Forum Discussion
- And how long do you think it would last in a tow vehicle?
wilber1 wrote:
Well, at least I will answer your question. No, not exactly 14.7 but a narrow range around it. If you don't believe a diesel can use a large amount of boost for engine cooling and a gasser can't because its boost is limited due to it being directly related to power output, try ramping the EB's boost up to 23 PSI and see what happens. After all, "it is built like a diesel".
Sure - Been there, done that:
Ecoboost 2.7
The engine's designer Ed Waszczenko gave us an overview of his baby; a 500 pound compacted graphite engine running two Borg-Warner turbos up to 31 PSI at 5,700 RPM. Those snails are spinning at 53,000 RPM at idle, screaming to almost 200,000 RPM at full noise.ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
Do you honestly believe th 3.5 EB got 11.3 MPG on that tow test? Yes or no.
Do you honestly believe a gas engine is only limited to a 14.7:1 AFR?
Well, at least I will answer your question. No, not exactly 14.7 but a narrow range around it. If you don't believe a diesel can use a large amount of boost for engine cooling and a gasser can't because its boost is limited due to it being directly related to power output, try ramping the EB's boost up to 23 PSI and see what happens. After all, "it is built like a diesel".wilber1 wrote:
Do you honestly believe th 3.5 EB got 11.3 MPG on that tow test? Yes or no.
Do you honestly believe a gas engine is only limited to a 14.7:1 AFR?ShinerBock wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
Man, the fact you wouldn't question a number that is so obviously wrong to anyone with a bit of critical thinking and then try to support it says a lot.
Are you really going to start this circle jerk again? What number do I have to question?
Man, the fact that you think gas engines are only limited to a 14.7:1 AFR, that my Cummins revs up to 3,500 rpm in gear, and that who thinks a "towing machine" is the engine that gets the best fuel economy over towing performance all to support a Ram product says a lot.
Do you honestly believe th 3.5 EB got 11.3 MPG on that tow test? Yes or no.wilber1 wrote:
Man, the fact you wouldn't question a number that is so obviously wrong to anyone with a bit of critical thinking and then try to support it says a lot.
Are you really going to start this circle jerk again? What number do I have to question?
Man, the fact that you think gas engines are only limited to a 14.7:1 AFR, that my Cummins revs up to 3,500 rpm in gear, and that who thinks a "towing machine" is the engine that gets the best fuel economy over towing performance all to support a Ram product says a lot.- One thing every one glosses over is the Diesel fuel premium cost and the maintenance premium. MT sort of touched on it but didn't go that far.
I'd suggest running the #'s with Diesel in your area and then add in the $100 oil changes of the Ram. The filter alone on the Internet is $40 and the oil is special costly oil (not the usual Rotella or Delvac). Ram guys were "pleased" at $80 DIY oil changes every 10k. Vs $50 every 10k for the Ecoboost at a Ford dealer.
It was also interesting that the Ram broke during the testing. Seems Chrysler still has not figured out quality either. Bionic Man wrote:
The Ecodiesel runs at higher temps. Nothing new, or alarming there. And just because there is snow on the ground doesn't mean it is 32*. Welcome to Colorado, where we have days at 50* when there is snow on the ground.
Lesser grades, at lower elevations, are going to be fine. This isn't the first year for the engine. I haven't seen reports of it overheating in the real world.
Fair enough, I know in PA once the days hit 50, the snow goes away quickly. As for the engine, I have no idea if it runs warm or not. It was just odd to see the temp needle in the upper range with snow on the ground. Chrysler should program that with better damping.mr61impala wrote:
How about on a MacBook Air? This thing has different commands/funtions than my Lenovo running Windows at work.
Same thing on a Mac (I'm a Mac user too)ksss wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
Shinerbock wrote:
I would also agree about it no necessarily being the best option for towing especially if it is closer to its 7,000 lb limit that Ram rates it at like it was. The same guys that did this video also took a 2014 F150 with a 3.5L up the same run, but with a 7,100 trailer and a 3 people in the cab. They recorded an average of 11.3 mpg which would beg ms to ask the question as to why you would get the Ecodiesel if you towing around 7,000 lbs a lot.
Really? The 3.5 got 11.3 MPG and the 2.7 got 4.3. That would beg me to ask the question, why would anyone buy the 2.7 and why would Ford even build it?
I have wondered about that as well. It reminds me of the GM 4.8 V-8 which mercifully was put to death.
Neither of these engines deserve to be put to death, far from it but the 11.3 number is complete nonsense.
