Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Me personally, I am keeping this early 04 305 555 5.9 as long as I can.

good luck

---

Funny, you'd say that; As you can see from my sig I have an '03 305/555, and '04.5 325/600, an '06 325/610 and an '08 6.7l and out of all of them, I like the 305/555 the best.

They are ALL good trucks and way better than the brand X's and Y's diesels that I've owned or still own.

The 305/555 is the last of the no-post injection event, no catalytic converter motors. Now keeping in mind that every one of my trucks is slightly different (different drivers, tires, accessories, etc.) so direct and exact comparisons are impossible, but my feeling is that the '03 gets about 1-2 mpg better than the '04 or '06 and 2-3 bettern than the 6.7. I also didn't care for the plastic intercooler tanks they used for awhile on the 325 motors and I feel the NV5600 is a better tranny than the later G56.

I've been running a smarty CaTCHER on the '03 for the last year (c/w gauges, of course) and couldn't be happier. Minor complaints are smoke on the higher settings and you need to watch the EGT gauge when towing heavy.

http://www.madselectronics.com/

Dave

---

Your reasons are exactly why I specifically bought an early 2004 305/555 HO diesel Ram.
Remember, when you list the MPG comparisons of your trucks the 04 you mention is actually an 04.5 model which has the emissions, cat converter, and extra injection event.
My early 2004 has no cats, no emission hassles, no post injection event, and better mpg than the 2004.5 and later trucks.
Personally I like the looks and feel of the steering wheel in my 2004 better than the 2003 trucks.
I have a co-worker with a similar 2005 diesel Ram as mine. My truck ALWAYS gets better mpg than his.

My truck is all stock and has 110k trouble free miles on it.
It is my daily driver and I treat it like one of my classic Mopars.(It sure cost as much!)
It runs and drives like a brand new vehicle and I love driving it.
It still has it's original batteries, transmission, and believe it or not the original ball joints are still in good shape(I do plan to rebuilt the front end this spring just to be safe). I am VERY satisified with it.

With falling prices I have been tempted to buy a newer Diesel Ram truck but after seeing first hand the trouble some are having with carbon build up issues and poor power and MPG with the newer 6.7 diesel Rams I'll just stick with my 04, plus it's paid off.
I think the 2003 and early 2004 diesel Ram are the best, most fuel efficient quadcab Ram trucks Dodge ever built.
I have done research on the various programmers available but I've resisted the urge to install one as I don't need it to be a race truck, but the thought of even better MPG has my interest. I'm just leary of tearing up a tranny or cooking a turbo.
I also intend to drive mine until the wheels fall off.

---

Nice truck!

A couple comments;

- yes, the 2003 ETH's and 2004 ETH's (HO, 305/555) are identical motors and the trucks are 99.9% the same. I think the steering wheel and headrests are different. I try to refer to my 325/600 as a 2004.5 because of the Jan. 1st, 2004 engine change to meet the new emmissions requiremnets in effect as of that date.

- The programmers are nice, but unnecessary unless you are towing very heavy, in hilly country, and are impatient (unfortunately, I'm guilty on all three counts! ) I assume you have a 48RE and despite any naysaying from the brand X guys, it is a stout tranny. OTOH, it isn't quite as capable of withstanding upgraded power output as the manual trannies. I did have to replace the clutch with a South Bend unit, though.

- In all fairness to Cummins, the 6.7 is still a great engine. There are some issues with the new pollution control garbage, but that isn't really thier fault. The "other" guys motors have more and more crap on them too.

- You've got a great truck there. My advice is to just keep driving it. With an average life to overhaul of 440,000 miles, you aren't gonna wear out that CTD anytime soon!

Cheers,
Dave

Quote:

---

I have a 95 2wd dually w/5 speed stick w/3.55. Pulling a 32ft tri-axle I get 12-13 at 65mph. It has a #10 cam plate & 4" exhaust. I put 285 tires on the rear to lower the engine speed ,it didn't help much. We've had this truck since new. When it was stock pulling a 28ft trailer milage was about the same. Sure would like to see milage like Mr P.
Doug

---

This is the reason I get better mileage(the trailer).
I have a 6 sp in mine over the stock 5 sp and the 4"
exhaust, I have a #8 plate that I'm going to put in
in the spring. Once I'm on the xway my mileage is good,
its getting to the xway that it sucks.... city stop
and go trafic KILLS my mileage. I put the taller
tires on also to help the gear and it helped a little
but I still wish I could lower the RPM even more.
I tow at 2000rpm and no higher than 2200rpm

Quote:

---

I try and stay away from Fuel Mileage threads at all cost, because half of them are full of crap. Pulling a 40' enclosed, probaly grossing 20-22K, and getting 17 MPG Maybe driving 20 MPH you are getting that. My 03 CTD gets 17 MPG with NO TRAILER, and you are going to tell me you get that hauling around @ 22K LBS? I don't care if there are variables vetween trucks, they ARE NOT going to vary more than 2-3 MPG AT MOST. Hauling my 44' grossing 25K I get 8-10MPG, depending on how fast I go, and what part of the country I am in. Open car hauler loaded, I can squeak 16 if I keep her at 62-65 MPH, it will drop to 15 MPG or so if I speed it up to 70MPH. I have had my truck for 151K miles, and I have tried 3 different programers, and while they all do help SOME, they are not gonna help THAT much I have too many friends that own diesels, and we all hand calculate to see if there is that "unicorn diesel" that can get this so claimed MPG. Well, none so far....the only one's I seem to come across are teh internet Unicorns. Between us we have 2 Duramax's, 2 12 valve CTD, 1 24 Valve, 3 Common Rail 5.9 CTD's, 4 7.3 PSD, and 2 6.0 PSD. The 12 Valve consistently gets the best UNLOADED, and teh Common Rail CTD gets the best LOADED. But none of them vary by more than 2-3 MPG LOADED. We have all pulled the same trailers for teh sake of putting this crap behind us, and pulling the open car hauler (one mentioned above) all teh trucks will get between 14 and 17 MPG. Pulling my 44' enclosed the trucks will get 7-10 MPG.

Unless you are using Propane or Hydrogen, you are not getting that kind of mileage (17MPG hauling 20K+ LBS and 25-28 MPG unloaded ) unless you are going off your overhead which is wrong I can tell you that. It is just a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to get that kind of fuel economy pulling that much weight. Your truck has to use "X" power to pull "Y" weight and to make "X" power it will require you to use "Z" fuel.

So, now you can go ahead and tell me I am crazy and you are right, and you have teh unicorn truck and all. Still does not change physics, and your truck can not pull that much weight and and burn that little of fuel. That is a FACT not an opinion. Let the flame start

---

Well stated. Mileage claims are bogus at least half the time and there is NO free lunch! The 12V's get great mileage empty, but don't have enough power (stock) loaded and so mileage suffers.

RPM and speed (not the same thing as wind resistance plays a BIG part with most enclosed trailers) can make a big difference as well.

Some fueling boxes, chips and mods can also help with output and mileage to a lesser extent, but come at a cost of increased emissions (no free ride, right!)

When it comes to diesels, people concerned with economy would be better off buying based on power requirements; if 160hp/400ft lbs is enough, then an early 12V will give you better mileage than a new 6.7 CTD. Unfortunately most purchasers want the mileage of a 1993 with the power of a 2008!



Cheers,
Dave

Quote:

---

I try and stay away from Fuel Mileage threads at all cost, because half of them are full of crap. Pulling a 40' enclosed, probaly grossing 20-22K, and getting 17 MPG Maybe driving 20 MPH you are getting that. My 03 CTD gets 17 MPG with NO TRAILER, and you are going to tell me you get that hauling around @ 22K LBS? I don't care if there are variables vetween trucks, they ARE NOT going to vary more than 2-3 MPG AT MOST. Hauling my 44' grossing 25K I get 8-10MPG, depending on how fast I go, and what part of the country I am in. Open car hauler loaded, I can squeak 16 if I keep her at 62-65 MPH, it will drop to 15 MPG or so if I speed it up to 70MPH. I have had my truck for 151K miles, and I have tried 3 different programers, and while they all do help SOME, they are not gonna help THAT much I have too many friends that own diesels, and we all hand calculate to see if there is that "unicorn diesel" that can get this so claimed MPG. Well, none so far....the only one's I seem to come across are teh internet Unicorns. Between us we have 2 Duramax's, 2 12 valve CTD, 1 24 Valve, 3 Common Rail 5.9 CTD's, 4 7.3 PSD, and 2 6.0 PSD. The 12 Valve consistently gets the best UNLOADED, and teh Common Rail CTD gets the best LOADED. But none of them vary by more than 2-3 MPG LOADED. We have all pulled the same trailers for teh sake of putting this crap behind us, and pulling the open car hauler (one mentioned above) all teh trucks will get between 14 and 17 MPG. Pulling my 44' enclosed the trucks will get 7-10 MPG.

Unless you are using Propane or Hydrogen, you are not getting that kind of mileage (17MPG hauling 20K+ LBS and 25-28 MPG unloaded ) unless you are going off your overhead which is wrong I can tell you that. It is just a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to get that kind of fuel economy pulling that much weight. Your truck has to use "X" power to pull "Y" weight and to make "X" power it will require you to use "Z" fuel.

So, now you can go ahead and tell me I am crazy and you are right, and you have teh unicorn truck and all. Still does not change physics, and your truck can not pull that much weight and and burn that little of fuel. That is a FACT not an opinion. Let the flame start

---

By the way I dont have the overhead readout, I have
to calculate it, if you dont believe my numbers...
to bad... I'm not BS you