Educate me 500 Mile Range Claims for Gen 3

[Traffic22]

I agree, the 500mi tank isn’t huge news for 2nd Gen owners. This was my truck today after getting gas.

View attachment 163802

You have more discipline than I do....last fill up mine said 475. I need a lighter foot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GCATX]

I know higher octane doesn’t equal more MPG’s

Care to back that up?

 

[Fordraptorrrrrrrr]

Yall getting 550+ per tank drive like my grandma, boring!!!!!

 

[Frank N]

The 500 mile bit is just a jab at the Ram PIG

 

[Russ103]

I agree, the 500mi tank isn’t huge news for 2nd Gen owners. This was my truck today after getting gas.

View attachment 163802

You’re doing it all wrong. I never get anything higher then a 450 mile range.

 

[04Ram2500Hemi]

Yall getting 550+ per tank drive like my grandma, boring!!!!!

That's from setting the Cruise at 80mph and just enjoying the drive.

550 miles divided by 36 gallons is just a pinch over 15mpg’s.

 

[JohnyPython]

Change the settings to kilometres and then you’ll get 900 - 1000.

 

[Mister Pinky]

Care to back that up?

That isn’t exactly untrue. In the tests conducted by the Argonne National Labs on the base Gen 2 Ecoboost, they found that on 89 Octane, the PCM would downshift earlier instead of holding to load up and make boost. The 89 Octane tests got slightly better mileage because of this on a certain test.

 

[MFNG]

Care to back that up?

I agree, I think?

Gen 1 here but 91 Octane 100% gas yields me an extra mpg over 87 or 89 with ethanol.

I tried 93 with ethanol but I got the same as the 87/89. I think the beast just likes pure fuel.

How high can you go? Can you put 100 octane pure gas in these?

 

[smurfslayer]

I know higher octane doesn’t equal more MPG’s but if the Gen 3 needs it, who cares that it’s got more power and supposedly better range - premium around here is at least $.60/gal more. Doesn’t make sense.

None of this news makes any sense.

The ecoboost isn’t your grandpa’s v8. Something I think it was @FordTechOne was trying to explain to me is that ‘the truck has to pull a lot of timing to run on 87, so when it’s burning 87 fuel it’s not running at its peak efficiency’ Maybe he can explain this a bit more eloquently, but I had run 91 pure gas and 93 w/ 10% ethanol in it, with about as same driving conditions as you could ask for without being on a track and the 93 did better on economy. It’s great that we have the choice in what fuel we can run.

If you think about it, what’s the break over point at which the per gallon cost increase of a higher octane level if you get less range out of a tank of gas and less performance. Yup, premium grade fuel is more expensive than regular and if that’s a deciding factor, maybe a truck isn’t the right vehicle.