Hello Ram 1500 Diesel!

itguy08 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

OK the EB a V-6 twin turbo beat the the 5.7 V-8 by 0.6 of a gallon WOW that sure is a bad butt whopping there isn't it?

Considering it out towed it with 2 less cylendars and 2 less gears, I'd say it's a butt whopping. Especially how the RamBois were saying how the 8 speed would kill everyone in fuel economy. And that the EB will drink fuel like a sailor on leave. It does, but so does the Hemi.
I don't know anyone that has said the Hemi gets great fuel mileage. However if you use some of your gray matter you should be able to understand that an engine with two small quick spooling turbos will be faster and make better mileage, then an engine without them. With that said I find it funny that you side stepped the fact that the NON TURBO 3.6 Pentastar was faster and got better mileage then that Ego-Boost your so proud of. Care to address that?

As for the diesels the Ram that was tested was not running DEF. Now that they are all running the same system (Note: the Ram still uses the CP-3 pump) the 2013 Ram's are getting better mileage then the GM/Chevy and Ford HD trucks.

Source please from a test.
Link

By the way we get it you are not a Chrysler/Ram fan, so why not drink your Blue Kool-Aid in a Ford post?

The facts are the facts and speak for themselves. They are not Kool Aid, Fanboi or whatever. They are the facts.
To bad your facts are a joke. 0.6 MPG more is a joke if you look at the FACTS! Non turbo 5.7 V-8 that makes within 0.6 MPG over a twin turbo that has never made anything close to what Ford said it would! But again why let the facts get in the way right?
Cause the RamBois are stroking themselves about how great this Diesel will be and it will be the be all and end all of 1/2T fuel economy. I'm pointing out that Diesels don't necessarily get better fuel economy. Has nothing to do with brand other than to point the different MPG's among all. If anything, compare Ford to Ford, Dodge to Dodge, Chevy to Chevy.

Should it get much better #'s while towing than the Ecoboost or GM I'll eat my words and buy you a beer.

Motor Trend wrote:
Engine note varies by model and age. The ST we drove had 37,000 miles on it, and a less gravelly top end -- all 2900 rpm of it -- than the new Laramie Longhorns did. Turbo whine is faint at best, there's none of that planetary surround sound emanating from below, and driveline vibration is well controlled, even at WOT in first gear. From what we could tell with our relatively limited mileage information (trucks this size aren't under EPA guidelines for fuel economy), we can only observe the 370/800 engine in the 2500s were showing close to 20 percent better economy than we get with similar 2012s, suggesting Ram's claimed 15-22 percent improvement is accurate. Even including DEF, fuel costs could easily be cut by more than 10 percent.

Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_1305_2013_ram_3500_hd_first_drive/index.html#ixzz2YgbhXSI7