Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: dIc dOc Deity !]
#2658107
05/22/19 05:46 PM
05/22/19 05:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
|
just trucks, durangos and manual trans challengers
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: HotRodDave]
#2658359
05/23/19 11:43 AM
05/23/19 11:43 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,914 Calgary, Alberta Canada
a12rag
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,914
Calgary, Alberta Canada
|
I still have my 06 Magnum RT AWD . . . as well as company car - 2017 Journey GT AWD (3.6 V) . . . . not same cars, sure, but within 1mpg travelling on highway when on cruise control. The think the 06 Magnum V6 was rated just 1mpg more than the 5.7 hemi . . . yes, around town is where you notice it more. But on highway, the hemi with mds sure works nice on mpg, but even the hemi power is especiallynice when you need to pass ! . .
Just too bad they have the tranny in the Journey programmed for mpg, and it is a slug to downshift . . . makes the 3.6 seem weak. But I have rented 300's with the 3.6 and 8 speed auto . . .gotta say, that is a nice combination ! Makes the 3.6 seem like a way better engine than in the Journey !! . . .
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: dIc dOc Deity !]
#2658630
05/24/19 12:15 AM
05/24/19 12:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,390 Highland, MI.
Sunroofcuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,390
Highland, MI.
|
Doc, I can tell you this:
I just traded in my 2014 300 3.6L with AWD today for a 20,000 mile certified 2016 300S RWD. Before my 2014, I had a 2012 RWD 300 - all have had the 3.6L.
My 2012 300 would get 24-25 MPG around town, & 33 on the highway. AMAZING.
My 2014 AWD would get around 20-21 around town, & 26-26.5 highway. The RWD vs. AWD made a huge difference. The '16 I picked up today with just RWD is exactly what I wanted. MPG should be equivalent to my 2012. These 300's have been amazing cars.
No Man With A Good Car Needs To Be Justified
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: dIc dOc Deity !]
#2658669
05/24/19 07:33 AM
05/24/19 07:33 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6,545 Downtown Roebuck Ont
Twostick
Still wishing...
|
Still wishing...
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6,545
Downtown Roebuck Ont
|
2 guy ! .... but doesn’t mpg normally tank BIG TIME on most newer vehicles after 68-70 ? .... the latest model I have now is an 05 and it sure goes down hill fast after 68-70. Most trips I take I just click the cruise at 62 or so and enjoy the view. IF I’m in a big hurry I’ll take a jet plane ! Absolutely it tanks, new or old, but when you take into consideration it's a 4400 lb sedan that can blow the doors off just about every stock muscle car we hold near and dear from the 60's and 70's and on regular gas to boot, well that's as close to having cake and eating it too as you will ever get. Kevin
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: Twostick]
#2658743
05/24/19 11:47 AM
05/24/19 11:47 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 15,713 Central Florida
larrymopar360
Stud Muffin
|
Stud Muffin
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 15,713
Central Florida
|
All I can report is that I consistently get 17-18 mpg on my 5.7's in mostly around town driving. I'm fairly easy on the peddle unless I need it to merge, etc. That's with up to 10 percent ethanol crap.
Facts are stubborn things.
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: larrymopar360]
#2658794
05/24/19 02:06 PM
05/24/19 02:06 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 335 Red Deer, Alberta
Greenwood
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 335
Red Deer, Alberta
|
My niece is driving a fairly new Ram 1500 with the 3.6, and she doesn't appear to get any better mileage than my 09 5.7. This is highway driving. She has a 100 mile round trip commute every day. I consistently get 100 km (60 miles) more per tank with my 09 than I did with either of my 03's, and having an extra gear basically makes the truck feel about 2000 lbs lighter in city driving. Like our Nitro, the fuel economy doesn't really drop off until you get up past 80 mph. The Nitro (with that wonderful 3.7) drops off more dramatically, though. It also doesn't like wind or hills. I fail to grasp how Benz managed to create a clean-sheet engine that was 50 years newer than the old Jeep 4.0, and a good 25 years newer than the old 3.9 Magnum, that barely makes any more power, and gets only marginally better fuel economy than either one. That should have been a 250-280 hp fuel sipper, compared to what it replaced.
|
|
|
Re: 3.6 vvt vs 5.7 mds on mpg ?
[Re: 360view]
#2661423
06/02/19 08:00 AM
06/02/19 08:00 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162 USA
360view
Moparts resident spammer
|
Moparts resident spammer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,162
USA
|
By chance saw this 4wd Tradesman Ram 3.6L V6 7000 lb trailer towing MPG test versus an 2 wd F150 5.0 V8 https://www.motor1.com/news/329163/...edium=referral&utm_campaign=msn-feedSample quote As for the actual test, each truck towed the same double-axle horse trailer filled with 7,000 pounds of ballast. The trucks also covered the same 98-mile circuit at the same target speed of 70 mph. Watching the video it appears both pickups have no problem pulling the heavy load, and at the end of the run, both have similar fuel mileage figures despite the differences in engine, drivetrain, and weight. Ultimately, the V8 edges out the V6 with a manually calculated average of 9.2 versus 9.0 MPG, however, the F-150’s indicated average of 9.5 was further off from the manual math than the Ram 1500, which estimated an average of 9.1. End quote
|
|
|
|
|