Forum Discussion
- Actually, someone has beat you to it; saw it on a utube clip.
NinerBikes wrote:
When I get my Ecodiesel, I'm gonna put a litte "C" badge on the side of the front fenders. :B
LOL- When I get my Ecodiesel, I'm gonna put a litte "C" badge on the side of the front fenders. :B
Hybridhunter 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."
Not really. If you really consider MT's opinions to be valid, I could offer you some insight as to how useless "opinions" can be. But they in fact validated all the data points I have been making. They rave about the power, and how they used it at every opportunity, and then didn't get the mileage that a low torque, lazy throttled half truck gets.
MT's has never had any credibility. Their data is usually sound though. Tell me how a warmed over midsize truck destined to be forgotten beats out one of the most revolutionary trucks of the past century?
I'm not going to bother as I doubt rational thought could penetrate your blue oval glasses. Those who use logic and rational thinking that read my post will see the facts though, and I posted it more for them than you.Hybridhunter 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."
Not really. If you really consider MT's opinions to be valid, I could offer you some insight as to how useless "opinions" can be. But they in fact validated all the data points I have been making. They rave about the power, and how they used it at every opportunity, and then didn't get the mileage that a low torque, lazy throttled half truck gets.
MT's has never had any credibility. Their data is usually sound though. Tell me how a warmed over midsize truck destined to be forgotten beats out one of the most revolutionary trucks of the past century?
Good lord, do you read anything, or just post your hate?
Take a minute and read up on how MotorTrend calculates their "real MPG" figures. It is a well thought out method that has been proven accurate to what the average consumer can expect in regard to MPG.
If you don't believe that, go on Fuelly and see what their users say in regard to MPG.
At this point, I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than a vendetta against Chrysler in genral and the EcoDiesel in particular.
It is a simple equation. If a consumer wants a truck that gets the BEST MPG of anything out there - mid size or full size - that has more capability than the vast majority of what the average consumer needs, the EcoDiesel is available
If a consumer wants to race from stop sign to stop sign, or be the first 1500/150 up a pass with a loaded trailer, buy the EcoBoost (or Chevy 5.3 or RAM 5.7)
I am a MOPAR guy, but I appreciate the EcoBoost. It is a very good towing engine with power comparable to a V8. But it clearly IS NOT a leap foreward in MPG.
What is great about America, you have choices. Buy what suits your needs best.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."
Not really. If you really consider MT's opinions to be valid, I could offer you some insight as to how useless "opinions" can be. But they in fact validated all the data points I have been making. They rave about the power, and how they used it at every opportunity, and then didn't get the mileage that a low torque, lazy throttled half truck gets.
MT's has never had any credibility. Their data is usually sound though. Tell me how a warmed over midsize truck destined to be forgotten beats out one of the most revolutionary trucks of the past century?Hannibal wrote:
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.
TAKE NOT DIESEL AFFICIONADO'S. To the above posters HONESTY. Hat's off my friend for having the stones to say it. And if that vehicle made you happy, then it was the best choice.
Not to be mistaken with the most "logical" or "economical" choice.
But in spite of all my ranting against the ED,(ironic what that abbreviation is shared with lol) buy what makes you happy, just don't try to sell it as something other than a warm fuzzy feeling, because the numbers don't add up for diesel right now.brulaz wrote:
It's possible pricing and the Cummins name (for the Toyota & Nissan Cummins 5.0 V8) could come into singular play. But, I rather doubt it.
Not sure about the average consumer though. The Cummins badge and Price may be more important determinants. If you can get one for significantly less $$ than a similar RAM 2500 Cummins, it will sell no matter if the payload is under 1800#. Unfortunately.
And IMHO, RAM did make a mistake not taking the 5L and putting it in their 2500s.
And by the way, all spy photos show the new Nissan with only 6 lug wheels. That doesn't look like a steel bodied HD with >2000# payload to me. Maybe they'll come up with a HD variant later ...
In terms of pricing, Toyota, and to a lesser extent Nissan, are not known as value leaders. Consumers, typically, pay a premium for Toyotas. Tundras typically cost $2k-$4k more than a similarly-equipped Ram 1500 (realworld pricing, not MSRP). Add in the $4-$6k premium that Toyota & Nissan will certainly demand for the Cummins 5.0 V8 and you've suddenly pushed these trucks into direct price competition with some of the Big 3, 3/4 ton diesels (like the Ram 2500 CTD, a value leader).
Yup, Ram dissed Cummins when they chose an engine for their Ecodiesel. As Turtle n Peeps mentioned, it could have been for any number of reasons. But, the bottom line is: Ram felt they could make more money by not using the Cummins 5.0 V8. Agree, the Cummin's nameplate has substantial worth, but it can't sell trucks by itself--the engine (and truck) has to be matched to an effective marketing plan.
Speaking of marketing, I'm VERY curious how Toyota and Nissan will market these new trucks. One, do they make a standard 1/2 ton with no way to put the Cummins 5.0 V8's 500++ ft. lbs. of torque to practical use (low payload plus a non-competitive MPG compared to other 1/2 tons)? Two, do they enter the 3/4 ton truck segment (with competitive payload) and get killed by the Big 3's, 850 ft. lb. marketing machine? Or, three, go the middle-ground and produce a 1/2 - 3/4 ton hybrid disguised/marketed as a TRUE, heavy-duty 1/2 ton workhorse, and single-handedly create their own market segment? For a lot of consumers, a 1/2 ton is too little--a 3/4 ton too much.
Personally, I prefer option three. IMO, option two creates a marketing problem and could put a dent in future, smaller displacement, diesel roll-outs.
As for option one, Toyota & Nissan could make the choice to bypass the "truck" crowd altogether. They have the opportunity to create a niche market that include folks who only want a heavy-duty grocery-getter---a suburbia-themed (crew max/cab, 5ft bed, 4x4, leather, sunroof), driveway queen. Remember the Hummer? Of course, included with the price of admission is the shiny, Cummins Diesel V8 nameplate and knowing they're doing their part to be Eco friendly by driving a 20++ MPG V8 diesel. Might even take a few sales away from Land Rover and a few other high-end SUV's. Option one may not sell a lot of trucks, but, ironically, it has the potential to still make a lot of money for Toyota & Nissan--the bottom line--by tapping into that highly profitable (per truck), upper middle-class market.
In any case, the next 12-18 months are gonna be an awesome time for truck enthusiasts. More diesels, more aluminium, more MPG's . . . more choices--woo-hoo!!- I have heard the three main reasons that RAM went in-house instead of with the Cummins were price delta between the two products, the Cummins is significantly heavier, and the EcoDiesel will have a significant higher MPG rating.
Now, I'm not going to say the rumors are gospel like our Fishing friend would, but it seems to make sense. We will see shortly.
And, as far as a huge number of people buying the truck just for the "C" on the side, that will be interesting to see. I am not convinced that the "C" will equate to sales of a Japanese truck.
Either way, more options will be better for the consumer, and push everyone that makes a 1500 truck to improve. otrfun wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
IMO, the market for the Toyota & Nissan (T&N) V8 Cummins will be determined solely by payload and tow capacity.
. . . 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.
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).
Exactly, as far this "well-informed" (?) consumer is concerned.
Not sure about the average consumer though. The Cummins badge and Price may be more important determinants. If you can get one for significantly less $$ than a similar RAM 2500 Cummins, it will sell no matter if the payload is under 1800#. Unfortunately.
And IMHO, RAM did make a mistake not taking the 5L and putting it in their 2500s.
And by the way, all spy photos show the new Nissan with only 6 lug wheels. That doesn't look like a steel bodied HD with >2000# payload to me. Maybe they'll come up with a HD variant later ...
