Never cease to find these threads on fuel economy, engine displacement, axle ratios, and transmissions entertaining. I often chuckle at posts by people that may not have a valid reason for owning a pickup of any nature or bought a 4X4 when the'll never have driving conditions that would need a 4X4. I have a 2017 crew cab with a 5.7 Hemi and a 392 LSD rear axle and frankly it sucks for a variety of reasons and has never equaled the 2012 2500, 5.7 Hemi, 6 speed tranny, standard cab with 4.10 axle, and 8 foot bed. Candidly I made a bad choice, the RAM 1500 just flat sucks and doesn't even come close to equaling the old beat up 1990 F-150, 5.0L, A4OD, 4.11 axle, extended cab that In years past I have used many times to pull a 2,000 pound all steel trailer loaded with a 4-6,000 pound classic car. That old girl has been coast to coast many times and experienced every driving condition imaginable and never delivered less than 15 mpg at Interstate posted speed limits or around town. I still have that truck, just for the memories. Why not Ford today? Aluminum!
Now to the 5.7-6.4 fuel economy comparisons. Engines in the displacement area of the 6.4 have always been fuel consumption dogs since they first appeared in the late 1950's. Didn't matter who made them they were and are fuel consumption dogs; though some produced massive amounts of torque that would burn robber from El Paso, Texas to San Diego, California, while others were incapable of getting out of their own way. Both because they resulted from the cheapest way to modify a lesser displacement engine to tout greater displacement. Marketing gimmick design!