hard on fuel

Page 1 of 3  
--WebTV-Mail-28994-267 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
I have a 2003 1500 quad cab with the 5.7 lite hemi. It has been the
worst truck I have ever had on fuel. I get if I'm lucky about 12 miles per gallon, I wont buy another dodge after this one. The Hemi is a joke, I mean i can see using alot of gas if it hadpower but i dont see any diffrence between the hemi or the standard v8
--WebTV-Mail-28994-267 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html> <body bgcolor="white"text="black"> <p align="center"> <embed img src="
http://www.angelfire.com/rock/cooper/myerofpuppets.gif "> </body> </html>
--WebTV-Mail-28994-267--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's your fault. Shoulda did your research before buying and shoulda gone 600 ft lb diesel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would have been hard to do in '03, and even harder still in a 1/2-ton...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not really because the HO 600 ft lb diesel came out in '03 and who said he had to get a 1500?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No... the 305HP/555ft.lb. engine, the ISBe, was introduced in '03. (Actually, two versions - a standard output 250HP and a high-output 305HP were introduced in '03 - and if ya really want to split hairs, Cali-emissions states had a 235HP version). These carried through until '04.5, which saw the introduction of the 325HP/600ft.lb. "Cummins 600" engine, which unified the engine offering across all emissions standards, transmission choices, etc. Late-model '05 engines had their torque rating bumped to 610ft.lbs., largely due to a marketing battle with GM and the Duramax.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

makes me just wanna grunt. :-)
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://InlineDiesel.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

maybe you need more fiber, Nate.. rofl
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

getting 19 MPG. Fuel around here is sucking because I'm only getting 12.5 to 13 now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Everyone I talk to even with older models indicate they get about 20 mpg. Better get yours checked
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why such a big deal with the 610 ft lbs? It seems the only people who brag up the Hemi are people who have the Hemi and those who brag up the diesel are those who have the diesel. Now, I was at that crossroad last month. My choice was for a 2500 but what would I choose for the fuel? Here were my pro's and cons for the purchase choice:
Diesel:
Pros;
1. Better Gas Mileage 2. Higher torque than the hemi 3. Better for highway use
Cons;
1. Diesel not much cheaper 2. $7,000 more CDN for truck 3. Higher maintenance cost 4. Seemed sluggish for "in town" driving and not a good "stop and go" vehicle
Hemi:
Pros;
1. Higher Horsepower than diesel 2. Better for "in town" use 3. Felt more attraction to the HEMI, seemed like a more exciting option. 4. Cost was $6,000 CDN less for truck 5. Power Wagon was only available in HEMI 6. Cheaper maint cost
Cons;
1. Gas cost more 2. Worse gas mileage 3. Less torque 4. Not as good as diesel as a "highway runner"
Result: I chose the Power Wagon with the HEMI. I did like the diesel but the price and the fact that I wanted the freedom of stop and go driving as well as highway driving. I also wanted the pulling power which I could have got with the diesel but the PW has plenty. I also wanted the fun of being able to "haul ass" right off the line. I realize that the diesel can be driven in town and the hemi is just fine on the highway but it has been my experience that Gas Hi-Perf vehicles really show their "stuff" off the line and diesels really show their "stuf" on the hwy.
This post was just to show my opinion in the course of my purchase

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was faced with a chevy Diesel for cheap... I almost did it... but after thinking about it for the night, and then realizing I drive my truck about 2300-2500 miles a year. I figured it had very little benefit for me.. If I pulled a trailer all the time, then yeah, I would go for it. I just dont have a need for such a big truck, Even the 1500 is too big for my likeing.. I just dont want to park the beast, or navigate LA traffic ether. However... a 4L Diesel in the old Dak body, now THAT is something I would like to get!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--WebTV-Mail-28252-5441 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
well it looks like geekboy doesn't now what he is taking about and doesnt know much about trucks in general. He uses big words that he must have read in a Dodge OWNERS MAGAZINE AND NOW ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE THINKS HES A MECHANICAL GENIOUS. I have owned trucks from the big 3 Dodge Ford and Chevy.... my opinion the Chevy trucks are the best all around, yes I admit that the styling is getting a littledated but I still think they have the other two beat. Ford, I have nothing aginst but my opinion if you are gonna buy a big truck look a like just buy the f-250 and have it over with, I like the new Ford body style better than the last feminine looking 1997 to 2004 trucks. BUT THATS NOT SAYING MUCH. But as far as fuel economy goes the bulky Ford is nick n tuck with the Dodge. Chevybetter performance, fuel economy and bang for your buck in my opinion. I have a Hemi and its claim of 345 hp....is a joke.....I bet if you put it on a dyno it wouldn't hit 150 hp. Poor fuel economy with sucky performance.. I think the Dodge designers need to go back to school.
--WebTV-Mail-28252-5441 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html> <body bgcolor="black"text="white"> <p align="center"> <embed img src="
http://www.angelfire.com/rock/cooper/skyline.gif "> </body> </html>
--WebTV-Mail-28252-5441--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hemi Dude wrote:

I have a 2001 Ram 5.9L and a 2004 Durango Hemi 5.7L. The Durango will run circles around my Ram. When I pull my 5000lb trailer again, the difference is night and day. The Hemi is far stronger than the 5.9L. It depends on what people compare it to. It's not a CTD.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And it's also not the Hemi of the muscle car days, just has the name.. if folks are expecting this engine to perform like the real hemi did, they're going to be real disappointed.. YMMV
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All that by 18 years old, amazing. Oh, it's genius.
Roy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@webtv.net says...

Well, my supposedly "weak" hemi stomps all over my last truck, a 295 HP Sierra Z71 Ext cab with 3.73 gears. The ram weighs about 400 pounds more, and beats it by at least .25 seconds in a drag race. Launching it is very difficult, as the rear bounces around, or it smokes the hell out of the tires. The GM trucks have the trans and computer set up so that wheelspin is pretty difficult. Just punch it and go..
It's much stronger than the GM 5.3, and they aren't bad. I would take a 5.3 over the 5.9 Dodge any day, and I owned three vehicles with them.
You must not have driven an F150 yet, now that's on the weak side.
Most Hemis dyno at about 260-275 at the rear wheels, and that means 345 hp is about right. If the Hemi had the Nissan Titan's trans set up, you would be amazed..
The only real thing I liked more on the Sierra was the gas mileage, and that's still not a big deal..
BDK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Wait a second. I had a F-150 and it was damn quick. It did say Lightning on the front fenders though.<G>

So the hemi has 20 more HP that the 05 Cummins 610

What rear gears are in the hemi?
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, now THAT'S a little different. A neighbor bought a new 04 F150 almost the day they came out and it's slow. The 5.4 is not all that great. We traded trucks one morning and he really liked mine. I liked his too, it was just..slow.

HP, yeah, but a lot less torque and torque is what makes the wheels go round... I had a 79 Trans Am with the Olds 403 in it. Stock, it was weak, but after a cam kit, headers, intake, heads (ported 455 ones), and a recurved distributor, it was a "torque junkie's" dream car. it had throttle response unlike anything I have ever had before or since. Another insane thing was the gears it had, stock it had a 2.41 Posi! After the engine work, I could smoke the tires as long as I wanted to, and after I found a disc braked rear from another car with 3.23, it was amazing, as long as you were very light footed, or the tires spun. Mileage wasn't bad, 14 around town and almost 20 on the highway. It was a VERY scary car to drive when it was raining, I got it out of shape a couple of times just by getting on the gas a touch too much. Some of it was the 70 sized tires, but the speed it ran on the top end of the drag strip showed it was doing fine in the power department. But that throttle hit...my mother drove it once and it scared the crap out of her!
I stupidly sold it and still miss it. It was totally reliable except for a mysterious case of "vapor lock" (Hot weather surging and popping) that turned out to be a corked up fuel line. When they started putting injector cleaner in the gas, it solved it after a year + of trying to cure it, and a lot of $$$$.

3.92 mandatory, if you have 20" wheels. If you have 17" wheels, you get 3.55 standard and 3.92 optional. I wish 4.10's were available, I would have gotten them, the mileage wouldn't really have changed much, if at all. I was shocked how much difference there was from 3.55 to 3.92.
BDK

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

They are a little anemic. But they seem to last.

That was the point I was trying to make further down in this thread. That the torque prduced by my 05 610 with 4:10's requires a light touch of go pedal on dry roads and in the wet a very, very light touch.

I know the feeling, the cars we never should have sold. I guess for me it would be a toss up. Many, many years ago a 69 Camaro, with a 427 in it. Had 4:33's in it, the torque was about unmanageble. Made for a hell of a street racer though. Recently, a vette Z06. I guess the Z06 was more practical in that you could do more with it, but for pure rush, I'd have to go with the Camaro.

Agreed. Worrying about mileage when you are driveing a truck, I have never been able to follow.

I suppose you could look around at a different tire wheel combo to change the hieght and get about the same affect. Or there is always the aftermarket for a gear change.
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.