MPG test ecoboost vs ecodiesel

hone eagle wrote:
But a 8 speed transmission vs a 6 speed

A very valid point. I'm curious to see how it all pans out when Ford's new 10 speed comes out. And GM's too.

I seen a article the 3.0 Diesel that Banks got a heck of a lot more power out of the motor. They said it was a very robust motor. Personally I don't think you would go wrong with either one.

But a 8 speed transmission vs a 6 speed

BB_TX wrote:
The surprise is that the diesel did not beat the gasser by more than it did. 2.3 mpg (less than 10%) is not nearly enough to make up the difference in diesel costs.

No surprise at all, test apples to apples and see how it works. The Ford was a super cab that weighed in at 4920# and the Ram was a crew cab that weighed in at 5840# that is 920# difference! Then add in the fact that the Ram had 3.92 gears and the Ford had 3.55 gears.

From the story " Both trucks cruised effortlessly, but the Ford was actually running closer to 1,700 rpm at 65 mph. The Ram was humming at around 1,900 rpm. " Funny my truck has the 3.92 gears and @ 60 MPH it is turning 1550 RPM and @ 65 it is turning a tic over 1600 not 1900 why the difference?

I'll give Ford their due, the Ecoboost line of engines have turned out to be very good engines as well as being fast! But fast does not equal good fuel economy. BTW why do they pump the sound of a V-8 into the cab via the radio lol

Terryallan wrote:

8iron wrote:
Did I miss something or did they really just go by the trip computer numbers to determine MPG?

I don't see the problem of using the computer for MPG. Even IF you hand calc. You are still using the information given you by the computer. You trust the computer to tell you how fast you are going, To adjust the fuel mix, to add and subtract power. and to keep up with the miles driven. None of that stuff is mechanical any more.

For hand calculating MPG, the only vehicle computer factor you are trusting is you are assuming the odometer is accurately measuring distance traveled. And that measurement by the vehicle computer can easily be checked by comparing the odometer readings to some mileposts, or to an accurate GPS. I have GPS apps on my smartphone that accurately measure distance traveled, and that can be compared to the odometer.

MPG figures reported from the on board computer are completely meaningless and irrelevant to me, whether my own or other peoples' vehicles. Yes, there are differences in when the pump shuts off, but that slight variation can be virtually eliminated as a factor by hand-calculating mileage over a number of miles and a number of tankfuls. Or for a one off comparison test such as the subject of this thread, they could fill the fuel right up the neck to where the fuel is visible every time.

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.

8iron wrote:
Did I miss something or did they really just go by the trip computer numbers to determine MPG?

I don't see the problem of using the computer for MPG. Even IF you hand calc. You are still using the information given you by the computer. You trust the computer to tell you how fast you are going, To adjust the fuel mix, to add and subtract power. and to keep up with the miles driven. None of that stuff is mechanical any more.

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.

Those TFL guys are dinks.