Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

Hey T&P. Remember that one person telling us that HP is just a calculation and doesn't really exist like TQ does? Lol

I think there is a different driving style for different drivers so different vehicles seems to be a good thing. Some like to race and some like to enjoy the drive.

chevman

Bionic Man wrote:
Good results for the Ford. I liked where at the beginning of the video they mention that this is the course where they run for the SAE certification. I didn't know Ford had decided to sign on for that.

What were the results of the MPG comparison between the 3 trucks?

Ford has not released the fuel economy numbers for the '15's.

You should know that.

jerem0621 wrote:
Hey T&P. Remember that one person telling us that HP is just a calculation and doesn't really exist like TQ does? Lol

See, there you go bring back bad memories. :B

I am not surprised how that 2.7 Ecoboost can out pull the 3.0 Ecodiesel. I have the Ecodiesel in a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and it will shift out of 8th on the slightest incline without pulling a trailer. The 3.5 Ecoboost in my 2012 F150 needs a very steep hill before it will shift out of 6th. Fuel economy, well we won't talk about that. Interestingly enough owners of the Ram with the Ecodisel are reporting fuel economy as good as the Grand Cherokee with the same engine.

I would love to see a comparison of fuel economy towing a trailer. I don't care who wins the race.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
7000 lb trailer. Wonder if they were over payload on the ED? :B

Wonder what all the "torque fans" are going to say about this? You know; torque is what gets you up the hill the fastest.......bla, bla bla......

I said way back when before this test came out that if I was driving the EB I could drink a beer before the ED got to the top. I was correct. :B

I would have liked to know the speed of all 3 going up the hill? :E

BTW at least Ford used identical trailers this time! :B

I bet the older Cummins or Power Strokes that had 240-250 hp would have been faster than the eco diesel in this test.

womps wrote:
I am not surprised how that 2.7 Ecoboost can out pull the 3.0 Ecodiesel. I have the Ecodiesel in a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and it will shift out of 8th on the slightest incline without pulling a trailer. The 3.5 Ecoboost in my 2012 F150 needs a very steep hill before it will shift out of 6th. Fuel economy, well we won't talk about that. Interestingly enough owners of the Ram with the Ecodisel are reporting fuel economy as good as the Grand Cherokee with the same engine.

Your post is the reason I don't think much about 8 gears. I have not driven an 8 speed truck but we do have a 6 sp vehicle and I liked the 4 speed our Buick had much better. The future sucks for cars and trucks, I feel.

chevman

Turtle n Peeps wrote:


As far as they are not meant to compete against each other......SAY WHAT!
They are both 1500 pickups. They both have very expensive motors in them. They are both VERY expensive 1500 pickups. They are both meant to tow and come with tow packages. The Ford EB is a fuel saver towing rig and so is the Dodge ED. (that is what they are marketed as)

They are in exact direct competition with each other.

Believe me, the mags will do a tow test with these two and a GM. Why? Because they are all in competition with each other. :) If they do GM better pray that they do the test at low altitude. :B

Good post, I find it incredibly frustrating the mythical "torque" vs horsepower.
As far as the engines being expensive, the 2.7 EB will be the entry level engine option, one notch above the now questionable base 3.5L engine. So we are looking at the 2.7~$1000, standard on most models though, vs the $4000 EB. I predict the 2.7 gets the same combined mileage rating as the ED.

Fast Mopar wrote:
Yawn. The Ford has 85 horsepower more than the Ram. Of course the Ford will win.

rhagfo wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:
Yawn. The Ford has 85 horsepower more than the Ram. Of course the Ford will win.

Yep, 35% more HP for the EB.

But less torque and fewer gears and 10% less torque.
HP beats torque, even with a lesser gearbox. And it was not even close!