Forum Discussion
182 Replies
- I am excited about this truck because it will finally prove to the diesel heads on this site that horsepower matters more than torque and show them that a 3.0 turbo diesel will get flat out smoked up a hill with a trailer when compared to a 3.5 turbo gasser.
I don't see a whole lot of purpose to it, but I guess time will tell if it sells. Powerdude wrote:
Frontal area wind resistance increases with the square of the area at about 62 mph, so the Sprinter has a greater frontal area to push against the wind..
Yes but the Sprinter is somewhat aerodynamic vs the brick front of a pickup truck.
Any way it will be interesting when the EPA numbers are out.ib516 wrote:
Where does this "higher maintenence costs" BS you keep spouting come from? Facts please.
The more frequent and expensive fuel filter changes, the more expensive diesel oil changes, DEF, larger cooling systems. Now those are costs for the 3/4 and 1 tons but I'd imagine this engine will have similar requirements.gmcsmoke wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Where does this "higher maintenence costs" BS you keep spouting come from? Facts please.
Well there's the $200 oil changes for one thing..... :w
Even people that own diesels admit to higher maintenance costs....itguy08 wrote:
We all have to wait for the EPA #'s but I think you all are in for a surprise. See what a 3.0 Diesel Sprinter gets for MPG. That's the closest we have as weight and aerodynamics are comparable.
The Sprinter is 95" tall, while a Dodge ram is 75.2" tall, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee is 68.1" tall without a roof rack.
Frontal area wind resistance increases with the square of the area at about 62 mph, so the Sprinter has a greater frontal area to push against the wind.
It also uses a different engine, whereas the Jeep has the same engine.
I think the Jeep comparison is more realistic. I agree the the "official" numbers will be more interesting, but the EPA overshoots anyway, as do manufacturers as well.ib516 wrote:
Where does this "higher maintenence costs" BS you keep spouting come from? Facts please.
Well there's the $200 oil changes for one thing..... :w- Where does this "higher maintenence costs" BS you keep spouting come from? Facts please.
Powerdude wrote:
You might be interested in the real fuel mileage numbers of the 3.0 diesel.
"Jeep pegs the rear-drive EcoDiesel at 22 mpg city/30 highway; opting for four driven wheels sacrifices 1 mpg in the city and 2 mpg on the highway." - direct quote from the following article.
Base curb weight for the Grand Cherokee is 4725 for the heaviest model.
For a regular cab Ram 1500 2WD, base curb weight is 4909 lbs. Those were the models that were the closest together.
So, for the 2WD Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 3.0 diesel, fuel economy is quoted at 22 city/30 hwy.
Regular cab 2WD Ram is pretty much the same weight, so it will get pretty close to that mileage.
You forget the large role aerodynamics plays in that equation....That's a 30 mpg highway mileage potential 1500 class truck. That's 30% better fuel economy than any other product on the market,
That's IF it's similar to the Jeep and IF you get 2wd, IF you get a plain Jane regular cab. Step up to that crew cab and you're probably are well over 5k lbs. If it were that good, Chrysler would be saying the #'s right now...
And Around here in PA, Regular is $3.55 and Diesel is $3.85, or 7.75% more expensive. So that needs to come off the MPG advantage for the Diesel.and a gas V6 (23 mpg-ish), does NOT have 420 ft-lbs of torque.
Oh, I dono, the EPA rates the F150 Ecoboost at 16/22 (2WD) or 15/21(4WD), runs on regular gas, has 420 lb-ft, 365 hp. Also has a similar torque curve to this Diesel (flat) and will have lower maintenance costs (which can be large in a Diesel).
We all have to wait for the EPA #'s but I think you all are in for a surprise. See what a 3.0 Diesel Sprinter gets for MPG. That's the closest we have as weight and aerodynamics are comparable.- You might be interested in the real fuel mileage numbers of the 3.0 diesel.
"Jeep pegs the rear-drive EcoDiesel at 22 mpg city/30 highway; opting for four driven wheels sacrifices 1 mpg in the city and 2 mpg on the highway." - direct quote from the following article.
Base curb weight for the Grand Cherokee is 4725 for the heaviest model.
For a regular cab Ram 1500 2WD, base curb weight is 4909 lbs. Those were the models that were the closest together.
So, for the 2WD Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 3.0 diesel, fuel economy is quoted at 22 city/30 hwy.
Regular cab 2WD Ram is pretty much the same weight, so it will get pretty close to that mileage.
That's a 30 mpg highway mileage potential 1500 class truck. That's 30% better fuel economy than any other product on the market, and a gas V6 (23 mpg-ish), does NOT have 420 ft-lbs of torque. If that isn't a game changer for fuel economy, I don't know what is.
Increased fuel economy is money in your pocket at the end of the day. End of story.
Let's say you tow 8k lbs going to your favorite campground, subtract 10 mpg, that's 20 mpg towing (possibly). On a 1000 mile trip, that's 30 % better fuel economy.
Hard to argue with those numbers, but I'm sure some will try. - We were just discussing this around the office and one of the guys suggested it would be great in something like a Dodge Dakota. Good for groceries, Home Depot runs, back and forth to work for longer drives, tow your fishing boat and still get decent fuel mileage. Would give you the smaller truck too which may help in busy cities and places that a big truck just doesn't work well in traffic. The smaller size and weight may also gain a mile or 2 in MPG too.
