RAM EcoDiesel a Flop for Towing

ShinerBock wrote:
Where are you seeing that the Ecoboost is running 40% hotter? So basically what you are saying is that the Ecodiesel is not designed to handle the stress of a diesel?

I never said it was running 40% hotter, I said it had to handle nearly 40% more heat in 17% less time when it climbed that hill. It burned 42% more fuel in 17% less time. That's why I asked what happened to the fuel. I didn't say it couldn't handle it but the added stress will be bound to affect longevity. You keep going on about how it is built like a diesel, well the Motori is a diesel. Do you think it is made of pot mental?

Yes I know this but what does it have to do wh
Ith what we are talking about. Are you just mad because the Ecoboost creates more power?

Then you should also know that it is a fundamental advantage a turbo diesel has over a gas engine which directly affects longevity. It can use excess boost for internal engine cooling but the gasser can't because it is tied to a 14.7:1 air fuel ratio.

I'm not not mad about anything, the EB does a great job. You just can't accept that there are tradeoffs made for everything. It may be a great engine but it isn't some super mill that can defy the laws of physics.

That 4,800 rpm you are reading is the static rpm limit like most if not all vehicles that have a higher rev limit when not in drive. The max usable rpm in the Ecodiesel in gear is 4,000 rpm. Go ahead try and put that Ecodiesel in gear and tell me what max rpm you can hit. It will NOT be 4,800 rpm so why would you count rpms you cannot use?

Again, that is max rev limit when not in gear. My max usable rpm is 3,000 rpm. I will bet you $100,000 that you will not be able to get my Cummins up to 3,500 rpm in stock form when in gear and that is a fact. You have yourself a nice day as well.

Whatever but there is really no point in exceeding 4000 RPM if peak power is at 3600 RPM and little point in the Cummins turning more than 3000 if it makes peak at 2800 but, if you want to play that game, your Cummins needs 93% of peak RPM to make peak HP. So what was your point again?

I just hope you guys don't find yourself in adjacent campsites

wilber1 wrote:
No one disputes that the EB is more powerful but you are asking me to believe that it can handle nearly 40% more heat in 17% less time than the ED and not be more stressed. I don't think so.

Where are you seeing that the Ecoboost is running 40% hotter? So basically what you are saying is that the Ecodiesel is not designed to handle the stress of a diesel?

Regarding boost pressure which which you continue to bring up. As any diesel guy should know, diesels do not run fixed fuel air ratios like gas engines. It doesn't matter how much air you stuff into a diesel, if no more fuel is added no more heat (or power) is produced. It just isn't possible because the energy isn't there. Higher boost pressures in diesels with no fuel increase result in lower exhaust temperatures and put less stress on the engine, not more. If you have a diesel that is running high EGT's, stick a bigger turbo on it without increasing fuel flow and bingo, temperatures go down.

Yes I know this but what does it have to do wh
Ith what we are talking about. Are you just mad because the Ecoboost creates more power?

Regarding your claim that the ED is running at 90% of its maximum RPM to produce peak HP. It's redline is 4800 RPM and peak HP is 3600. My calculator says that is 75% of peak RPM.

That 4,800 rpm you are reading is the static rpm limit like most if not all vehicles that have a higher rev limit when not in drive. The max usable rpm in the Ecodiesel in gear is 4,000 rpm. Go ahead try and put that Ecodiesel in gear and tell me what max rpm you can hit. It will NOT be 4,800 rpm so why would you count rpms you cannot use?

In contrast, your 6.7 Cummins has a redline of 3500 RPM and makes peak power at 2800 RPM or 80% of peak RPM.

Again, that is max rev limit when not in gear. My max usable rpm is 3,000 rpm. I will bet you $100,000 that you will not be able to get my Cummins up to 3,500 rpm in stock form when in gear and that is a fact. You have yourself a nice day as well.

No one disputes that the EB is more powerful but you are asking me to believe that it can handle nearly 40% more heat in 17% less time than the ED and not be more stressed. I don't think so.

Regarding boost pressure which which you continue to bring up. As any diesel guy should know, diesels do not run fixed fuel air ratios like gas engines. It doesn't matter how much air you stuff into a diesel, if no more fuel is added no more heat (or power) is produced. It just isn't possible because the energy isn't there. Higher boost pressures in diesels with no fuel increase result in lower exhaust temperatures and put less stress on the engine, not more. If you have a diesel that is running high EGT's, stick a bigger turbo on it without increasing fuel flow and bingo, temperatures go down.

Regarding your claim that the ED is running at 90% of its maximum RPM to produce peak HP. It's redline is 4800 RPM and peak HP is 3600. My calculator says that is 75% of peak RPM.

In contrast, your 6.7 Cummins has a redline of 3500 RPM and makes peak power at 2800 RPM or 80% of peak RPM.

If you just use that criteria, the ED looks pretty good.

Anyway, I'll stop confusing the issue with facts now. Have a nice day.

wilber1 wrote:
Where did all that fuel go and what did it do?

It powered the EB up the hill while easily being able to hold the speed limit

Power is force applied over distance and time. I'm supposed to believe that the magic EB can apply more force over a greater distance in less time without incurring more stress. Sounds like snake oil.

I understand it sounds like snake oil to the ignorant, but it doesn't to those that understand. Lets take a look at what each engine is doing at 3,500 rpm which is roughly around where both were at going up the hill.

Based on the VM Motori dyno of the Ecodiesel, it is making about 490 Nm at 3,500 rpm. That converts over to about 360 lb-ft. Now since it is making 360 lb-ft at 3,500 rpm, we can apply the rule of 5252 to know that it is making 233 hp at that engine speed.

The 2.7L EB on the other hand it still at its max torque of 375 lb-ft at 3,500 rpm and again using the rule of 5252 the 2.7L would be at 249 hp at that rpm as well. So we can clearly see that the 2.7L Ecoboost was making more power than the Ecodiesel at that engine speed. However, the big difference is that the Ecoboost had plenty more power on tap if needed while the Ecodiesel was just about its max engine speed and could not give anymore.


Lastly, as I said before, I don't know why you would bring up stress in this scenario as if it is your last ditch effort to cling on to something. A diesel engine in general has a lot more stress on it than a regular N/A engine but does that mean it doesn't last longer? No, because it it is overbuilt to handle such stress. So if the Ecoboost is built like a diesel with a CGI block, has a lower cylinder pressure, has a lower boost pressure, and is able to operate at a much lower rpm than its designed engine speed in comparison to the Ecodiesel then what is your point? The extra fuel used also has nothing to do with the added stress since diesel fuel is more energy dense you do not need as much to make the same power.

:) Hi, I haven't yet towed my trailer with my new 2014 F-150 Ecoboost, But I'm sure that I will only be towing up 7% grades and checking my gas mileage while doing it, for my entire trip. :S

ShinerBock wrote:
The Ecodiesel needed to operate at 90% of its max engine speed in order to pull only 90% of its rated tow weight and still was not able to keep speed. The Ecoboost on the other hand only operated at 58% of its max engine speed to tow 95% of its rated tow weight and easily kept speed. The fact that the diesel used less fuel has more to do with the energy density of diesel fuel versus gas and has nothing to do with how "stressed" each engine was. Also, not all European countries follow the same standard or method to derive engine power output like was stated.

Where did all that fuel go and what did it do? Power is force applied over distance and time. I'm supposed to believe that the magic EB can apply more force over a greater distance in less time without incurring more stress. Sounds like snake oil.

The Ecodiesel needed to operate at 90% of its max engine speed in order to pull only 90% of its rated tow weight and still was not able to keep speed. The Ecoboost on the other hand only operated at 58% of its max engine speed to tow 95% of its rated tow weight and easily kept speed. The fact that the diesel used less fuel has more to do with the energy density of diesel fuel versus gas and has nothing to do with how "stressed" each engine was. Also, not all European countries follow the same standard or method to derive engine power output like was stated.

80/1269/EEC is an EU standard and EU law. How many non EU countries in Europe build cars?

The EB used 42% more fuel climbing the hill. You don't think burning 42% more fuel to do the same job isn't putting more stress on an engine?

wilber1 wrote:


What is about the statement "Interestingly, the new SAE standard is closer to the European procedure, which is EEC 80/1269. There are minor differences. For example, the exhaust configuration and the specified fuel-quality requirements vary, and these can have an effect on horsepower. But we're talking about small differences, possibly accounting for a less-than-one-percent variation."
in the C&D article that you don't understand.

And what part of "Not all European countries use the same method or same standard" that you don't understand?

Weren't you the one who stated the ED had the higher compression ratio. Improving flow and cooling the intake charge are just other methods of raising manifold pressure.

Yes I did. The Ecoboost has a compression ratio of 10:1 with a while the Ecodiesel is a compression ratio of 16.5:1, but what does that have to do with your initial statement of how you think the 2.7L Ecoboost is more stress since it makes more power?

Again, I don't see what that has to do with your initial argument that since the Ecoboost is making more power then it is more stressed.

In previous posts you made reference to the ED screaming away at 3500 to 4000 RPM when the presenters clearly said it didn't go above 3500 RPM.

For good reason, it makes peak HP at 3600 RPM

3.0 Ecodiesel Peak HP at 3600 RPM. Peak torque at 2000 RPM

2.7 Ecoboost Peak HP at 5750 RPM. Peak Torque at 3000 RPM

I can't imagine why I would think something so ridiculous.:R

What does it matter about peak when the Ecoboost did not run at its peak hp rpm in the videos? The Ecodiesel had to run at its peak rom for power while the Ecoboost was far from it. So yes, your theory that just because the Ecoboost makes more peak power then it was more stressed going up the hill is flawed and yes the Ecodiesel struggled to keep the speed limit going up that hill. Also, the twin turbocharged (one for each cylinder bank) 2.7L Ecoboost has a max boost of 12 psi while the Ecodiesel has a single turbocharger that has been known to commonly see 23 psi from owners in the forums although a a max is not known.