Forum Discussion
itguy08 wrote:
So cut it in half and the payback period is 6 years. Still not worth it, IMHO.
Understood, but it is closer for a "payback" on upfront costs alone. Time will determine relative used value. Many diesels retain a higher % of new cost than a gas counterpart.
And for those that crow about the EPA. It is relevant because it's the same cycle for all so it is at least a good starting point.
I find I get pretty much the EPA average. In my Taurus SHO I'm averaging around 21-22 in the summer and 18-19 in the winter, EPA average is 20. In the F150 I'm at 16.1 - 16.5 so far this winter and the EPA average is 17.
I don't baby it but drive sensibly most of the time. When I want power I push the skinny pedal.
Agreed and I'm generally in the same boat with respect to any given vehicle and the EPA ratings. However, I am finding that when I drive late model underpowered vehicles they are tuning the drivetrains to favor minimal fuel use. For driver's like me (and probably you as an SHO owner) who enjoy a bit more spirit at times, a base V6 6000 pounds pickup or a 4-cyl Malibu like I have the displeasure of putting 15k miles on is struggling to get the EPA city rating. The shift points are too low for my driving style. By the time the system figures out I want to go 3 seconds later, I have a double or triple downshift to actually go! And it does finally using a lot more fuel. With a turbocharged diesel mated to today's automatics, they tend to keep the engine in the same 1400-2500rpm range. But they have all their peak torque available, so it just goes. No waiting for some computer to figure out what you want, then downshift a gear or 3. Just go, now. That's my experience with two competitor mid-sized sedans, 2011 Malibu 4-cyl 170hp/160lb-ft of torque compared to 2012 Passat TDI 140hp/230lb-ft of torque. The diesel provides a far more enjoyable driving experience.
The 3.5L Ecoboost is similar in torque as the V6 diesels but probably better with even broader torque curve. And it is less costly an option over Ford's 5.0L vs. Rams' 5.7L to diesel upgrade. But the diesel will consume less fuel. How much in the real world? Time will tell.How is it bias when I posted the link to a local station? Heck, pick any other in the area I live in (Central PA). I only used that station as it's the one I fill up at most. Gasbuddy is your friend and will give good, hard data.
It's one station's data at one station in one city at one time. Fuel prices vary a lot throughout the country. CA gasoline is still high. Montana is very low.
You bring up a good point about doing the cost benefit analysis. You did it for your location now. Each should do his own. Just understand that your data does not match everyone else's data.
I don't care what brand you drive. I had family work for Ford for a while. My wife worked for Chrysler for 8 years and now GM. Buy the vehicle that works best for you. They all cost to much to compromise.
This is all a moot point for the 2014 Ram as IMHO it does'nt have enough payload for RVing and I do not see the Ecodiesel improving that one bit! :pib516 wrote:
All he cares about is the worst possible scenario for RAM as he is a known RAM hater. Read his past posts. His bias is easily seen.
Someone in a Cummins powered RAM must have run over his puppy when he was a kid...
How is it bias when I posted the link to a local station? Heck, pick any other in the area I live in (Central PA). I only used that station as it's the one I fill up at most. Gasbuddy is your friend and will give good, hard data.
In other areas the spread is not that bad. Everyone should do their own calculations.
I even included the (inferior) Hemi in my calculations. Costs the same to run as the Ecoboost.
Yup, I hate Chrysler - decades of making inferior products, 2 government bailouts, what's to love? They should have gone the way of all the other car companies in America that couldn't make it.
But the data is the data and you can't argue data. Unless it doesn't fit your agenda.APT wrote:
itguy08 wrote:
Payback period : 11.98 years
Wait 2 months and run that same analysis. Look at the gasoline cost cycle (national average) how it spikes in April and September. Your snapshot is not helpful for long term fuel costs. Neither is a snapshot when gasoline is $4 and diesel is also $4.
All he cares about is the worst possible scenario for RAM as he is a known RAM hater. Read his past posts. His bias is easily seen.
Someone in a Cummins powered RAM must have run over his puppy when he was a kid...kmbelt wrote:
kmbelt, I share your sentiments to a point. However, I wouldn't classify one who uses them for general comparison purposes as crazy. Bottom line, without the EPA MPG ratings, consumers would be completely at the mercy of hearsay on the internet and/or hyper-biased data from the manufacturer. I'll take the EPA MPG ratings over that kind of insanity anytime.
all of you that actually go by EPA ratings to be valid information are crazy. I have NEVER seen or heard of any vehicle actually hitting those numbers. I always feel that they are inflated by about 2+mpg.
If you want to know how frustrating it can be to try and make an informed purchase without EPA MPG ratings, try shopping for a new 3/4 or 1 ton diesel. The manufacturer gives you absolutely nothing. "Tom" says he gets 24 MPG easy. Dick says he's lucky to get 12 MPG. Harry says his Chevy will run farther on a gallon of diesel than any POS Ford. So, Tom, were you going downhill? Dick, were you towing anything? Harry, can I believe you--it sounds like you're kinda biased--lol!! Who wants this insanity :)wilber1 wrote:
wilber1, I agree. It's much easier to access torque on a diesel engine than a gas engine. Easier access means more efficient operation. Efficient operation means higher fuel economy for a given task. The vast majority of torque on most consumer diesel engines is available from just above idle (1,000 RPM) to almost 3,000 RPM. Compare this to a typical 1/2 ton V8 where substantial torque is not available until 2,000-3,000 RPM. During normal, day-to-day operation (shifting, stop and go, etc.) a diesel will usually spend much more time running in the most efficient part of it's power band than a gas engine.
Diesels actually have a reputation of meeting or exceeding those numbers. Check it out.thomasmnile wrote:
Nothing 'real' about EPA mileage estimates. Is the testing done by the manufacturers still on a 'treadmill' without the vehicle actually on the road, driven real world, in a variety of conditions & driving styles?
The only concern the manufacturers have for EPA figures is CAFE! CAFE! CAFE! Ram's worry, like Ford's, like GM's, is being able to keep a very 'important to their bottom line' product in the marketplace. It ain't rocket surgery.............
And of course, your mileage may vary.............:B
This is a few years old but these guys tried comparing real world with the Canadian test cycle.
LINK- Payback isn't really that big of a deal. You will get some portion of the diesel option cost on resale. Same as buying a Laramie over an ST. Only issue is the higher price of diesel fuel as opposed to reg gas. Where you live will determine how that pans out over several years. Some places have a wider spread between the two fuels. For me if I were to by a diesel as an everyday driver it would be a PITA because the closest diesel station is sky high. That would mean I would have to get filled up out on the road all the time if using it for work.
APT wrote:
itguy08 wrote:
Payback period : 11.98 years
Wait 2 months and run that same analysis. Look at the gasoline cost cycle (national average) how it spikes in April and September. Your snapshot is not helpful for long term fuel costs. Neither is a snapshot when gasoline is $4 and diesel is also $4.
So cut it in half and the payback period is 6 years. Still not worth it, IMHO.
And for those that crow about the EPA. It is relevant because it's the same cycle for all so it is at least a good starting point.
I find I get pretty much the EPA average. In my Taurus SHO I'm averaging around 21-22 in the summer and 18-19 in the winter, EPA average is 20. In the F150 I'm at 16.1 - 16.5 so far this winter and the EPA average is 17.
I don't baby it but drive sensibly most of the time. When I want power I push the skinny pedal.ib516 wrote:
What would be interesting in the context of this forum would be a link to payload and towing capacity of this truck. When I hook up my TT to go on a trip, the last thing on my mind is miles per gallon.
EPA Rated at 20 city / 28 hwy / 23 combined
LINKY- Ya but its the same treadmill for all ,thus the way to compare.Someones cross country trip is worse then useless.
- Nothing 'real' about EPA mileage estimates. Is the testing done by the manufacturers still on a 'treadmill' without the vehicle actually on the road, driven real world, in a variety of conditions & driving styles?
The only concern the manufacturers have for EPA figures is CAFE! CAFE! CAFE! Ram's worry, like Ford's, like GM's, is being able to keep a very 'important to their bottom line' product in the marketplace. It ain't rocket surgery.............
And of course, your mileage may vary.............:B
