2025 Ram 1500 coverage

GMT 900 said:
https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2024/03/2025-ram-1500-mpg-new-hurricane-wows-disappoints/

If you look at the (Grand) Wagoneer Owners Manual, It states the following:

3.0L STANDARD OUTPUT ENGINE
Do not use E-85 flex fuel or ethanol blends greater than
15% in this engine.
This engine is designed to meet all emissions
requirements, and provide satisfactory fuel
economy and performance, when using
high-quality unleaded regular gasoline having
an octane rating of 87, as specified by the
(R+M)/2 method. The use of 91 or higher octane premium
gasoline will allow these engines to operate to optimal
performance.

EPA Page:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year=2025&mclass=Pickup Trucks&srchtyp=marClassMpg&pageno=1&rowLimit=50

2025 RAM 1500 has the same SO engine. So the EPA economy figure happens in a sub-optimal state (i.e. retarded timing probably).
Click to expand...
Sorry, are you saying the EPA figure is with 87 octane and not 91? It’s late and I’m thinking I’m not reading that right.
 
GMT 900 said:
EPA site says the following:

2025 Ram 1500 4WD 3.0 L, 6 cyl, Automatic 8-spd, Turbo, Regular Gasoline

I take regular gasoline to be 87 Octane.
Click to expand...
Ah, where I am 85 octane is regular. I did a story on this a few years back about different octanes in the country. In my area, it is 85/87/91. In Michigan, it is 87/89/93.

The story was I couldn't fill up the GMC Sierra 6.2L V8 since it required 93 octane which didn't exist for me. I rattled the GM PR about it and I'm pretty sure the engineers were shaking their heads at the owner's manual language. I like finding little details like that.
 
You would think that both the auto manuals and the EPA would point that detail out so people needing to burn reg would not go to mid-grade in Denver when 85 will do. Actually, maybe they should stop with the numbers and just call them Reg/Mid/Premium. That would solve the issue.

If Betty Crocker can put a note for high-elevation temp settings, I bet Jeep can do it!
 
testerdahl said:
I imagine I thought it was standard since every Rebel I’ve reviewed had it. That’s one of the big downsides with loaded up press loans, you get used to features and think of them as standard.

I do have concerns Ram and others are pricing themselves out of reach for many consumers. Hell, I’m really thinking more about that right now myself. I mean, my new Big Horn, I expect to be around $2k a month with payments plus insurance. I generally put zero down.

While the tax savings always offset any real losses, I’m just not loving tying up my business budget by $2k a month. I’d really like to pay cash instead, but I always seem to find myself buying other things like a furnace, air conditioner, Swede upgrades in recent years. It just hasn’t worked out for me to really save up some cash. I am thinking this might be my last full-size truck for a while.
Click to expand...
So that 55k Taco or the 48k Ranger are looking kind of good right now huh? LOL
 
You should get the Ranger and see how that is for a year and save up for the next full-sized truck. I know you want to do the brand comparison too, but I really like the Ranger as well. If it had been available to drive and look at before January I may well have gone that way. But I'm loving the Taco so far.
 
testerdahl said:
I imagine I thought it was standard since every Rebel I’ve reviewed had it. That’s one of the big downsides with loaded up press loans, you get used to features and think of them as standard.

I do have concerns Ram and others are pricing themselves out of reach for many consumers. Hell, I’m really thinking more about that right now myself. I mean, my new Big Horn, I expect to be around $2k a month with payments plus insurance. I generally put zero down.

While the tax savings always offset any real losses, I’m just not loving tying up my business budget by $2k a month. I’d really like to pay cash instead, but I always seem to find myself buying other things like a furnace, air conditioner, Swede upgrades in recent years. It just hasn’t worked out for me to really save up some cash. I am thinking this might be my last full-size truck for a while.
Click to expand...
If what they say about full size trucks and SUVs being GM, Ford and Rams cash cow money printing machine, I hope for their sake they are doing something about making smaller more affordable trucks because if they lose the full size truck and SUV market its going to be scary times, one thing is certain is I am a truck guy and I wont be buying a car or CUV or SUV and if trucks are unobtanium they they are SOL.
 
Hilux said:
If what they say about full size trucks and SUVs being GM, Ford and Rams cash cow money printing machine, I hope for their sake they are doing something about making smaller more affordable trucks because if they lose the full size truck and SUV market its going to be scary times, one thing is certain is I am a truck guy and I wont be buying a car or CUV or SUV and if trucks are unobtanium they they are SOL.
Click to expand...
The small affordable truck is going to be the Ford Maverick. GM and Toyota are working on a variant as well. You won't see anything else.
 
Beninbeta said:
You should get the Ranger and see how that is for a year and save up for the next full-sized truck. I know you want to do the brand comparison too, but I really like the Ranger as well. If it had been available to drive and look at before January I may well have gone that way. But I'm loving the Taco so far.
Click to expand...
Ranger is harder for tax write-offs. It doesn't weigh enough.
 
testerdahl said:
Ah, where I am 85 octane is regular. I did a story on this a few years back about different octanes in the country. In my area, it is 85/87/91. In Michigan, it is 87/89/93.

The story was I couldn't fill up the GMC Sierra 6.2L V8 since it required 93 octane which didn't exist for me. I rattled the GM PR about it and I'm pretty sure the engineers were shaking their heads at the owner's manual language. I like finding little details like that.
Click to expand...
So regular varies around the country, but the testing for the mileage to get it EPA certified probably occurs at the Chelsea Proving Grounds, so 87 octane used to get the fuel mileage. My question (which may make for some content when you get your SO SST) is what fuel grade was used to obtain the 420 horsepower and 469 lb.-ft. of torque power rating? Was it also 87 Octane, or to get "Optimal Performance" was it 91 or better? Maybe you can ask your engineer contact to verify or, as I alluded to, use the different grades to measure performance difference. A chassis dynamometer won't give the rated crank, but you can usually use some rough formulas (add 15 to 20 percent) for the parasitic losses. Expensive? Yes, but a YT staple and something you can use for three to four episodes of content.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top