Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam
You just know it's not gonna be close!
So which is better? Horsepower or torque lol.
(The answer is both, apparently.)
So which is better? Horsepower or torque lol.
(The answer is both, apparently.)
Forum Discussion
228 Replies
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.
Not sure why you say that
I think what he means is that most modern engines of all brands can be reasonably expected to last 150K+ miles without major internal repairs.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 $4000 option are all wet. As far as "oil changes, fuel filters and mess" that's a push unless your saying the EB never needs them :R . BTW the ED uses a 10,000 mile oil change interval, what is the EB oil change interval?
Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.
Not sure why you say that
All of this is pretty moot as we don't know any numbers yet.- Personally I'm more concerned with mp$ 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
Longevity is not a valid argument with modern engine.
All of this is pretty moot as we don't know any numbers yet. - 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:
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 :RTaco 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!- 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. - When GM and Ford get their 9 speed on line and from what we are hearing it's not going very well then they might hit the Eco-diesel numbers. But not with their current trans they won't.
Don 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.wilber1 wrote:
SSDD
X2 and posted by the same ole haters.
