Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Dart 500]
#3222044
03/22/24 07:12 AM
03/22/24 07:12 AM
|
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,267 nowhere
Sniper
master
|
master
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,267
nowhere
|
The EPA just released its ratings for the 2025 Ram 1500, and there are some big surprises. Contrary to expectations, the High-Output Inline Six gets worse fuel economy than the outgoing 5.7-liter naturally aspirated Hemi V8. Similarly, the Standard-Output variant of the 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged inline-six Hurricane engine only surpasses its predecessor on the highway. And the V6 is still the most miserly of the group. However, there are silver linings to these findings. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/the-2025-ram-1500-inline-six-mpgs-are-a-mixed-bag/ Comparing the HO Hurricane against the pedestrian Hemi is not really applicable. I mean, seriously, it takes fuel to make HP so one would expect a higher HP engine to get worse mileage, all else being equal. Be more equal if they compared it to a Hemi with similar HP. I mean 540hp vs 395 hp and the HO Hurricane is only available in the 4wd trucks, bet those Hemi numbers aren't in 4wd configuration. I believe Mark Twain said, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Sniper]
#3222098
03/22/24 11:57 AM
03/22/24 11:57 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,461 Michigan
oldjonny
Don't argue with me.
|
Don't argue with me.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,461
Michigan
|
I can see a Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost debacle coming....look at all the HP, look at what you can tow with it.....followed by failures and unhappy buyers looking for an out.
Never, ever argue with an IDIOT. They will drag you to their level and then beat you with their years of experience
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Sniper]
#3222106
03/22/24 12:14 PM
03/22/24 12:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
I've owned quite a few 1500s with stock 5.7s and various engine swaps and the 6.4 SRT8 engine swapped 2011 got the best MPG of them all.
Also people should not be surprised the 6 cylinder gets worse mpg, it was built because some stupid engineer convinced em they needed new technology to get past emmisions (Chevy and ford have no problem getting pushrod engines past emmisions). And on top of worse MPG it needs premium fuel vs the hemi being just fine with low grade.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: oldjonny]
#3222111
03/22/24 12:23 PM
03/22/24 12:23 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,069 N.W. Florida
Fat_Mike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,069
N.W. Florida
|
I can see a Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost debacle coming....look at all the HP, look at what you can tow with it.....followed by failures and unhappy buyers looking for an out. A buddy recently traded in his 2019 Ram 4X4 for a 2023 Bronco with the 6 cylinder ecoboost. Nice vehicle, but he jumped on it before doing his homework. The Bronco has a max towing capacity of 3,500 LBS, which is pretty close to the weight of his boat...maybe less.
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Sniper]
#3222116
03/22/24 01:03 PM
03/22/24 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 1,196 Nor here, Nor there
Dart 500
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 1,196
Nor here, Nor there
|
The EPA just released its ratings for the 2025 Ram 1500, and there are some big surprises. Contrary to expectations, the High-Output Inline Six gets worse fuel economy than the outgoing 5.7-liter naturally aspirated Hemi V8. Similarly, the Standard-Output variant of the 3.0-liter twin-turbocharged inline-six Hurricane engine only surpasses its predecessor on the highway. And the V6 is still the most miserly of the group. However, there are silver linings to these findings. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/the-2025-ram-1500-inline-six-mpgs-are-a-mixed-bag/ Comparing the HO Hurricane against the pedestrian Hemi is not really applicable. I mean, seriously, it takes fuel to make HP so one would expect a higher HP engine to get worse mileage, all else being equal. Be more equal if they compared it to a Hemi with similar HP. I mean 540hp vs 395 hp and the HO Hurricane is only available in the 4wd trucks, bet those Hemi numbers aren't in 4wd configuration. I believe Mark Twain said, figures don't lie, but liars figure. Even the 420hp standard one gets worse mileage except when going down the highway off the boost. They could have easily got the 5.7 hemi to 420hp. HotRod I also had a 392 hemi, it would get 28mpg in 4cyl mode and even climb hills like that (was a 3.2L 4 cyl afterall)
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: oldjonny]
#3222352
03/23/24 01:28 PM
03/23/24 01:28 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,731 541 slobovia
A990
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,731
541 slobovia
|
I can see a Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost debacle coming....look at all the HP, look at what you can tow with it.....followed by failures and unhappy buyers looking for an out. This is my concern too. Meanwhile the EPA ratings are determined with some weird academic drive cycles, so I'll be waiting to see how real world abuse turns out. Plus the article states the mileage was achieved on 92 octane. As a sidenote, I had a 96 Neon that got best summertime mileage on mid-grade, and wintertime did best on regular. Maybe the constant AC use triggered different timing maps or something. We need to get one to Rhinodart stat. We'll know the story within 30,000 miles.
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Rhinodart]
#3222455
03/24/24 12:49 AM
03/24/24 12:49 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,215 Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,215
Someplace you aren't
|
It’s a joke to get better emissions and worse fuel economy- more fuel burned is going to be more volume, duh. But such are gubmint central planning outcomes. Hey at least the sample sniffs a little better.
I want my fair share
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: SomeCarGuy]
#3222477
03/24/24 09:18 AM
03/24/24 09:18 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,027 Tulsa OK
Bad340fish
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,027
Tulsa OK
|
It’s a joke to get better emissions and worse fuel economy- more fuel burned is going to be more volume, duh. But such are gubmint central planning outcomes. Hey at least the sample sniffs a little better. All they have to do is pass the test. The footprint of what it takes to get there doesn't matter. Diesel emissions are a prime example. The carbon footprint from millions of DEF plastic jugs stuffed inside cardboard boxed cannot be good.
68 Barracuda Formula S 340
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Bad340fish]
#3222536
03/24/24 01:34 PM
03/24/24 01:34 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,421 north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,421
north of coder
|
let's see...............bigger, heavier vehicle, smaller engine.........less fuel economy ? reminds me of the dodge 4x4 i used daily when i was a junkyard owner years ago........... fabricated a bead that was indestructible from 1/8" plate. after it was all said and done, the truck was 7000 pounds plus. 3.91 gears and 33" tires. the thing had a real healthy 318, but the gas mileage was only 4-5mpg. grabbed a 440 out of a chrysler wagon. stabbed in an rv cam, hp manifolds from a super bee, and a thermo quad from ?????? instantly went to almost 15mpg ! plus, it ran SO much BETTER ! didn't need to constantly keep the right foot glued to the floor. in this instance, bigger was DEFINITELY better !
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Dart 500]
#3222609
03/24/24 09:47 PM
03/24/24 09:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,398 Highland, MI.
Sunroofcuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,398
Highland, MI.
|
I'm predicting these motors are going to have a very short life & will be very problem prone.
No Man With A Good Car Needs To Be Justified
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Sunroofcuda]
#3222612
03/24/24 10:22 PM
03/24/24 10:22 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,069 N.W. Florida
Fat_Mike
master
|
master
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,069
N.W. Florida
|
I'm predicting these motors are going to have a very short life & will be very problem prone. I tend to think the same way. "If it sounds too good to be true....."I hope they prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Dart 500]
#3222796
03/25/24 10:04 PM
03/25/24 10:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,846 S.E. Michigan
ZIPPY
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,846
S.E. Michigan
|
a very expensive transmission is probably on the way to fix that.
It'll have lots of speeds and that will make it super impressive or may even be a CVT, everyone's favorite!
Rich H.
Esse Quam Videri
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: ZIPPY]
#3223138
03/27/24 01:26 PM
03/27/24 01:26 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,003 Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,003
Salem
|
I,.......fail to understand what the issue is here? Wait: the issue appears to be CarScoops "click bait". Sour grapes? Ram never gave them a Fuel Card and a loaded Half-Ton to drive for free for 6 months? Turbo 1 and Turbo 2 are 60 and 110 lb-ft of torque MORE than the 5.7. For starters, does anyone have any idea what an additional 60, let alone 110 torque feels like in the seat? And, at LESS rpm? They are comparing their 2024 numbers with 5.7 E-Torque. NOT apples to apples. Turbo 1 and Turbo 2 do not have a 48 volt generator and battery on them. Look at the '24 Classic WITHOUT E-Torque for a fair comparison. Turbo 2 and Turbo 1 are a 1 and 4mpg improvement, which is significant! See attached. I see NO downsides to the Hurricane engines: Better fuel mileage, AND more power at an rpm you can use. What is the problem here? As far as being a little more complicated: all of Our hands are tied on this, get over it. The 5.7 has it's own history of miserable problems both computer and mechanical. Not a popular opinion, but an inline six is bullet-proof. At least you'll be able to change a cooked turbo out on one of these in an afternoon instead of tearing a 5.7 half apart to do lifters or a cam. A lot of People thought the 5.9 Cummins was a pissy little joke compared to the Mighty Detroit 6.2 and 6.5 Blunder Motors, and Internationals' 6.9 and 7.3 How did that work out for Chrysler Corp? I guess Cummins was so bad Ford sold their Stock position in them. Lastly, Premium Fuel: NOT an issue. Even the article says "Ram recommends the use of premium fuel to achieve those power figures, but regular gas will get those miles per gallon". I've run 2, high compression 3.5 Nissans, since new, and a combined mileage of 370,000. They both have giant stickers inside the fuel cap "USE PREMIUM FUEL ONLY". 99% of those miles were on Regular. The 1% I tried Premium there was absolutely ZERO difference in mileage and power. And they have yet to "blow up". You have other problems if you need that extra 8hp you might get with Premium.
Mo' Farts
Moderated by "tbagger".
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Grizzly]
#3223240
03/27/24 09:37 PM
03/27/24 09:37 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,398 Highland, MI.
Sunroofcuda
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,398
Highland, MI.
|
My thoughts are that a motor like this with twin turbos, will not be beefed enough to withstand the power output. They will tear themselves apart. Watch......
No Man With A Good Car Needs To Be Justified
|
|
|
Re: New H.O Hurricane 6 worse fuel economy than 5.7 Hemi
[Re: Sunroofcuda]
#3223346
03/28/24 01:20 PM
03/28/24 01:20 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,003 Salem
Grizzly
Moparts Proctologist
|
Moparts Proctologist
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,003
Salem
|
You're a Goof with absolutely ZERO mechanical knowledge. Sit down.
Mo' Farts
Moderated by "tbagger".
|
|
|
|
|