Hello Ram 1500 Diesel!

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

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?

Sure - where is that printed? Cause if that were te case then there would be no reason for the Hemi is the Pentastar were so fast and good as the EB beats Hemi... IIRC the Pentastar is marginally better than Ford's 3.7 but that's more because of the 8 speed.

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?

.6 MPG over 100,000 miles is significant.

While towing:
100k in the Ford you will use 9,175 gallons of gas @ $3.49 = $32,020.75
100k in the Ram you will use 9,616 gallons of gas @ $3.49 = $33,559.84

You'll save $1,539.09 in the Ford.

Empty it's even worse for the Ram.

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

Your going to have to buy me a beer then,

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.

What test was that? It was a first drive and they guestimate at fuel economy rather than put out #s...

Using their #'s and PUT.com's tests:

2011 Ford Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.5 MPG
2011 GMC Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.1 MPG
2011 RAM Diesel Fuel Economy: 8.5 MPG

8.5 * .2 = 1.7 more MPG for the Ram.

That Puts it at 9.5, exactly the same as Ford.

BTW I'm a Labat's Blue drinker thank you, you supply the beer and I'll buy the Crown Royal XR

I'll still buy you a beer - I like Labat's too (perhaps the only thing we can agree on! :) )