MotorTrend Tests the 1500's

otrfun wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

otrfun wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
. . . It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

IMO, the market for the Toyota & Nissan (T&N) V8 Cummins will be determined solely by payload and tow capacity.

If the payload remains in the 1/2 ton area (1300-1500 lbs.), it'll have a very rough time competing with the V6 Ecodiesel's higher MPG's.

If T&N can get the payload above 2,000 lbs. (tow capacity 12k lbs.), IMO they'll do well. To be able to offer near 3/4 ton capability with projected low 20 highway MPG's will fill a nice void in the market.

It'll be interesting to see how T&N will market their V8 Cummins trucks. IMO, their only option is to market them as 1/2 tons or Heavy Duty 1/2 tons (if they can bump up the payload/tow capacity). Otherwise, (as 3/4 tons) they'll be slaughtered by the Big 3 diesel marketing machine--labeled as the wimpiest 3/4 ton ever (less HP and torque).

IMHO it won't matter. They will sell tons just because there is a big C on the fender. It won't matter whether the truck is good, bad or ugly.......it will sell because of the big C

Point taken.

However, if the Cummins name has that kind of marketing power, why did Ram pass on the "Big C" for the Ecodiesel?

IMO, MPG, payload, and tow capacity, are the real Big 3 in the average consumer's mind.

Who knows? Price? Contract? Ram had their own in house diesel so they could save some $$$$? But it was a HUGE marketing error on their part IMHO. It happens all the time.

Remember "Edsel or the New Coke?"

Cummins has a huge almost cult like following much like Cat.

I agree with you on the payload. It can't be a grocery getter like the Goat diesel.

As far as fuel mileage goes, if I had a dime for every time someone one on here said they don't give a rats a** about fuel mileage I wouldn't have to work again. Some people have a lot of money I guess?
I guess one would have to, to pay 55 grand for a half ton pickup! :E

On edit: What's up with the formatting on this site? Weird!

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

otrfun wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
. . . It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

IMO, the market for the Toyota & Nissan (T&N) V8 Cummins will be determined solely by payload and tow capacity.

If the payload remains in the 1/2 ton area (1300-1500 lbs.), it'll have a very rough time competing with the V6 Ecodiesel's higher MPG's.

If T&N can get the payload above 2,000 lbs. (tow capacity 12k lbs.), IMO they'll do well. To be able to offer near 3/4 ton capability with projected low 20 highway MPG's will fill a nice void in the market.

It'll be interesting to see how T&N will market their V8 Cummins trucks. IMO, their only option is to market them as 1/2 tons or Heavy Duty 1/2 tons (if they can bump up the payload/tow capacity). Otherwise, (as 3/4 tons) they'll be slaughtered by the Big 3 diesel marketing machine--labeled as the wimpiest 3/4 ton ever (less HP and torque).

IMHO it won't matter. They will sell tons just because there is a big C on the fender. It won't matter whether the truck is good, bad or ugly.......it will sell because of the big C

Point taken.

However, if the Cummins name has that kind of marketing power, why did Ram pass on the "Big C" for the Ecodiesel?

IMO, MPG, payload, and tow capacity, are the real Big 3 in the average consumer's mind.

otrfun wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
. . . It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

IMO, the market for the Toyota & Nissan (T&N) V8 Cummins will be determined solely by payload and tow capacity.

If the payload remains in the 1/2 ton area (1300-1500 lbs.), it'll have a very rough time competing with the V6 Ecodiesel's higher MPG's.

If T&N can get the payload above 2,000 lbs. (tow capacity 12k lbs.), IMO they'll do well. To be able to offer near 3/4 ton capability with projected low 20 highway MPG's will fill a nice void in the market.

It'll be interesting to see how T&N will market their V8 Cummins trucks. IMO, their only option is to market them as 1/2 tons or Heavy Duty 1/2 tons (if they can bump up the payload/tow capacity). Otherwise, (as 3/4 tons) they'll be slaughtered by the Big 3 diesel marketing machine--labeled as the wimpiest 3/4 ton ever (less HP and torque).

IMHO it won't matter. They will sell tons just because there is a big C on the fender. It won't matter whether the truck is good, bad or ugly.......it will sell because of the big C

FishOnOne wrote:
. . . It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

IMO, the market for the Toyota & Nissan (T&N) V8 Cummins will be determined solely by payload and tow capacity.

If the payload remains in the 1/2 ton area (1300-1500 lbs.), it'll have a very rough time competing with the V6 Ecodiesel's higher MPG's.

If T&N can get the payload above 2,000 lbs. (tow capacity 12k lbs.), IMO they'll do well. To be able to offer near 3/4 ton capability with projected low 20 highway MPG's will fill a nice void in the market.

It'll be interesting to see how T&N will market their V8 Cummins trucks. IMO, their only option is to market them as 1/2 tons or Heavy Duty 1/2 tons (if they can bump up the payload/tow capacity). Otherwise, (as 3/4 tons) they'll be slaughtered by the Big 3 diesel marketing machine--labeled as the wimpiest 3/4 ton ever (less HP and torque).

MM49 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

MM49 wrote:

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.
MM49

And speaking of efficiency, the diesel comes with some baggage as well...AKA the DPF. The DPF will need to be replaced at some point although a new breed of oil with low ash is supposed to increase it's life span, but frequent regens due to soccor mom driving will dilute the oil and increase oil consumption therefore creating more havoc on the DPF. The DPF I suspect is not a cheap item, and the parts I'm sure on the Eco Diesel won't be cheap either, just gander at the price of the oil filter as of now as an example.

Again the cost of ownership is the bottom line... And don't let fuel economy be the red herring.

It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

All of your DPF fears are covered by an extended emissions warranty???
MM49

I don't think a extended warranty covers the DPF, but I could be wrong. Having said that, if you feel you need to purchase an extended warranty due to fear of a big repair bill in the future, this should be added to the cost of ownership.

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?

Back when I bought my '95 Cummins powered 2500HD Ram reg cab, I didn't care that it only had 160hp. All I cared about was that it had a Cummins engine under the hood. The first time I cranked it up, I would have bought it twice. The angels sang and I felt funny. I didn't even care when we hitched up the 4400 lb trailer and I suddenly realized what a dog it was. It was pathetic and I loved it dearly. It's kind of like that and it will sell a ship load of EcoDiesel Rams.

FishOnOne wrote:

MM49 wrote:

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.
MM49

And speaking of efficiency, the diesel comes with some baggage as well...AKA the DPF. The DPF will need to be replaced at some point although a new breed of oil with low ash is supposed to increase it's life span, but frequent regens due to soccor mom driving will dilute the oil and increase oil consumption therefore creating more havoc on the DPF. The DPF I suspect is not a cheap item, and the parts I'm sure on the Eco Diesel won't be cheap either, just gander at the price of the oil filter as of now as an example.

Again the cost of ownership is the bottom line... And don't let fuel economy be the red herring.

It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.

All of your DPF fears are covered by an extended emissions warranty???
MM49

FishOnOne wrote:

J2S,
How about you compare apples to apples with 2015 .5 ton trucks only and be more specific.

BTW... I don't know what part of the country you live, but here in Texas diesel fuel has been a solid $0.60 more than gas as long as I can remember. Link

That's why I merely state that the brush may be a little wide. I'm in the PNW - Pacific North West. Land of mountains, lumberjacks, trees and hipsters (although I hear that they've been migrating to Austin as of late). The west coast has traditionally not had as large of a differential between diesel and unleaded as the eastern-half of the US. That's why I don't believe diesel is a panacea, but one must measure the merits of power plant and its running costs against the alternatives. Ecodiesels, VW/Audi/Porsche TDI's, BMW Diesels, Mercedes Diesels all sell at rapid-pace here on the west coast. You see tons of them all over the place. Again, diesels tend to make sense on the west coast. They offer a bonafide savings most of the time. However, if I was in your shoes seeing a big differential like that for fuel, I doubt I'd own my current truck and would probably wait a little longer hoping for some sort of super-charged/turbo-charged gasser HD pickup truck.

I was comparing my much heavier and what should be less-efficient truck against my old half-ton as running costs mattered to me as well. In this lop-sided comparison, I'm actually saving in my specific case (again, this is not the rule, just a case). As for half-ton comparisons, I think everybody is in a wait and see holding-pattern. Ford and RAM have taken 2 very different approaches to better fuel economy. One went diesel, the other went light-weighting. These are interesting times especially for any engineering nut.

Nobody in 2000 could predict the energy run-up in costs. Hell, just 5 years ago, everybody was saying Natural Gas would own the heavy-duty transportation market. That hasn't really materialized and with the shrinking delta between diesel and natural gas, it makes it a tougher proposition for nation-wide fleets to switch fuels.

However, what I can offer-up is to watch Mazda's HCCI technology (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition). This concept gets a gas engine to about as close to diesel as it possibly can. It uses compression to ignite the fuel air mixture exactly as a diesel does. It has an open throttle as far as I understand it. This means a gasoline engine runs almost exactly like a diesel with nearly the same efficiencies and pumping losses (HCCI engines still use a lower compression ratio than a diesel, at least when I last read on this tech). This tech could be the real game changer that removes the advantage of diesels in light-duty vehicles. This tech has been floating around since the early 2000's, however it is only until recently that we have the processing power for the right price to handle all the calculations that are needed to figure out how much fuel to inject and when for a gasoline motor.

jus2shy wrote:

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?

J2S,
How about you compare apples to apples with 2015 .5 ton trucks only and be more specific.

BTW... I don't know what part of the country you live, but here in Texas diesel fuel has been a solid $0.60 more than gas as long as I can remember. Link

MM49 wrote:

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.
MM49

And speaking of efficiency, the diesel comes with some baggage as well...AKA the DPF. The DPF will need to be replaced at some point although a new breed of oil with low ash is supposed to increase it's life span, but frequent regens due to soccor mom driving will dilute the oil and increase oil consumption therefore creating more havoc on the DPF. The DPF I suspect is not a cheap item, and the parts I'm sure on the Eco Diesel won't be cheap either, just gander at the price of the oil filter as of now as an example.

Again the cost of ownership is the bottom line... And don't let fuel economy be the red herring.

It'll be interesting to see what market is targeted by the Nissan Titan and the Toyota Tundra with the Cummins approach with more HP and Torque with perhaps less fuel economy than the Eco Diesel.