Understanding the 2016 Ram 2500 fuel economy requires looking at the specific configuration and powertrain, as this heavy-duty truck offers several distinct options. The base gasoline V8 delivers a certain capability at the cost of efficiency, while the available diesel and gasoline V10 engines present different values for towing and daily driving. For buyers in the market for a workhorse, the fuel numbers are a critical part of the total cost of ownership calculation, influencing decisions long before the first trip to the tailgate.
Available Powertrains and Their Efficiency
The 2016 model year provided a clear choice between traditional gasoline power and a more efficient diesel solution, each with distinct performance characteristics. The standard 6.4-liter HEMI V8 gasoline engine was mated to either a five-speed automatic or the new six-speed automatic transmission, offering brute force for demanding tasks. For those who prioritized longevity and torque at lower RPMs, the optional 6.7-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel was the centerpiece of the lineup, paired exclusively with the six-speed automatic.
Gasoline V8 and V10 Options
For drivers who needed maximum towing capacity, the top-tier 6.7-liter Hemi V10 was the answer, but this power comes with a significant fuel economy penalty. The V10 configuration was designed to handle the heaviest trailers while delivering strong performance, though it is the least efficient choice in the lineup. In contrast, the standard V8 represented a balance between capability and reasonable fuel consumption for a truck of this class, especially when not towing to the extreme.
Real-World Driving and Configuration Impact
These numbers tell a clear story, but the real-world difference between a diesel and a gasoline Ram 2500 is substantial during a typical week of driving. The diesel engine achieves nearly double the highway mpg of the gasoline variants, which translates directly into fewer stops at the pump on long hauls or job sites. Four-wheel drive models consistently show a slight reduction in fuel economy compared to rear-wheel drive versions due to the added weight and mechanical resistance of the system.
