I am getting ready to purchase my first diesel and want to know if there is a significant difference in the fuel mileage between a 2wd and a 4wd. I am going to buy a 2500, QC, auto, 3.73. I may ocassionally need 4wd in my work but rarely. I will occasionally tow a TT that I haven't bought yet and I am guessing it will weigh 9 to 10k. The truck will be my daily driver/office and I will drive about 30 to 40K a year. I will probably go with the 4wd unless I am convinced that the 2wd gets much better mileage.

It seems that most of the trucks listed in the forum are 4wd. Can anyone help me with the comparison?

 

It seems that most reports are that 4/wd gets about 2 or more miles per gal LESS than 2 /wd . This needs to be balanced against the below items.
4/wd costs a little more to purchase, and maintain, BUT- also retains a higher resale value down the road.
If you need it --get it, you will never regret it. Slippery boat ramps, slimy hills with a load, or even no load, will be a no sweat thing.
Peace of mind is worth several miles per gal to me .

 

About 2 mpg less with 4wd.

Each time I cross the Continental Divide in the wintertime, I'm so thankful I have it.

I drive into that snow and glaze ice with a lot more confidence!

 

Just take a few minutes to look at both of them side by side. This will help you make up your mind. The 2wd sits way low up front due to the different suspension.
I do agree with every one else thou, get the 4wd and you will never regret it

 

I made the mistake of buying a 2wd a couple of years ago when I knew I wanted a 4wd. In the end I couldn't even sleep because I knew I had screwed up. I kept it a week and traded it for an almost exact truck but with 4wd. It cost me a couple grand but the piece of mind of having the 4wd was worth it to me. Unfortunately it was a used truck and I later on found out that it had a bad transmission and I only kept it for a year before I bought this one. Finally I'm happy.....

 

I appreciate the driving characteristics of the 2wd versus the 4 - - turns tighter, rides smoother with less drive-train noise not to mention the mileage. The height hooking up to the fiver was important to me also. The last was 4wd, but I really need that down here in Florida - - really bad. The only time I miss it is at the boat ramp. If I lived in snow country I would probably stick with the 4wd.

 

Yep, about 2 mpg diff & sits about 4 to 6 inches higher than 2wd.

Down side is that the 04.5 mileage sucks to begin with. So with 4wd you may be down around 12-14 mpg city driving. Vs the 03 / 0-4 4x4's that are seeing 15-17 city and easily getting over 20mpg highway.

Unless you drive below 70mph highway odds are you'll never see 20mpg in your life with the 600 eng.

2 cents

 

I would be over joyed to see anything over 13 mpg on my 600!

 

What Fiver said. For the 2 times a year that I need 4x4 it is not worth it to me. I keep my trucks for 250 to 300k so maintenance costs are an issue. 4x4 cost more to maintain (more parts). If you have a 4x4 you will go places that you wouldn't in a 4x2. If your only concern is fuel mileage then get the 4x4. FWIW a 2wd with good snow tires will go where a 4x4 with all season (read no season) tires won't. But this also means another set of rims and tires to change twice a year.

 

THis is not meant as a slam in any way toward Thames1948. He just happened to hit the nail on the head.

When people think that 13 mpg out of a CTD unloaded is acceptable then I guess times are a changin.

Folks 13-14 mpg out of a CTD SUCKS. I have pulled 10K lbs trailers and gotten that out of my 2nd gen trucks. I've gotten 24 mpg with 4wd on 2nd gen trucks unloaded, 3.54 rear, and 24 mpg with 2wd on my 03. I don't baby them and am not trying to squeeze out mileage.

Ever since the 04.5 has come out with the new 600 engine all I have read about is these horrid mileage ratings. I guess to justify a $5000 dollar option people have to believe that 13 or 14 mpg is good. Well folks it's not. DC and Cummins have really boned us on this and it is inexcusable. There is no reason what so ever that you should be seeing less than 16 city with a 4x4 and around 20 highway. Yes, yes, I know there is some fluctuation depending on driving habits, flat or hilly terrain etc. But bye and large 13 mpg is a joke.

I for one will stick with Dodge, but will buy used 03's and 04's for the forseeable future.

And if the insult of the 04.5 to your intelligence isn't bad enough, just wait. Cummins already admits there is a problem and when they fix it and get the fuel efficiency where it is supposed to be, what then???

I have a feeling an 04.5 will be penalized on trade in because they will be difficult to sell. ANd don't forget all the guys that ask what truck they should buy and what truck to stay away from on this forum. In a few years the overwhelming answer will be don't buy an 04.5 because the mileage really stinks.

So, instead of justifying 13mpg what really needs to happen is those of you that have bought a 600, need to be fuming at DC about the horrid mileage.

 

I don't think 13 is a good thing, infact I think it stinks and that is what I told my dealer when I droped it off the other day. All I got out of the tech guy is although my milage is not normal for a diesel everything ck out ok, so I got the standard qoute, you need to break it in first. I asked about reflash, again they said don't need it, everything ck out ok. I have about 2500 miles on it and have seen 13 only once since I bought this fuel guzzler. It spends the rest of the time around 12.4. So when I say I would be over joyed it is because I have yet to see 14 no matter how easy I drive it. I guess I am stuck with it because what else can I do. They already got my money and beyond that don't seem to care. I too thought that they would NEVER go backwards on mpg's in the age of crazy fuel prices

 

Thames, best thing you can hope for, IMHO, is to try and sell it out right to some one and buy a 2004 or 2003. As far as the break in phylosophy goes. Thats a lot of hooey as well. I personally have put over a million miles on the CTD's I have owned and the break in difference in mileage may be 1 mpg. What you really notice is the engines loosens up and winds up quicker.

Watch for the end of year, around october 1st. DC will offer some amazing deals to get rid of 0-4 stock. I am confident that DC will have the mileage issue sorted out by 2005. Perhaps you can at least trade and not get your fanny burned off.

Good luck.

 

I wouldnt count on any fixes for the 600 fuel economy.trucks over 8600 gvw arent tested for fuel economy.none of us has a window sticker stating fuel economy expectations so none of us has a leg to stand on. My truck gets a whole 9 to 12 mpgs with the 4:10s .Im either trading it in on a gmc duramax or a 04 ho dodge . The only dodge the dealer can find is black and thats a lot of cleaning . the gmc is white , the lb7 engine which is proven in my eyes . I put enough down on my truck not to be upside down but this still sucks . I almost want to give up on the dodge because im so ****** off about the one i have now .Last tank was 289 miles to 28.4 gallons thats flat out b.s.

 

What is this problem that Cummins readily admits to regarding the 600?
Not all 600's are seeing 13 mpg. I'm getting 15-16 (hand calculated and computer readout) and I've got 1600 miles on the odo. I'm happy with that maileage. The '01 PSD that I sold had 42,000 miles and the best it ever got was 16.5. So, while some may be seeing low numbers, I don't think enough of them are to say that there's a problem with the entire line of 600 engines. Nor do I think that people will be hurt by resale value and I definitely will recommend a 600 to anyone that asks me. For some people such as myself, fuel mileage was only a very small part of the package, reliability and dependability are more important factors to me and I think to most other people as well. I do seem to remember that when the '98.5 came out, people with previous gen Cummins were complaining about fuel mileage and now it's these same people who are complaining about the mileage of the 600 and saying how great the previous gen's
mileage was.
Now having said all that, yes, 13 mpg is not right and I would be upset. We do know that two problems existed on the early engines that seem to affect the mileage - the reflash and some bad injectors. Thames, if you haven't already, check out the posts from jwtuc. After they replaced his injectors, if I remember correctly, he noticed an increase in mileage. Perhaps, a different dealership will be more willing to help you.

 

I know they don't put it on the sticker, but it will be interesting to see what word of mouth does for sales if they don't do something about stinking milage. I know that some post great mpg's with 600/325 but who wants to buy a 40,000 dollar truck when you have to decide if it's your lucky day or NOT!