Forum Discussion
FishOnOne wrote:
I don't think there was no surprises that a "small diesel" powered truck will produce better fuel economy than a gas powered truck. What was not advertised was the cost of ownership of these trucks and at this point it's my opinion that the gas powered truck will cost less in the long run compared to the diesel. What Ford has done with the 2015 trucks was put them on a diet and layed the foundation going forwards. At this point only Ford had the volume and the financial backing to make such a dramatic change to the design of their trucks and the material supply chain of their military grade aluminum, and I suspect GM and RAM will watch from the sideline for now.
Fish, don't you think that's a little broad of a brush to paint with for long-run ownership? Just today, I passed a few fuel stations where Diesel and Regular unleaded were priced the same. Going on gas buddy, I see $2.69 as the best regular price and best diesel price at 2.89. That's a less than 10% cost differential. Diesel prices have just collapsed by 30 cents around my parts while regular dipped a further 3 cents over the same time period. I hypothesize this was due to the quick ramp-up in home heating oil due to the early cold-snap the nation experienced. In my case, my metric that I measure my current RAM against is my 2010 F-150 w/ its 5.4 liter motor. I've had cheaper maintenance and fuel costs combined so far. I've never hit 3 digits in pumping fuel and putting more miles between fill-up (F-150 had a 36 gallon tank, my RAM has a 31 gallon tank) Brakes are wearing far slower as well (love the exhaust brake). However, I know in other parts of the country (eastern seaboard primarily), you will not break-even with a diesel. At least from what I see in their cost differentials.
However, I agree that light-weighting is going to be the trend in the next few years. With Ford switching to aluminum, the steel industry has decided to really crank out the Ultra-High Strength Steel as a possible alternative in the industry. GM has made it known they are going aluminum and applying different assembly techniques (aluminum welding and a new rivet/weld process I've seen). I wonder which path RAM/FCA will take? Go to UHSS or Al?FishOnOne wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Some disagree with you assessment hybridhunter. Motor Trend had this to say about the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost when comparing it to the EcoDiesel.
"This was to be the F-150's year. Hyped as the most thoroughly re-engineered, game-changing pickup of the millennium, these twin-turbo'd alloy haulers swaggered in with great expectations. First impressions were glowing. Of the 2.7L EcoBoost, Seabaugh said: "This little guy seriously packs a punch." Evans enthused, "This thing's like a race truck." At speed, Loh found it "an impressively tomb-quiet truck, like a library." The judges awarded Engineering Excellence points for truck firsts such as the 360-degree camera, park-distance sensors by the front wheels, panoramic sunroof, LED headlights, BoxLink hardware, materials engineering, and its impressive roster of available safety tech.
Then came some grumbling. "The interiors are Wurlitzer organs of heavy-handed design," Reynolds said. Burgess found the exterior redesign less of an advancement than that of last year's Silverado. Lieberman concurred, lamenting that it didn't look "nearly enough like the stunning Atlas Concept." Dynamic complaints cropped up: Reynolds noted, "The steering is truck-sloppy. There's a wobbly indecisiveness to their true direction that bothers me." He found the 2.7's brakes "very soft on application and very grabby once they engage." Many complained that the lane keep assist fought them for control of the wheel.
The bigger problem was that Ford didn't win a concurrent Chevy/Ram comparison, largely because we were unconvinced that Ford's EcoBoost/aluminum approach trumps Ram's EcoDiesel/eight-speed fuel economy play. Our Real MPG combined results give the Ram a 21-percent advantage over the 2.7L, while observed results over 350 miles with a 1,000-pound load extend that to 35 percent, furthering our impression that working an EcoBoost like a V-8 returns V-8 consumption. The Ram diesel rides better (on air or coil springs), looks better inside and out, and can be had similarly equipped for similar money. So while we remain deeply impressed with the F-150 as an engineering feat, these two examples impressed us less as trucks."
I don't think there was no surprises that a "small diesel" powered truck will produce better fuel economy than a gas powered truck. What was not advertised was the cost of ownership of these trucks and at this point it's my opinion that the gas powered truck will cost less in the long run compared to the diesel. What Ford has done with the 2015 trucks was put them on a diet and layed the foundation going forwards. At this point only Ford had the volume and the financial backing to make such a dramatic change to the design of their trucks and the material supply chain of their military grade aluminum, and I suspect GM and RAM will watch from the sideline for now.
I wouldn't bet against a more efficient vehicle in the "long run". You are bound to loose sooner or later. That is the silly thing about efficacies.
MM49ib516 wrote:
Ya, every tester I've seen (video and text) has raved about the 2.7L EcoBoost's power.
You can make power with anything... but it's going to cost you in fuel consumption. A diesel, by virtue of fuel and compression ratio and other volumetric efficiendies, will almost always see 30-35% better mpg's that an equivalent gas engine. The fuel alone has 20+% more calories per gallon than gas.
In identical 2013 Touaregs, one gas, the other diesel, I saw 26 MPG in the gas model, 33 in the Diesel. YMMV, I drove them identically.
I'll take the diesel, every single time. You get hit in a diesel, it's rare that a fuel leak in going to cause you and your vehicle to burn to a crisp.- Ya, every tester I've seen (video and text) has raved about the 2.7L EcoBoost's power.
FishOnOne wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Some disagree with you assessment hybridhunter. Motor Trend had this to say about the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost when comparing it to the EcoDiesel.
"This was to be the F-150's year. Hyped as the most thoroughly re-engineered, game-changing pickup of the millennium, these twin-turbo'd alloy haulers swaggered in with great expectations. First impressions were glowing. Of the 2.7L EcoBoost, Seabaugh said: "This little guy seriously packs a punch." Evans enthused, "This thing's like a race truck." At speed, Loh found it "an impressively tomb-quiet truck, like a library." The judges awarded Engineering Excellence points for truck firsts such as the 360-degree camera, park-distance sensors by the front wheels, panoramic sunroof, LED headlights, BoxLink hardware, materials engineering, and its impressive roster of available safety tech.
Then came some grumbling. "The interiors are Wurlitzer organs of heavy-handed design," Reynolds said. Burgess found the exterior redesign less of an advancement than that of last year's Silverado. Lieberman concurred, lamenting that it didn't look "nearly enough like the stunning Atlas Concept." Dynamic complaints cropped up: Reynolds noted, "The steering is truck-sloppy. There's a wobbly indecisiveness to their true direction that bothers me." He found the 2.7's brakes "very soft on application and very grabby once they engage." Many complained that the lane keep assist fought them for control of the wheel.
The bigger problem was that Ford didn't win a concurrent Chevy/Ram comparison, largely because we were unconvinced that Ford's EcoBoost/aluminum approach trumps Ram's EcoDiesel/eight-speed fuel economy play. Our Real MPG combined results give the Ram a 21-percent advantage over the 2.7L, while observed results over 350 miles with a 1,000-pound load extend that to 35 percent, furthering our impression that working an EcoBoost like a V-8 returns V-8 consumption. The Ram diesel rides better (on air or coil springs), looks better inside and out, and can be had similarly equipped for similar money. So while we remain deeply impressed with the F-150 as an engineering feat, these two examples impressed us less as trucks."
double post.ib516 wrote:
Some disagree with you assessment hybridhunter. Motor Trend had this to say about the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost when comparing it to the EcoDiesel.
"This was to be the F-150's year. Hyped as the most thoroughly re-engineered, game-changing pickup of the millennium, these twin-turbo'd alloy haulers swaggered in with great expectations. First impressions were glowing. Of the 2.7L EcoBoost, Seabaugh said: "This little guy seriously packs a punch." Evans enthused, "This thing's like a race truck." At speed, Loh found it "an impressively tomb-quiet truck, like a library." The judges awarded Engineering Excellence points for truck firsts such as the 360-degree camera, park-distance sensors by the front wheels, panoramic sunroof, LED headlights, BoxLink hardware, materials engineering, and its impressive roster of available safety tech.
Then came some grumbling. "The interiors are Wurlitzer organs of heavy-handed design," Reynolds said. Burgess found the exterior redesign less of an advancement than that of last year's Silverado. Lieberman concurred, lamenting that it didn't look "nearly enough like the stunning Atlas Concept." Dynamic complaints cropped up: Reynolds noted, "The steering is truck-sloppy. There's a wobbly indecisiveness to their true direction that bothers me." He found the 2.7's brakes "very soft on application and very grabby once they engage." Many complained that the lane keep assist fought them for control of the wheel.
The bigger problem was that Ford didn't win a concurrent Chevy/Ram comparison, largely because we were unconvinced that Ford's EcoBoost/aluminum approach trumps Ram's EcoDiesel/eight-speed fuel economy play. Our Real MPG combined results give the Ram a 21-percent advantage over the 2.7L, while observed results over 350 miles with a 1,000-pound load extend that to 35 percent, furthering our impression that working an EcoBoost like a V-8 returns V-8 consumption. The Ram diesel rides better (on air or coil springs), looks better inside and out, and can be had similarly equipped for similar money. So while we remain deeply impressed with the F-150 as an engineering feat, these two examples impressed us less as trucks."
I don't think there was no surprises that a "small diesel" powered truck will produce better fuel economy than a gas powered truck. What was not advertised was the cost of ownership of these trucks and at this point it's my opinion that the gas powered truck will cost less in the long run compared to the diesel. What Ford has done with the 2015 trucks was put them on a diet and layed the foundation going forwards. At this point only Ford had the volume and the financial backing to make such a dramatic change to the design of their trucks and the material supply chain of their military grade aluminum, and I suspect GM and RAM will watch from the sideline for now.- Some disagree with you assessment hybridhunter. Motor Trend had this to say about the new F150 with the 2.7L EcoBoost when comparing it to the EcoDiesel.
"This was to be the F-150's year. Hyped as the most thoroughly re-engineered, game-changing pickup of the millennium, these twin-turbo'd alloy haulers swaggered in with great expectations. First impressions were glowing. Of the 2.7L EcoBoost, Seabaugh said: "This little guy seriously packs a punch." Evans enthused, "This thing's like a race truck." At speed, Loh found it "an impressively tomb-quiet truck, like a library." The judges awarded Engineering Excellence points for truck firsts such as the 360-degree camera, park-distance sensors by the front wheels, panoramic sunroof, LED headlights, BoxLink hardware, materials engineering, and its impressive roster of available safety tech.
Then came some grumbling. "The interiors are Wurlitzer organs of heavy-handed design," Reynolds said. Burgess found the exterior redesign less of an advancement than that of last year's Silverado. Lieberman concurred, lamenting that it didn't look "nearly enough like the stunning Atlas Concept." Dynamic complaints cropped up: Reynolds noted, "The steering is truck-sloppy. There's a wobbly indecisiveness to their true direction that bothers me." He found the 2.7's brakes "very soft on application and very grabby once they engage." Many complained that the lane keep assist fought them for control of the wheel.
The bigger problem was that Ford didn't win a concurrent Chevy/Ram comparison, largely because we were unconvinced that Ford's EcoBoost/aluminum approach trumps Ram's EcoDiesel/eight-speed fuel economy play. Our Real MPG combined results give the Ram a 21-percent advantage over the 2.7L, while observed results over 350 miles with a 1,000-pound load extend that to 35 percent, furthering our impression that working an EcoBoost like a V-8 returns V-8 consumption. The Ram diesel rides better (on air or coil springs), looks better inside and out, and can be had similarly equipped for similar money. So while we remain deeply impressed with the F-150 as an engineering feat, these two examples impressed us less as trucks." - Or, here is the Diesel Failing. In a lighter vehicle. With an aerodynamic trailer. With the oil overheating. Yawn.
Diesel Fail
Torqueless Ford with a box full of junk.
And yet it averages 60, and no oil overheating... (and the post 2013 F150's are MUCH quieter, btw)
Which will last longer? Probably the one that does not have temperature issues. I'm not sure how 1000# heavier ram is going to keep up to the Jeep. I guess we know why Ram won't loan one out.
And I'm no Ram hater. I gave it props for being the one to have in 2014 if you're buying a base engine truck. I'm a hater of gutless vehicles and donkey economics.
In 2015, the f150 2.7 heavy payload will be the cheapo engine way to go now... Hybridhunter wrote:
NinerBikes wrote:
Is 0-60 in 6.9 seconds in my 5000# AWD touareg with a V 6 3.0 liter diesel and 240 HP with 406 ft lbs of torque too slow for you? Diesels don't have to be slow. Fact is, I never, in a million years will use that feature. What I do use, when without the trailer is the 60 to 80 mph passing feature. And I can assure you, a turbo diesel in that situation kicks butt without making a fanfare or ruckus in doing so.
So what does that have to do with the 1/2 ton comparison article?
Add the engine output being nearly identical, and add in some pounds for the heavier RAM truck, and you should be able to extrapolate times to do similar work from a turbo diesel engine.
Just saying "RAM" and "Ecodiesel" in the same sentence raises your anti RAM hackles to no end, clearly placing you in the "hater" category, or troll. You need to be called out on it. Just sayin...
Owning a turbo diesel is pretty much making a statement that you probably really don't care what your 0-60 or 1/4 mile time is, unlike a Hemi engine owner, where Hemi's ruled the drag strip in the past.NinerBikes wrote:
Is 0-60 in 6.9 seconds in my 5000# AWD touareg with a V 6 3.0 liter diesel and 240 HP with 406 ft lbs of torque too slow for you? Diesels don't have to be slow. Fact is, I never, in a million years will use that feature. What I do use, when without the trailer is the 60 to 80 mph passing feature. And I can assure you, a turbo diesel in that situation kicks butt without making a fanfare or ruckus in doing so.
So what does that have to do with the 1/2 ton comparison article?
