Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

Duplicate

duplicate - yet again

While I do think the 2.7 EB would eat the 3.0 ED's lunch in any towing race. It just makes a lot more HP. I put ZERO faith in any test conducted by the advertising staff of any truck maker.

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!

APT wrote:
No surprises from me. If you arbitrarily limit engine speed to 3000rpm the Ram diesel would be quicker and use less fuel. That's how many truck owners drive. But WOT that 2.7L looks like a great combo. I can't wait to see EPA ratings and real world owners!

If you arbitrarily cap frivolous engine option spending at $2K, you wouldn't be able to buy one.

larry barnhart wrote:
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

You like to smell the roses when you pass? You don't like having power in reserve when climbing? You'd rather run the ED at 100%, when you could instead run the 2.7 at 80%?

News flash, the ED makes 240hp at 3600rpm, the 2.7 makes almost the exact same at that rpm, slightly more actually. So racing or not, when climbing a hill, real world conditions, you will be working the ED 100% not so with the 2.7L

FishOnOne wrote:

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.

Yep. Guess they couldn't take the trucks to a gas station after the test and post the results. I wonder why they wouldn't do something like that?

Bionic Man wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

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.

Yep. Guess they couldn't take the trucks to a gas station after the test and post the results. I wonder why they wouldn't do something like that?

Because flogging a truck at WOT for minutes at a time towing for this test would show about 5 MPG or less.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

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.

Yep. Guess they couldn't take the trucks to a gas station after the test and post the results. I wonder why they wouldn't do something like that?

Because flogging a truck at WOT for minutes at a time towing for this test would show about 5 MPG or less.

These trucks are not EPA certified yet so no fuel economy claim can be advertised.

You should know that....

FishOnOne wrote:

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

Oh, come on Fish, the Ford won and the Ram lost. Just take a deep breath and enjoy the fact that the Ram lost.

The old Cummins starting in 1989 put out 175 horsepower and 450 lb ft torque, and it would have lost all of these races today.

Fast Mopar wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

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

Oh, come on Fish, the Ford won and the Ram lost. Just take a deep breath and enjoy the fact that the Ram lost.

The old Cummins starting in 1989 put out 175 horsepower and 450 lb ft torque, and it would have lost all of these races today.

Oh... come on Mopar my comment was towards the Horsepower vs Torque dispute. Let's not try to spin it... We got enough around here that do that. :W

I wasn't suggesting the 1989 RAM, but since you brought it up, I think it would be close to the Ecodiesel in this towing race.

The early ford diesels were slow and lots of smoke. Early GM's were not good either so what's new.

chevman