Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

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.

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....

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.

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?

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

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.

duplicate - yet again

Duplicate

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!

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.