For the majority of this year, Ram fans have been limited to a single choice of powertrain in the new 2019 Ram 1500 pickup truck. The stalwart and sonorous 5.7-liter Hemi V8 was the sole available selection for ages, with the eTorque-assisted V6 and V8 motors scarce on the ground until recently.
The feds have at last doffed their cloak from over the eTorque V6 and officially stamped an EPA mileage rating on it. Buyers satisfied with a two-wheel-drive truck powered by six cylinders will find themselves in command of a pickup rated at 25 mpg.
Briefly, for those who just want the numbers, check out this chart listing all six powertrain combinations: V6, V8, and eTorque V8 in 4×2 and 4×4 configurations.
Not bad, given the prodigious thirst foisted upon pickup drivers not so many years ago. However, buyers should be aware that the EPA rates the 2019 Ram 1500 Classic (y’know, the old-style truck they’re still building) with a Hemi and 4×4 at an identical 15 city / 21 highway / 17 combined. Hmmm. This is surprising, given the amount of aero addenda shovelled at the new Ram in an effort to streamline the thing. Both new and old trucks mentioned in these ratings have the excellent eight-speed automatic.
It would seem, then, that those looking for a bit of savings at the pump but still desiring a V8 would we well advised to splurge on the eTorque Hemi. At an option cost of $1,450, the 2 mpg bump in combined driving would take seven years to pay for itself, assuming 15,000 miles of annual driving at an average fuel price of $3/gallon.
During the eTorque launch, the EPA had yet to rate the V6 and Ram spox predicted a 2 or 3 mpg bump in fuel efficiency. It turns out they were right on the money. With the 2019 eTorque rated at 20 city / 25 highway / 22 combined in 2WD guise, it handily beats its non-electrified forebear, which was rated 17/25/20. The old V6 4WD is rated 16/23/19, meaning the mild hybrid system improves fortunes by 3 mpg in town, 1 on the highway, and 2 in combined conditions.
For comparison purposes, Ford’s 2.7-liter 4×4 is rated at 19 city / 24 highway / 21 mpg combined, identical to Ram’s new V6 eTorque. The Blue Oval’s 3.5L EcoBoost is rated at 17 city / 23 highway / 19 mpg, nigh identical to the V8 eTorque.
As mentioned in our First Drive review, there’s nothing stopping FCA from installing eTorque on anything that’s powered by a Pentastar or 5.7L Hemi. Those in the know say that course of action is all but assured. With improved numbers like these, expect it to appear on the likes of Chargers and Challengers – among others – sooner rather than later.
[Image: Matthew Guy/TTAC]
I’d like to see some 6 cyl eTorque 4×4 reviews to see if anyone can tell the difference between driving it and driving a regular V6 model.
Based on the V8 etorque reviews I have read there isn’t really much of a difference in how they drive vs the non etorque engines. Just things like stop/start seem a little more seamless than on other brands. But that could be psychological.
See I want to be able to “feel” that there’s a little electric helper motor there as well as getting an uptick in MPG.
The review here and several other places mentions there is a noticeable improvement from a stop. Given the specs that seems about right not much battery capacity to handle drawn out power application.
No mention of the EcoDiesel?
The Ram EcoDiesel, in 4WD, is rated at 19 city, 27 highway, 22 combined for 2017.
Sticking with efficient 4WD diesels, the Chevy Colorado diesel in 4WD, is rated at 20/28/23.
Be interesting to see which is better in the real world…
I know I wouldn’t risk being stuck in the dorky Colorado over 1 MPG. Didn’t the last gen diesel, in 2wd form have an available high fuel economy edition that made 29HWY? I wonder if that’s still a thing.
There’s documented evidence of thrifty drivers hitting the magic 30 MPG in an EcoDiesel on flat interstate trips.
Irrelevant since that is not the new truck.
They’re very different sizes so I’d be shocked if the Colorado wasn’t much more efficient in the real world.
Though they should probably try to implement the eTorque system on the Diesel as well since the fuel economy numbers are so close now.
The Ecodiesel wasn’t mentioned in the 2019 Grand Cherokee press release either. My WAG is that they need to hang more stuff onto it to meet emissions and final numbers aren’t ready yet.
I know some people are really into the idea of light-duty diesels, but I personally wouldn’t touch one.
I wouldn’t expect the diesel until the 2020 model at the earliest.
The Ecodiesels are only great if you are constantly doing long treks on the highway. Other than that they are gutless and soulless engines that are miserable to drive.
My 1999 5.3l V8 Silerado got about 21.5 mpg combined, probably 70% highway driving. Not much of an improvement.
I noticed the average MPG displayed on AutoBlog’s long-term Honda Ridgeline was 21.5 MPG. Other than a more car-like driving experience, what is the point of that vehicle?
I’d say a truck that is considerably heavier and refined and can put out similar mpg with an additional 200+ hp is an improvement.
Furthermore your truck certainly wasn’t EPA rated at those numbers, so if you can put out several mpg better with your driving habits you could do the same with this truck.
You are probably right, but still almost 20 years later and all we get is another couple of mpgs?
Those early 5.3’s were very efficient compared to the competition. Most of the 4.7 and Hemi rams of the early 2000’s averages like 16 mpg until the 2009 makeovers. And the Tundra still average’s about 17 MPG.
Comparing a personal experience to an EPA rating doesn’t work out. The highest EPA rating for a Silverado is 17 combined. The lowest is 15 combined. That’s what you should be using in your comparison.
Quite an improvement!
Memo to the designers: It’s a *much* better looking truck when it’s not slathered in all that chrome mascara that corrupt the high-end models.
Do you really think car designers visit these pages?
Disagree. I don’t like the “sport” look. I’ll take a chrome grille and chrome-plated real metal bumpers any day.
Some of the painted bumpers are real metal bumpers too. With the old gen whether the front bumper was metal or not (rear was always metal) when painted depended on the trim. Not sure with the 2019 Ram.
I prefer a bit of chrome on the grille and a chrome bumper, but body-color door handles and mirrors. I’m glad that truck mfrs. have options everywhere on the spectrum.
“It’s a *much* better looking truck when it’s not slathered in all that chrome mascara that corrupt the high-end models.”
Let the church say amen. Forgiveth the chromers, they know not what they do.
And send archangel Gabriel to Harley-Davidson. Spread the word near and far.
It’ll be interesting to see where gm’s 4 cylinder comes in.
In the 4WD model, the Colorado/Canyon gets 19 city, 24 highway, and 22 combined.
Irrelevant since that is not the same engine or truck.
LOL! I wonder how many times you’ll have to correct LA, John.
I like that the air dam appears *cleanly* removable. Not any of the GM BS where the air damn is part of the lower bumper and makes the truck look incomplete when removed.
On the plus column for the Colorado, the air dam is easy to take off and greatly improves the look of the truck IMO.
off-road.com/images/content/Dirt-Turn-Chevy-Colorado-Mid-Sized-Shootout-12-29-14.jpg
Based on my own experience with my 6.2 GMC, if you;’re concerned about fuel economy, you don’t want to be using a pickup as a grocery-getter in the suburbs. Repeatedly accelerating a 5,000 lb. mass is going to take its toll on fuel economy, no matter how efficient the powerplant. The physics are all against you, in comparison even to a 3-row SUV.
OTOH, the best use of a pickup is on longer sustained runs, i.e. on the highway. So, i would say the most relevant comparison is the highway EPA rating.