First drive Ram 1500 diesel

[hone_eagle]

1500 Ram diesel

Nice review ,I think they like it and clears up some points on why Ram did not use the 5.0 Cummins

[hone_eagle]

Time to close this one

[esjay]

The Fiat RAM Diesel looks great on paper.
But: Fix It Again Tony

[Hybridhunter]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

itguy08 wrote:
Every review of the Ecoboost F150 puts it in the mid 6 seconds in 0-60. Not sure where that 8 second time came from but I suspect it's either a typo or an Ecoboost with the turbos disconnected.

It comes from a blatent Dodge Fanboy / Shill.

LMAO says the guy that is so ashamed of his vehicle it won't even list it. Back under the bridge please.

....

Don

Hunh? I tow a crossroads 17CLK with a 2013 F150 SCAB 4X4.
I've owned 2 previous Dodges trucks, 2 Toyota trucks, and 2 GM and 1 Ford HD work truck.
I buy what works.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hybridhunter wrote:

itguy08 wrote:
Every review of the Ecoboost F150 puts it in the mid 6 seconds in 0-60. Not sure where that 8 second time came from but I suspect it's either a typo or an Ecoboost with the turbos disconnected.

It comes from a blatent Dodge Fanboy / Shill.

LMAO says the guy that is so ashamed of his vehicle it won't even list it. Back under the bridge please.

Oh again for you ssslllooowww kids, I used to be a Blue Oval fan boy. Even after suing them under the lemon law. It only took me four FoundOnRoadDead's before I got smart! BTW that was long before I worked for Chrysler. So again back under the bridge.

Don

[tragusa3]

I want to add that efficiency seems to be extremely touchy with the Ecoboost. If mpg's are on my mind every minute and I get a little lucky not catching lights, I seem to be beating EPA estimates. However, if so much as a bird craps on my hood, the numbers plummet fast! For about a quarter tank I drove around having "fun", and the bottom fell out very quickly. Fortunately, my driving style will keep me on the better end. Wouldn't mind enjoying the power more though.

[Hybridhunter]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well you two are not the norm, from your link to Motor Trend they report 14.4 mpg for a three year average. So re-figure your cost based on that average over three years if you want to be fair Itguy.
Your Link

Don

That included being driven entirely by people who drove it like a rental, and used as a support vehicle much of the time.
Nothing like actual owner miles.

Ford has a similar diesel to the VM going in the Dodges, they are opting to leave it on the shelf. And if they don't they will obliterate Dodge and there will be no more Eco-diesel anyhow, because the main reason Dodge has any sales at all relates to their unique power-train offerings, (Eco-Diesel & Hemi)

[Hybridhunter]

itguy08 wrote:
Every review of the Ecoboost F150 puts it in the mid 6 seconds in 0-60. Not sure where that 8 second time came from but I suspect it's either a typo or an Ecoboost with the turbos disconnected.

It comes from a blatent Dodge Fanboy / Shill.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Buck50HD wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well you two are not the norm, from your link to Motor Trend they report 14.4 mpg for a three year average. So re-figure your cost based on that average over three years if you want to be fair Itguy.
Your Link

Don

It's a truck, so they hauled and pulled things. Maybe that's why it didn't get the EPA ratings?

Unloaded, if a person can't achieve EPA ratings in an eco, they won't be able to do it in any other vehicle.

I fully understand that, my point was when figuring the cost itguy should use the three year mileage.

My Ram can hit 30+ in the perfect setting. that does not by any means make it my true fuel economy.

Don

[Buck50HD]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well you two are not the norm, from your link to Motor Trend they report 14.4 mpg for a three year average. So re-figure your cost based on that average over three years if you want to be fair Itguy.
Your Link

Don

It's a truck, so they hauled and pulled things. Maybe that's why it didn't get the EPA ratings?

Unloaded, if a person can't achieve EPA ratings in an eco, they won't be able to do it in any other vehicle.

[itguy08]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:


Itguy don't make me get my Doberwawa after you! Best Super Bowl commercial so far IMO. Doberwawa

Now that's something we both agree on!

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
:h

It makes no sense a truck with more than 125 more HP is slower in 0 to 60 times. I bet the oil burner is a lot more heavy too? :h

Something does not smell right with those times Don?

The 8 speed keeps it in the optimal torque. Watch the tach's on both trucks. You will note the Ram only drops 200 RPM through the first five gears and it's at 60 before the fifth gear. The Ford drops over 400 RPM's.

Don I can't get your Ecoboost link to work so I can't see what is going on? You might want to check it out.

I agree, the 8 speed keeps it in optimal torque.

BUT

The math just does not work for the HP/time. I punched it in several times and tried to make it work but it doesn't. :h I even gave the oil burner the same weight break as the Ecoboost even though I don't think the diesel will be the same weight. Still no go. :h

I ran the numbers that I see from it's post and they come out close. Not perfect, but in the ball park close.

Like I said, I don't know what link you provided but this is about what I'm seeing average for 0 to 60. (start at 5 minutes if you don't want to hear a EB review.)

A stock EB should be around low 6's 0 to 60 just like this guy got. That is what the math says and that is what about everybody gets.

Anyway, I would like to see your link.

link for EB go to 1:28 for their best time
This one puts it at 6.3 go to the end
This one claims 4.8 for a stock 2012 EB
Here is a link to You Tube for hours of fun.

Oh BTW I did say the ED RPM was 200 between shifts it is 100 RPM. The EB was 200 between shifts. Sorry about that.

as far as the 0-60 times looks like you can get anything you want. However the two links I posted at least use a timer that they show.

Don

Itguy don't make me get my Doberwawa after you! Best Super Bowl commercial so far IMO. Doberwawa

[itguy08]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well you two are not the norm, from your link to Motor Trend they report 14.4 mpg for a three year average. So re-figure your cost based on that average over three years if you want to be fair Itguy.
Your Link

I don't know I'd trust MPG from journalists flogging it no matter the brand. Is trust a site like Fuelly where real people report their MPG. Especially when they are bragging about flogging it all the time.

At least for the Evoboost I've got firsthand data. And the dash says 16.2-16.5. Only on my 2nd tank so really have no comparison as the first one was the dealer fill so who knows how much was in there other than it was full.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
:h

It makes no sense a truck with more than 125 more HP is slower in 0 to 60 times. I bet the oil burner is a lot more heavy too? :h

Something does not smell right with those times Don?

The 8 speed keeps it in the optimal torque. Watch the tach's on both trucks. You will note the Ram only drops 200 RPM through the first five gears and it's at 60 before the fifth gear. The Ford drops over 400 RPM's.

Don I can't get your Ecoboost link to work so I can't see what is going on? You might want to check it out.

I agree, the 8 speed keeps it in optimal torque.

BUT

The math just does not work for the HP/time. I punched it in several times and tried to make it work but it doesn't. :h I even gave the oil burner the same weight break as the Ecoboost even though I don't think the diesel will be the same weight. Still no go. :h

I ran the numbers that I see from it's post and they come out close. Not perfect, but in the ball park close.

Like I said, I don't know what link you provided but this is about what I'm seeing average for 0 to 60. (start at 5 minutes if you don't want to hear a EB review.)

A stock EB should be around low 6's 0 to 60 just like this guy got. That is what the math says and that is what about everybody gets.

Anyway, I would like to see your link.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Well you two are not the norm, from your link to Motor Trend they report 14.4 mpg for a three year average. So re-figure your cost based on that average over three years if you want to be fair Itguy.
Your Link

Don

[hoopers]

Bionic Man wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

You can't be serious. A 30-40% difference in mileage makes a difference no matter what you are driving.

See my above post on gas vs Diesel prices in my area. The extra cost over regular is crazy. And since you could get 20-21 on an Ecoboost the #s don't make sense. If Diesel were cheaper it would.

I have NEVER heard a credible source state that they regularly got anywhere near 20-21 MPG in an ecoboost. And no, itguy, you are NOT a credible source on the matter.

I seem to remember Motortrend stating that their blended average for nearly 30,000 miles was somewhere around 15 MPG.

And your fuel prices may be right, but there is not that big of a delta everywhere. My station sells diesel for $3.66, regular is $3.16.

T & P, my contention is that the Ecodiesel with multiple gears will perform much better than your old 6.5. In addition, I know this is an RV forum, and that people here have a different opinion of what a truck needs to be capable of. The manufactures know that this is a very small percentage of the market. And even most of those on this board only use their truck for towing a small percentage of the time. How often do you read a thread stating that some would gladly trade the 400/800 diesel for a 300/500 that gets good MPG. The 3.0 doesn't deliver that power, but it is close. And it will sell.

My 2013 EB 4x4 gets about 18-19 on the hwy, assuming I go 65. It drops to about 15-16 at 75 mph.