Forum Discussion
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Lessmore wrote:
AndrewM wrote:
The EcoDiesel was the slowest in every performance test - by a lot. With no fuel cost savings compared to the EcoBoost. Why would I want buy the EcoDiesel? What am I missing?
You're right the Dodge diesel is slower than the Chevy and Ford. Performance figures of the Ram, are 0-60 mph in 8.8 seconds, 1/4 mile in 16.6 seconds. That's not bad, probably a little better than average for the mix of new vehicles out there today.
To me and many others it's more than satisfactory. In a truck I don't need the acceleration of a Top Fuel dragster. I want really good low and mid range torque.
Everybody has different wants.
The math just does not come out on the 1/4 mile time with this truck. A 16.6 time in a truck with 240HP and weighs as much as it does should clock the 1/4 at low 17's; not mid 16's. The 0 to 60 times are way off too for some reason. Someone is cheating somewhere or this truck is an anomaly among anomalies. :h
Possibly the fact that the new Ram has 8 speeds with close ratio gearing may make a difference. I'm quoting 1/4 mile e.t. from the article.- The dodge sounds like a great deal.... But no payload... Man that truck needs more then 900lbs... With all people on board and filled up, u have almost no payload left. If they can fix that and increase it to where Chevy is ( being the highest in this test).. It would be awesome !! Regardless dodge did a good job overall.
- The Ed takes a lot of criticism for it's anemic weight & tow ratings & rightfully so. Many have the opinion that it will surely turn into a pumpkin if you put 901# in the bed. For those good conservative individuals that go strictly by the label in the door jam, God bless you; there's surely going to be a special place in heaven for you. It may come as a surprise that there are some of us that don't always obey traffic laws, occasionally don't abide by prescription labels, fudge a bit on our income tax and sometimes use our trucks beyond their advertised limitations. While ram is hampered by a slightly smaller axle diameter & only 5 lugs rather than 6-8, the primary differential in ratings is due to the fact chrysler opted to use sae system prior to other brands following suit. Bad choice on chrysler's part. If I haven't rustled feathers thus far, let me step it up a notch. You're totally naive if you don't realize that these ratings are set by exponentially cautious bureaucratic pencil pushing safety officials & an army of liability lawyers rather than untethered engineers who are aware of the true capabilities!! I've lived long enough to understand when it feels right & when it doesn't & there is where my limitations are set. My sticker warns not to exceed 890#. I've actually made two 40 mile trips through some mountainous tn back roads with over 2300#. The air suspension leveled the load perfectly & the only time I could tell I had a load was when braking. i took a before & after measurement & found a load deflection of only 1 3/8". Another occasion I hauled 1850# for 450 miles @ interstate speeds. It's a truck, use it like one. For those that feel it's true capabilities are rivaled by a minivan, buy a minivan!! Ok weight police, take your best shot!
- Ya I know you did Lessmore. It's just really strange that's all.
Another thing that really glared out is the oil burner rev's more at highway speed than either one of the gas burners. :E :h Weird. - Pretty hard not to have a better summary "The Ram was also a surprise, but a good one. The EcoDiesel's torque comes on quickly and makes it feel quicker than the Chevy around town. Part of that is due to its exclusive eight-speed automatic transmission, which we agreed was the best here by far. "It's unflappable," said Seabaugh. "It's never caught in the wrong gear. It makes the Ford's and especially the Chevy's six-speed transmissions feel like they're from an entirely different era." Up in the mountains, this winning team never noticed the altitude or the twisty road. It was always in the right gear with ample power. The Ram's class-exclusive, optional air suspension rode the best and the truck felt confident and responsive in turns. It wasn't quite as quiet inside as the Chevrolet and it wasn't as fast as the Ford, but it was the truck we agreed we'd want to drive on a regular basis. But we would prefer a faster steering rack."MotorTrend
MM49 - If I had to make a choice right now, it would be the EB. The ED sounds great but the ridiculous payload and lack of engine braking rules it out for any kind of RV duty for us. The fuel economy is another issue with it. Because of the higher cost of both diesel fuel and the ED option, I would need it to get 3 to 4 MPG better than the Ford to make it viable.
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Ya I know you did Lessmore. It's just really strange that's all.
Another thing that really glared out is the oil burner rev's more at highway speed than either one of the gas burners. :E :h Weird.
That is odd. Ram was running 3.92's, but then I checked the final drive ratios...the Ram @2.63, Ford @ 2.45, Chev @ 2.29. But then both Chev+ Ford have 6 speed trannies, Ram has 8 speed...would be interesting to see all ratios for all these transmissions.
Looked at the dry weight...F 150 @ 4955 vs Chev @ 5605 vs Ram @ 5990.
I was surprised at the weight diff. Knew that the Ram diesel engine wold probably be heavier + of course the Ford has a lighter aluminum body in 2015.
No wonder the 2.7 liter Turbo gas of the Ford felt so spritely...a lot less weight than the others to haul around.
The Ram is carrying a lot more weight than the F 150, which of course makes a difference in MPG, acceleration, braking, etc.ScottG wrote:
If I had to make a choice right now, it would be the EB. The ED sounds great but the ridiculous payload and lack of engine braking rules it out for any kind of RV duty for us. The fuel economy is another issue with it. Because of the higher cost of both diesel fuel and the ED option, I would need it to get 3 to 4 MPG better than the Ford to make it viable.
Article states that when compareably equiped, the three are priced the same. So, where is the additional price of the ED option?Lessmore wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Ya I know you did Lessmore. It's just really strange that's all.
Another thing that really glared out is the oil burner rev's more at highway speed than either one of the gas burners. :E :h Weird.
That is odd. Ram was running 3.92's, but then I checked the final drive ratios...the Ram @2.63, Ford @ 2.45, Chev @ 2.29. But then both Chev+ Ford have 6 speed trannies, Ram has 8 speed...would be interesting to see all ratios for all these transmissions.
Looked at the dry weight...F 150 @ 4955 vs Chev @ 5605 vs Ram @ 5990.
I was surprised at the weight diff. Knew that the Ram diesel engine wold probably be heavier + of course the Ford has a lighter aluminum body in 2015.
No wonder the 2.7 liter Turbo gas of the Ford felt so spritely...a lot less weight than the others to haul around.
The Ram is carrying a lot more weight than the F 150, which of course makes a difference in MPG, acceleration, braking, etc.
The Ford in this comparison was not a crew cab, so the weight advantage would be slightly less if the cabs were the same.- The 5000# tow rating for the F150 was probably because they had a truck without the tow package and all the extra cooling stuff that comes with it. Tow packages are pretty standard on dealer lots.
Still they loaded up all the trucks with a 7000# trailer, probably without a WDH so they exceeded the hitch receiver ratings, and the Ford would be 2000# over it's tow rating, and the RAM would be over its GVWR. (Also when they threw the 1000# in the bed the RAM would be over loaded). For a one-shot test, no biggie, the trucks took the abuse without issues.
But these folks clearly do not tow/haul much. There was no discussion of payload, no mention of the Ford's lack of tow package. Maybe that's because they clearly think of them as "grocery-getters". And I would agree.
Otherwise, I thought the article was OK. Their appreciation of the RAM EcoD's "quickness" must have a lot to do with the torque and HP coming in at low RPMs, and that nice 8 spd tranny.
Personally, the RAM EcoD is not for me: not enough payload and HP. But it sounds like a nice truck for most people. The new F150s look nice, and you can get them with the HD payload, but the towing mileage will be no better than a V8. The Chevy ... meh.
