Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

People tend to overlook the initial costs of the both the Eco and ED. The Eco is a $2395.00 option over the base motor and the ED is $4000.00, a $1600.00 difference. Saying that the Eco is a better deal cause the ED is a $4000.00 isn't really fair. You still have to pay for the Eco. You only need to make up $1600 to offset the cost. Hardly anyone buys the base motors for towing.

I got around to reading the trailer life article in its entirety. According to the author the ED will be the best thing since sliced bread for moderately sized trailers. There will be nothing comparable for the low rpm grunt of that thing and the mileage at the moment, there is nothing to directly compare it to. That's why a lot if us are looking at the cost and thinking it's just too high. The article was very complimentary, I wish it wasn't written by a hardcore diesel fan, and a guy who seems to love his dodges...
I'm waiting for a close comparison to the eco 2.7tt. Instead of racing up a hill and proclaiming a speed winner and a mileage loser, how about an equally loaded ED, followed by the f150, so we see what mileage they get going the same speed..... We all know which is faster, and we know which gets better mileage, so the big picture, apples to apples, and price comparison for 100K miles.
Throw in a GM and a pentastar, and then we can all bring our biases and cherry pick that to death!

Deep breath? Ummkay. I would have used italics for emphasis, but this forum is using 80's tech for their scripts.

The author of that story was a different person than I thought.... and he is heavily biased towards diesel engines FWIW. Regardless, he did remark at how well the Ram towed the trailer, and how for the most part the ED felt effortless. He was not a fan of the shifter / dash arrangement though.

They tested a Ram 6.7 with a 30' bumper tow trailer and averaged 10.25mpg FWIW in the same issue.

Hybridhunter wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

The article simply stated 22 mpg solo. I was assuming that was mixed driving. It also stated that the ED with 4x4 and 3.92 gears is rated at 19 city and 27 hwy. Better than the ECO on solo but about the same when towing with 12.6 mpg and towing a lower profile TT at 4800lbs. Not slamming either truck. Each has it's merits.

How is it the same as the Ecoboost when towing? There was only one truck in the test, not two.

They tested an Eco-boost F150 (more than once IIRC) in previous years: They compared THEIR results to the ED.
I know, I know, it's heresy what they wrote! It could not possibly be true. Just like when CR closely tested the EB, and found the towing mileage was IDENTICAL to the 5.0 if driven the same.

Take a deep breath. I was not aware of their Ecoboost F150 test. Please try to allow for the fact that perhaps some of us are not quite as all-knowing as you are.

Fast Mopar wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

The article simply stated 22 mpg solo. I was assuming that was mixed driving. It also stated that the ED with 4x4 and 3.92 gears is rated at 19 city and 27 hwy. Better than the ECO on solo but about the same when towing with 12.6 mpg and towing a lower profile TT at 4800lbs. Not slamming either truck. Each has it's merits.

How is it the same as the Ecoboost when towing? There was only one truck in the test, not two.

They tested an Eco-boost F150 (more than once IIRC) in previous years: They compared THEIR results to the ED.
I know, I know, it's heresy what they wrote! It could not possibly be true. Just like when CR closely tested the EB, and found the towing mileage was IDENTICAL to the 5.0 if driven the same.

goducks10 wrote:

The article simply stated 22 mpg solo. I was assuming that was mixed driving. It also stated that the ED with 4x4 and 3.92 gears is rated at 19 city and 27 hwy. Better than the ECO on solo but about the same when towing with 12.6 mpg and towing a lower profile TT at 4800lbs. Not slamming either truck. Each has it's merits.

How is it the same as the Ecoboost when towing? There was only one truck in the test, not two.

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

Or even worse, ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans, where a significant amount of thrust comes from the intake fan turned by, gasp, torque...

True but RPM determines how much power is being produced by that torque and of course in the case of rocket engines, none of it is produced by torque.

Yes. What I meant is a turbofan produces both direct thrust (via jet nozzle) and propulsion via fan/prop.

On a 0 bypass turbojet, or rocket, it's all thrust. (shaft power negligible)

On a turboprop, it's all shaft power. (exhaust stream negligible)

Therefore a turbofan is the most difficult to calculate. Industry rates them by thrust for simplicity sake, but it produces significant shaft horsepower. Its ratio of shaft power vs thrust power changes with altitude.

Engine manufacturers don't even agree on which power setting parameter to use. GE uses fan speed, N1, for all its turbo fans. Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce use engine pressure ratio, EPR, but not necessarily in the same way, depnding on the engine.

wilber1 wrote:

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

Or even worse, ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans, where a significant amount of thrust comes from the intake fan turned by, gasp, torque...

True but RPM determines how much power is being produced by that torque and of course in the case of rocket engines, none of it is produced by torque.

Yes. What I meant is a turbofan produces both direct thrust (via jet nozzle) and propulsion via fan/prop.

On a 0 bypass turbojet, or rocket, it's all thrust. (shaft power negligible)

On a turboprop, it's all shaft power. (exhaust stream negligible)

Therefore a turbofan is the most difficult to calculate. Industry rates them by thrust for simplicity sake, but it produces significant shaft horsepower. Its ratio of shaft power vs thrust power changes with altitude.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

Shocking!
Or not......

Nice try, but the 22 would be the city mileage and your Eco Ford might be able to hit that on the highway with a good tail wind.

Even if you don't like the data presented, at least acknowledge that the source has very little perceived bias,, if anything, the author tends to favor diesels and the data is comparably generated relative to the other data from other vehicle. Fact is, that is not great towing mileage for that combo.
Driven conservatively, the ecoboost engines can get excellent mileage. Eco or boost, pick one, right?

What I was pointing out is the 22 MPG is the city rating for the Eco-diesel, the same mileage the Eco-boost is rated to make for highway mileage. The eco-boost can make decent mileage but nowhere near 28+ MPG. BTW I'm sure goducks10 was not slamming the Eco-diesel but when posting a snippet of a story you should note what the post represents ie city, highway or combined.

Don

The article simply stated 22 mpg solo. I was assuming that was mixed driving. It also stated that the ED with 4x4 and 3.92 gears is rated at 19 city and 27 hwy. Better than the ECO on solo but about the same when towing with 12.6 mpg and towing a lower profile TT at 4800lbs. Not slamming either truck. Each has it's merits.

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

Or even worse, ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans, where a significant amount of thrust comes from the intake fan turned by, gasp, torque...

True but RPM determines how much power is being produced by that torque and of course in the case of rocket engines, none of it is produced by torque.