MPG test ecoboost vs ecodiesel

Terryallan wrote:

BillyW wrote:
It should also be noted the diesel was geared for towing, the gasser was geared for economy. On top of that, I didn't know the Ecodiesel had a 32 gallon fuel tank option. I thought it was only 26.

Actually a 3.55 is more of an intermediate gear. OK for towing, and Ok for driving. Truth is. There is only 100 RPM difference between a 3.55, and a 3.73 at 60 MPH.

In Ecodiesel circles, the claimed mileage difference between 3.92 and 3.55 is pretty significant. And obviously per your numbers there would be at least 200 RPMs between 3.55 and 3.92. That does make a difference. The Ecodiesel should have been 3.55 as well, AND it should have been a Quadcab, instead of a Crewcab. Those details add up to skew the numbers. Somehow, I just don't think the 2.7 EB is going to show those kinds of numbers in the real world either. Don't get me wrong, the Ecodiesel has lost its luster in my eyes based on how the numbers would likely work out for me. But I do think it and the Ram 1500 in general are unfairly maligned around here. The 2.7 EB is intriguing but its capabilities top out just a tad too low for me to consider it as a tow vehicle. This whole comparison was rigged in favor of the Ford IMHO.