Forum Discussion
165 Replies
rjstractor wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
Really? So Northern California, Washington, or Oregon never has #1 diesel? So you are really telling me that the few refineries we have switch over to making #1 diesel fuel for the whole United States, but make an acception for California, Oregon, and Washington? Do pigs also fly where you come from?
I beleive he's right. Our diesel is labeled #2 year round. It's my understanding that "winterized" diesel is a mix of #1 and #2 and that straight #1 is used only in very cold climates. Where I work we run straight #2 in our fire trucks and ambulances year round.
I don't know that I've ever seen No. 1 diesel commonly for sale anywhere in the West. I'm sure you can get it, but not at your local fuel station or truck stop. But all of the stations make a "winter mix" locally, which is more than adequate for the temps we see, at least throughout the mountain west. FWIW, my diesel always got worse mileage on "winter blend" fuel than it did in the summer.ShinerBock wrote:
Uhm no! Europe uses a different SAE standard to determine their power output of their engines which is why the outputs for the engines over there is higher. Also, even if you went up the hill at 40 or 30 mph, the Ecodiesel would have still been struggling more than the 2.7L Ecoboost. Either way you want to put it, that Ecodiesel should have been rated to tow less than that Ecoboost no if, ands or buts.
A bit different. Like 1.4%
Horesepower. Confusion and Resolution
On edit. Just because an engine is operating at below its rated HP does not mean it is struggling less than one that is. It depends on the design parameters. A 2.5L F1 engine producing 300 HP is not guaranteed to be more reliable than a 4L V8 rated at 300 HP, just because the F1 engine is only operating at 40% of its rated 700+ HP.Two words for you.... No and no.
That's intelligent. :hReally? So Northern California, Washington, or Oregon never has #1 diesel? So you are really telling me that the few refineries we have switch over to making #1 diesel fuel for the whole United States, but make an acception for California, Oregon, and Washington? Do pigs also fly where you come from?
On Dec. 29 we hooked up our fith wheel and headed down the I5 to Southern California. We just got back Friday and during that time I never saw one pump labelled #1 but plenty labelled #2 and I have never seen a pump labelled #1 where I live.
The fact is, refineries do not switch to just #1 in the winter, they blend #1 and #2 according to area climate and season. I suspect that on the west coast where nightly lows are rarely below a few degrees below freezing regardless of season, little or no #1 is required in the blend.ShinerBock wrote:
Really? So Northern California, Washington, or Oregon never has #1 diesel? So you are really telling me that the few refineries we have switch over to making #1 diesel fuel for the whole United States, but make an acception for California, Oregon, and Washington? Do pigs also fly where you come from?
I beleive he's right. Our diesel is labeled #2 year round. It's my understanding that "winterized" diesel is a mix of #1 and #2 and that straight #1 is used only in very cold climates. Where I work we run straight #2 in our fire trucks and ambulances year round.wilber1 wrote:
I said, why do you have to go up the hill at 50 MPH. How do you get having to go up the hill at WOT out of that? 240 HP seems to be the limit for the V6 3.0L diesels in North America, be they VW, Mercedes or Motori, I assume because of emission standards. BMW does a bit better at 255 HP. This is not true in Europe where Audi offers a 313 HP twin turbo version of their 3.0 and next year a triple turbo version putting out 353 HP. I think these engines are very underrated for North America.
Uhm no! Europe uses a different SAE standard to determine their power output of their engines which is why the outputs for the engines over there is higher. Also, even if you went up the hill at 40 or 30 mph, the Ecodiesel would have still been struggling more than the 2.7L Ecoboost. Either way you want to put it, that Ecodiesel should have been rated to tow less than that Ecoboost no if, ands or buts.Two words for you. Boost Pressure. To make the same amount of power, you have to mix the same amount of fuel and air and burn it. A smaller displacement engine will have to either turn faster or operate at a higher manifold pressure to process the same amount of fuel and air in the same amount of time as a larger displacement engine.
Two words for you.... No and no.So what? Most gasoline is E10 which doesn't change the fact that diesels do better in the real world. All vehicles get worse mileage in cold weather, doesn't matter if they are gas or diesel. Never seen #1 diesel on the west coast.
Really? So Northern California, Washington, or Oregon never has #1 diesel? So you are really telling me that the few refineries we have switch over to making #1 diesel fuel for the whole United States, but make an acception for California, Oregon, and Washington? Do pigs also fly where you come from?Bionic Man wrote:
Except that every comparison that I have seen states that, comparably equiped, the EB and EcoDiesel are priced very similar. You can state that it is $4000 more expensive as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true.
By all means, don't take my word for it. Build and price one out for yourself.
Ford
http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-F-150?branding=1〈=en#/Models/
Ram
http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/bmo/CUT201513/models.do?Huh?!? First you say you would never WOT your truck up a long grade and don't believe in abusing machinery. Now you are defending a truck that had to go WOT and was stressed out barely holding 50 mph(10 mph under the speed limit) when it was not even carrying the max weight the Ram rated it for versus a truck that was considerably less stressed pulling the same weight while easily able to do the speed limit. You are contradicting yourself which makes me wonder what is more important to you, your own beliefs or your need to defend a Ram product? It seems like your own beliefs are taking a sideline here.
I said, why do you have to go up the hill at 50 MPH. How do you get having to go up the hill at WOT out of that? 240 HP seems to be the limit for the V6 3.0L diesels in North America, be they VW, Mercedes or Motori, I assume because of emission standards. BMW does a bit better at 255 HP. This is not true in Europe where Audi offers a 313 HP twin turbo version of their 3.0 and next year a triple turbo version putting out 353 HP. I think these engines are very underrated for North America.No, the Ecoboost would be less stressed than that Ecodiesel. Not only was the Ecoboost running at a lower RPM, but the higher compression ratio of the Ecodiesel puts more stress on the block than the Ecoboost. However, that is a moot point since the both these engines have a CGI(Compacted-graphite iron) block like the the bigger diesels do to handle the stress. Diesel engines are inherently "overbuilt" to handle the stresses of compression ignition which is one of the reasons why they last longer, and the 2.7L EB is built the same way with less stress on the block to make it's power.
Two words for you. Boost Pressure. To make the same amount of power, you have to mix the same amount of fuel and air and burn it. A smaller displacement engine will have to either turn faster or operate at a higher manifold pressure to process the same amount of fuel and air in the same amount of time as a larger displacement engine.Lastly, the reason why gasers never achieve EPA numbers has more to do with the fuel uesed and the test itself. If you read how they do the test you will find that they never exceed 60 mph so if one thinks they will get the EPA numbers at 70 mph then they are being overly optimistic. Another factor is the fuel. The EPA test uses non-ethanol gasoline which is rare in the real world. Most gasoline at the pumps is E10 which reduces your fuel efficiency by about 5% which is a 1-2 mpg loss for most trucks. For the diesel test, the EPA uses the same stuff you get at the pumps as summer #2 diesel so you don't get that loss right of the bat like gasoline. However, you will get a loss in the cold months(usually October to March) when stations switch over to winter #1 diesel that has about a 5,00-8,000 Btu reduction in energy which reduces your power and fuel economy.
So what? Most gasoline is E10 which doesn't change the fact that diesels do better in the real world. All vehicles get worse mileage in cold weather, doesn't matter if they are gas or diesel. Never seen #1 diesel on the west coast.- Except that every comparison that I have seen states that, comparably equiped, the EB and EcoDiesel are priced very similar. You can state that it is $4000 more expensive as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true.
jus2shy wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
Do the math of the added $4,000 cost of the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. The added cost of maintenance where both are recomended to change the oil at 10,000 miles but the Ecoboost oil change will cost about $40-50 to where just the oil filter alone for the Ecodiesel cost about that much. Edmunds.com reported that the oil change for their long term test Ecodiesel costs them $154 here..
Not going to dispute the oil change cost, as that's the reality of many european diesels. Best price I could find the oil that the 3.0 calls for is 7 bucks a quart in the open market and the filter is especially heinous in price @ 50 bucks. However, you can't compare the $4k up-charge for the Ecodiesel against any other vehicle except the vehicles in its line (Hemi and Pentastar). I've personally optioned up an F-150 XLT against a RAM Bighorn (2.7 versus 3.0) and found that they nearly matched in price and several other automotive rags made the same observation (Motortrend).
However, maintenance costs for the Ecodiesel at this point will be higher. Still, I wonder how the hell they get away with a $25 fuel filter when the HD diesel guys have to spend roughly $100 for fuel filters... Well, I wonder what the ISV in the Nissan will do as many believe, for RAM, that's the engine that got away.
Then there is the added cost of diesel in the mix. Going by the EPA highway numbers and the most up to date average cost of gasoline versus diesel in the US of unleaded being $2.457 with diesel being $.40 higher, the 28 mpg of the Ecodiesel is equivalent to a gasoline engine getting 24 mpg which is well below the 2.7L Ecoboost EPA numbers so the Ecodiesel would cast more in fuel. If you go by the real world combined numbers that most review sites are getting for both engines(Ecodiesel 23 mpg and 2.7L Ecoboost 20 mpg) then you would still pay more in fuel for the Ecodiesel than the Ecoboost per year. So there's no added fuel cost benefit there either unless you were towing more than 15% of your annual mileage which most don't. There is also the factor that Ram only offers the Ecodiesel with a 27 gallon tank while the Ecoboost can be optioned with a 37 gallon tank giving you a longer or equal range for the most part even when towing.
Again, this depends on where you live and where you do the majority of driving. Diesel in the PNW has flipped flopped with Unleaded for the past few weeks and unleaded is only about a dime cheaper than Diesel as I type this. Where as in the northeast, Diesel is way more expensive than gas. Then for realistic fuel economy, I like to look at the fuel economy curve for the manufacturers. Ford 2.7's fuel economy really can't be determined because there isn't enough samples yet. But the sample base is building and in 6 months, we should get a clear picture of where the average is. As it stands, the distribution is from 16 to 21mpg with no curve to speak of. As for the Ecodiesel, it seems to have a great number of users posting between 21 and 26 mpg average (I'm ignoring the outliers on the high and low sides). That's a 5 mpg difference from lowest to lowest and highest to highest when comparing curve to curve (although the 2.7 will need more samples before we can firm-up an analysis between the two). But as it is, that's 25% fuel economy difference from Ecoboost to Ecodiesel.
So basically, this is what you get with the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. You have to pay about $4,000 more for it up front. You have to pay over 3 times as much for maintenance. You have to pay more in fuel for most of the time unless you tow more than 15% of your annual mileage. All this for something that has less pulling power, less payload, and struggles to even keep within 10 mph of the speed limit going up hills. So where is the benefit in it?
I think people are being blinded by only looking at the MPG number and the fact that it is diesel, but neglect to look at the big picture and do the math. I can see paying more for the Ecodiesel if it had better towing performance and more capability along with its fuel mileage which is why I went with the Cummins over the 6.4L Hemi in my 2500. However, I can't see paying more all the way around and getting less performance and less capability. It just doesn't make sense.
Again, that's some broad generalization. Some people, the math works out, others it doesn't. Some people merely want the ability to carry bulky, but light items along with their family and many never hook a hitch up to a half ton truck. The Ecodiesel works well in that regard and those that occasionally tow something small. I'm not in that boat, and many on here are not in that boat.
"OPINION ALERT"
Plus no matter what you do to the little EcoBoost the truck that it's wrapped in is UGGGGGLLLY...by far the worst looking F150 ever. IMHO :D
I would choose the EcoDiesl over the EcoBoost based on the personal preference of me hating the looks of the new F150 alone.
But, something I have said before is that the EcoDiesel has no real advantage over the Pentastar Ram. In sheer HP the Pentastar wins. In seat of the pants feel the Pentastar wins (IMHO again, I drove them back to back)
Now, how reliable will the EcoDiesel actually be once some users have logged serious towing miles? That remains to be seen.
Thanks!
JeremiahShinerBock wrote:
Do the math of the added $4,000 cost of the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. The added cost of maintenance where both are recomended to change the oil at 10,000 miles but the Ecoboost oil change will cost about $40-50 to where just the oil filter alone for the Ecodiesel cost about that much. Edmunds.com reported that the oil change for their long term test Ecodiesel costs them $154 here..
Not going to dispute the oil change cost, as that's the reality of many european diesels. Best price I could find the oil that the 3.0 calls for is 7 bucks a quart in the open market and the filter is especially heinous in price @ 50 bucks. However, you can't compare the $4k up-charge for the Ecodiesel against any other vehicle except the vehicles in its line (Hemi and Pentastar). I've personally optioned up an F-150 XLT against a RAM Bighorn (2.7 versus 3.0) and found that they nearly matched in price and several other automotive rags made the same observation (Motortrend).
However, maintenance costs for the Ecodiesel at this point will be higher. Still, I wonder how the hell they get away with a $25 fuel filter when the HD diesel guys have to spend roughly $100 for fuel filters... Well, I wonder what the ISV in the Nissan will do as many believe, for RAM, that's the engine that got away.
Then there is the added cost of diesel in the mix. Going by the EPA highway numbers and the most up to date average cost of gasoline versus diesel in the US of unleaded being $2.457 with diesel being $.40 higher, the 28 mpg of the Ecodiesel is equivalent to a gasoline engine getting 24 mpg which is well below the 2.7L Ecoboost EPA numbers so the Ecodiesel would cast more in fuel. If you go by the real world combined numbers that most review sites are getting for both engines(Ecodiesel 23 mpg and 2.7L Ecoboost 20 mpg) then you would still pay more in fuel for the Ecodiesel than the Ecoboost per year. So there's no added fuel cost benefit there either unless you were towing more than 15% of your annual mileage which most don't. There is also the factor that Ram only offers the Ecodiesel with a 27 gallon tank while the Ecoboost can be optioned with a 37 gallon tank giving you a longer or equal range for the most part even when towing.
Again, this depends on where you live and where you do the majority of driving. Diesel in the PNW has flipped flopped with Unleaded for the past few weeks and unleaded is only about a dime cheaper than Diesel as I type this. Where as in the northeast, Diesel is way more expensive than gas. Then for realistic fuel economy, I like to look at the fuel economy curve for the manufacturers. Ford 2.7's fuel economy really can't be determined because there isn't enough samples yet. But the sample base is building and in 6 months, we should get a clear picture of where the average is. As it stands, the distribution is from 16 to 21mpg with no curve to speak of. As for the Ecodiesel, it seems to have a great number of users posting between 21 and 26 mpg average (I'm ignoring the outliers on the high and low sides). That's a 5 mpg difference from lowest to lowest and highest to highest when comparing curve to curve (although the 2.7 will need more samples before we can firm-up an analysis between the two). But as it is, that's 25% fuel economy difference from Ecoboost to Ecodiesel.
So basically, this is what you get with the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. You have to pay about $4,000 more for it up front. You have to pay over 3 times as much for maintenance. You have to pay more in fuel for most of the time unless you tow more than 15% of your annual mileage. All this for something that has less pulling power, less payload, and struggles to even keep within 10 mph of the speed limit going up hills. So where is the benefit in it?
I think people are being blinded by only looking at the MPG number and the fact that it is diesel, but neglect to look at the big picture and do the math. I can see paying more for the Ecodiesel if it had better towing performance and more capability along with its fuel mileage which is why I went with the Cummins over the 6.4L Hemi in my 2500. However, I can't see paying more all the way around and getting less performance and less capability. It just doesn't make sense.
Again, that's some broad generalization. Some people, the math works out, others it doesn't. Some people merely want the ability to carry bulky, but light items along with their family and many never hook a hitch up to a half ton truck. The Ecodiesel works well in that regard and those that occasionally tow something small. I'm not in that boat, and many on here are not in that boat.- ^^^^^^ Good post.
