I agree that some kind of button would be good. The Eco drive mode on various cars seems to be different manufacturer to manufacturer. The main point of my comment was the effort required to hit the numbers seems to vary pretty widely engine-to-engine, which seems bad.
It’s impossible to make a fuel economy test which doesn’t have an observer effect. We first learned this when the British government realized that instead of going through the trouble of measuring the size of every house in the country, they could just count the windows: more windows = bigger house = higher taxes.
Of course, people immediately responded by boarding up their windows and life for the English became even glummer than usual for 150 years.
Not sure I’ve heard “observer effect” used in this way before (I usually think of it as disturbing something merely by observing it) but I see what you mean.
I think of it more as being aware of the ironclad law of “people respond to incentives”, so thought is required to figure out what you’re really incentivizing. I assume in this case the end goal is “cars are more fuel efficient”. If that is the goal, then we’re not properly incentivizing car companies if the real world mpg doesn’t match the test.
It may not be the correct usage, but I think it works: choosing a method for measuring a car’s mileage affects the design of cars (and not to become more fuel efficient) – just not immediately.
Not sure if there is a term for this, but I guess it’s analogous to “teaching for the test”, vis-à-vis learning.
Oh! Yes I get it now – I had to Google for this but it’s called “Goodhart’s Law”
Thanks! I shall now be able to be even more annoying at dinner parties.
I suspect that most drivers in the US don’t know that the fuel economy numbers published on the window sticker are actually adjusted downward (showing lower fuel economy) relative to the values obtained in laboratory testing. The EPA made this adjustment several times over the years, typically in response to consumer complaints that the “real world” fuel economy is lower than the published numbers. I recall that a friend of mine (then an engineer at Chrysler SRT) told me at least 10 years ago that he could easily beat the “EPA highway” number in the SRT8 sedans when driving the Interstates between the HQ in Auburn Hills and the proving grounds in Chelsea. It probably helped that there’s not a lot of elevation change in Michigan.
Here’s the EPA’s FAQ on fuel economy ratings: Fuel Economy Testing and Labeling: Questions and Answers (EPA-420-F-14-015, April 2014)
I didn’t know that either, and I’ve designed federal fuel systems for European OEMs. The US really does like to do things it it’s own special way. In Europe we test to the WLTP and that’s your mpg.
That’s the problem with the downsizing the engine: go too far without downsizing the vehicle and that small engine has to be run under a heavy load and boosting more of the time and boost means fuel use. As with anything, it’s about balance. My Focus ST got about 30 mpg lifetime average because a 2.0 engine was big enough to be able to motivate the car under normal conditions without having to work too hard. That’s the same mileage as my previous MPFI N/A 2.3 in my Mazda3 with almost 100 less hp and more than that of torque. Mileage comes from low loads and power comes from high loads. If the gulf between the power capability of both states is too wide, you get a large disparity between stated potential fuel savings and actual fuel consumption the typical people will see. The other part of the problem is that testing results often seem to indicate an assumption of a more competent and attentive driver than the vast majority of people. My car is rated for 20/27. I get in the higher 20 mpg range in my present car when in mostly traffic/city use. Strictly highway at a reasonable speed (over the limit, but not enough to attract predatory tax collectors), I can get low-mid 30s, and I average a little over 30/tank lifetime of 50k+. Other people report low 20 averages, a figure so low that I’ve never achieved it. Now maybe I live in an area with too much housing density and other road users, cops, sudden debris dropped on the road, and I’m not a sociopath to drive like the roads are my personal race track, but being a slow driver has never been something I’ve been accused of (hell, I drove 3500 miles cross country solo in under 50 hours including all stops and a little sightseeing). Unless these people live in some magic land of empty roads where they can drift corner-to-corner, they must have poor, inefficient driving habits, but good luck offering suggestions to them when they complain and blame the car!
“Real world MPG” is an industry term, fyi.
How is it calculated? Fuel consumption as recorded by users (some of whom insist on using units like “miles per tank” then fudging back to mpg based on shrugs and hunches) using their random drive cycles?
It’s a meaningless number based on terrible data quality. It tells you nothing other than most people either can’t drive economically or don’t want to.
I think the most interesting thing will be to see mpg when loaded and dragging things like boats and campers. Gaining 1 to 2 mpg daily as you commute to work, so you can then use it to play other weekend really stands out when the turbo 6 nets around 4 mpg while towing stuff is where I have seen the biggest difference. A 5.0 F150 will still get in the 9’s but for whatever reasons a 3.5 ecoboost is down in the 4’s. What gives?
Under a high load, the 3.5EB makes more power and more power means more fuel used. The V8 is probably also better at producing adequate power at lower-medium loads of, say, steady state cruising up slight inclines or head winds where the 3.5 would be more heavily loaded, requiring boost and possibly higher rpm to maintain the same given speed.
This is a really good critical overview of the six-cylinder. You talk about 6.2 Hemis “making” a significant horsepower figure, but the horsepower will be much lower unless you rev the thing up to the red line. Early in the article, you summarize it perfectly: “Low-end torque is very useful for towing, off-roading, and just everyday driving.” It is always good to remember that the maximum horsepower number is “potential energy,” and maximum torque is attained at real-world RPMs.
Per usual the Autopian takes the best nuanced take on the new info rather than the easy rage bait headline. Well done.
You should see the GM forums about the 2.7 turbo. Same discussion.
Yes, it gets pretty much the same fuel mileage as the 5.3.
But, you end up with more payload capacity than the V8. Not to mention that it’s a very quiet engine in the cab because it runs like a diesel with low RPM’s.
I too thought it was weird that many were so dismissive of a noticeable improvement in EPA figures for the 3.0. Not sure I want a MORE complicated Stellantis product, but in terms of being a good engine on paper, yeah it is.
I would think a hybrid with its extra electric motor, battery and drivetrain is an order of magnitude MORE complexity than removing an entire cylinder bank from a V8 and slapping on 2 turbos
Straight Six is fine.
What’s needed finally, is a V-12
My 22 1500 with the eTorque Hemi gets 17.5-18.5mpg around my hilly town in SE Ohio and 20-21 on the highway. Driving long stints on highway gets 22-23mpg. I have the 3.21 gears and I only put 89 fuel in it though. I’d love to see what this does with the eventual eTorque update. I thought Ram suggests 89 but it can run on 87. Those numbers are decent with 87 though. Curious if there’s any improvement with 89.
My 2019 Ram 1500 (Hemi, no mild hybrid) gets 10mpg real world mixed driving. I can’t imagine any of the numbers above are accurate in the wild.
EDIT: Mind you, I’m not freaking out, as you’ve said it’s the way it works with big trucks. (My 2018 Ford Transit gets 12, my 2023 Lincoln Navigator gets 14).
All of those are pretty bad numbers. Do you just have a lead foot?
Or 500 lead feet in the bed?
12mpg out of a Transit!? My 2500 Cummins gets a solid 18-19 in mixed driving and over 20 on the freeway.
Gear ratio will play a big factor as well. Ram offered 3.21 and 3.92 gear ratios on their Hemi trucks with the 8 speed. The 3.92s were great when paired with 35 inch tires or towing but fuel mileage was at least 5 mpg worse at almost every point of the range.
My 2015 with the 5.7, 3.92 gears and 8 speed transmission would get 12 mpg around town and 15-16 on the highway when new/stock but if I rented the same model with the 3.21s, driving the same as I do normally, I could usually get 15 around town and 20+ on the highway.
Talking with friends and their trucks they experienced the same on their trucks.
Assuming they offer a similar gear option with the 3.0, you may find the hemi is still the better option versus a steeper geared 3.0.
I live in the flatlands, but my 3.92 Hemi gets 18-19 on the highway, and around 14 in the city. I took a vacation where I drove exclusively on the highway to get there and it got 20.
The problem is that those impressive torque numbers are boost based. To get them, you need to be burning more fuel. This is a big, heavy vehicle with a lot of aero, mechanical, and tire drag, so it will need that boost torque unless driven by the most gentle of baby feet leading a parade, which is not at all the kind of driver I associate with Rams. If driven with a reasonable foot on the highway not towing or hauling a load, maybe it would do better on the highway. The power demands of a vehicle like this is never going to be efficient, so it might as well be reliable and simple and for that, I’d put my money on a V8 over a turbo 6. Sure, the Hemi’s a Chrysler product, so it’s had issues, but so’s the turbo 6 and it’s new.
Agree 100% here. And in the real world I expect the service costs and fuel use will be more than what the “estimates” currently are.
You’re buying into a common misconception. If the engine itself is more efficient, it can generate more power with the same amount of fuel. That’s the whole point of the boost: to make the engine more efficient.
It is entirely possible to build a turbocharged 4 or 6 cylinder engine that produces more power across the entire operating range than the V8 it replaces while always using less fuel, too. It’s too soon to tell if that’s been accomplished here.
The flaw that leads to your misconception is that automakers have often provided smaller turbocharged engines that are more efficient under average conditions, or maybe even EPA test conditions, while not being more efficient when used the way their customers use them most.
That matters if both engines are working under full load at about the same hp rating. You’re equating thermal efficiency with distance traveled per unit fuel use, which is not the same thing, and the latter is all anyone outside a lab cares about as that’s equated to the money coming out of their pockets. We’re talking vehicle-distance-per-unit-fuel-use efficiency not engine thermal efficiency (in isolation—a vehicle, however, is a system). All the better thermal efficiency means is that you’re getting a few % more power for a given load out of each unit of fuel burned, but that doesn’t mean the fuel was used to send you down the road or that there aren’t other ways to get you down the road with less fuel used by a less thermally efficient engine. If you’re comparing modern tech engines (which we are) producing the same hp at full load, you’re using pretty close to the same amount of fuel whatever the engine configuration as HP = BTU/hr = gallons of fuel burned even if one is maybe 40% vs 36% efficient. But it’s not all about the engine, it’s about the vehicle as a system and how it’s used. If an engine can meet the torque needs for the job running at a lower load (and likely rpm), it will likely use less fuel to move the vehicle a given distance even if it might have slightly lower thermal efficiency. With undersized turbo engines in oversized cars, they can’t produce enough torque to meet the common person’s demands without exceeding the load threshold for boosting: higher load = more hp produced = more fuel burned, especially when you’re talking forced induction basically making the engine burn like a larger engine. Sure, they make that power a little more efficiently than the naturally aspirated bigger engine would, but the bigger engine doesn’t have to produce as much hp to do the same job, so the thermal efficiency advantage is not nearly enough to offset the greater fuel use through higher hp production. The bigger engine can make more torque under a lower load and likely lower rpm (less ignition events per distance traveled), which means it needs to produce less hp for the same work, which means it’s burning less fuel per unit time and unit time=distance traveled assuming both vehicles are doing the same speed over the same course for the same distance (not talking about idle where, yes, the smaller engine will, of course, do better). Load is the enemy of mileage (and miles). It’s why tractor trailers don’t use Hellcat engines that make more hp, are cheaper, and take up less space.
Not to say downsizing and boost never works, it’s all about balancing to the system. For example, the 2.0T in the Focus did pretty well for mileage under normal driving as the 2.0 was sufficiently powerful to meet the needs of the car at lower loads, not requiring boost, and even allowing for a respectably high gearing to keep rpm down. The 1.0T OTOH, often got barely better (on paper) or worse average mileage (often reported) than the 2.0 N/A even with its lower hp because it had insufficient torque off boost to handle common operating demands. On boost, it had a lot more torque, but then it’s under a much higher load with a lot more air/fuel being burned for a given speed/distance traveled. In theory, it could have done better as the engine was smaller and more thermally efficient, but the reality of people driving the way they do and the weight and size of modern cars meant that it couldn’t stay under the boost load threshold often enough to achieve those numbers unless people really wanted to compromise how they drive and lead a parade everywhere they go. The trick is to try to downsize the engine only to the point where the need for boost isn’t needed for common operating conditions. In the case of something like this truck with high normal energy demands and frequently expected higher demand, that’s a difficult (impossible?) thing to do, so the advertised mileage improvement is tough for most operators to achieve.
You’re saying almost exactly the same thing, except for a few differences.
You’re discounting the fact that thermal efficiency is completely correlated with MPG if all other factors are the same.
You don’t seem to realize that a higher thermal efficiency means you absolutely WILL get more work out of the same amount of fuel. Two engines don’t consume the same amount of fuel just because they’re producing the same HP and torque.
You’re also avoiding the fact that a smaller engine can be more efficient even if it spends 100% of its operation time on boost. Low pressure turbos are a viable higher MPG replacement for displacement and have been for decades.
ehhh…. the samples in the article (especially that one) are more about feeding the engagement machine with clickbait-y titles than actual journalism.
Regarding MPG, I agree, people need to calm down. It’s usually the same people who freak out about MPG and swear up and down that “it’s not how they drive”…
…it is though. Your right foot is usually the problem. Second issue is environment.
I want to like the 3.0L Hurricane, but it’s going to come down to how they hold up over time. As mentioned in the article, the hemi wasn’t bad but also wasn’t great on the long-term reliability front.
It’s a brand new twin-turbo motor, with direct injection, VVT, and timing chains….I’m a little worried that owners are going to go a bit to far on oil changes. Hopefully I’m wrong though.
Also, regarding octane, 87 is ok for the 3.0L but this is what the manual states for the standard output version.
“This engine is designed to meet all emissions requirements, and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance, when using high-quality unleaded regular gasoline having an octane rating of 87, as specified by the (R+M)/2 method. The use of 91 or higher octane premium gasoline will allow these engines to operate to optimal performance. This increase in performance is most noticeable in hot weather or under heavy load conditions such as while towing.”
They put that in there to sell to the cheapskates and those skeptical of a turbo replacing displacement. IME with a Focus ST that said something similar, it means run it on at least 91. With the ST, it meant a loss of about 20% fuel efficiency with performance that felt like I had picked up a sumo wrestling team and that was during a long highway run at moderate speeds in a cold winter, not hot summer and/or working hard. While those numbers aren’t necessarily going to reflect what would happen with these, the fact remains that the ECU will pull timing and possibly run richer on the lower octane, especially on an engine that’s under a higher load.
Yeah you’re right, the problem will be when the cheapskates, or fleet managers more importantly are like “great, it gets worse MPG on 87, and has more potential failures vs. the hemis we had. Gimme a pentastar I guess”
I’d imagine it’ll be like most turbo engines are in practice….worse than advertised real world city fuel economy and better than advertised real world highway fuel economy. My GTI struggled to manage 20 in the city but would hit 35 on the highway. The Kona N struggles to hit 17 in the city but will sneak into the low 30s on the highway.
If you’re going to do a lot of highway driving I’d imagine that the fuel economy benefits will be significant and these will sneak into the high 20s, but if you sit in a lot of traffic it’s probably going to be a wash. The low end torque is certainly a nice gain, the loss of V8 noises is a definite minus.
One of the few things that I agree with the truck crowd/muscle car boomers on is that there really isn’t a replacement for the sensory experience of a V8. There’s nothing else quite like a V8 at wide open throttle. That being said the low end torque of turbo engines is really, really nice and I think people will come around to the Hurricane quickly when they realize the advantages it has in day to day driving.
Also, you’re giving up something good for something else that’s good. Straight 6s still sound pretty decent and in my experience are smooth operators. I’m excited to see how it is in the new Charger. The lower output/sedan configuration with standard AWD is mighty tempting. Almost like the M340i’s crazy American cousin.
A lot of people agree with you, but I really don’t agree that v8s are something special. Sure, they sound nice, but plenty of non-v8 engines do too. Sure, v8s are smooth and nice, but plenty of non-v8 engines are too. I just dont think the sensory experience of my V8 cars is necessarily that much different from my other cars, and especially a V8 with a lot of sound deadening/mufflers. What’s different is the power and powerband.
Low end torque is supposed to be an advantage of turbo engines, but in my (very limited) experience with small turbo engines, the low end torque is total ass.
A good, refined V8 at WOT is great, especially if it’s a 4 valve OHC unit, but not all V8s sound great. Most of the V8s in pickup trucks just sound like burbly outboard motors. I6 are inherently better balanced and known for smoothness, so I welcome the Hurricane.
God, I miss the Sentra sometimes. I think my lifetime fuel economy with that thing was something like 27 or 28 mpg. When I wasn’t flogging it like Forza Motorsport 2 taught me everything I needed to know about driving a car, I was a granny shifter. Still do it in the Z4 most of the time, too.
The bike though. When I bought it with 1600 miles, the computer said average 46.some mpg. I don’t think we’re ever gonna see that number again. It’s only 80% my fault. At or below 3k, it gets lurchy and balky when I try to rev up again. I usually keep it between 3500 and 6000 (redline is 9200 or so – weird, small numbers after my Ninja).
I think you’re wrong on this. I own a 19 ram bighorn with the 5.7. I run 87 octane and on the highway I get 23 mpg, in the city I get 18. I drive it like I want good fuel mileage by not flooring it all the time and anticipating my stops. I’d rather keep the v8.
I know I’m probably daydreaming here, but, I’d love to see a simplified, lower output version of this new inline 6. With a single turbo, simple air intercooler, 350 HP.
Now throw in a 6-speed manual and vinyl floors and price it 35k.
Probably not gonna happen, but it would be cool.
Needs to be priced at 30K.
Bring back the Prospector Package.
Way to bury the lead! You need to SCREAM that the Hurricane takes 87octane where the Hemi takes 92 octane. That’s what? A 20 cent per gallon savings? That alone covers the similar/slightly worse mileage.
Also, you didn’t mention that the Hurricane was engineered by the same guy that engineered the Hemi. Major argument point there.
Third, you hit it on the head. It is nostalgia and sound that is causing the howls of rage, tearing of wardrobe, and gnashing of teeth. The death of the heroic V-8 is a hard death. Think the death of Superman. Any reason to show the replacement isn’t the “Second Coming” is cause for revolt. Passions are a strong thing.
OK, added the mid-grade bit to the lede.
You’re awesome! Buddy’s pizza toast to you.
Love Buddy’s, but if you haven’t had Palazzo Di Pizza in Royal Oak, hit it up!
Top notch pizza and people at Palazzo. Unexpected to see it in the comments here
Added to the list. It’s been a while since I’ve been there. I was taken back by the loss of the Rialto and Como’s in Ferndale.
Where do you buy gas that this is true in 2024?
60 cents a gallon difference at my local Chevron.
$0.60-1.05 or so around the greater Seattle area.
Chevron is typically on the higher end around here
Damn, in the NE, the difference between 87 and 93 is at least $.80.
Remember when it was $0.10 per grade? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Now most of my gas purchases aren’t the 87 price, they’re the places I’ve learned are least likely to gouge on 93.
I remember those days and it was when I had cars that could run on frat house weekend toilet water. Last eight years, I’ve needed 93 and watch as the difference in price between grades increases.
I was just guestimating. My pickup runs 87 so I never check the midgrade.
At that price difference, wouldn’t it be cheaper to buy octane boost @ $10.00 a bottle?
My manual says that 89 is preferred and 87 will work with the Hemi.
and it does. Hemi owner here. I run 87 normally, and 89 if I’m towing a load a long distance.
It does but it lowers horsepower to prevent knocking.
A straight 6 mo-ter doesn’t do anything for my massive insecurities about a body part I have that doesn’t seem big enough.
Gonna start calling it my “straight 6” from now on.
Better than average, if internet research is to be believed
An inline six is more versatile than a straight six.
I’ll call mine a straight 4.2 in the name of honesty.
I’d go with 4-banger if I were you.
4.2 banger. Don’t short me, bro.
Don’t worry, it gets larger as you get older…
We’re talking about the prostate right?
I haven’t measured, but I think it does, thanks to weight against gravity over time. That’s why it always points down now, isn’t it?
At a certain age everything starts pointing down.
It’s gravity letting you know where you’re headed…
This is why canes are punk as fuck.
They are a middle finger to the powers that be.
Fuck you physics! I’ve got a stick.
I win this round!
It wouldn’t be a car enthusiast site without the proletariat whining about how the engine is too large and too powerful.
Lol. Your tiny v8 can’t satisfy my insecurities. I need a strait 6 to satisfy mine. 15 liters of pure pulling power, plus a 6 foot hood and dual stacks. And I get paid to drive it.
I wanna drive a semi so bad. I don’t want to be a trucker, though I respect them and try to be courteous as possible. They see some wild shit and do a lot of hard, thankless, drudgery work.
But ever since I saw Terminator or Terminator 2 as a kid, and Darkside was in Twisted Metal, man. That’d rustle my jimmies.
Real talk: my Tacoma with a 3.5 V6 gets SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE gas mileage than either of the Rams.
I average about 16mpg highway, despite being rated at 20mpg highway.
That’s because midsize and small pickups are kinda terrible. They never have and still don’t offer any fuel economy or other operating expenses advantage over fullsize pickups.
16 highway is really bad, my 30 year old fullsize pickup does better than that. With a trailer.
The Tacoma underperforms impressively in a bunch of areas.
Not to worry, the new turbo 4s get 1 or 2 mpg better mileage than the old Tacoma V6s.
4.0 V6 Ranger enters the chat, with its abysmal mpg vs size and performance ratio.
Getting 25 extra horsepower and a couple extra MPG in exchange for lower lifespan, more frequent oil changes (to reach that shorter lifespan) and the costs of replacing a turbo when it goes bad, etc. that isn’t a good trade IMHO.
I’d rather they took the money they put into making this new engine and instead put it into further developing their range extended BEV drivetrains, and making sure all of their BEV products sold in the US have NACS.
Right now the only way modern automobiles get simpler and more reliable it to turn into Hybrids with planetary e-CVTs, Range extended BEVs, or as regular BEVS. Due to regs BEV drivetrains are the future, so it makes sense to put your efforts into developing them, as Hybrids, range extended BEVs, and short range BEVs while you wait for battery tech to catch up.
Jeep could certainly use a range extended BEV drivetrain for the Wrangler 4xe, and soon to be Gladiator 4xe.
In Ram’s defense, it’s the only brand building (well, soon) the right truck for America, and that’s the range-extended Ramcharger.
Agreed on the complexity concerns; Ford owners had the same qualms with EcoBoost.
I spent 5 years working for a company that ran a fleet of a couple thousand EcoBoost Escapes, even phasing them out after 3 years/90,000 miles, they were hot garbage, lots of turbo problems, also other miscellaneous transmission and electrical issues. But, on the plus side, they rode like garbage, were absolutely gutless on the highway, and got like 2mpg better than a Lincoln Town Car in real world driving.
Well, having a twin turbo V6 f150, it’s at 86k miles and runs fine. The turbos make no noise and it spools up to 18psig on regular gas. I’ve gotten up to 20mpg (downhill run from Salt Lake City to western Nebraska @ 75-80mph) to 13.5 in the opposite direction w/ 30 mph headwinds. Around my foothills town, 12.5 to 13.5 mpg.
As an additional data point, my twin turbo inline 6 BMW has 103k miles. I replaced the rotating assy on the back turbo at 93k because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. I’ve had the car about 78k miles and got a best of 29 mpg on a road trip and have averaged 21mpg for the total distance. The turbos seem to be the most reliable part on modern cars.
Turbos SHOULD be able to last a while. They’re really not that complicated; they’re just some blades on a shaft that rides on some oil-fed bearings. There are some valves here and there, and some are variable geometry, but let’s be real: The semi trucks hauling our stuff everyday for hundreds of thousands of miles a year are all turbodiesel.
But we’ll see.
They should last. While gas engines can have much higher Exhaust Gas Temperatures, the combination of constant oil replenishment and water cooling of the center section bodes well for longevity. (Better synthetic oils should result in less coking of the oil in the center section too.) I *think* the turbo cartridge really didn’t need replacing, but I wasn’t sure about oil consumption (I saw a bit of oil in the intercooler) so I tried a seal & bushing kit. Something didn’t line up, so I bought a cartridge & put it in. The front turbo is completely original and doing OK.
how about the PCV? On subaru DITs one of the hoses dup right in front of the turbo resulting in a coating of oil in the intake tract.
I have a catch can on the BMW which actually has not collected a lot of oil. The PCV system dumps directly into the intake manifold, which is why I have to walnut blast the intake ports & valves. TBF, BMW was recommending walnut shell blasting in the 90s, before turbos.
Is yours the 3.5 ecoboost? Ford has spent more than a decade improving that design. This Ram on the other hand is brand new, which is scary and it’s Stellantis which doesn’t help.
ya, a gen 2 3.5 ecoboost. Despite Ford “improving” the 3.5 over a decade, they still haven’t figured out the cam phasers. I bought the truck used & noticed a loud “clack” on cold startup. The dealer finally admitted it’s not supposed to make that noise and replaced at least one cam phaser. Now, 25k miles later, it makes an even louder. Noise on cold startup. I’m hoping my CPO warranty will cover repairs again. This time I’ll ask for (and probably have to pay for) new cam chains and sprockets.
The turbos are a commodity purchased from outside suppliers and as long as coolant & oil are properly circulated, will likely last as long as I care about it. One “secret” to turbo longevity is to not hammer the throttle before the oil temp is over at least 170°f. Likewise, drive slowly for the last minute before shutting the engine down.
The real news that I have not seen any media outlet particularly comment on is that the new Hurricane does not run on regular gas. Even the standard output version requires 89 octane mid grade fuel. So even if it gets 1mpg better, you may not save any money. Especially considering that many gas stations don’t sell mid grade fuel, so you may be forced to run even more expensive 91 octane sometimes.
And if you just put 87 octane in it anyways, I imagine the resulting power and fuel economy loss will put it behind the old Hemi.
So yes, it makes more power and gets better fuel economy, but if we make an actually apples to apples comparison and run both on 87 octane, I would expect measurably inferior power and fuel economy.
Actually, the standard-output model’s EPA fuel economy ratings apply to REGULAR GASOLINE, the 5.7’s actually apply to Mid-Grade.
So it’s the 5.7’s, not the 3.0’s, fuel economy figure that would need to be adjusted down (potentially) for standard-grade gas.
Interesting, thank you for the correction.