This MPG is why I bought the 3.21

[ramffml]

C’mon man. It’s not “thousands”. Your math showed only $1800 over 200k’ miles. Again, if 10 yrs to get to 200k that’s $15 a month. Lol

My math was in pretty bright yellow highlights. It showed a difference of $9,700 at todays price of gas, and $11,000 at the highest price I've paid to date.

 

[Docwagon1776]

If the difference is only 1 mpg then it's still thousands. If the difference is 3 then it's many thousands.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, but sure. Just pulling numbers from the rec-tal databanks isn't really illustrative, though.

And I'm mostly just having fun at this point, don't take me too seriously. I sure don't.

 

[Wild one]

Oh, and you forgot to mention your MPG at that speed. Try to stay on topic. ;D

I wasn't really paying attention to the milege,but i'd hazard a guess it was well under 20 mpg at speed,i know it was reading 99 mpg on coast down though,lol

 

[Docwagon1776]

Not sure I wanna tow my 21’ bass boat at 150mph! Lol! 80mph though, yep! Hemi loves the fuel at that speed though. Lol

Boats are like black holes, but for money. Fuel economy of the tow rig is like worrying the carpet has a stain while the house is on fire.

 

[Docwagon1776]

I wasn't really paying attention to the milege,but i'd hazard a guess it was well under 20 mpg at speed,i know it was reading 99 mpg on coast down though,lol

Sounds like it averages out to adding fuel to the tank. You've discovered perpetual motion. I take it all back, 3.21s are the shizzy.

 

[Wild one]

I don't miss much about Kansas, but the totally flat roads with nothing but amber waves of grain sea to shining sea is one of them. Even in my misspent youth I realized if I blew a tire they'd never find my corpse until they harvested...

The Canuck Prairie provinces are alot like Kansas,especially Saskatchewan.I didn't know the steering wheel turned till i left that province,i thought it was something to hang onto,so you could shift your rear around on the seat after 4 hours of not turning the steering wheel

 

[ramffml]

And I'm mostly just having fun at this point, don't take me too seriously. I sure don't.

You get all kinds in a thread; those who can't read, those can't logic, those who want to learn, and those who just want to watch the world burn. I had you pegged as "smart enough to know better" which was why I was still arguing, but great to know you're just having fun

 

[IDSandman]

My math was in pretty bright yellow highlights. It showed a difference of $9,700 at todays price of gas, and $11,000 at the highest price I've paid to date.

Gotcha. Thought your columns were 3.21 vs 3.92.

 

[Docwagon1776]

You get all kinds in a thread; those who can't read, those can't logic, those who want to learn, and those who just want to watch the world burn. I had you pegged as "smart enough to know better" which was why I was still arguing, but great to know you're just having fun

Pretty much anything I do has one motive: It amuses me to do so.

I'm not just trolling, though, thats not amusing. I think perhaps you've exaggerated my position a bit.

In bullet points, my fuel economy gospel is:
1) I'm sure 3.21s do better at fuel economy. It's why malaise era cars had 2.56s and sucked.
2) I don't think it's 10% difference, or 2mpg, for most drivers.
3) The 3.92s will accelerate faster, both due to the mechanical advantage out of the gate and because of the speeds at which the truck must shift. The crankshaft doesn't go from 0-redline instantly, and getting off the line quicker and spooling the crankshaft faster equates to faster acceleration.
4) Unspoken, but 3.92s give you an option for upsizing on the tires with less headache if you should choose to for offroad performance or brodozer aesthetics.
5) For me, I've lost more money in the last 3 months of market downturn (paper losses, anyway) then I'll spend in gas for the next 20 years or more. I'm not sweating that, so I'm surely not sweating the difference in feeding a 3.92 truck vs a 3.21 truck. I understand different people are in different places economically speaking.

 

[dhay13]

Easy math (I say that but I'll probably screw it up cause I'm in a hurry...lol). At 20 MPG and 200,000 miles you would go through 10,000 gallons of fuel. 2 MPG difference is 10% so an extra 1000 gallons of fuel over 200,000 miles. At todays prices that would be about $5000 over that 200,000 miles. If 10 years then $500/year, or about $40/month

 

[Docwagon1776]

Easy math (I say that but I'll probably screw it up cause I'm in a hurry...lol). At 20 MPG and 200,000 miles you would go through 10,000 gallons of fuel. 2 MPG difference is 10% so an extra 1000 gallons of fuel over 200,000 miles. At todays prices that would be about $5000 over that 200,000 miles. If 10 years then $500/year, or about $40/month

So less than most people are paying for television service.

 

[Wild one]

Pretty much anything I do has one motive: It amuses me to do so.

I'm not just trolling, though, thats not amusing. I think perhaps you've exaggerated my position a bit.

In bullet points, my fuel economy gospel is:
1) I'm sure 3.21s do better at fuel economy. It's why malaise era cars had 2.56s and sucked.
2) I don't think it's 10% difference, or 2mpg, for most drivers.
3) The 3.92s will accelerate faster, both due to the mechanical advantage out of the gate and because of the speeds at which the truck must shift. The crankshaft doesn't go from 0-redline instantly, and getting off the line quicker and spooling the crankshaft faster equates to faster acceleration.
4) Unspoken, but 3.92s give you an option for upsizing on the tires with less headache if you should choose to for offroad performance or brodozer aesthetics.
5) For me, I've lost more money in the last 3 months of market downturn (paper losses, anyway) then I'll spend in gas for the next 20 years or more. I'm not sweating that, so I'm surely not sweating the difference in feeding a 3.92 truck vs a 3.21 truck. I understand different people are in different places economically speaking.

Back when my truck was totally stock,it outran the local R/T's with 3.92's pretty easily at the track with 3.21's, and my truck weighed more being a 4X4.It made less shifts and once past 1st gear the final drive ratio becomes a mute point with the 8 speeds.But there's also been a few guys who swore up and down my truck was a "unicorn",especially the 2 guys with the 2015 R/T's,lol.Back when all we had were 3 speed automatic's,the rear gears did make a hell'va differance,but with the newer 8 speeds the rear gears don't make as much of a differance once the truck is moving and past 1st gear.The shift recovery speed on the 8 speeds compensates a fair bit for rear gear differances

 

[Docwagon1776]

Back when my truck was totally stock,it outran the local R/T's with 3.92's pretty easily at the track with 3.21's, and my truck weighed more being a 4X4.It made less shifts and once past 1st gear the final drive ratio becomes a mute point with the 8 speeds.Back when all we had were 3 speed automatic's,the rear gears did make a hell'va differance,but with the newer 8 speeds the rear gears don't make as much of a differance once the truck is moving and past 1st gear.The shift recovery speed on the 8 speeds compensates a fair bit for rear gear differances

I'm in a 6 speed, but I understand the advantages of the 8 and how that can change the dynamics. And maybe those guys sucked. Especially in a short run, not having to shift an extra time can definitely make a difference. I would hazard that without a rolling start these trucks are much more traction limited than power or gearing limited.

And it's moot, not mute. Common mistake.

 

[ramffml]

Pretty much anything I do has one motive: It amuses me to do so.

I'm not just trolling, though, thats not amusing. I think perhaps you've exaggerated my position a bit.

In bullet points, my fuel economy gospel is:
1) I'm sure 3.21s do better at fuel economy. It's why malaise era cars had 2.56s and sucked.

It's not the gear ratio (in absolute terms like "2.56" that matters. It's the gear ratio combined with the transmission that matters. Todays 8 and 10 speeds completely remove the need for deep rear end gear ratios.

My 3.21/8 speed has a deeper first gear than a v8 tundra with the 4.30, and it still manages to have a taller overdrive.

2) I don't think it's 10% difference, or 2mpg, for most drivers.

Then do the math my friend. A difference of even 1 mpg at 18 mpg means you're still paying $5000 extra for no reason. I believe the difference is higher than 2. Sometime you should play with the "instance mpg" meter in your truck. I did it the other day, kept my foot as steady as possible and found a flat road. It read about 7 to 8 l/100 km. Using the gear limiter to drop to 7th the meter jumped up to 8 and 9. Very inaccurate I know, especially considering there are no decimal values which is a problem when we're using such small integer values. But those 450 rpms matter.

3) The 3.92s will accelerate faster, both due to the mechanical advantage out of the gate and because of the speeds at which the truck must shift. The crankshaft doesn't go from 0-redline instantly, and getting off the line quicker and spooling the crankshaft faster equates to faster acceleration.

You get more torque multiplication yes, but you also may get an extra gear shift which is not free (in terms of performance). My gut says yes the 3.92 should be faster, but you may be surprised.

You know all those times you guys talk about buying a prius? Well this is now my time to shine with vague hand waving and suggest: I didn't buy a truck to race 0 to 60 and lose control around corners, I bought it to pull my trailer and be a comfortable daily driver when it's not towing. If you want to race, buy a challenger.

4) Unspoken, but 3.92s give you an option for upsizing on the tires with less headache if you should choose to for offroad performance or brodozer aesthetics.

On this point we mainly agree and I've said as much before. But I could do the prius thing too and say, if you want to offroad buy a jeep. I don't need big tires to drive to the mall and doing all that silly stuff just lowers the ability of your truck to do truck things, like tow.

5) For me, I've lost more money in the last 3 months of market downturn (paper losses, anyway) then I'll spend in gas for the next 20 years or more. I'm not sweating that, so I'm surely not sweating the difference in feeding a 3.92 truck vs a 3.21 truck. I understand different people are in different places economically speaking.

Your financial situation is obviously different than the average american/canadian, who can't go 2 months without a paycheck before going bankrupt. If you're doing that well, congrats!

 

[turkeybird56]

And that's fine, as long as we're not confusing our opinion (the extra money doesn't matter to me or you) vs the fact (the 3.21 will save you money every second you're in 8th gear with it).

We all have different ideas on where to spend our money. I ordered my truck very specifically, some stuff I wanted, some stuff I didn't. A (wasted) couple thousand on fuel over a 10 to 15 year lifespan of the truck is not something I'm interested in. That's why my truck was ordered with the bench seat, cloth interior, no sunroof, 8 inch screen, no ramboxes, no air suspension etc, all savings that adds up to many thousands by the time I'm done.

Bought MY 19 in 2018 off the lot. No boxes here, etc, no fancy radio, plain jane U connect 4, not got a bench seat tho, 2 buckets. Only amenities besides standard, it does have LED exterior except for CHMSL. I put in the LED on interior. It is still the basic drivetrain and motor as a higher trimmed model, just 10-25 K cheaper, LOL.

 

[ramffml]

Bought MY 19 in 2018 off the lot. No boxes here, etc, no fancy radio, plain jane U connect 4, not got a bench seat tho, 2 buckets. Only amenities besides standard, it does have LED exterior except for CHMSL. I put in the LED on interior. It is still the basic drivetrain and motor as a higher trimmed model, just 10-25 K cheaper, LOL.

These lower trimmed Rams are where it's at. You get one heck of a truck for the price. I never saw the point in paying twice as much for a limited.

 

[turkeybird56]

My 10 year old truck has 77,*** miles on it. It'd take me something like 26 years to hit 200k. $11.5k over 26 years is not going to change my lifestyle in the slightest.

Digging out my original window sticker, my claimed highway milage is 19mpg and I suspect that's pretty accurate when I pay attention to speed limits (like in hostile states...) Looks like I'm doing better than the 3.21 in your example. Maybe weight difference, since I have a quad cab instead of crew cab? I'm even rocking the old junk 6 speed that so many people here dog until it's time to service the 8 speed.. Guess I'm having my cake and eating it, too.

Like I said, I'd rather drive a $5k truck and enjoy it without counting nickles then drive a $65k truck and be worried about gas prices. Think of all that depreciation, insurance, and registration I save. Makes gas a pittance. But my wife nags me about driving 'old junk' or 'old man trucks' so I gave up my Sanford & Son ways.

U related to FRED Sanford? LOL, (sic) ... Heck, I drive a HEMI, worrying about fuel consumption is a lil silly, lmao.

 

[turkeybird56]

These lower trimmed Rams are where it's at. You get one heck of a truck for the price. I never saw the point in paying twice as much for a limited.

I went and priced a Lone Star now, equipped like MY 19 is, over 60K. MY 19 was 48 MSRP, I got for 41K, traded up with MY 15 ED, handed over CC to pay difference, for tax, etc and drove off the lot owning MY brand new ride. Works for dis BOIRD. But I guess I am just old and set in my ways.

 

[turkeybird56]

Does the truck have the power to accelerate to the rpm limiter in top gear? I've never pushed it into triple digits as far as I can recall. I've got other toys for that. 140 is about my pucker limit regardless of mechanical limits, though I've briefly touched 150's in a tightly controlled environment. I stayed away from zoomsplat motorcycles because I knew I lacked the self control to own one.

WISH I knew someone local, who could pull the limiter. (But then, have to upgrade trans, suspension, tires, heat exchangers, cam, etc etc, lmao). I have had MY 19 to almost 109 when it shut down. My 2006 Honda Wing will almost hit 160 but it is limited to 124.9. I have been at 150 in a few chases, AND that pucker factor so extreme, takes a pry bar to get yer backside outta the seat, lmao.

 

[turkeybird56]

Pretty much anything I do has one motive: It amuses me to do so.

I'm not just trolling, though, thats not amusing. I think perhaps you've exaggerated my position a bit.

In bullet points, my fuel economy gospel is:
1) I'm sure 3.21s do better at fuel economy. It's why malaise era cars had 2.56s and sucked.
2) I don't think it's 10% difference, or 2mpg, for most drivers.
3) The 3.92s will accelerate faster, both due to the mechanical advantage out of the gate and because of the speeds at which the truck must shift. The crankshaft doesn't go from 0-redline instantly, and getting off the line quicker and spooling the crankshaft faster equates to faster acceleration.
4) Unspoken, but 3.92s give you an option for upsizing on the tires with less headache if you should choose to for offroad performance or brodozer aesthetics.
5) For me, I've lost more money in the last 3 months of market downturn (paper losses, anyway) then I'll spend in gas for the next 20 years or more. I'm not sweating that, so I'm surely not sweating the difference in feeding a 3.92 truck vs a 3.21 truck. I understand different people are in different places economically speaking.

PLS, lets not talk stock market, LMAO. Good thing I do not have to totally rely on those funds, I would have to go to Walmart and get a job.