Gladiator vs 1500 MPG

[aevgladitorrubi]

Why is it that a 3.6 4x4 Ram 1500 is rated 19/24 MPG and a 3.6 4x4 Gladiator is rated 17/22? The Gladiator weighs several hundred pounds less. Please don't say aerodynamics because that is negligible in city driving. Both have the same exact 8-speed auto transmission. This makes no sense whatsoever! I guess the cold water on all this is who the heck is even getting 17/22, because I'm not. No, I didn't buy my Gladiator for the MPGs, just wondering what the heck.

Owned both-- 5.7L hemi vs 3.0L ecodisel, 11-12 vs 24-25...

Sponsored

 

[Kevin_D]

Dude, not talking about my vehicle, talking about 2 stock vehicles and their MPGs according to their window stickers

So are you purposely being obtuse?
You've gotten your answer several times.

Owned both-- 5.7L hemi vs 3.0L ecodisel, 11-12 vs 24-25...

You're talking apples & oranges.

Kevin

 

[redriderjf87]

3.21 gearing vs 3.73 gearing is where you’ll see the mpg difference.

Taller gearing hurts city mpg.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Taller gearing hurts city mpg.

Stop and go, yes. But once rolling, it's a wash. The transmission will choose whatever keeps the engine in the best range.
Tires will matter - if the tire's aren't as tall, then the higher gearing in the differentials will make up for that.
So we can't compare gearing without also taking tire size into account and transmission programming.

 

[redriderjf87]

Stop and go, yes. But once rolling, it's a wash. The transmission will choose whatever keeps the engine in the best range.
Tires will matter - if the tire's aren't as tall, then the higher gearing in the differentials will make up for that.
So we can't compare gearing without also taking tire size into account and transmission programming.

For sure, I hear you: in stop and go, 3.73 would be better than 3.21, which is the opposite of what the quoted post was saying. My main point at least.

The shorter gearing would also be better on average for speeds lower than when you're revving out in the highest gear (more choices to hit an optimal gear for the given speed).

I agree, sometimes you'll hit a given speed's best combo with a specific gear in the taller ratio, but more often (more "speeds") you'll find it with the shorter diff ratio.

Unless it's so short you've run out of gears in the city loop speeds. But even then, it would have to be bad enough to cancel out the stop/go benefits.


Like you and/or others said though, if the Ram is an etorque 3.6, then nevermind on the direct comparison.

 

[Rahkmalla]

This whole thread has "NEXT!" vibes. Person asks question, people give answer, OP responds "No".

For those not as versed in internet memes as I am, here's the reference:

 

[Sandevino]

This whole thread has "NEXT!" vibes. Person asks question, people give answer, OP responds "No".

For those not as versed in internet memes as I am, here's the reference:

If it were called “Freeloader Freight” instead of Sober Cab she‘d be all over it…

 

[Jrap]

The only thing I said nope to was the effect of better aerodynamics in city driving, specifically if it was enough to offset the extra ~300lbs the 1500 has. Doubt there's been any study on this sort of thing, so I'll pass on further judgment and let the forum decide. I actually agreed with the e-torque response, not sure how much MPG's it adds, personal opinion is around 1 mpg. My wife drives a 2019 Wrangler 2.0 e-torque, it does better in the city than my Gladiator, but no better on the highway. All the answers on the gears have been both agreed to as well as disputed by other forum members, not by me.

For kicks, I just looked at near identical Wrangler 2.0T Sports (non-e-torque) window stickers, one from 2023 and another from 2024 - both AT's - the only way they come. The 2023 is rated 21/24 and the 2024 is rated 20/21. Go figure . . .

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Not questioning the validity of EPA values

I'm not asking about the BS methodology. These are 2 trucks from the same company with the same engines, and the heavier one gets better MPGs fromn the same BS methodology

Either I misunderstood your question or you don’t know what you’re asking.

Aren’t you questioning the published MPG?

 

[Chestnut]

Areodynamics have an impact at all speeds, period. Drag and friction exist at all speeds period. Drive at 25 MPH and try and hold a 24"x24" piece of cardboard flat facing forward, then come back and say aerodynamics don't exist at city speeds.

Just as a side note i was running my tires a bit low, around 35 psi. I dropped at least 10% in mileage. Filled the tires to 38-39 and have been getting 23 combined for the last couple thousand miles. I'm astonished at how much difference that relatively small pressure difference made.

 

[Jrap]

Either I misunderstood your question or you don’t know what you’re asking.

Aren’t you questioning the published MPG?

No, I was not questioning the published MPG's. I was questioning why under the same EPA testing methodology (I.e. the published MPG's on the window sticker) the heavier 1500 achieved a higher MPG rating than the lighter Gladiator - same engine, same transmission, same 4x4. The forum has suggested the etorque, aerodynamics and maybe rear-end gearing explains the difference.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

No, I was not questioning the published MPG's. I was questioning why under the same EPA testing methodology (I.e. the published MPG's on the window sticker) the heavier 1500 achieved a higher MPG rating than the lighter Gladiator - same engine, same transmission, same 4x4. The forum has suggested the etorque, aerodynamics and maybe rear-end gearing explains the difference.

I still don’t know what you’re asking. You contradict yourself.

 

[Sandevino]

When I had my 2021 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel (bought back by FCA) it had the 3.21 gear set. Other 5.7 and 3.6 variants had the optional 3.73 or 4.10 gear sets depending on how they were setup - tow package or not. The mileage differences between the 5.7 and 3.6 were +/- a few MPG's.

 

[Jrap]

I still don’t know what you’re asking. You contradict yourself.

You asking me if I'm questioning the published MPG's means to me that I am questioning or disputing the MPG ratings of 17/22 on my Gladiator, and whether or not that is a fair and accurate rating for this vehicle. That was NOT the intent of this post. The intent of this post, which is literally the title of the post, was about comparing 2 different vehicles from the same manufacturer and and questioning why the larger and heavier one is rated higher MPGs than the smaller lighter one - same 3.6 and 4x4. Not sure how else I can answer your question Ryan. I'm not disputing the published MPG's, I'm questioning why one is higher than the other. FWIW, they are probably both overstated, and I couldn't care less because that's generally how things go in the real world vs the "controlled test cycle" world. If this answer doesn't satisfy you, not sure what else I can say

 

[ShrimpHappens]

I think I found OP's side gig (specifically at 1:54)

Sponsored