F150 2.7 22MPG vs Ram ED 23MPG

[Hybridhunter]

So there it is.
F150 - 2.7 320hp/375tq - 19/26 - 22mpg comb $600(?) option or standard
Available with 2250# payload
0-60 ~ 7s - with 6000# trailer est 13sec

Ram ED - 3.0 240hp/420tq - 20/28 - 23mpg comb
Payload?
0-60 ~ 9's - with 6000# trailer est 18sec

So now that Ford has upped the ante, where does this leave the $4k oil burner? I wonder what the mileage will be with the 10speed next year? $3300 in a buyers pocket, higher payload, better measurable performance loaded or unloaded by a wide margin. Cheaper to operate INCLUDING FUEL. Finally and engine that challenges Rams' 3.6 for fuel economy, with a buttload of torque. Consumer Reports has tow tested it, they remarked about how the Ford 2.7 towed uphill, in 4th gear at 65mph.
Best to start out by telling me how biased I am. Them tell me how Ford sucks, and I'm wrong. Or toss in some FACTS, not ad homonym and anecdotes. I'd love a good debate here......

[boocoodinkydow]

"Quoted, for real world experience and actually being factual. But I'll admit, I've always enjoyed the torque of a turbodiesel, all the way back to my 1983 Audi 5000TD."

ironically, my first love affair with the diesel option also. still have fond memories of that old car. haven't been without a diesel car or truck since then, primarily mb & vw's.

[NinerBikes]

goducks10 wrote:
I've not looked into it but common sense tells me that those high mpg ratings are not the same when getting the gearing needed for the highest tow ratings. Usually with the high mpg ratings they stick the lowest (numerical) gears in the rear and vice versa for towing. Can't have both at the same time.

Not too much an issue, the diff gearing when you have an 8 speed gear box automatic to handle the chores of shifting.

[NinerBikes]

boocoodinkydow wrote:
It's a shame these threads turn into a push & shove match between the ford & chrysler camps but unfortunately there are some that relish stirring the pot. We're fortunate to have a choice of well engineered fuel mizer trucks. There's no denying that diesel is at an historic premium to gas. While I've seen some spotty $1 differences, I've had no problem finding diesel at $.60 higher, still almost 25% over gas. Historically, diesel equipped vehicles demand a far greater resale value over comparable gas powered units & often recoup much of the initial premium, but I understand how many don't feel they can justify the high option cost of the ecodiesel. In spite of these facts, however, the ram Ed is an obvious home run; chrysler has been unable to come close to keeping up with demand. You'll be hard pressed to find one on a dealers lot. There have been other threads similar to this using a lot of speculation some slanted spin to compare the 2 trucks. I now have in excess of 11,000 miles on my Ed & can share some real world experience. My best mpg was 31.1 & worst was a little over 24. Both were hand calculated on a full tank quantity. I've made numerous trips from south al to east tenn at speeds of 70-75 and consistently get over 26 mpg. On a 1500 diesel forum there is a thread entitled "30 mpg club" with numerous accounts of 30+mpg. Another forum has a thread following a family of 4 towing an almost 6000# tt with gear on a trip from n.c. To Cali. Daily mpg reports range from 14-16. Much attention has been called to the Rams anemic tow/haul ratings. I've had over 2300# in the bed on 2 occassions. Both were short trips of less than 40 miles but were on some pretty gnarly east tenn mountain roads. I hauled 1850# on a 450 mile trip. The air suspension leveled the load on all occassions perfectly. I did a before & after load measurement once & registered a deflection of only 1 3/8" with the 2300# load. While its definitely not a hotrod, I've never found myself longing for additional power. Never felt uncomfortable entering traffic flow nor in a passing situation. I've seen objections over the added cost of def. I've filled once & the cost came to less than one quarter of one cent per mile. Oil changes are expensive. Purchased in the southeast region I got the added Benny of 4 freebies but at my local dealership it would have otherwise cost $161 (yes, ouch). For the diy'ers, look for about half that amount. I'm not so much touting the accolades of the Ed but rather simply sharing some real world accounts. With the premium cost of diesel and the added option cost of the Ed it's surely not an easy financial justification in all instances. As compared to what was available just a short ten years ago, I think both trucks are great examples of modern engineering and I'm anxious to see what else the future holds for us truck enthusiasts, irrelevant of what it's branded!!

Quoted, for real world experience and actually being factual. But I'll admit, I've always enjoyed the torque of a turbodiesel, all the way back to my 1983 Audi 5000TD.

[NinerBikes]

06Fargo wrote:
Torque has nothing to do with it. It's all about the horsepower. Those 40 ton 18 wheelers cruising at 65 in a side wind are a mirage...they only have 450 or 500 hp.

2 x 2.7l F150 engines hooked together = 640hp would handle 40 tons hands down... and leave a 450hp ISX diesel for dead, I'm sure...

Diesel is yesteryear's technology ...

OMG! Almost blew my load of coffee on the keyboard this Cyber Monday. Subtle there... Fargo. You forgot the winkie.

[ib516]

The best statement I've read about the EcoBoost is:
"You can have Eco or Boost, but not both".

[buddyIam]

Hybrid,

There is no question that the 3.5 gets horrible loaded mpg. I wouldn't expect anything better on the 2.7.

With a 1000 lbs load there is a 6.2 mpg difference in mpg. Now consider that I never take my camper or trailer off my truck. The same is true for a great many trucks used in business.

Of course the grocery getter doesn't have to worry about loaded mpg. But I would think that advertising 0 to 60 times in a soccer mom truck is counter productive in this safety conscious world.

My 1980 heavy half f150 Ford 400m is about 200 hp. But close to 400 ft lbs torque. It's not fast but it is plenty fast enough. And I get 12 mpg with my 7000 lbs of camper and trailer. I anticipate that will be better than the 2.7 with 7000 lbs over two lane mountain roads.

I do have a manual. So that helps. But it has no overdrive.

Our speed limit is 55 with trailers so that also helps. But the best thing is that I don't have a turbo to put my foot into. Just a big torque producing 2 barrel and little torque producing exhaust valves.. And don't forget the 8.0 to 1 torque producing compression. LOL

[Hybridhunter]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Hay Hybirdhunter here are some real numbers for you.

The EPA rates the four-wheel-drive 2015 F-150 with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 at 18/23 mpg, and when we put it through our Real MPG testing, we saw 17 mpg city, 22 mpg highway, and 19 mpg combined

The Ram EcoDiesel is EPA-rated at 19 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, and 22 mpg combined. In our Real MPG testing, it performed better than advertised, returning 20 mpg city, 28 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined. Moreover, in our payload fuel economy test, it returned an observed 23 mpg.
ison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/#ixzz3KA1Oa04D

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1501_comparison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/#ixzz3KA0nfY4v

That is the 20% difference I mentioned, that ya know covers the cost premium of the fuel. The payload test (where the Ram was over it's payload lol) was not measured with any accuracy, as they mentioned. Not to mention the Ram took 800+ feet to attain passing speed, that is slower than most economy cars. If you factor in the Ram having 2/3 the power, while they were testing for performance, that rather quickly and easily explains the mileage disparity. Put a block of wood under the accelerator and things would even out in more ways than one. Better make it a thick block though.

[Hybridhunter]

Go ahead, buy a school bus, while everyone else steps into the future, you can drive a bus. For the same money I might add.
Silly fanboys.

[john_bet]

Hybridhunter wrote:
Slowest by a wide margin, most expensive, heaviest, lowest payload, broke down and died..... Which t...

It did however at least cover the 20% diesel cost premium, by you guessed it, 20% better as tested mileage. Not sure I want a truck that does 0-60 in 24 SECONDS with a 7000# trailer. That's pretty 80's man. (said with a 1980's cali accent).
Ford did 0-60 in 16. not sure if the ram could do 70, they didn't test it lol. The ram took over a 1/4 mile to get to that speed as well. We have only 2 merge lanes a 1/4 mile long in all of Manitoba., and traffic goes 70, do the math.
Terrible.

I guess you don't have school buses up in Manitoba as they take over a 1/4 mile just to get to 55mph or your buses have one whale of a lot bigger motor than we have down here.

[Fast_Mopar]

Hybridhunter wrote:
The ram took over a 1/4 mile to get to that speed as well. We have only 2 merge lanes a 1/4 mile long in all of Manitoba., and traffic goes 70, do the math.
Terrible.

Think of the carnage. It is a good thing Ram can't produce more Ecodiesel trucks. There would be chaos and destruction all over Manitoba.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hay Hybirdhunter here are some real numbers for you.

The EPA rates the four-wheel-drive 2015 F-150 with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 at 18/23 mpg, and when we put it through our Real MPG testing, we saw 17 mpg city, 22 mpg highway, and 19 mpg combined

The Ram EcoDiesel is EPA-rated at 19 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, and 22 mpg combined. In our Real MPG testing, it performed better than advertised, returning 20 mpg city, 28 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined. Moreover, in our payload fuel economy test, it returned an observed 23 mpg.
ison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/#ixzz3KA1Oa04D

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1501_comparison_2015_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/#ixzz3KA0nfY4v

[Hybridhunter]

Oh ya - 960# payload, 21 seconds 45-65mph passing time.
Ram has the shortest gears, and the highest cruise rpm....

[Hybridhunter]

Slowest by a wide margin, most expensive, heaviest, lowest payload, broke down and died..... Which t...

It did however at least cover the 20% diesel cost premium, by you guessed it, 20% better as tested mileage. Not sure I want a truck that does 0-60 in 24 SECONDS with a 7000# trailer. That's pretty 80's man. (said with a 1980's cali accent).
Ford did 0-60 in 16. not sure if the ram could do 70, they didn't test it lol. The ram took over a 1/4 mile to get to that speed as well. We have only 2 merge lanes a 1/4 mile long in all of Manitoba., and traffic goes 70, do the math.
Terrible.

[jus2shy]

FishOnOne wrote:


I understand... but the intent of the video was to point out the separator unit. Having said that I'm sure it's not 100% effective, but something is better than nothing. I also agree the filter on top of the valve cover on the Cummins is a piece of cake to replace and again is better than nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I was so surprised that the VM Motori motor didn't have a filter (Again, thanks for that post). I just wanted to point that oil mist will get in there so long as an owner complies with emissions laws ;). Does anybody know if Mercedes has a filter on their newer diesels? I guess BMW does (since the guy with the RAM stated using a BMW unit in his earlier prototype). And I believe VW and Audi don't? It'd be nice if someone can confirm the presence of a filter for these units just to see if this is a VM Motori only.

And on a final note back to the original topic of this whole thread, Just read a motortrend article with RealMPG results for the two trucks in question. Interestingly, they felt that the F-150 XLT and RAM Outdoorsman were comparatively priced. So again, that $4,000 mark-up for the motor only applies when comparing a RAM Ecodiesel against a RAM with the Pentastar, and not cross-brand comparing. However, I have to say that the F-150 certainly is sharp and pays a pretty faithful homage to the Atlas concept.

Motortrend Link

Make-RealMPG(City/Highway/Combined) - EPA(City/Highway/Combined)
Ford F-150 XLT Extended Cab 4x4 - 17/22/19 - 18/23/20
RAM 1500 Outdoorsman Crew Cab 4x4 - 20/28/23 - 19/27/22
Chevy 1500 Z71 - 13/19/15 - 16/22/18

Gotta say that Ford and RAM are very close to their ratings, where Ford was just 1 mpg under, and RAM was 1 mpg over. 4 mpg difference or 21% fuel economy advantage to RAM over the F-150. However, that advantage can be eatened up depending on where fuel prices are in your locale. I think fuel price differential in my area averages about 10% to 15% over the year (not currently) since I posted all the differentials for the past 2 years earlier.