MPG test ecoboost vs ecodiesel

[hone_eagle]

enjoy

Full disclosure I recently bought shares in popcorn 🙂

[crcr]

Terryallan wrote:

8iron wrote:
Did I miss something or did they really just go by the trip computer numbers to determine MPG?

I don't see the problem of using the computer for MPG. Even IF you hand calc. You are still using the information given you by the computer. You trust the computer to tell you how fast you are going, To adjust the fuel mix, to add and subtract power. and to keep up with the miles driven. None of that stuff is mechanical any more.

For hand calculating MPG, the only vehicle computer factor you are trusting is you are assuming the odometer is accurately measuring distance traveled. And that measurement by the vehicle computer can easily be checked by comparing the odometer readings to some mileposts, or to an accurate GPS. I have GPS apps on my smartphone that accurately measure distance traveled, and that can be compared to the odometer.

MPG figures reported from the on board computer are completely meaningless and irrelevant to me, whether my own or other peoples' vehicles. Yes, there are differences in when the pump shuts off, but that slight variation can be virtually eliminated as a factor by hand-calculating mileage over a number of miles and a number of tankfuls. Or for a one off comparison test such as the subject of this thread, they could fill the fuel right up the neck to where the fuel is visible every time.

[TurnThePage]

Terryallan wrote:

BillyW wrote:
It should also be noted the diesel was geared for towing, the gasser was geared for economy. On top of that, I didn't know the Ecodiesel had a 32 gallon fuel tank option. I thought it was only 26.

Actually a 3.55 is more of an intermediate gear. OK for towing, and Ok for driving. Truth is. There is only 100 RPM difference between a 3.55, and a 3.73 at 60 MPH.

In Ecodiesel circles, the claimed mileage difference between 3.92 and 3.55 is pretty significant. And obviously per your numbers there would be at least 200 RPMs between 3.55 and 3.92. That does make a difference. The Ecodiesel should have been 3.55 as well, AND it should have been a Quadcab, instead of a Crewcab. Those details add up to skew the numbers. Somehow, I just don't think the 2.7 EB is going to show those kinds of numbers in the real world either. Don't get me wrong, the Ecodiesel has lost its luster in my eyes based on how the numbers would likely work out for me. But I do think it and the Ram 1500 in general are unfairly maligned around here. The 2.7 EB is intriguing but its capabilities top out just a tad too low for me to consider it as a tow vehicle. This whole comparison was rigged in favor of the Ford IMHO.

[352]

[Terryallan]

8iron wrote:
Did I miss something or did they really just go by the trip computer numbers to determine MPG?

I don't see the problem of using the computer for MPG. Even IF you hand calc. You are still using the information given you by the computer. You trust the computer to tell you how fast you are going, To adjust the fuel mix, to add and subtract power. and to keep up with the miles driven. None of that stuff is mechanical any more.

[Terryallan]

BillyW wrote:
It should also be noted the diesel was geared for towing, the gasser was geared for economy. On top of that, I didn't know the Ecodiesel had a 32 gallon fuel tank option. I thought it was only 26.

Actually a 3.55 is more of an intermediate gear. OK for towing, and Ok for driving. Truth is. There is only 100 RPM difference between a 3.55, and a 3.73 at 60 MPH.

[peiscooter]

Those TFL guys are dinks.

[TurnThePage]

It should also be noted the diesel was geared for towing, the gasser was geared for economy. On top of that, I didn't know the Ecodiesel had a 32 gallon fuel tank option. I thought it was only 26.

[ChooChooMan74]

3.92 Ram vs 3.55 Ford could be a factor.

[hone_eagle]

From the story -hand calculated is not eazy either pumps shut off at slightly different times -,the reporter freely admitted that the DID can be 1-2 mpg off.He suggested more longer distance is required but they stand by the run same driver same route,I thought the turbo running at a lower rpm was most interesting.

[Bionic_Man]

Comparable trucks (crew vs crew instead of crew vs super cab) and hand calculated would be more interesting.

More than 1000 pounds weight difference between the trucks. Even with the difference in cabs, aluminum has obvious advantages.

[jerem0621]

FishOnOne wrote:

jerem0621 wrote:
Nice numbers...

I would like to see the test again pulling 7,000 lbs

Funny you say 7,000 lbs... :B

Here's a 7000lb test

Nice....

Too bad there isn't a real world test.. like 1200 miles towing a RV.. That would probably be an eye opener:B

I would think that the major advantage of the EcoDiesel comes when one is just doing the mundane hours upon hours of towing...

The numbers... IMHO.. are not there from a purely financial standpoint in favor of the EcoDiesel...

But towing... Thats where I think this beast would really shine.... not the fastest.. but it should be comfortable pulling 5-8000 lbs all day and should net decent MPG's doing it.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

[FishOnOne]

BB_TX wrote:
The surprise is that the diesel did not beat the gasser by more than it did. 2.3 mpg (less than 10%) is not nearly enough to make up the difference in diesel costs.

Add in a 3.0 MV motori regen process to that test and the results could be an eye opener. Plus the 3.0 VM Motori requires special euro oil and a very expensive oil filter and the operator costs makes the ROI not very attractive.

[FishOnOne]

jerem0621 wrote:
Nice numbers...

I would like to see the test again pulling 7,000 lbs

Funny you say 7,000 lbs... :B

Here's a 7000lb test

Although I got to say after seeing Bloogberns latest RAM offerings (Rampage and Limited) grills the grill on the RAM in the video looks spectacular.

Edit: Forgot the smiley :B

[BB_TX]

The surprise is that the diesel did not beat the gasser by more than it did. 2.3 mpg (less than 10%) is not nearly enough to make up the difference in diesel costs.

[8iron]

Did I miss something or did they really just go by the trip computer numbers to determine MPG?