hone eagle wrote:
Hybridhunter wrote:
Interesting that a you know things about Ford's marketing bent that they have never said and don't know themselves.
What diesel? Are you now suggesting the f150 is competing against 6L+ diesel 2500's!?
I am now entering the twilight zone apparently......
Sorry should of been more clear - the eco diesel in the ram 1/2 ton ,thats what we were discussing no?
hone eagle wrote:
The eco is not even the direct competitor of the 5.3 ,it is to go up against the 6.2.
hone eagle wrote:
Power
Ford marketing targets the ecoboost (3.5)against the large engine of competitors.
until the 2.7 came along ,its target is the diesel.
You just said it was the competitor to the 6.2, now we compare the 360hpEB to the 240hp Ram? Good grief, you are all over the place.
I hate to break it to you, but the Ford 3.7 compares very well to the ED, just different. It is faster cheaper, and slightly less efficient, but cheaper to buy and operate. It's not a low rpm engine, and there will be commotion associated with towing bigger loads.
The ED will tow, quieter, at lower rpm, but will never do it cheaper than any of the base engines. It will be more "relaxed", and please the diesel crowd. For a part timer who is not into spending cash on a warm fuzzy feeling, and does not care which fuel it takes, those are the facts.
Add the ford ecoboost into the mix and it destroys the ED performance wise, and the ED will destroy it mileage wise. I'd bet the overall cost would be similar, unless you need a 2000# payload, in which case the ED is not an option anyhow. Which will last longer? That's a toss up too, as the Ford will be using far less of it's designed power capacity, it's just not a fair comparison.
The 2.7 EB will be more efficient, but most numbers will be skewed along the same lines as the 3.5EB vs 3.0ED
Probably better to get back on track discussing gas engine fuel saving tech, as per the OP, because diesel vs gas engine debates around here turn into philosophical debates, not factual ones.
