[Billd]

Looking at a 2017 1500 136 PM and was wondering the difference in fuel mileage between the low and high roof. The high roof has more options like backup camera U Conntect and what not. Its showing a 3.86 axel ratio? is that correct for both? I though the 1500 came with a 3.18 or is it an option or misprint? The 3.86 gets better reviews I think.
Im not going to live in it, using it as a daily driver and a dirt bike hauler around the Fl and the South East US as well as a trip to CA in a few months. I could camp or Holiday Inn if needed.
A low roof will haul bike just fine aand at 6'0 I can almost stand up in it but the high roof has more factory options for a few bucks more.
thanks

Billd

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

Fuel mileage between them has not been shown to vary much. I think all the PM have the same final drive ratio. Standing upright seems like priceless if it’s available. Throw in a mattress and cooler on your trip and save the price difference not motelling.

 

[phil]

gas
Chrysler 62TE (1)-3.90 (2)-2.69 (3)-2.16 (4)-1.37 (5)-0.95 (6)-0.65 (R)-3.04

final ratio
1500: 3.16
2500: 3.43
3500: 3.86

diesel
Fiat M-40 (1)-4.17 (2)-2.35 (3)-1.46 (4)-0.96 (5)-0.70 (6)-0.55 (R)-4.08 (F)-4.56

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

So the ratio doesn’t depend on high or low? Who knew?

 

[phil]

The 1500 transmission is the standard one used in other FCA 62TE equipped vehicles.

 

[Billd]

so the the difference between the 1500 and the 2500 is the final axle ratio 3.16 vs 3.43

Didnt I read the the 3.16 downshifts all the time in cruise control? Prob around town it would be fine I would think might be an issue in the mountains but since Im in FL for most of it I guess it wouldn't be a prob? guess there would be a gas mileage difference too.
the difference looks like 1200buck difference between the LR and HR with options.
I guess if you order one it takes more than 2 months? lol

 

[keeponvaning]

The high roof is the very best bang for the buck you can get if you are converting to a camper. Don't even consider a standard height roof (unless you are a Munchkin).

 

[phil]

I believe all new v6 gas vans will down shift in hilly or mountainous terrain, The exception would be the Ram DIESEL or the Ford 3.5 ECO Boost or diesel, those engines have gobs of low end torque.

 

[GaryBIS]

Hi,
The MPG difference between low and high roof has been discussed before:
http://www.promasterforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55049

I think you can make a pretty good argument for about an 8% improvement in mpg for the low roof.

I seem to remember some of the spec sheets showing different rear end ratios and others showing them all the same. I'm skeptical that there is really a difference in rear end ratios between 1500, 2500 and 3500 -- maybe someone knows for sure?

The high roof is awfully nice to live with, especially if you intend to spend the night in it sometimes. The only time I slightly regret having the high roof is parking garages I'm too tall for.

Gary

 

[RDinNHandAZ]

See:http://www.promasterforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35202

 

[carnut]

Hi,
... I'm skeptical that there is really a difference in rear end ratios between 1500, 2500 and 3500 -- maybe someone knows for sure?...Gary

I wish we knew for sure - mainly because I think all PMs should get the 3.86:1 except maybe the 118" WB. 3:16 is what they put in minivans.

I don't think the ratio is likely to have a significant impact on mileage. MPG is not a function of engine rpm. With modern fuel injection it's a function of how much air moves through the engine. That's determined by rpm AND throttle position. As final drive ratio drops, you'll just have to use more throttle to put out the power you need. While you might squeak out a percent or two in thermodynamic efficiency by pushing the engine closer to wide open throttle, you'll pay for it in more frequent downshifting. It's a naturally aspirated, high reving engine. Let it spin and hold cylinder pressures down for engine longevity.

 

[phil]

The official Ram Promaster 2016 build web page has the final drive ratios as:

1500-3.16
2500-3.43
3500-3.86

The 2017 build page has some negative decimal number,l something wrong with database, don't hold your breath for FCA to fix.

reference Promaster specs thread for links

 

[KNDLKSTMS]

Back to the question ... Get the high roof. KOV is right (again). After flooring and headliner/insulation you'll lose almost 3" of headroom. And you'll be glad to have the extra space later. I got an 118" shorty because #1 :cheep , #2 :1 year old/580 miles , # 3 vanless . Old E , muerto . For me , if I could choose , a 136" high top . But I love what I have , the "sport' model .

 

[Roblee]

I didn't think the difference in mpg or cost was enough to be a consideration for the money and time I would invest. For me it was utility.

 

[Rambler]

I'm glad I have a low roof model every time I use the roof rack, every time I wash the van, when I flick on the ceiling light without having to step up into the van, when heating the interior, when parking under trees...the only time I missed not having the high roof was when moving a tall piece of furniture which would fit only if laid on its side.

 

[Wowbagger]

Also: Having a low roof model allows me to put mine in the garage through the 8 foot door, while any of the taller roof models would have made that impossible.

On the other hand, being able to get the extended length body (only available on the higher roof models) would have been nice as it would have given me more space for the conversion.

On the gripping hand, being able to park in pretty much any parking space a regular sedan can park in, vs. needing an extended length parking spot is nice.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Wife wants low. I want high

My wife keeps pushing me to go with a low roof van. Less conspicuous she says.
From my perspective, there is nothing inconspicuous about any van with a vent fan and solar panels on top. Also, I'd like to be able to stand up now and again.

The struggle over design considerations continues at my house.

 

[proeddie]

Every time you bump your head in the low roof, you'll wish you had spent a few $$ more for the hi roof, even if there is a slight difference in mpg........ IMHO!

 

[MsNomer]

dazed, tell your wife the vent and panels are much less conspicuous on the high roof.

 

[PopeAng]

dazed, tell your wife the vent and panels are much less conspicuous on the high roof.

+1

Absolutely. Take a look at a few threads from people proudly displaying their first cut into their van, usually the roof vent. A few have taken pictures from ground level and it is quite difficult to see the vents and even a roof A/C from the ground.

Here are some good pictures of vents and A/Cs from the ground.
Florida RV Sales and Service - recent builds.