Adam R wrote:
Shiner,
We keep talking past one another. I agree, the 3.0 Eco is better optimized for lighter loads, no disagreement there. There is a 7 mpg difference between a V-6 and V-8 Camaro too. Same chassis, different engine that is designed to provide a different driving experience. Hook 14K up to the Eco diesel and you've just become a public nuisance and a danger to others on the road and mileage will be nearly equal to a 6.7. Getting 30 mpg out of a 6.7 is going to be tough unless you can de-activate a few cylinders and yes, I've seen the article where they lowered the cD to the point where it could eek out 30 mpg. Not practical for most of us, but you'll always get better mpg by reducing the amount of air a vehicle has to move through.
Why would anyone hook up 14k to an Ecodiesel when it is only rated for 9,200 lbs at the most? That is not reality.
Think about what you just stated here. You stated
"Getting 30 mpg out of a 6.7 is going to be tough unless you can de-activate a few cylinders". By taking away cylinders, you lower the engines effective displacement which is exactly what I have been saying that you would have to lower displacement in order to attain greater fuel economy as you increase the engines ability to burn fuel more efficiently. Also, you can do the exact same thing you are stating to an Ecodiesel and get even better fuel economy out of it.
Adam R wrote:
If an Eco does what you need a truck to do, then that is the tool for you. Bottom line is that a 3.0 Eco that puts out 900 ft lbs and backed up a factory warranty is not likely any time soon.
LOL! I don't own an Ecodiesel. I own a 2014 2500 6.7L Cummins. What I own does not change my argument because what I am arguing is based on facts and not bias. I am also not talking about getting unrealistic power levels out of the Ecodiesel and I am not sure why it is even apart of the your response. What I have been saying is.....
"As technology allows a big liter 6.6/6.7L diesels to gain more energy out of a drop of fuel, its power will increase along with a moderate increase in efficiency. If you want to keep the power the same while having a greater increase in fuel economy, then you would have to go to a smaller displacement engine as fuel efficiency technology improves(i.e. the more energy you are able to get out of a drop of fuel)."
Adam R wrote:
And, the there still a weight and cD difference in the comparison between the 1500 and 2500 so it's still not exactly apples to apples. Not necessarily a bad comparison, but I'll gladly give up a few mpg for a far more capable truck.
Adam
The example that RRinconVTR gave where you agreed and said
"Yep, good comparison and more inline with what I've been trying to get the point across" was not apples to apples either yet you agread with that... In fact, I would argue that my example would be more comparable to the topic at hand.
