Forum Discussion
- Yep
food for thought^^^
nothing would surprise me anymore .
ya know that would be a interesting thread -the most outrageous but possible -
did you hear Ford just bought a major stake in a the worlds leading carbon fibre producer?
as soon as everybody is changed over to aluminum ,Ford will introduce a carbon 1/2 ton
muhahahah 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"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or Nissan announced...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will offer an American made diesel in the half ton class "BEFORE" anyone else; and it will be CUMMINS...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Just had to add one more 5 year old prediction..... :B
Don't get upset Don..:WSport45 wrote:
It's been a long time since I saw an analog gauge (except possibly the voltmeter) in any new vehicle. The pointer is typically driven by a stepper motor and points wherever the computer tells it to.You'll see some do a full sweep on startup. Possibly a self-calibration?
You're correct, when you see the needles on your gauges sweep back in forth they are calibrating.
Lets put things in predictive, these videos are done at a Ford sponsored event! Watch all of them and you will notice a few things, one when they do their drag and slalom race they use a different Ram than they did for the Fuel milage test. Don't fool yourself no manufacture Ford, Ram or anyone else are not going to put a test together for the media without first doing them privately and figuring out how to make their vehicle come out on top.
Here some more pop corn for you guys. LINK
Dongijoecam wrote:
Touched a nerve, did I? Because it's not conceivable that an analog gauge could be off a touch? Well then clearly the digital rev counter from the ECU in my truck is off, and obviously the GPS speed is a couple mph off the gauge, so the satellites must be out of alignment or something...
Gauges are inaccurate. Calculated values based on erroneous values compound the error.
My point was simply that there could be differences between your truck and the one in the test that explain the difference in rpm at a given speed. Your gauge could be off a bit low and the tested truck's could be off a thick high. You could have slightly larger tires or your tires could, for whatever reason, have a slightly larger rolling circumference, or any of a plethora of other differences.
It's been a long time since I saw an analog gauge (except possibly the voltmeter) in any new vehicle. The pointer is typically driven by a stepper motor and points wherever the computer tells it to.You'll see some do a full sweep on startup. Possibly a self-calibration?- Or take a look at older Fords, GM/Chevy's, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and every other brand out there. They all rust, every last one of them.
That is unless you take care of them. My 2004 Ram with 150K on it had zero rust on it. Why because I took care of it. Waxed the door jambs, the door frames and would wipe them all down once a month with a damp rag weather permitting. That truck looked as good the day I sold it as it did the day I picked it up new.
Dog Trainer, I would love to talk to your dear friend, because I know for a fact that all of our vehicles are protected as well as the other manufactures. Now does that mean there could not be issues? Yes there can be!
The 2001-2004 Stratus, Sebring and Avenger are an example. They ALL rusted out at the front of the hood. Why, as the bodies were dunked in the E bath, there was no opening for the solution to make it to the very front area inside the hood lip. So there was bear metal left untreated and it would rust. It took 3-4 years before it showed up and was covered under the 10/100,000 rust coverage. The fix, add three stamped holes so the rust inhibitor could coat that area.
Anyone that has any vehicle that rusts out from the inside out (not from chips in the paint or improper body repairs) and their vehicle is less than 10 years old and has less than 100,000 miles can get it fixed under warranty.
Don - Sorry Dog Trainer but your statement holds absolutely no water. I Had a 2001 Ram 1500 it was built well, my 2009 2500 even better, my 2012 better yet. Now my 2012 Silverado sounds like a baby with a rattle when the road turns a bit bumpy. I like the Chevy and I don't think it is built poorly, but my Ram's felt noticably more solid.
hone eagle wrote:
gijoecam wrote:
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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
looks like 1700 not 1900.
What's the ACTUAL measured operating RPM? Not what the gauge shows... The gauge can be off a tick. Two otherwise-identical trucks running at 1800RPM could be showing 1900 and 170o if the needle is off just one tick either way.
Really?
wonder why there are any gauges whats so ever,if we don't like what they say
"its wrong " "they can't be trusted" "calculate by hand, measuring cup and slide rule"
Touched a nerve, did I? Because it's not conceivable that an analog gauge could be off a touch? Well then clearly the digital rev counter from the ECU in my truck is off, and obviously the GPS speed is a couple mph off the gauge, so the satellites must be out of alignment or something...
Gauges are inaccurate. Calculated values based on erroneous values compound the error.
My point was simply that there could be differences between your truck and the one in the test that explain the difference in rpm at a given speed. Your gauge could be off a bit low and the tested truck's could be off a thick high. You could have slightly larger tires or your tires could, for whatever reason, have a slightly larger rolling circumference, or any of a plethora of other differences.Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
wing_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.
Sorry dodgeboy but Dodge has earned the reputation for poor body hold up. You don't need to try to argue the point just take a close look at some of the older dodges. A very dear friend of mine was a Dodge designer and admits the problem and the lack of Chrysler to address it. I think that the problem was in the past but it sometimes takes a long while to live down.gijoecam wrote:
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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
looks like 1700 not 1900.
What's the ACTUAL measured operating RPM? Not what the gauge shows... The gauge can be off a tick. Two otherwise-identical trucks running at 1800RPM could be showing 1900 and 170o if the needle is off just one tick either way.
Really?
wonder why there are any gauges whats so ever,if we don't like what they say
"its wrong " "they can't be trusted" "calculate by hand, measuring cup and slide rule"Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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
looks like 1700 not 1900.
What's the ACTUAL measured operating RPM? Not what the gauge shows... The gauge can be off a tick. Two otherwise-identical trucks running at 1800RPM could be showing 1900 and 170o if the needle is off just one tick either way.
