Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

The heavier the load gets, the more important torque becomes.

Hybridhunter wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
I've trailered with gas and with diesel. Diesel should see about 30% more mpg, under equal conditions. Part of it is that diesel fuel is about 129,000 ,BTU's per gallon, and gas is 110,000 BTU's per gallon. The other is that due to the nature of the way the fuel burns, in diesel, versus explodes at ignition with a single ignition time with gas, the efficiency goes to diesel when running on any type of otto cycle powered engine. Diesel injectors now have multiple fuel injections /ignition points, as the fuel is injected and burned at various portions of the cylinder stroke, to accomodate the way the diesel fuel burns.

Gas is 43.90 HP/hr per gallon, Diesel is 50.87 HP/hr per gallon.

Diesel engines run at about 60% to 66% of the rpms that gas motors run at, making equal torque, so since the motor is spinning slower, there are also less parasitic losses of energy to the motor, and the transmission also.

The level of torque generated by a diesel is another factor in it's favor, at lower rpms, made possible by the pumping efficiencies of a turbo charger.

Cumulatively, that adds up to about 30%.

So if this high rpm theory was accurate, small Honda's wouldn't have been the paradigm of efficiency for 2 decades. As well, the ED and EB (3.5 anyhow) will run pretty much the same rpm, until the 240hp limit of the ED is reached, at which point, the EB will be on it's way to 360 hp.....
I think you have the benefits of turbocharging and direct injection confused with diesel benefits. Quite simply diesels main advantage is higher energy content, and no throttle. Beyond that, its all trade-offs based on design, some favor diesels, some gas. But it is trading one characteristic for another......that's it.
Either way 30% efficiency is not even close to reality, but that will become apparent when 2015 mileage numbers are released. Hard to compare with such disparate power ratings. An average of both torque and hp ratings might be a realistic way to compare?

You hardly if ever use 360 HP, or peak HP, on a gas model engine, in regular commerce driving conditions, or trailering.

I can see, quite literally, my fuel consumption in gallons per hour of diesel fuel, with my Scan Gauge II. About the maximum amount of fuel per hour that I will use is 9 or 10 miles per gallon, going 40 to 45 MPH up a steep grade. That puts my usage at somewhere between 4 and 5 gallons per hour of fuel being consumed. How much HP is that being made, out of that 240 HP capability? It's a non issue, for me, peak HP. Peak torque however, all in, full at 1750 rpms, 406 ft/lbs, may very well come a lot closer to being reached at peak, without straining the motor or fueling characteristics, from 1750 rpm to 2500.
Vehicle is a 3.0L TDI Touareg V-6, close enough to the Ram ED, for practical purposes... the ED makes more torque.

I owned a 1981 VW Jetta Diesel Coupe... 1588cc's 52 HP about 68 ft lbs of torque, and I would get 49 to 53 MPG all day long. No Honda in the 1980's was rated for that kind of freeway MPG's.

NinerBikes wrote:
I've trailered with gas and with diesel. Diesel should see about 30% more mpg, under equal conditions. Part of it is that diesel fuel is about 129,000 ,BTU's per gallon, and gas is 110,000 BTU's per gallon. The other is that due to the nature of the way the fuel burns, in diesel, versus explodes at ignition with a single ignition time with gas, the efficiency goes to diesel when running on any type of otto cycle powered engine. Diesel injectors now have multiple fuel injections /ignition points, as the fuel is injected and burned at various portions of the cylinder stroke, to accomodate the way the diesel fuel burns.

Gas is 43.90 HP/hr per gallon, Diesel is 50.87 HP/hr per gallon.

Diesel engines run at about 60% to 66% of the rpms that gas motors run at, making equal torque, so since the motor is spinning slower, there are also less parasitic losses of energy to the motor, and the transmission also.

The level of torque generated by a diesel is another factor in it's favor, at lower rpms, made possible by the pumping efficiencies of a turbo charger.

Cumulatively, that adds up to about 30%.

So if this high rpm theory was accurate, small Honda's wouldn't have been the paradigm of efficiency for 2 decades. As well, the ED and EB (3.5 anyhow) will run pretty much the same rpm, until the 240hp limit of the ED is reached, at which point, the EB will be on it's way to 360 hp.....
I think you have the benefits of turbocharging and direct injection confused with diesel benefits. Quite simply diesels main advantage is higher energy content, and no throttle. Beyond that, its all trade-offs based on design, some favor diesels, some gas. But it is trading one characteristic for another......that's it.
Either way 30% efficiency is not even close to reality, but that will become apparent when 2015 mileage numbers are released. Hard to compare with such disparate power ratings. An average of both torque and hp ratings might be a realistic way to compare?

The Eco-diesel is a $4000.00 up charge in trims up to the Laramie Longhorn. In the Laramie Longhorn and Limited it is a $2850.00 up charge. This just changed as you can now order the Laramie with the V-6. I'm not sure why anyone would order a V-6 gas engine in a truck doing any kind of real work but to each their own.

Don

Dirty Diesel customs too have this on their site

Looking at the build your wn site for Ford, the Eco is a $2395 option above the 3.7 V6 when the 3.7 is available. It's a $1095 option over the 5.0. Regardless of whether the 3.7 is available or not the $2395 is still there if you choose it. The 5.0 will at up some if its the base engine.

jus2shy wrote:

...
Does the FX2 even have the 3.7 as an option? I was under the impression that the FX series trucks started with a 5.0 as the base engine?

Not sure. But that would make sense. There's no doubt the FX series costs more, for whatever reason, and base engine choice could well be one of those reasons.

brulaz wrote:

Not sure about the EcoD but the additional $$ for the EcoB can vary depending upon the model of the truck. I only paid 1000$Can extra back in 2011.

(That total was before the ~$11,000 in rebates)

Does the FX2 even have the 3.7 as an option? I was under the impression that the FX series trucks started with a 5.0 as the base engine?

goducks10 wrote:
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.

Not sure about the EcoD but the additional $$ for the EcoB can vary depending upon the model of the truck. I only paid 1000$Can extra back in 2011.

(That total was before the ~$11,000 in rebates)

I've trailered with gas and with diesel. Diesel should see about 30% more mpg, under equal conditions. Part of it is that diesel fuel is about 129,000 ,BTU's per gallon, and gas is 110,000 BTU's per gallon. The other is that due to the nature of the way the fuel burns, in diesel, versus explodes at ignition with a single ignition time with gas, the efficiency goes to diesel when running on any type of otto cycle powered engine. Diesel injectors now have multiple fuel injections /ignition points, as the fuel is injected and burned at various portions of the cylinder stroke, to accomodate the way the diesel fuel burns.

Gas is 43.90 HP/hr per gallon, Diesel is 50.87 HP/hr per gallon.

Diesel engines run at about 60% to 66% of the rpms that gas motors run at, making equal torque, so since the motor is spinning slower, there are also less parasitic losses of energy to the motor, and the transmission also.

The level of torque generated by a diesel is another factor in it's favor, at lower rpms, made possible by the pumping efficiencies of a turbo charger.

Cumulatively, that adds up to about 30%.