Forum Discussion
162 Replies
Taco wrote:
That article only makes me think the ecodiesel is even more pointless. A few grand cost premium for it. Much slower than the competition. Costs no less in fuel to operate than the much much more powerful 2.7 ecoboost, 900 lbs of payload on the ram. A CAR magazine may like it but it ain't much of a TRUCK.
Add in the fact that it has all the same huge repair liabilities of the much more powerful 1 ton diesels without anywhere near the power.
Sounds like a loser to me.
Not sure how the truck that was the worst at everything, got the nod. It's appalling slow loaded and towing accelerating makes it a laugh on a site about towing. The mileage premium only covers the cost of diesel, and not the maintenance I might add. You'll never see the diesel "premium" back, not ever. Pointless, and other than reading a bunch of car guys validating their previous articles, the only useful part is the test data, and it speaks loud and clear. 2000# payload available too for a few hundred buck on the Ferd.
The chevy was just a typical lazy throttled wallowy chevy. Nothing changes but the weather.
The F150 with the upcoming 10 speed should be a pretty cool combo as well.brulaz wrote:
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.
What they did is probably what 90% of truck owners would do. Ignore ratings and just load it up and go. Walking around any CG it's pretty obvious that 1/2 the people that towed their trailer there have know idea how to setup their WD for their overloaded tow vehicle.
so the tests they did towing are IMO inline with what goes on in the real world.- 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. 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.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?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.- 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.
- 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 - 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. - 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!
