EPA Finally Rates the Full 2019 Ram 1500 Lineup

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

For the majority of this year, Ram fans have been limited to a single choice of powertrain in the new 2019 Ram 1500 pickup truck. The stalwart and sonorous 5.7-liter Hemi V8 was the sole available selection for ages, with the eTorque-assisted V6 and V8 motors scarce on the ground until recently.

The feds have at last doffed their cloak from over the eTorque V6 and officially stamped an EPA mileage rating on it. Buyers satisfied with a two-wheel-drive truck powered by six cylinders will find themselves in command of a pickup rated at 25 mpg.

Briefly, for those who just want the numbers, check out this chart listing all six powertrain combinations: V6, V8, and eTorque V8 in 4×2 and 4×4 configurations.

Not bad, given the prodigious thirst foisted upon pickup drivers not so many years ago. However, buyers should be aware that the EPA rates the 2019 Ram 1500 Classic (y’know, the old-style truck they’re still building) with a Hemi and 4×4 at an identical 15 city / 21 highway / 17 combined. Hmmm. This is surprising, given the amount of aero addenda shovelled at the new Ram in an effort to streamline the thing. Both new and old trucks mentioned in these ratings have the excellent eight-speed automatic.

It would seem, then, that those looking for a bit of savings at the pump but still desiring a V8 would we well advised to splurge on the eTorque Hemi. At an option cost of $1,450, the 2 mpg bump in combined driving would take seven years to pay for itself, assuming 15,000 miles of annual driving at an average fuel price of $3/gallon.

During the eTorque launch, the EPA had yet to rate the V6 and Ram spox predicted a 2 or 3 mpg bump in fuel efficiency. It turns out they were right on the money. With the 2019 eTorque rated at 20 city / 25 highway / 22 combined in 2WD guise, it handily beats its non-electrified forebear, which was rated 17/25/20. The old V6 4WD is rated 16/23/19, meaning the mild hybrid system improves fortunes by 3 mpg in town, 1 on the highway, and 2 in combined conditions.

For comparison purposes, Ford’s 2.7-liter 4×4 is rated at 19 city / 24 highway / 21 mpg combined, identical to Ram’s new V6 eTorque. The Blue Oval’s 3.5L EcoBoost is rated at 17 city / 23 highway / 19 mpg, nigh identical to the V8 eTorque.

As mentioned in our First Drive review, there’s nothing stopping FCA from installing eTorque on anything that’s powered by a Pentastar or 5.7L Hemi. Those in the know say that course of action is all but assured. With improved numbers like these, expect it to appear on the likes of Chargers and Challengers – among others – sooner rather than later.

[Image: Matthew Guy/TTAC]

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 31 comments
  • Hummer Hummer on Sep 04, 2018

    I like that the air dam appears *cleanly* removable. Not any of the GM BS where the air damn is part of the lower bumper and makes the truck look incomplete when removed.

    • Ajla Ajla on Sep 05, 2018

      On the plus column for the Colorado, the air dam is easy to take off and greatly improves the look of the truck IMO. off-road.com/images/content/Dirt-Turn-Chevy-Colorado-Mid-Sized-Shootout-12-29-14.jpg

  • DC Bruce DC Bruce on Sep 05, 2018

    Based on my own experience with my 6.2 GMC, if you;'re concerned about fuel economy, you don't want to be using a pickup as a grocery-getter in the suburbs. Repeatedly accelerating a 5,000 lb. mass is going to take its toll on fuel economy, no matter how efficient the powerplant. The physics are all against you, in comparison even to a 3-row SUV. OTOH, the best use of a pickup is on longer sustained runs, i.e. on the highway. So, i would say the most relevant comparison is the highway EPA rating.

  • Funky D The problem is not exclusively the cost of the vehicle. The problem is that there are too few use cases for BEVs that couldn't be done by a plug-in hybrid, with the latter having the ability to do long-range trips without requiring lengthy recharging and being better able to function in really cold climates.In our particular case, a plug-in hybrid would run in all electric mode for the vast majority of the miles we would drive on a regular basis. It would also charge faster and the battery replacement should be less expensive than its BEV counterpart.So the answer for me is a polite, but firm NO.
  • 3SpeedAutomatic 2012 Ford Escape V6 FWD at 147k miles:Just went thru a heavy maintenance cycle: full brake job with rotors and drums, replace top & bottom radiator hoses, radiator flush, transmission flush, replace valve cover gaskets (still leaks oil, but not as bad as before), & fan belt. Also, #4 fuel injector locked up. About $4.5k spread over 19 months. Sole means of transportation, so don't mind spending the money for reliability. Was going to replace prior to the above maintenance cycle, but COVID screwed up the market ( $4k markup over sticker including $400 for nitrogen in the tires), so bit the bullet. Now serious about replacing, but waiting for used and/or new car prices to fall a bit more. Have my eye on a particular SUV. Last I checked, had a $2.5k discount with great interest rate (better than my CU) for financing. Will keep on driving Escape as long as A/C works. 🚗🚗🚗
  • Rna65689660 For such a flat surface, why not get smoke tint, Rtint or Rvynil. Starts at $8. I used to use a company called Lamin-x, but I think they are gone. Has held up great.
  • Cprescott A cheaper golf cart will not make me more inclined to screw up my life. I can go 500 plus miles on a tank of gas with my 2016 ICE car that is paid off. I get two weeks out of a tank that takes from start to finish less than 10 minutes to refill. At no point with golf cart technology as we know it can they match what my ICE vehicle can do. Hell no. Absolutely never.
  • Cprescott People do silly things to their cars.
Next