have to agree with you on that. The 5.3 is a fantastic motor. one of the best v8s ever made but its not a torque monster. Its similar to what that little turbo will do. Mine empty driving 60 would easily get 21-22 but I don't have drilling mans luck, I put even my empty utv trailer on the back of it and it was instantly down to 12.
You need torque to get something moving and HP to keep it moving. Soon as you put a load on that little motor the trannys going to start downshifting and the waste gates going to close and the boost is going to raise and the mpg are going south. This new ram I have seems to have more power everywhere but no doubt some of that comes from the 391 gears and the 8 speed transmission vs the 6 speed and 321 gears the silverardo had. But like ive said so far the fuel economy has sucked in it. Best tank was 17 on the highway.
I don't worry to much because about the farthest we go is to town once a month to get grocerys and that's 60 miles away. Most of the use is round trip to my wifes job and that's only 10 miles a day. Were lucky to put 5k on the truck or the jeep every year. I think my son in law puts more miles on my trucks then I do. If it got 10mpg it wouldn't make the difference in how I live. Personaly id take power over fuel economy any day. I wish ram would put the 6.4 hemi in the half tons and if I would have decided on another Silverado it wouldn't have been the 4cyl, wouldn't have even been the 5.3. I was looking at a trail boss with a 6.2. Drove one and that's one healthy motor!! Just didn't like the near 60k price tag on it. Add to that the 6.2s are in such demand that they wouldn't knock a penny off the price. The ram we got for 44 out the door and it had a 55k sticker on it.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! STEEL FOR TANKS NOT FENCES!!!
Last edited by lloyd smale; 05-19-2020 at 06:29 AM.