Forum Discussion
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
v10superduty wrote:
This was a pretty laid back unscientific test but it shows some real numbers from the built in system.
And both trucks achieved what I have stated in the past...
IF you drive very carefully being mindfull of economy, you can usually "meet or beat" the manufacturers ratings.
It also shows what Ford intended for the Ecoboost..
It CAN be a mileage motor if driven as such
PLUS it can tow if you put your foot in it.
Same actually applies to the Ecodiesel I suppose?
Here is the thought that went through my head as I was reading this..
Can you imagine about 5-6 years back... :S :S :S :S
if Ford announced...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put a 2.7L motor in our full size truck and it will get close to 30 MPG "AND" have lotsa power"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
or Dodge/Ram announced...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put an Italian sourced tractor derived Diesel in our half ton trucks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing most of us would have done is check the date to see if it was one of those April 1st jokester stories...:B
The future is here.........:W
Tractor motor???? While VM Motori does build industrial diesel engines. The 3.0 Eco diesel is not a tractor engine. You do know that this engine was slated to go into the Cadillac right? Here you guys should do some reading
2.7 and 30 mpg now that's funny, the 27 mpg rating Ford gives it is in a 2WD stripper truck, you know no spare tire, jack, interior you know the stuff that the customer needs but Ford and GM delete for their EPA testing. LOL
Don
Don
Don
Relax, don't get yur panties in such a knot...:S
IF YOU READ what I said.. Which was like...
What if FIVE YEARS AGO they said..
bla-bla-bla
It turned out pretty close to my FICTIONAL 5 year old made up predictions.
Somedays buddy it seems you only see the words that upset you...:Bwing_zealot wrote:
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
The MPG is pennies compared to the big assss rust holes in the fenders and tail gates. I'll never buy another Dodge.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
Maybe take care of your vehicles and they won't have big assss rust holes in them. None of my vehicles have rusted out, well there was that Ford Aroestar that rotted out.
all vehicles will rust if you don't keep them clean, yep even a Ford. You guys are funny.v10superduty wrote:
This was a pretty laid back unscientific test but it shows some real numbers from the built in system.
And both trucks achieved what I have stated in the past...
IF you drive very carefully being mindfull of economy, you can usually "meet or beat" the manufacturers ratings.
It also shows what Ford intended for the Ecoboost..
It CAN be a mileage motor if driven as such
PLUS it can tow if you put your foot in it.
Same actually applies to the Ecodiesel I suppose?
Here is the thought that went through my head as I was reading this..
Can you imagine about 5-6 years back... :S :S :S :S
if Ford announced...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put a 2.7L motor in our full size truck and it will get close to 30 MPG "AND" have lotsa power"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
or Dodge/Ram announced...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put an Italian sourced tractor derived Diesel in our half ton trucks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing most of us would have done is check the date to see if it was one of those April 1st jokester stories...:B
The future is here.........:W
Tractor motor???? While VM Motori does build industrial diesel engines. The 3.0 Eco diesel is not a tractor engine. You do know that this engine was slated to go into the Cadillac right? Here you guys should do some reading
2.7 and 30 mpg now that's funny, the 27 mpg rating Ford gives it is in a 2WD stripper truck, you know no spare tire, jack, interior you know the stuff that the customer needs but Ford and GM delete for their EPA testing. LOLPerrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
The MPG is pennies compared to the big assss rust holes in the fenders and tail gates. I'll never buy another Dodge.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- When it comes to the HD's, I guess I would consider myself a Ram guy with a GMC nipping at its heel's. When it comes to the 1/2 ton market, Ford has set the bar with the Ecoboost line. Yes sir, one F-150 with a 2.7 please.
v10superduty wrote:
This was a pretty laid back unscientific test but it shows some real numbers from the built in system.
And both trucks achieved what I have stated in the past...
IF you drive very carefully being mindfull of economy, you can usually "meet or beat" the manufacturers ratings.
It also shows what Ford intended for the Ecoboost..
It CAN be a mileage motor if driven as such
PLUS it can tow if you put your foot in it.
Same actually applies to the Ecodiesel I suppose?
Here is the thought that went through my head as I was reading this..
Can you imagine about 5-6 years back... :S :S :S :S
if Ford announced...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put a 2.7L motor in our full size truck and it will get close to 30 MPG "AND" have lotsa power"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
or Dodge/Ram announced...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put an Italian sourced tractor derived Diesel in our half ton trucks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing most of us would have done is check the date to see if it was one of those April 1st jokester stories...:B
The future is here.........:W
Indeed
We should celebrate each incremental advance no matter who comes up with it as it spurs the others to higher goals .
and then we win.- What impresses me the most about these new Ford turbo engines is their relative efficiency.
If you take Diesel energy or carbon density as ~12% over gas, these two trucks have about the same efficiency. The EPA numbers show that as well if you look at the carbon emission numbers (not the mpg).
Some of that will be the F150's lighter weight, but gas engines have come a long way and are getting closer to the diesel engine's efficiency. - dupe
- This was a pretty laid back unscientific test but it shows some real numbers from the built in system.
And both trucks achieved what I have stated in the past...
IF you drive very carefully being mindfull of economy, you can usually "meet or beat" the manufacturers ratings.
It also shows what Ford intended for the Ecoboost..
It CAN be a mileage motor if driven as such
PLUS it can tow if you put your foot in it.
Same actually applies to the Ecodiesel I suppose?
Here is the thought that went through my head as I was reading this..
Can you imagine about 5-6 years back... :S :S :S :S
if Ford announced...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put a 2.7L motor in our full size truck and it will get close to 30 MPG "AND" have lotsa power"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
or Dodge/Ram announced...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will put an Italian sourced tractor derived Diesel in our half ton trucks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing most of us would have done is check the date to see if it was one of those April 1st jokester stories...:B
The future is here.........:W hone eagle wrote:
But a 8 speed transmission vs a 6 speed
That would be my point, they say that the Ram with 3.92 gears was turning 1900 RPM @ 65 MPH. Well I have the 3.92 gears and @ 55 MPH the RPM is 1500
60 MPH RPM is 1600
I will take a pic @ 65 this morning and we will see if 5 MPH more = 300 RPM.
looks like 1700 not 1900.
