Ram 1500 EcoDiesel mpg test

ShinerBock wrote:
I myself would like to see them at least do 70 mph in their tests as well for a more realistic view. When I was at Cummins, I remember reading some tests that were done on how much efficiency vehicles loose at certain speeds. At 65 mph, it is only around 8%, and that more then doubles at 70 mph to a 17% efficiency loss. Doing a speed of 75 mph only drops to a 23% loss of effiency which is not that big of a drop going from 65 mph to 70 mph. So a speed limit of 70 mph in their tests would be a more accurate mpg for most people. My Ram 2500 Cummins gets no where near that 24 mph they got in their tests, but then again I don't drive anywhere near 65 mph.

I see a lot who also only look at mpg of diesel verus gas, but neglect to see the big picture. Currently as I writing this, the US national average for 87 octane is $2.40 while diesel is $.35 higher at $2.75. That would put the 33 mpg they got with this Ecodiesel at 8.3 cents per mile and the 22.8 mpg that the 2.7L Ecoboost got at 10.5 cents per mile. The cost difference changes as the difference in fuel prices changes. The gap is even less with lower mpg vehicles. For instance, the Ram 2500 CTD that averages out at 17 mpg(according to Fuelly.com) which is 16.8 cents per mile and the Ram 2500 6.4L with it's 13 mpg avaerage is at 18.5 cents per mile using the current US average fuel prices.


The major thing I do not get about the 3.0L Ecodiesel is that it is not like the bigger 3/4 and 1 ton diesels where you are paying more for more capabaility, more pulling power, and more fuel efficiency. With the Ecodiesel you only get better fuel efficiency than other engines and do not get more capapbilty or pulling power. In the old days(or how it ussually is with most half ton trucks), you start off with a less powerful and less capable engine option, but it gave you more fuel mileage. Then you had to pay more for a more powerful engine that was more capable, but you knew you had to sacrifice fuel mileage to get it. With the Ecodiesel, you pay more for a less poweful engine and less capablity all for the sake to save money on fuel. That just doesn't make sense. I would wager that due to fuel costs, one would save a lot more money buying a Ram with a 3.6L Pentastar to tow anything 6,000 lbs or under than going with an Ecodiesel. If the Ecodiesel gave more capability and pulling power along with better fuel economy like the diesels do in the HD trucks, then I would probably have a different outlook on this engine.

I agree... Plus the Diesel vs. Gas delta has been ~$0.60 more for diesel for as long as I can remember so your cost analysis is a bit conservative for us Texas folks. :B

Bionic Man wrote:

The Mad Norsky wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
Heres one with 3.55s and 4x4.

36 mpg hwy

35 mpg after 4 hrs of driving

While driving 60 mph... Heck my Super Duty diesel will probably get another 2-3 mpg while driving 60 mph.

No doubt at all. My 2011 would get really good mileage at lower speeds, but only saw those after dark when I was worried about the horse sized whitetail deer they have around here.

Good mileage figures though. And that's why they market that vehicle.

I agree that one of the weaknesses of the test is the speed. I drive that section of I25 regularily. The speed limit is 75, with many people driving above that. You will notice in the video everyone, including the big rigs, are passing the test truck.

But that is the same in every one of these tests. Like the speed or not (I would rather see them run 70 or 75 myself), they are consistent with all the tests they do. The new Ram 6.7 they tested ran something like 24 MPG (also a great result, but MUCH lower than the EcoDiesel). I don't remember what the 2.7 EB got, but it was lower than 24.

You will have to extrapolate the results out to try to figure out what they might be at other speeds. But it is hard not to believe that the EcoDiesel will have a SIGNIFICANT advantage in MPG. And that is what RAM was shooting for. They hit their mark.

You can't extrapolate predictive mpg with one data point!

BTW... Please step away from the 4/20 Rally! :W

I don't want one but I can certainly see the appeal of the economy vs. capability balance that this truck has accomplished. As mentioned, a bit more payload would be nice.

I myself would like to see them at least do 70 mph in their tests as well for a more realistic view. When I was at Cummins, I remember reading some tests that were done on how much efficiency vehicles loose at certain speeds. At 65 mph, it is only around 8%, and that more then doubles at 70 mph to a 17% efficiency loss. Doing a speed of 75 mph only drops to a 23% loss of effiency which is not that big of a drop going from 65 mph to 70 mph. So a speed limit of 70 mph in their tests would be a more accurate mpg for most people. My Ram 2500 Cummins gets no where near that 24 mph they got in their tests, but then again I don't drive anywhere near 65 mph.

I see a lot who also only look at mpg of diesel verus gas, but neglect to see the big picture. Currently as I writing this, the US national average for 87 octane is $2.40 while diesel is $.35 higher at $2.75. That would put the 33 mpg they got with this Ecodiesel at 8.3 cents per mile and the 22.8 mpg that the 2.7L Ecoboost got at 10.5 cents per mile. The cost difference changes as the difference in fuel prices changes. The gap is even less with lower mpg vehicles. For instance, the Ram 2500 CTD that averages out at 17 mpg(according to Fuelly.com) which is 16.8 cents per mile and the Ram 2500 6.4L with it's 13 mpg avaerage is at 18.5 cents per mile using the current US average fuel prices.


The major thing I do not get about the 3.0L Ecodiesel is that it is not like the bigger 3/4 and 1 ton diesels where you are paying more for more capabaility, more pulling power, and more fuel efficiency. With the Ecodiesel you only get better fuel efficiency than other engines and do not get more capapbilty or pulling power. In the old days(or how it ussually is with most half ton trucks), you start off with a less powerful and less capable engine option, but it gave you more fuel mileage. Then you had to pay more for a more powerful engine that was more capable, but you knew you had to sacrifice fuel mileage to get it. With the Ecodiesel, you pay more for a less poweful engine and less capablity all for the sake to save money on fuel. That just doesn't make sense. I would wager that due to fuel costs, one would save a lot more money buying a Ram with a 3.6L Pentastar to tow anything 6,000 lbs or under than going with an Ecodiesel. If the Ecodiesel gave more capability and pulling power along with better fuel economy like the diesels do in the HD trucks, then I would probably have a different outlook on this engine.

The Mad Norsky wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
Heres one with 3.55s and 4x4.

36 mpg hwy

35 mpg after 4 hrs of driving

While driving 60 mph... Heck my Super Duty diesel will probably get another 2-3 mpg while driving 60 mph.

No doubt at all. My 2011 would get really good mileage at lower speeds, but only saw those after dark when I was worried about the horse sized whitetail deer they have around here.

Good mileage figures though. And that's why they market that vehicle.

I agree that one of the weaknesses of the test is the speed. I drive that section of I25 regularily. The speed limit is 75, with many people driving above that. You will notice in the video everyone, including the big rigs, are passing the test truck.

But that is the same in every one of these tests. Like the speed or not (I would rather see them run 70 or 75 myself), they are consistent with all the tests they do. The new Ram 6.7 they tested ran something like 24 MPG (also a great result, but MUCH lower than the EcoDiesel). I don't remember what the 2.7 EB got, but it was lower than 24.

You will have to extrapolate the results out to try to figure out what they might be at other speeds. But it is hard not to believe that the EcoDiesel will have a SIGNIFICANT advantage in MPG. And that is what RAM was shooting for. They hit their mark.

The Mad Norsky wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
Heres one with 3.55s and 4x4.

36 mpg hwy

35 mpg after 4 hrs of driving

While driving 60 mph... Heck my Super Duty diesel will probably get another 2-3 mpg while driving 60 mph.

No doubt at all. My 2011 would get really good mileage at lower speeds, but only saw those after dark when I was worried about the horse sized whitetail deer they have around here.

Good mileage figures though. And that's why they market that vehicle.

Yep

Calicajun wrote:

I noticed in your sig that you owned two diesel trucks but went back to a gas truck. I was wondering why you decided not to stay with a diesel engine?

A number of reasons....

JUMPING OFF THE DIESEL BANDWAGON

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
Heres one with 3.55s and 4x4.

36 mpg hwy

35 mpg after 4 hrs of driving

While driving 60 mph... Heck my Super Duty diesel will probably get another 2-3 mpg while driving 60 mph.

No doubt at all. My 2011 F 350 diesel would get really good mileage at lower speeds, but only saw those after dark when I was worried about the horse sized whitetail deer they have around here.

Good mileage figures though. And that's why they market that vehicle.

If the price of diesel fuel continues to run close to regular gas, this suddenly becomes much more attractive. IF!

I know this cant tow much either but How about this one!