Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

I'm still very interested in the EcoDiesel Ram 1500 for my basic truck needs as well as the occasional towing needs.

I managed very well with my 235 hp 330 lb ft of tq 5.4 in my old 1997 F150 towing 6500-7000 (scaled weight) TT.

What was not addressed in this video is how much easier it is to fuel up a diesel in the big truck lanes with a 32 ft TT in tow than maneuvering the rig around the car pumps. :D.... See that 45 seconds is more than made up in fuel up time... The EcoDiesel is on the road longer due to range and the fuel stop is quicker...:D.

The video is about a race to the top of Davis Dam road. Hardly real life there...

Now a 2500 mile pull off with MPG's, Range, comfort, those are things I'm interested in... I got a feeling that the EcoDiesel would "torch" the other two in these categories.

But, at least ford did admit the Chevy beat the Ecoboost in denser cooler air.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

if the 2.7 has a scaled down version of the 3.5EB's power and torque curve than i'd believe it will outperform most every other 1/2 ton powertrain out there while towing. My 3.5EB pulled my Wildwood trailer up hills and from a dead stop as fast and as well as my new 6.7 does, the only difference is the 6.7 used less fuel and turns less RPM while doing it in a much more solid feeling package. Those Ecoboost engines are towing monsters much like the Big Blocks of yesterday IMO. I'd personally love a 3.5EB in an F250 with the right gears, I think it would be a fantastic combo for those not wanting to pay a premium for diesel.

I think the results are clear. If you camp 200 feet from home and need to get there fast, the Chevy and Dodge are the way to go. ;)

Hybridhunter wrote:

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.

Nope I bet it won't be any better then the 3.5. If Ford does rate it better it will quickly fall on it's face like the 3.5's rating did. It is a smaller displacement with just under 700# less weight so fuel mileage should be a push. Think about it, it is running the numbers that the 3.5 did before the weight came off.

And again until these tests are done by a true third party with NO outside influence, using like equipment, it's nothing but a commercial. This one happens to be a Ford commercial.

Don

I see this has become Ford vs Dodge and gas vs diesel.
I was impressed that a 2.7 Ford,170 cubes for us old guys,beat a 5.3 Chevy.323 cubes.

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


duplicate - yet again

Wow we get it you hate Ram and you really hate the Ram Eco-Diesel.

One more time for all the slow kids in the house. The Ram Eco-diesel is not meant to tow a heavy travel trailer. It will tow a medium trailer or a boat just fine, but not a heavy RV. As far as not even close, that's OK lets run 2,500 miles and see who gets their first, hint, it won't be the Ford. I quickly learned that running 60 MPH towing makes better fuel mileage then running 70+. It's a whole lot safer also.

A quick question, how many run balls out towing their RV with their families in their tow vehicles? Not many I bet, so bragging rights for making it up the top have a 6* grade faster then the other guy really does not mean a thing. They all can tow the posted speed limit on flat ground so if beatting me up the hill makes you feel like a big man then you need to take a good long look at what is really important in life.

Don

jerem0621 wrote:
I'm still very interested in the EcoDiesel Ram 1500 for my basic truck needs as well as the occasional towing needs.

I managed very well with my 235 hp 330 lb ft of tq 5.4 in my old 1997 F150 towing 6500-7000 (scaled weight) TT.

What was not addressed in this video is how much easier it is to fuel up a diesel in the big truck lanes with a 32 ft TT in tow than maneuvering the rig around the car pumps. :D.... See that 45 seconds is more than made up in fuel up time... The EcoDiesel is on the road longer due to range and the fuel stop is quicker...:D.

The video is about a race to the top of Davis Dam road. Hardly real life there...

Now a 2500 mile pull off with MPG's, Range, comfort, those are things I'm interested in... I got a feeling that the EcoDiesel would "torch" the other two in these categories.

But, at least ford did admit the Chevy beat the Ecoboost in denser cooler air.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

x2 Not sure what the fixation is with getting to the top of the pass 1st. 90% of my time towing I'm in line with everyone else. If there's a passing lane I pull over (most times:)) to let cars that want to get by a slow semi or slow vehicle. I know full well I can run 65-70mph up those passing lanes towing my 9000lb 5'er. But since no ones paying my for my diesel except me, then I'll drive like normal.

SSDD

wilber1 wrote:
SSDD

X2 and posted by the same ole haters.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

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.

Nope I bet it won't be any better then the 3.5. If Ford does rate it better it will quickly fall on it's face like the 3.5's rating did. It is a smaller displacement with just under 700# less weight so fuel mileage should be a push. Think about it, it is running the numbers that the 3.5 did before the weight came off.

And again until these tests are done by a true third party with NO outside influence, using like equipment, it's nothing but a commercial. This one happens to be a Ford commercial.

Don

Pending on the type of transmission Ford releases with the 2.7 EB I bet it will be somewhere between the 3.5 EB and the 3.0 ED.