Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I took my PM out on the road yesterday. Loaded with maybe 700 lbs. of cargo. Stayed inside the speed limit in rolling hills and got 21.6 mpg. Once I got into steep stuff (grades 7 percent to 11 percent and even steeper), the overall mileage went down to 20.0 - so it was probably averaging 18 or so in that part.

About the seat: I found that I could adjust it to be very comfortable using the tilt, scoot and lumbar support. Also holding the steering wheel at 10 and 2 doesn't work well at all. 8 and 4 does fine.

What I haven't figured out very well is the satellite radio and bluetooth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Could I ask you how tall you are just in connection with the seating position?

That's a pretty good mpg number given the fact that you had an extra 700 lbs in the back.

Are you happy with how the Promaster is performing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,006 Posts
I took my PM out on the road yesterday. Loaded with maybe 700 lbs. of cargo. Stayed inside the speed limit in rolling hills and got 21.6 mpg. ......cut........
That's excellent. Can you please put it in context for comparison so I can estimate what MPG I'd get? Which model do you have, 1500, 2500, or 3500? High or low roof, and what speed were you driving? I know you stated the speed limit but that can vary significantly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
The 8 & 4 steering wheel position is what friends of ours that have the T1N older Sprinter models have found most comfortable also.
Sounds like excellent fuel mileage
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
I am 5 ft. 10 inches. The PM is a high roof 1500 - 136 wheelbase.

I had the cruise control set at about 60.


The PM is so different from anything I have ever driven before so I am a little uneasy driving it. But that is getting better. For the plans I have for it, I am pleased with its versatility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,006 Posts
That would help. 70 mph freeway speeds are really costly in fuel.

......cut........
As a percent change on fuel economy, it should be more so for a ProMaster than an Econoline. Particularly if the Econoline has a larger engine like mine. With a V10 the engine is so oversized for typical cruising needs that slowing from 70 to 60 MPH doesn't return as much fuel savings as we should get due to reduced engine load; because the engine becomes even more inefficient.

With a PM the engine isn't oversized much at all during cruising so slowing down saves more fuel (as a percent improvement). On my van I get around 16 MPG at most if driving 60 MPH, around 15 MPG at 70 MPH, and a little over 13 MPG at 80 MPH. With a PM I'd bet the improvement from 80 down to 60 MPH would be much greater.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
I was a little concerned but I took the PM off on back roads - mud and gravel and very steep. It performed well - rocketed nimbly up jeep tracks. The front wheel drive is the key.

I sold my Toyota Tundra because it just couldn't handle these roads even with big offroad tires.

On the downside, I heard my brakes squeek for the first time today.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
727 Posts
x2

Best place to add it, add it to everyone elses recordings, likely many of the people their aren't on this forum, the more reported in one area the better
That's a good idea, Ram3500, I registered.

But I noticed the the PM models are not in the list yet. Did you submit them? If not, I can do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I took my PM out on the road yesterday. Loaded with maybe 700 lbs. of cargo. Stayed inside the speed limit in rolling hills and got 21.6 mpg. Once I got into steep stuff (grades 7 percent to 11 percent and even steeper), the overall mileage went down to 20.0 - so it was probably averaging 18 or so in that part.

About the seat: I found that I could adjust it to be very comfortable using the tilt, scoot and lumbar support. Also holding the steering wheel at 10 and 2 doesn't work well at all. 8 and 4 does fine.

What I haven't figured out very well is the satellite radio and bluetooth.
Is this hand calculated or you going by the computer reading? 21.6 seems really good. That's better than my fully loaded sprinter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Is this hand calculated or you going by the computer reading? 21.6 seems really good. That's better than my fully loaded sprinter
Seriously. If people are quoting the the dash readout we might as well give that another name. MPGM for MPG...Maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
The dash readout is not an accurate readout at all. Just an approximation. The way to figure it is via a ScanGauge II after setting it up correctly, or hand figuring it via miles driven vs gallons added
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
In reality, every pump is calibrated differently, and temperature makes a difference. Spot readings are always going to be an approximation, even if you calculate the actual gas used vs some computer approximation. It would just be nice to know how people arrived at the number they are reporting. Even then, there are variables like average speed, weight carried and what's on the roof that render "I got 20" as useful as "I had fish for lunch" without a LOT of additional info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,006 Posts
The dash readout is not an accurate readout at all. Just an approximation. The way to figure it is via a ScanGauge II after setting it up correctly, or hand figuring it via miles driven vs gallons added
What makes ScanGauge Ii more accurate than vehicle's computer? I have to admit not knowing what information the PM displays, or what ScanGauge can calculate that the vehicle's computer can't.

Doesn't ScanGauge use the same data that is supplied by vehicle? And if so, why wouldn't factory "set up" by engineers familiar with vehicle not be at least as accurate as what we can set up ourselves?

The first car I owned with a trip computer was a 1989 model, and it was fairly accurate considering it was technology from 25 years ago. From tank to tank I don't recall it being off by more than a fraction of one MPG compared to pumps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
What makes ScanGauge Ii more accurate than vehicle's computer? I have to admit not knowing what information the PM displays, or what ScanGauge can calculate that the vehicle's computer can't.

Doesn't ScanGauge use the same data that is supplied by vehicle? And if so, why wouldn't factory "set up" by engineers familiar with vehicle not be at least as accurate as what we can set up ourselves?

The first car I owned with a trip computer was a 1989 model, and it was fairly accurate considering it was technology from 25 years ago. From tank to tank I don't recall it being off by more than a fraction of one MPG compared to pumps.
Agree. My experience is that the trip computer is usually very close to the manually calculated amount (miles traveled divided by gallons consumed).

In fact if there is a variation, why would one assume that the manually calculated method is more accurate? Unless one refills the tank to the EXACT same level each time, the gallons consumed will not be accurate. Also, ones odometer reading may not be accurate. When calibrating to highway odometer checks, I find that my odometer reading can be off by 2%-4%

So it's possible that the trip computer is more accurate than calculating MPG manually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Agree. My experience is that the trip computer is usually very close to the manually calculated amount (miles traveled divided by gallons consumed).

In fact if there is a variation, why would one assume that the manually calculated method is more accurate? Unless one refills the tank to the EXACT same level each time, the gallons consumed will not be accurate. Also, ones odometer reading may not be accurate. When calibrating to highway odometer checks, I find that my odometer reading can be off by 2%-4%

So it's possible that the trip computer is more accurate than calculating MPG manually.
Does the dash computer use a different odometer than the one it shows you? Not that any of this matters. What's needed is a bell curve with a lot more data points. Until that happens, MPG numbers are going to be somewhat useless. Too many variables.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
What makes ScanGauge Ii more accurate than vehicle's computer? I have to admit not knowing what information the PM displays, or what ScanGauge can calculate that the vehicle's computer can't.

Doesn't ScanGauge use the same data that is supplied by vehicle? And if so, why wouldn't factory "set up" by engineers familiar with vehicle not be at least as accurate as what we can set up ourselves?

The first car I owned with a trip computer was a 1989 model, and it was fairly accurate considering it was technology from 25 years ago. From tank to tank I don't recall it being off by more than a fraction of one MPG compared to pumps.

Chance, the Scangauge & the Ultragauge, or what ever other brand is out there has (Scangauge does) or probably has the fuel fill up amounts that you input at each fill that it uses along with your miles driven to figure out the mpg. The guys on the Sprinter forum that have had them longer than me say that the dash readout on the Sprinter is always a couple mpg off vs the SG being pretty close to right on. I know every vehicle I've ever had with a dash readout, current 2012 Jeep Wrangler being one of them, has not been as accurate as my just figuring out on paper.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top