RAM 1500 EcoDiesel sets new record for MPG

itguy08 wrote:

So cut it in half and the payback period is 6 years. Still not worth it, IMHO.

Understood, but it is closer for a "payback" on upfront costs alone. Time will determine relative used value. Many diesels retain a higher % of new cost than a gas counterpart.

And for those that crow about the EPA. It is relevant because it's the same cycle for all so it is at least a good starting point.

I find I get pretty much the EPA average. In my Taurus SHO I'm averaging around 21-22 in the summer and 18-19 in the winter, EPA average is 20. In the F150 I'm at 16.1 - 16.5 so far this winter and the EPA average is 17.

I don't baby it but drive sensibly most of the time. When I want power I push the skinny pedal.

Agreed and I'm generally in the same boat with respect to any given vehicle and the EPA ratings. However, I am finding that when I drive late model underpowered vehicles they are tuning the drivetrains to favor minimal fuel use. For driver's like me (and probably you as an SHO owner) who enjoy a bit more spirit at times, a base V6 6000 pounds pickup or a 4-cyl Malibu like I have the displeasure of putting 15k miles on is struggling to get the EPA city rating. The shift points are too low for my driving style. By the time the system figures out I want to go 3 seconds later, I have a double or triple downshift to actually go! And it does finally using a lot more fuel. With a turbocharged diesel mated to today's automatics, they tend to keep the engine in the same 1400-2500rpm range. But they have all their peak torque available, so it just goes. No waiting for some computer to figure out what you want, then downshift a gear or 3. Just go, now. That's my experience with two competitor mid-sized sedans, 2011 Malibu 4-cyl 170hp/160lb-ft of torque compared to 2012 Passat TDI 140hp/230lb-ft of torque. The diesel provides a far more enjoyable driving experience.

The 3.5L Ecoboost is similar in torque as the V6 diesels but probably better with even broader torque curve. And it is less costly an option over Ford's 5.0L vs. Rams' 5.7L to diesel upgrade. But the diesel will consume less fuel. How much in the real world? Time will tell.

How is it bias when I posted the link to a local station? Heck, pick any other in the area I live in (Central PA). I only used that station as it's the one I fill up at most. Gasbuddy is your friend and will give good, hard data.

It's one station's data at one station in one city at one time. Fuel prices vary a lot throughout the country. CA gasoline is still high. Montana is very low.

You bring up a good point about doing the cost benefit analysis. You did it for your location now. Each should do his own. Just understand that your data does not match everyone else's data.

I don't care what brand you drive. I had family work for Ford for a while. My wife worked for Chrysler for 8 years and now GM. Buy the vehicle that works best for you. They all cost to much to compromise.

This is all a moot point for the 2014 Ram as IMHO it does'nt have enough payload for RVing and I do not see the Ecodiesel improving that one bit! :p