Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

RCMAN46 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

Taco wrote:
Guys. Lets not forget it is a Ford advertisement. Of course the ford is going to be the best.

I don't doubt that the 2.7 ecoboost is a fine engine but I wouldn't draw a single conclusion from a Ford ad claiming it is the best. It may be the best but I wouldn't take Ford's word for it.

Yeah I think it's kind of funny that they stress how the lighter f150 is the main reason it did so well but yet in their HD truck shoot out they sand bagged so the weights would be equal for the test. LOL!

Your statement makes zero sense... LOL :R

In the HD truck shoot out I am sure the Chevrolet truck weighted less than the Ford. This was also a Ford sponsored event. So Ford added sand bags to the Chevrolet and probably the Ram so they would weigh the same as the Ford.

So why did they not add sandbags to the Ecoboost Ford so it weighed the same as the Ram?

Wrong again... Unbelievable.

jus2shy wrote:
The thing that interests me in the 2.7 is its construction. It's a CGI block that's also in an aluminum cradle. It is a very interesting approach. It looks like a whole lot of surface area to seal against oil leakage. But I'm guessing they did this to minimize the use of CGI to just the critical areas and try to lighten the entire block. Also kind of weird to see only 2 bolt mains, versus 4 bolt mains plus cross bolts in the 3.5, so I'm wondering how it will be on the durability front. Cummins gets away with 2 bolt mains, but that's because it's an inline 6, so you have a main bearing for every piston, versus a main bearing handling the stress of 2 pistons in a "V" engine. But then it is CGI versus aluminum so maybe there's more rigidity there. Here's the image for your reference:

Think of lower piece as a strong oil pan. In addition the Eco Diesel uses a bed plate which is a source for oil leaks.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Yellermanx wrote:
Personally I'm more concerned with mp$ than mpg and I imagine the EB does better there, even if the mpg are lower. Gas is much cheaper in most parts of the country so you have to get significantly better mileage with the diesel. Not to mention the oil changes, fuel filters and mess. JMHO

Build a Ram SLT with the Eco-diesel and F-150 Lariat with the 3.5 Eco-boost and the Ram is $1,000 more. Now keep in mind Ford has already said that the are upping the cost of the 2015 F-150 so the peaple saying the ED is a $4000 option are all wet. As far as "oil changes, fuel filters and mess" that's a push unless your saying the EB never needs them :R . BTW the ED uses a 10,000 mile oil change interval, what is the EB oil change interval?

Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.

Not sure why you say that

All of this is pretty moot as we don't know any numbers yet.

The Eco Boost doesn't have a fuel filter to replace and the Oil Change Intervals are 10k miles. Not knowing the EB fuel economy numbers, I'm willing to bet the Eco Boost will be much cheaper to operate than a Eco Diesel. Heck I'm hearing the Eco Diesel oil change is over $100.

FishOnOne wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Yellermanx wrote:
Personally I'm more concerned with mp$ than mpg and I imagine the EB does better there, even if the mpg are lower. Gas is much cheaper in most parts of the country so you have to get significantly better mileage with the diesel. Not to mention the oil changes, fuel filters and mess. JMHO

Build a Ram SLT with the Eco-diesel and F-150 Lariat with the 3.5 Eco-boost and the Ram is $1,000 more. Now keep in mind Ford has already said that the are upping the cost of the 2015 F-150 so the peaple saying the ED is a $4000 option are all wet. As far as "oil changes, fuel filters and mess" that's a push unless your saying the EB never needs them :R . BTW the ED uses a 10,000 mile oil change interval, what is the EB oil change interval?

Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.

Not sure why you say that

All of this is pretty moot as we don't know any numbers yet.

The Eco Boost doesn't have a fuel filter to replace and the Oil Change Intervals are 10k miles. Not knowing the EB fuel economy numbers, I'm willing to bet the Eco Boost will be much cheaper to operate than a Eco Diesel. Heck I'm hearing the Eco Diesel oil change is over $100.

:R

So the Ford has no fuel filter to change? So then they are using a in tank filter then? Yep that will cost you an arm and and leg. BTW where are you getting your info on the cost of an oil change on the Ram ED? Considering they just came out and you can't even get pricing for a oil filter from Auto Zone kind of hard to believe you there Troy. But what is the cost for the EB, as it is running full syn oil just like the ED.

Don

He's probably getting his oil change pricing from a dealer - the same place that would quote you over $100 to do an oil change for a 6.7 regardless of brand.

Do you pay over $100/oil change on your truck fish?

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Yellermanx wrote:
Personally I'm more concerned with mp$ than mpg and I imagine the EB does better there, even if the mpg are lower. Gas is much cheaper in most parts of the country so you have to get significantly better mileage with the diesel. Not to mention the oil changes, fuel filters and mess. JMHO

Build a Ram SLT with the Eco-diesel and F-150 Lariat with the 3.5 Eco-boost and the Ram is $1,000 more. Now keep in mind Ford has already said that the are upping the cost of the 2015 F-150 so the peaple saying the ED is a $4000 option are all wet. As far as "oil changes, fuel filters and mess" that's a push unless your saying the EB never needs them :R . BTW the ED uses a 10,000 mile oil change interval, what is the EB oil change interval?

Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.

Not sure why you say that

All of this is pretty moot as we don't know any numbers yet.

The Eco Boost doesn't have a fuel filter to replace and the Oil Change Intervals are 10k miles. Not knowing the EB fuel economy numbers, I'm willing to bet the Eco Boost will be much cheaper to operate than a Eco Diesel. Heck I'm hearing the Eco Diesel oil change is over $100.

:R

So the Ford has no fuel filter to change? So then they are using a in tank filter then? Yep that will cost you an arm and and leg. BTW where are you getting your info on the cost of an oil change on the Ram ED? Considering they just came out and you can't even get pricing for a oil filter from Auto Zone kind of hard to believe you there Troy. But what is the cost for the EB, as it is running full syn oil just like the ED.

Don

The 3.5 Eco Boost takes ~ 6.2 quarts (don't know much about the 2.7 EB)of any API SN 5W30 oil which is your standard off the shelf oil today. I'm thinking a DIY can do an oil change for a Eco Boost for less than $50 using a Motorcraft oil filter to boot.

Your the MOPAR expert and supposedly in the process of purchasing a Eco Diesel so why don't you do some due diligence and provide the cost for an oil change on a Eco Diesel if you don't believe me.

A tip for the day go the Jeep Garage.com for your answer.

Bionic Man wrote:
He's probably getting his oil change pricing from a dealer - the same place that would quote you over $100 to do an oil change for a 6.7 regardless of brand.

Do you pay over $100/oil change on your truck fish?

This thread is the Eco Diesel and the 2.7 Eco Boost so no I won't change the topic Bionic Man.

FishOnOne wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

Taco wrote:
Guys. Lets not forget it is a Ford advertisement. Of course the ford is going to be the best.

I don't doubt that the 2.7 ecoboost is a fine engine but I wouldn't draw a single conclusion from a Ford ad claiming it is the best. It may be the best but I wouldn't take Ford's word for it.

Yeah I think it's kind of funny that they stress how the lighter f150 is the main reason it did so well but yet in their HD truck shoot out they sand bagged so the weights would be equal for the test. LOL!

Your statement makes zero sense... LOL :R

Read this. It will make perfect sense.:R

Ford sand bagging.

The Ram EcoDiesel can't really be compared to the 2.7 F150 EcoBoost.

The Ram is a premium engine engineered for consistent fuel economy.

The EcoBoost 2.7 is first of all, not the top level engine, so you can't really compare it to the Ram EcoDiesel 3.0. Different market niches.

The 2.7 EB is clearly engineered for max power on demand, with fuel economy as a secondary, mostly marketing driven made-up selling point.

transamz9 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

Taco wrote:
Guys. Lets not forget it is a Ford advertisement. Of course the ford is going to be the best.

I don't doubt that the 2.7 ecoboost is a fine engine but I wouldn't draw a single conclusion from a Ford ad claiming it is the best. It may be the best but I wouldn't take Ford's word for it.

Yeah I think it's kind of funny that they stress how the lighter f150 is the main reason it did so well but yet in their HD truck shoot out they sand bagged so the weights would be equal for the test. LOL!

Your statement makes zero sense... LOL :R

Read this. It will make perfect sense.:R

Ford sand bagging.

Here's a copy and paste quote from your link:
Having these two max tow monsters together in one place was special enough, but Ford also had two identically equipped Load Max trailers on hand, each offering just more than 24,000 pounds of weight (seven pallets of cinder blocks) for towing with these two beasts.

Yes it makes perfect sense.... There was a whooopin! :W

You guys keep changing the topic... :R