Forum Discussion
165 Replies
- Performance, or fuel mileage with speed reduction while towing? You choose.
8iron wrote:
This test was done with a relatively low drag car hauler. What will happen when you pull a TT acting like a parachute?
Beat me to it.
If you nail up 4 sheets of plywood in front of that Bronco and then tow with that oil burner you will be introduced to Mr. 30's MPH real quickly. :B- This test was done with a relatively low drag car hauler. What will happen when you pull a TT acting like a parachute?
- I kind of agree with the OP. I know a lot of people that were expecting this diesel to be like the bigger towing diesels in the HDs and outperform the 2.7L Ecoboost or even the 3.5L Ecoboost in towing before it came out. This engine didn't live up to the hype towing performance wise just as the 3.5L Ecoboost didn't live up to its fuel economy hype in certain aspects. This video is kind of justice for me from all those who said I was just being a fanboy when I told them that while the Ecodiesel will deliver on its promise of better fuel economy, it will not be a towing machine like the bigger diesels, big V8s, or the 3.5L Ecoboost engine is. It will get the job done, but not with the power to spare to easily overtake slower moving traffic or merge into traffic quickly coming on an onramp like the others will.
Also, I do think Ram needs to re-evaluate that trucks max tow rating. That Ram 3.0L Ecodiesel in the video was only towing 80% of its max tow rating that Ram gave it and could barely hold within 10 mph of the speed limit with no power to spare. That is not acceptable to me. It may have been fine for my grandpa back in the day, but I expect more than that in my truck. In contrast the 2.7L Ecoboost, which towed the same trailer, was towing at 95% of its max tow rating and it easily held the speed limit and had power to spare. I know there is a J2807 tow rating for these trucks but that don't seem right. They both towed the same weight and the same trailer, yet the Ram Ecodiesel with a 8,950 lb tow rating was easily outperformed by the 2.7L Ecoboost that had a 7,600 lbs tow rating. That just doesn't seem right to me.
That is just like how the Ram 2500 6.4L that is rated to tow 15,000 lbs was only able to tow going 30 mph pulling the same 12,500 lbs that the GM 2500HD 6.0L with a 13,000 lb tow rating was easily able to keep speed going up the same hill. I just don't get why Ram gave it such a high tow rating if it gets outperformed by a truck with less of a tow rating. larry barnhart wrote:
I never thought fast was always the better way but the drivers of today seem to want fast.
chevman
Testing how fast a vehicle pulling a load is a method to demonstrate how much reserve the engine has or doesn't. Having excessive towing reserve means you can choose the speed you want to tow and not having to run at WOT is always a good thing.jus2shy wrote:
I dunno. It made it up the mountain just fine. No CEL. It was loaded for bear with 2 large guys, 7,200 lbs trailer, so it was at capacity. Maintained over 45 mph over the whole run meeting SAE towing standards. Did the run at supposedly 50% better fuel economy (If you can trust the computer on both trucks). Truck was always designed to be a more fuel efficient truck than its competition. Seems to have done its job and met its requirements. Hosts say that the vehicle towed stable and introduced no drama. The engine was sedate and the only tell-tale sign that it's at its limit was the fact they weren't flying up the mountain at 60mph or better. Doesn't seem like a flop to me, but the F-150 would certainly have done the job faster.
Now what would be interesting is testing the efficiency of both trucks, have them side by side with the same load and driven up the mountain at the same speeds (RAM floored and Ford just throttling to match the RAM). Then we can see if that supposed 50% better fuel economy on the RAM would hold up. I'm figuring it would fall back to only 25 or 30% better fuel economy on the RAM.
A great point. A popular saying from my sprint car days. Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?
A case in point is my 2001 Dura max compared to my 2011 Duramax. On flat ground the 2011 easily gets the better MPG... But since I am almost always doing some serious climbing, I rarely see it. I do think that if I could just keep my foot out of it with the 2011, and climb the grades at the same speed the 2001 is capable of, that the MPGs would be about the same. Simple physics is that it takes a certain amount of energy to move a given weight up a grade at a given speed. Increasing either the weight or the speed WILL increase the fuel consumption.- Wouldn't mind doing 45mph up a grade in the Rockies.
More time to watch the scenery.
But I did hate doing that all day long fighting prairie head winds. Our old, under-powered truck was like that.
The mileage IS nice though. Gad, I hate trade-offs. BillyW wrote:
One thing to remember here is that typically you can get a little more out of these vehicles than those particular videos show. They NEVER manually shift up or down, or do anything besides steady gas pedal or brake.
Also, if you haven't been there, the mountain they tow up is a significant climb, both steep and very high elevation. If the truck can keep 45 mph up that hill, you can probably rest assured it can do better on just about any interstate grade in the lower 48. At 45 mph, you'll be passing a lot of other vehicles on that grade.- One thing to remember here is that typically you can get a little more out of these vehicles than those particular videos show. They NEVER manually shift up or down, or do anything besides steady gas pedal or brake.
- I want ability to climb without impeding traffic and have some reserve for just in case. WOT is not a happy place for me.
