Ram RHO

[shigman]

I'd be shocked if the fuel economy was significantly better. It will probably be in the 13-15mpg range. The Grand Wagoneer with 3.0L is only getting 16.5mpg. Add 35" tires and less aero, and you're likely in the 13-15mpg range. Better than most TRX drivers, but not anything significant.

View attachment 452558

You’re right, the RHO is still heavy as well. I estimate the average mix fuel econ will be 13.5-14…I get 15.3 in my gen 3. That 28 psi 3.0 is gonna eat if you put your foot past 25%….

 

[GordoJay]

180lb less than the TRX is ... fugging heavy. It's tall and wide and has big heavy tires. Mileage will suck no matter what's pushing it.

 

[thatJeepguy]

5,000 psi fuel rail with only DI and no
Port injection.

Secondary cooling loop for Liquid cooled manifold and intercooler

We’ll see how this plays out.

26-28 lbs of boost and its still less than a goosetuned 3.5 HO. Hmmm

 

[shigman]

Oh man only DI….if there ever was a time to buy a catch can. Especially with that sorta boost. Thats a lot of boost.

 

[CruiserClass]

Better than most TRX drivers, but not anything significant.

I don't really care about mpg. I care about distance between needing to refuel and how many jerry cans I need to carry when refueling at my leisure isn't a realistic option. Even a 3mpg difference is an extra 100 miles of range assuming the 33 gallon tank. I suspect the highway miles won't be a huge spread, but low speed out-of-boost will be more so.

Personally, I find that significant. Range is one thing Ford does best. GM sucks at it, and Ram is in the middle.

 

[ToadSmasher2K1]

I don't really care about mpg. I care about distance between needing to refuel and how many jerry cans I need to carry when refueling at my leisure isn't a realistic option. Even a 3mpg difference is an extra 100 miles of range assuming the 33 gallon tank. I suspect the highway miles won't be a huge spread, but low speed out-of-boost will be more so.

Personally, I find that significant. Range is one thing Ford does best. GM sucks at it, and Ram is in the middle.

I don't disagree. Range was the one reason I nearly didn't buy my R.

 

[GordoJay]

I don't disagree. Range was the one reason I nearly didn't buy my R.

It is the reason I never considered it.

 

[04Ram2500Hemi]

Fuel Economy/Range can be important. My wife and I make a yearly trip to San Juan Island. Below is an example of fuel economy in my old Raptor and the TRX (we stayed on the island longer with the TRX so more miles). Hand calculated fuel economy on the TRX was damn near spot on to the gauge, I think the Raptor was a pinch more optimistic. I’d guess the RHO will fall somewhere in the middle of the two.

Basically- I think if you see close to 15 with the RHO you’re having a good day. I know 14mpg in the TRX is a miracle you don’t see often!

 

[shigman]

Yeah there are no miracle ways to move 6000lbs relatively quickly with 35” tires economically.

 

[BahaBlastediam]

The RHO is around 69,995 while base raptor is 78,335 for price points. The RHO is offered with a $9k trim and $11k trims. Most RAM dealers will order with one of those trims because those are the ones that come with leather and sun roofs etc. so they are basically even with price. The RHO with 100+ hp is cool and great (I’m hoping ford does with the raptor like they are with the dark horse and offer power upgrades). That said the RHO is still GREATLY over weighed compared to the raptor. RAM didn’t lose any weight nor did they do anything about the suspension.

I like the TRXs (almost bought a used one before getting my 24 37) but the RHO will be marked up and like a majority of RAM products will loose 40-50% of its value in 4 years. This doesn’t even factor the horrible build quality from RAM. I’m happy it’s out because ford will push the eco even more and get some 500hp numbers on the next gen is a given and I thank RAM for that.