Towing our chosen TT

He's comparing 3.0L diesel engines, not really the vehicles alone.

I like the Touareg TDI /ecodiesel comparison.

Comparing a Toureg with a Dodge truck??

prichardson wrote:
I have not seen any real numbers on the Dodge 1500 Diesel when towing; but do not expect to get much better then about 10 MPG when towing with any gas set up.

I tow 21 feet of Palomino behind something close to a Dodge RAM ecodiesel. A 5000# AWD VW Touareg with a 3.0 TDI motor, pretty much the same specs as the RAM 1500 Ecodiesel, if in 2wd version and an extra cab, not a crew cab. 240HP 406 ft lbs of torque on the Touareg.

I see 16.5 to 19 MPG towing. My trailer has 14" rims and tires, so I am bound and limited with the 8 speed transmission, to towing at 55 MPH MAXimum speed, due to the specs on the tires. If I am at higher elevation and the interstate I am on is a fresh repave, under optimum conditions with a 10-15mph tailwind, I will pick it up to 57 or 58 MPH, but never, ever faster.

Start towing much faster, or get a 20 or 30 mph winter head wind like I had going west on I-40 through New Mexico one December, and 12 MPG and 45 mmph tops becomes your real world situation, with a huge suck on your wallet and fuel tanks and fillups.

My Touareg holds 26.5 gallons of fuel, it's good for 400-450 miles between fillups trailering, most of the time. One days worth of driving, as far as I am concerned.


The RAM will not do quite as good as this, take 40 to 50 miles off the range between fillups, it just does not have the CD drag and aerodynamics that the Toureg does as a Sports SUV. Also the Palomino Gazelle I own is but 7.5 feet wide and has a sloped top of the roofline to it, which also helps the MPG.

The RAM ecodiesel is brand new in 2014, plan on buying new, if that's what you want.

Now then, when I am not trailering... 80-85% of the miles so far accrued on the Touareg... 30 to 35.5 MPG all the time on the highway at 62 MPH set on the cruise control. I did a trip this weekend down to San Diego, 340 miles, and the MFI gauge is showing 38.2 MPG so far on this tank of fuel. I'll know more after I fill up and hand calculate it via pencil and paper, if that is a true number, but I am expecting at least 37 MPG out of that tankful, probably a 9 gallon fillup, or a touch more, max. Speed will kill your MPG's. It doesn't pay to drive fast unless for me, I need to make over 600 miles in a day, a few days in a row, where then lodging expenses per night while not trailering exceed cost of additional fuel spent. Being retired is nice.

If you drive the RAM nice, and slow it down, say 65 MPH on highways and freeways, I'd think 30 to 32 MPG is possible in the summer time, in the mountains, with the AC turned off. All bets are off if you haul AZZ at 75 -80 like most idiots with the AC on. 25 mpg, tops, with the tailgate down.

Mike Up wrote:

The Ram Ecodiesel is really just a grocery getter with no payload to do any real work. The payload is less than 1000 lbs so you really can't have a heavier tongue weight and people in the truck at the same time without going over GVWR.

That's simply not true. The only models with sub 1000 payload were the Laramie Longhorn 4x4 and Laramie Limited 4x4. As with the top of the line model with any manufacturer, the payload will be significantly lower than other models. Regular cab models top out at 1583 and Crew cabs at 1480 which is just about par with any run of the mill 1/2 ton.

OP - you're not going to find many on the used market. They only started hitting the streets around March/April and Ram expects to only sell maybe 20,000 at the most this year. Over at Fuelly it looks like people are averaging between 23 and 27. Most of the towing test have been with flatbeds or boats, but the reported MPG always comes back around 18. Probably closer to 14-16 MPG for a TT of that size.

The 5.7 might be a better option. If you compare the rated MPG of the two trucks and current fuel prices alone then you'll see that it's almost a wash at the end of the year. The 5.7 will have a similar payload, maybe a little higher. The 5.7 might be easier on the pocket book. The diesel is $2,850 more than the 5.7 and you can find a ton of 5.7s used. If you foresee upgrading in the future then the 2500 6.4L would be an even better option.

I don't have any towing experience with Ford or Dodge, and have nothing agains them. However, is there any particular reason you don't have Chevy/GMC 1/2 tons as an option? If you are looking at availability, there are a lot of used Chevy Silverados out there with the 5.3 L engine. They should be capable to tow the TT in question.

My 2012 EB had the condensation sputter a few times but I've not experienced it since the dealer did the latest air deflector fix and re-flashed the computer.
I'm real happy with the EB so far. Granted, we have a small trailer but it's nice being able to use the uphill passing lanes and go by slower vehicles. Power, stability, and fuel capacity are way better than the Envoy it replaced.

OH48Lt wrote:
Serious problems with the early EcoBoost F-150's? Extremely misleading and patently untrue. The had some issues with a minute amount of trucks stalling under very certain conditions, and they have a FREE fix for it. Most trucks will never see that problem. Also a minor amount of coil packs going bad, its a $85 part and anybody with a couple of tools can change one in a half hour or less. That does not add up to "serious problems". The 3.5 EcoBoost has been out longer than the 5.0 that you're cheerleading (3.5L Eco first available in March 2009 in the Flex). The current 5.0 is a good engine, but previous editions of the 5.0 are completely different engines.

Please don't attempt to spread unfounded or untrue statements.

As far as an Eco towing the OP's TT, no problem. A 3/4 ton would be better, only because its heavier. The trade-off is you're going to get almost half the fuel mileage when not towing. My experience towing with the Eco is over 11 mpg. Normal driving 18+, highway much more, deduct 1.5 mpg in the winter unless you use 91+ octane fuel.

And as far as the torque available only in higher RPM's, also totally untrue. 90% of the EcoBoost's 420 ft lbs of torque is available at just 1900 RPM.

An EcoDiesel (cute name, wonder where they borrowed that one from...) has very little payload. And its a $4000 option. You'd likely never make that back on fuel savings. You're much better off getting a hemi if you go Fiat/RAM.

Chevy has had their Ecotec line of engines for many years (since the 1990s). Guess that makes Ecoboost a "cute" name too.

Also the Ecodiesel is a $2800 over the hemi V8. It's true though, with the higher cost of diesel and increase in price, it would take a long time to make of the difference in cost.

Serious problems with the early EcoBoost F-150's? Extremely misleading and patently untrue. The had some issues with a minute amount of trucks stalling under very certain conditions, and they have a FREE fix for it. Most trucks will never see that problem. Also a minor amount of coil packs going bad, its a $85 part and anybody with a couple of tools can change one in a half hour or less. That does not add up to "serious problems". The 3.5 EcoBoost has been out longer than the 5.0 that you're cheerleading (3.5L Eco first available in March 2009 in the Flex). The current 5.0 is a good engine, but previous editions of the 5.0 are completely different engines.

Please don't attempt to spread unfounded or untrue statements.

As far as an Eco towing the OP's TT, no problem. A 3/4 ton would be better, only because its heavier. The trade-off is you're going to get almost half the fuel mileage when not towing. My experience towing with the Eco is over 11 mpg. Normal driving 18+, highway much more, deduct 1.5 mpg in the winter unless you use 91+ octane fuel.

And as far as the torque available only in higher RPM's, also totally untrue. 90% of the EcoBoost's 420 ft lbs of torque is available at just 1900 RPM.

An EcoDiesel (cute name, wonder where they borrowed that one from...) has very little payload. And its a $4000 option. You'd likely never make that back on fuel savings. You're much better off getting a hemi if you go Fiat/RAM.

It has been my understanding that the condensation problem was due to the intake air cooler being too efficient, and that they'd corrected it. Plenty of happy ecoboost owners out there, as someone pointed out. That said, I think the 5.0L is an excellent engine also. You could be happy with either one.

As for Ram 1500 diesels, no you aren't likely to find a used one. And they have some special requirements, like low-ash synthetic oil and diesel exhaust fluid. They might get you 16-17 mpg, but the higher diesel fuel price and higher initial cost offset that to a great degree.

I wouldn't hesitate to tow that trailer with an F150. And there are a ton of used ones out there, which helps with the pricing.