2009 Ram Laramie mileage issues.

How can I improve the mileage on my 2009 Ram Laramie? I am getting 2-3 mpg less than my previous similar Ram trucks.

I have previously owned a 1997 Ram SLT (360 cu in V8) and a 2010 Ram TRX 4. Both these trucks consistently got 15-16 mpg in small town/rural highway driving and 17-18 mpg on the highway. I put 185000 mi on my 97 and 34000 on the 2010 before upgrading to the 09 Laramie which had only 14000 mi on it. The 2009 only gets 13-14 mpg combined and 15-16 mpg highway (1 mpg worse in winter!). I have not changed any driving habits. My 97 did have a K & N Air Raid air filter on it. I have noticed that the "fuel saver" light on the 09 only lights up when I am coasting or braking or going downhill. It very seldom activates while maintaining speed. The instantaneous mileage bar graph on the 2010 seemed to indicate that the fuel saver functioned more often.

My wife and I love everything about our Dodge except the gas mileage. Recently I nearly bought a Ford F150 but I felt the comfort, room, storage options and functionality did not come close to the Dodge. The Ford did get about 3 mpg better gas mileage in test drives however. Could there have been a fuel saver computer update after 2009? Would another K & N filter be worthwhile? Hoping for any help!

How many miles on it now and what kind of gas are you using? It maybe time for a tune up a CAI and a programer may really help

your trx probably had 3.92 and your laramie 3.55

I'm with Palomba...what was the gearing on the previous trucks and what gearing is in your new one?

Check your plugs and change to synthetic oil, then go from there.

It has 39000 miles on it now. I bought it 15 months ago with 17000 miles on it.
It had a tune up and complete scheduled servicing at 32000 miles last summer.

I would like to do something to improve the mileage but I am a little gun shy about spending a lot of money without a good prospect of improvement. The truck and the gas cost a lot already.

I would be happy to just get back to what my '97 got for mileage.

So...what rearend is in it?

I'm not sure my last attempt to reply worked.

39000 miles on the truck now. Complete tuneup and scheduled maintenance at 32000 miles.

I'm not sure of the rear end gear ratio but the dealer checked the VINs and said all three trucks were similar.

Thanks

I will check the gear ratio. I gave the service department the VIN nos. on all three trucks and they said there was no major difference. I will keep trying.

Thanks.

I will check into the gearing further. I gave the dealer the VIN nos. of my other two trucks and they told me the gears were all the same.

Plugs were replaced 7000 miles ago. I will check them again and will try the synthetic oil.

Originally Posted by Palomba

your trx probably had 3.92 and your laramie 3.55

You mean other way around. His 09 Laramie probably has 3.92. Higher the gear ratio the worse the mpg.

Stiff


Tapatalk using iPad.

I will have to check the actual rear end ratio. I just asked the dealer to compare the engine and gear specs for the three trucks and they told me they found no major differences.

Originally Posted by ..stiffler..

You mean other way around. His 09 Laramie probably has 3.92. Higher the gear ratio the worse the mpg.

Stiff


Tapatalk using iPad.

Not necessarily......my last truck was an 06 quad 4x2 with 3.92 and got 2-3 mpg better than my 07 single cab 4x4 with 3.55

The weight difference of the quad to single should offset the 4x4 difference

4x4 will get different mileage. More moving parts which means more drag.

If you compare the exact truck but have a 3.92 - 3.55 the 3.92 will get less mpg.




Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ..stiffler..

4x4 will get different mileage. More moving parts which means more drag.

If you compare the exact truck but have a 3.92 - 3.55 the 3.92 will get less mpg.




Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

not necessarily. depends on driving conditions/how the truck is being used

I tend to agree with silly goose. The 3.92 seems to get better mileage. Especially if you are over 70 mph.

Also if your 2010 had the 17" wheels and your 09 has 20" wheels that is worth at least 1mpg in real world driving.

Read my post. This is comparing the same truck to the same truck.

I'm not comparing a truck with 3.55 gears hauling a 29' trailing to a truck with 3.92 gears unloaded.

I'm not comparing a 2x4 truck reg cab with 17" wheels to a truck that is 4x4 crew cab with 20" wheels.

The same truck, same conditions, same driving style and speed the 3.92 gears will give you less mpg. With 3.92 gears your rpm will be higher than 3.55 gears. This will use more fuel.

Common sense people it goes along way.

Stiff


Tapatalk using iPad.

Originally Posted by ..stiffler..

Read my post. This is comparing the same truck to the same truck.

I'm not comparing a truck with 3.55 gears hauling a 29' trailing to a truck with 3.92 gears unloaded.

I'm not comparing a 2x4 truck reg cab with 17" wheels to a truck that is 4x4 crew cab with 20" wheels.

The same truck, same conditions, same driving style and speed the 3.92 gears will give you less mpg. With 3.92 gears your rpm will be higher than 3.55 gears. This will use more fuel.

Common sense people it goes along way.

Stiff


Tapatalk using iPad.

Less rpm doesn't mean less fuel used. Mpg is all about engine load. That topic has been beaten to death on many topics on here. In my experience the 3.92's allow the engine to run with less load. Which in turn allows the mds to kick in more often. Hence resulting in better mpg.

What was that about common sense?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by ..stiffler..

With 3.92 gears your rpm will be higher than 3.55 gears. This will use more fuel.

simply not true. engine rpm's are only part of this. it's about engine efficiency/load varying with rpm's.