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

[itguy08]

Bionic Man wrote:

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.

That's the EPA. I'm at 16.2-16.5 in my EB 4x4, 3.73s.

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.

And that makes the break even what, 5 years vs 10?

[wilber1]

itguy08 wrote:
I think the Diesel recouping the cost is due to the higher cost of the Diesel trucks.

Of course but if the diesel option cost $2000 up front and you get half of that back on a higher resale value, it really only cost you $1000.

[tragusa3]

It's fun to draw the comparison and have discussion...I enjoy reading it, but I believe we're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Both trucks offer extreme value if using them within their designed purpose.

I'm not saying mine is better, but mine does the job I use it for so well that I really don't care what the competition is up to (for many years at least). I know what I'm doing, and that is camping with a smile on my face! 🙂

Edit: My real world average in 2k miles is 17mpg (and I've been very light on the petal).

[Bionic_Man]

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.

[itguy08]

wilber1 wrote:

Of course you are comparing at a time of year when the spread between gas and diesel prices is at its greatest.

That's why I say it depends on the season and where you live. The economics of owning the diesel work quite well where I live.

Around here a Diesel is always more expensive than premium. It's been that way for quite a few years now. Not sure why but that's the way it is.

I thought long and hard about Dieseml but the #s here just don't make sense.

Diesels also have a reputation of recouping more of their up front cost on resale.

I think the Diesel recouping the cost is due to the higher cost of the Diesel trucks.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

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.

[wilber1]

itguy08 wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

If you compare the EB's EPA highway mileage of 21 MPH to Motor Trend's observed mileage for the ED of 28 MPH, that is a 33 % difference.

Using these numbers, the EB would require 143 gallons more to go 12,000 miles than the ED, whereas a TDI getting 50 MPG would only require 118 more than a gasser getting 33% less. Clearly, the more fuel a vehicle burns, the greater the saving if you can reduce its fuel consumption by the same percentage.

So let's put some numbers to it.

15000 miles:

Ecoboost 715 gallons @ $3.369 = $2,408.84
Ecodiesel 536 gallons @ $4.259 = $2,282.83

So given the $2k over the Hemi the payback period is 10 years.



That's why I'm not at all excited no matter the manufacturer.

Of course you are comparing at a time of year when the spread between gas and diesel prices is at its greatest.

That's why I say it depends on the season and where you live. The economics of owning the diesel work quite well where I live. Now that a TDI is available in my daily driver, that will be my choice should I trade it in on the same model.


Diesels also have a reputation of recouping more of their up front cost on resale.

[itguy08]

wilber1 wrote:

If you compare the EB's EPA highway mileage of 21 MPH to Motor Trend's observed mileage for the ED of 28 MPH, that is a 33 % difference.

Using these numbers, the EB would require 143 gallons more to go 12,000 miles than the ED, whereas a TDI getting 50 MPG would only require 118 more than a gasser getting 33% less. Clearly, the more fuel a vehicle burns, the greater the saving if you can reduce its fuel consumption by the same percentage.

So let's put some numbers to it.

15000 miles:

Ecoboost 715 gallons @ $3.369 = $2,408.84
Ecodiesel 536 gallons @ $4.259 = $2,282.83

So given the $2k over the Hemi the payback period is 10 years.

That's why I'm not at all excited no matter the manufacturer.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Bionic Man wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

parkersdad wrote:
Why do we care about 0-60 times in a truck? I bought mine to tow. Just asking. Mine is a 2500 Hemi though.

0 to 60 times are directly related to power output and that is directly related to how well the truck will tow uphill with a trailer on the tail.

My 6.6 diesel can blaze off some pretty impressive 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile times. With my trailer on the back it does not slow down on any hill that I have found.

My 6.5 diesel is a different story. Slooooooow 0 to 60 and slow 1/4 mile times and 30 MPH or less on big long mountains with the same trailer that my Dmax tows.

So yes, 0-60 is another chunk of data to use on how well a truck will get up to speed with a load on it.

If grinding up a grade at 30 MPH or less is ok with you I can see where this data wouldn't mean much.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Your argument here for the vast majority of 150/1500 buyers will not apply for 2 main reasons.

1st, we are talking about a 15 series truck. The vast majority of these trucks will never pull anything. The ones that do will tow a boat, utility trailer, atvs, etc, trailers that will rarely push 5000 pounds.

2nd, you continue to compare the power to your 6.5. Your 6.5 is in a MUCH heavier truck, with half as many gears. The 8 speed transmission in addition to the lighter weight make your towing comparisons largely invalid.

Take a look at what surveys of prospective buyers value in a new vehicle. HP and torque are rarely at the top, but MPG is. And the MPG number that they calculate out at each fill up will largely outweigh the premium that they pay upfront (which they will probably get back in resale anyway).

The market is certainly big enough to support both technologies - diesel & small displacement turbocharged engines. The ecoboost will likely out sell the ecodiesel. And it will likely win the inevitable races the magazines show pulling up the Eisenhower tunnel. But the ecoboost will not win the MPG competition.

The increasing CAFE standards are forcing the manufactures to change the way they do business. As good of a towing engine the ecoboost is, there is no arguing that it is not a step forward in the MPG race. Similar powered non-turbo charged gasoline engines meet or beat the ecoboost in MPG. The ecodiesel is the new standard in MPG in a 1500 series pickup. That may change when Ford brings the aluminum body F150 to market, but even if it does, they still could get better MPG (and CAFE ratings) by adding a small diesel.

Sorry but some of your facts ring hollow:

1st, we are on a trailer towing forum. People here want to talk about towing TT trailers, tent trailers, 5ers, ect. This is not an ATV or boat towing forum and people "here" want to know how these trucks will tow a TT not a boat or ATV trailer. If I wanted to know how a new truck would tow a boat I would go over to a boat forum and ask that question there.

2nd, in case you didn't notice the trucks of now days have become just like me over the years. They are getting fatter every year! There are flat out obese now days.

My 93 2500 diesel truck with cast iron block, heads, full floating axel and all of the rest of the goodies a heavy duty pickup has weighs right at slim 4,800 to 5,000 lbs.

What will this new 1500 diesel truck weight? I have no idea. We will know soon though. Here is what a 2014 1500 Chevy weighs.

Yep, that new little 1500 alloy gas paunchy Chevy weighs as much as much or more than my heavy duty 2500 diesel of yesteryear!! :E

The Ecoboost is fatter yet at 5,400 lbs. :E Like I said above, I have no idea what the new little oil burner Goat will weigh but every diesel I have seen outweighs it's gas counterpart......and most of the time by a LOT! So much for your weight argument.

As far as the 8 speed goes :S . It has been said a billion times on here; GEARS DON'T MAKE POWER!! If this were true my friends 250 HP 3208 Cat, 5 speed box, 2 speed rear end powered service truck would haul ass up hill. It doesn't. It slower than a snail with arthritis. If you or anybody else wants to argue this point please post up a dyno chart that shows more HP with taller gears and I will believe you.

Gears may improve acceleration slightly, but they don't make HP. Diesels generally have a broad torque curve so they don't need a ton of gears to keep them in the torque curve like gasoline engines do.
So much for your gear argument.

3rd, if the market surveys show people don't want more HP then why are manufactures, both foreign and domestic constantly adding to it? :h Do you think they are really that stupid? :R Think about it.
Here is the specs over the years for the Dmax engine:
LB7= 300 HP
LLY= 305 HP
LBZ= 360 HP
LMM= 365 HP
LML= 397 HP :E
The same with Ford; the same with Dodge and same way with gas engines in the 150/1500 series from ALL manufactures. Are they ALL missing the boat? :R

Hell, the new small block Hemi makes almost as much power as the 426 Hemi did in the 60's!! :E A stock Yoda truck engine makes almost as much power as the race motor in my buddies race car! :E

As far as the rest of your post, I agree 100%.

I have no horse in this race so I couldn't care less if someone buy's a diesel or gas truck. But the bottom line is the bottom line.

When testing is done a 365 HP gasoline engine will absolutely annihilate a 240 HP diesel towing a trailer uphill........8 speed, 10 speed or 15 speed. :B This you can take to the bank.

The 240 HP oil burner will absolutely annihilate the 365 HP twin snail gas burner when it comes to fuel mileage. This you can take to the bank.

Pick your poison for what you do. 🙂

[PAThwacker]

I just saw one at the Harrisburg pa outdoor show. Fully loaded up......700lb payload!

[wilber1]

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.

It depends a lot on the season and where you live. Where I live diesel is about the same price as premium gas during the winter and about the same as regular (sometimes less) during the summer.

If you compare the EB's EPA highway mileage of 21 MPH to Motor Trend's observed mileage for the ED of 28 MPH, that is a 33 % difference.

Using these numbers, the EB would require 143 gallons more to go 12,000 miles than the ED, whereas a TDI getting 50 MPG would only require 118 more than a gasser getting 33% less. Clearly, the more fuel a vehicle burns, the greater the saving if you can reduce its fuel consumption by the same percentage.

[rjstractor]

wilber1 wrote:
You can't be serious. A 30-40% difference in mileage makes a difference no matter what you are driving.

A 30% difference in mpg is not the same as a 30% difference in fuel economy. If the fuel is 10-15% more costly and the engine is 10% more costly it eats into that 30-40% mpg difference. Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing real world performance and mpg numbers of both the new Ram 1500 diesel and the new F150 that is coming out soon. GM, we're waiting for something really new from you guys.

[itguy08]

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.

[wilber1]

itguy08 wrote:

BillyW wrote:

I would also bet that if the Ecodiesel was in an F150, itguy08 would sing a totally different tune.

Nope. Diesels in cars make sense where they can easily get 50 MPG (TDI's). They make sense in heavy duty rigs where you need power. But in medium applications they don't make as much sense.

I ran the #'s and posted the results. Sure it has good MPG's but the economics of the high cost of Diesel negate any savings.

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

[itguy08]

BillyW wrote:

I would also bet that if the Ecodiesel was in an F150, itguy08 would sing a totally different tune.

Nope. Diesels in cars make sense where they can easily get 50 MPG (TDI's). They make sense in heavy duty rigs where you need power. But in medium applications they don't make as much sense.

I ran the #'s and posted the results. Sure it has good MPG's but the economics of the high cost of Diesel negate any savings.