RAM 1500 EcoDiesel sets new record for MPG

[ib516]

EPA Rated at 20 city / 28 hwy / 23 combined

LINKY

[Tystevens]

otrfun wrote:
If you've ever lived in Europe, you can't help but love diesels--they're everywhere, in everything!

That is kinda funny, if only because the only three gearheads I "know" who live in Europe despise diesels. Ok, they are the guys from Top Gear, so I don't know them, and they despise pretty much anything that isn't super fast, but still ...

But I'm with you otrfun, I think this is most likely a good development for all of us. I spent a lot of time driving 2 diesels (Duramax and VW TDI), and really liked both engines. I want to see more diesels over here, the sooner the better. I'm also a fan of turbos, and am happy to see the proliferation of small displacement turbo charged engines coming out lately. I don't know if I'll buy the EcoDiesel -- I'm kinda smitten with the Ecoboost, but I'll certainly give the ED a drive when I'm truck shopping this summer -- but I hope it is a step in the right direction.

I guess there are 2 ways to look at the numbers. One is a basic number crunching calculation. In that case, what I'll call the premium or fuel saving option doesn't make sense. The TDI loses to the Jetta, the Prius loses to the Corolla, the EcoDiesel loses to the Pentastar, the Duramax loses to the 6.0 gas, the Ecoboost also loses to the 5.0. If absolute bottom dollar spent is your top priority, none of these options make any 'sense' for most buyers. Yet the premium outsells the base in nearly all cases (not sure about the Corolla, it probably sells more than the Prius).

And that is probably because of the second way to look at it -- in the case of the EcoDiesel, I can get a truck I'd like to drive better (I love diesel/turbo power delivery characteristics vs. naturally aspirated gas engines), that would likely cost about the same long term, and uses less fuel to boot. Sounds like a win to me. I wouldn't likely think twice about buying the EcoDiesel vs a Pentastar or probably even the Hemi for my uses.

But bottom dollar cost isn't my priority; driving what I like is more important.

[wilber1]

itguy08 wrote:
I still love the idea in a small-misdsize car where you can get 50 MPG (TDI) or the bigger trucks.

Very strange logic.

APT wrote:
What's the difference between them and the half ton trucks?

My question as well. The more fuel a vehicle burns the more you stand to save by reducing it by the same percentage.



10000 miles divided by 50 MPG = 200 gallons. 25% of that is 50 gallons.
10000 miles divided by 28 MPG = 357 gallons. 25% of that is 89 gallons.

Clearly, the vehicle getting the worst mileage has the most to gain from a 25% improvement.

[APT]

itguy08 wrote:

I still love the idea in a small-misdsize car where you can get 50 MPG (TDI) or the bigger trucks.

What's the difference between them and the half ton trucks? There is little payback for the modern TDI in VWs if you compare in a similar manor to the base gas engine, yet the take rate is about 25%. The take rate on the HD is higher, 60-75%, but those offer far more torque than the base engine vs. the Ram 1500 with closer torque to the Hemi. And the payback on fuel "savings" vs. upfront cost is also rarely realized.

I really don't know if Rams diesel will be a boom or bust, but I can reason points for both sides to dismiss anyone that declares so adamantly for either side. And I am really interested in finding out how well it does and if anyone follows.

Ford tested the market with the 2011+ Ecoboost F-150, offering a little better fuel efficiency vs. the similarly capable 5.0L V8 for about $1500 upcharge. It has done well for Ford with about 40% take rate. Ram is taking that a bit farther with the Ecodiesel at $3k over Hemi, but a little higher fuel efficiency improvement. Maybe the engien will have problems like Ford's 6.0L. Maybe people will get 35mpg on the highway and 28mpg mixed. We don't know yet.

[mich800]

I am sure the egodiesel will do just fine in the niche market they are after. All the big three have had small half ton diesels in the pipeline and r&d for some time. Just no one has pulled the trigger yet. We all had these same conversations several years ago but they never launched the trucks. Everyone seems to be taking a different path to comply with cafe and epa standards. One or more will end up being the beta and the other vhs. Either way, we as consumers will win in the end with what ever approach makes it.

[womps]

We keep talking about payback. Look at all the trucks sold with a sunroof. No payback. How about leather. No payback. And the list goes on. We buy what we want.

[otrfun]

itguy08 wrote:

otrfun wrote:
But, I do have one big question. Since you appear to be motivated by a hatred towards Chrysler, what was your your personal end-goal in terms of this thread? Did you meet it?

In all honesty it has nothing to do with Chrysler. I just don't get this gushing love for Diesels in this class of truck. Yes, the MPG is greater but I'd say for many the math doesn't work out. I'd probably say the same thing if it were Ford, GM or when Nissan comes out I'll say the same thing if the #'s are not that good.

I guess the end goal was to temper the "This will kill the competition" and "this is the best thing since sliced bread" that people have towards Diesels. It's like those that gush over the
Hemi. It's nothing special - marketing is pretty much all it is. Yes, it's a pseudo-hemispherical combustion chamber but it wasn't even Chrysler's idea (IIRC of all places it originated from the French).

I still love the idea in a small-misdsize car where you can get 50 MPG (TDI) or the bigger trucks.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, itguy08.

All I can say is, I love diesels in any configuration: trucks, cars, lawn mowers . . . doesn't matter. Diesels are cool. If you've ever lived in Europe, you can't help but love diesels--they're everywhere, in everything!

I don't hold ill-will towards any make or model truck. But, I do hope the Ecodiesel does well . . . not because I'm a Ram/Ecodiesel fan per se. . . it's because it creates competition. If it fails, then hopefully someone will scurry to try the next, great idea. If it succeeds, then woo-hoo, guess what?! Ford, Chevy, and Nissan, will jump on the bandwagon. The next thing you know we'll have MORE CHOICES, competition, rebates, lower prices, cool!!

Of course, itguy08, I can only surmise from your reply that everything I just said horrifies you, but hey, what can I say, it's what make me smile--tomorrow, the day after . . . the future 🙂

[itguy08]

otrfun wrote:

But, I do have one big question. Since you appear to be motivated by a hatred towards Chrysler, what was your your personal end-goal in terms of this thread? Did you meet it?

In all honesty it has nothing to do with Chrysler. I just don't get this gushing love for Diesels in this class of truck. Yes, the MPG is greater but I'd say for many the math doesn't work out. I'd probably say the same thing if it were Ford, GM or when Nissan comes out I'll say the same thing if the #'s are not that good.

I guess the end goal was to temper the "This will kill the competition" and "this is the best thing since sliced bread" that people have towards Diesels. It's like those that gush over the
Hemi. It's nothing special - marketing is pretty much all it is. Yes, it's a pseudo-hemispherical combustion chamber but it wasn't even Chrysler's idea (IIRC of all places it originated from the French).

I still love the idea in a small-misdsize car where you can get 50 MPG (TDI) or the bigger trucks.

[otrfun]

itguy08 wrote:

ib516 wrote:
All he cares about is the worst possible scenario for RAM as he is a known RAM hater. Read his past posts. His bias is easily seen.

Someone in a Cummins powered RAM must have run over his puppy when he was a kid...

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.

In other areas the spread is not that bad. Everyone should do their own calculations.

I even included the (inferior) Hemi in my calculations. Costs the same to run as the Ecoboost.

Yup, I hate Chrysler - decades of making inferior products, 2 government bailouts, what's to love? They should have gone the way of all the other car companies in America that couldn't make it.

But the data is the data and you can't argue data. Unless it doesn't fit your agenda.

itguy08, I get it--you would never buy an Ecodiesel and you've shown the numbers that you used to arrive at that decision. I'm willing to put myself in your shoes for a moment and empathize with your position and that's cool. If I were you, I wouldn't buy one either. Hey, no problem.

But, I do have one big question. Since you appear to be motivated by a hatred towards Chrysler, what was your your personal end-goal in terms of this thread? Did you accomplish it?

[APT]

bmanning wrote:

kmbelt wrote:
all of you that actually go by EPA ratings to be valid information are crazy. I have NEVER seen or heard of any vehicle actually hitting those numbers. I always feel that they are inflated by about 2+mpg.

My experience has differed; virtually every vehicle I've ever owned met or even exceeded its EPA rating, and I don't drive very conservatively at all.

And that's the point of the EPA fuel economy ratings. Based on driving style and conditions, each person knows where he stands with respect the EPA ratings. Always close to city ratings, mixed, highway, etc. So it is reasonably safe to assume the next vehicle will be in the same place with respect to EPA ratings. So comparing any vehicles still makes sense you'll know which one will be higher for you!

[bmanning]

kmbelt wrote:
all of you that actually go by EPA ratings to be valid information are crazy. I have NEVER seen or heard of any vehicle actually hitting those numbers. I always feel that they are inflated by about 2+mpg.

My experience has differed; virtually every vehicle I've ever owned met or even exceeded its EPA rating, and I don't drive very conservatively at all.

My Land Cruiser is rated for 12/16 and I see 14+/17+ regularly. Our XC90 also gets a touch better than its EPA rating, with the allowance that its my girlfriend's DD and her driving style lends itself to economy.

[APT]

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! 😛

[itguy08]

ib516 wrote:

All he cares about is the worst possible scenario for RAM as he is a known RAM hater. Read his past posts. His bias is easily seen.

Someone in a Cummins powered RAM must have run over his puppy when he was a kid...

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.

In other areas the spread is not that bad. Everyone should do their own calculations.

I even included the (inferior) Hemi in my calculations. Costs the same to run as the Ecoboost.

Yup, I hate Chrysler - decades of making inferior products, 2 government bailouts, what's to love? They should have gone the way of all the other car companies in America that couldn't make it.

But the data is the data and you can't argue data. Unless it doesn't fit your agenda.

[ib516]

APT wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

Payback period : 11.98 years

Wait 2 months and run that same analysis. Look at the gasoline cost cycle (national average) how it spikes in April and September. Your snapshot is not helpful for long term fuel costs. Neither is a snapshot when gasoline is $4 and diesel is also $4.

All he cares about is the worst possible scenario for RAM as he is a known RAM hater. Read his past posts. His bias is easily seen.

Someone in a Cummins powered RAM must have run over his puppy when he was a kid...

[otrfun]

kmbelt wrote:
all of you that actually go by EPA ratings to be valid information are crazy. I have NEVER seen or heard of any vehicle actually hitting those numbers. I always feel that they are inflated by about 2+mpg.

kmbelt, I share your sentiments to a point. However, I wouldn't classify one who uses them for general comparison purposes as crazy. Bottom line, without the EPA MPG ratings, consumers would be completely at the mercy of hearsay on the internet and/or hyper-biased data from the manufacturer. I'll take the EPA MPG ratings over that kind of insanity anytime.

If you want to know how frustrating it can be to try and make an informed purchase without EPA MPG ratings, try shopping for a new 3/4 or 1 ton diesel. The manufacturer gives you absolutely nothing. "Tom" says he gets 24 MPG easy. Dick says he's lucky to get 12 MPG. Harry says his Chevy will run farther on a gallon of diesel than any POS Ford. So, Tom, were you going downhill? Dick, were you towing anything? Harry, can I believe you--it sounds like you're kinda biased--lol!! Who wants this insanity 🙂

wilber1 wrote:
Diesels actually have a reputation of meeting or exceeding those numbers. Check it out.

wilber1, I agree. It's much easier to access torque on a diesel engine than a gas engine. Easier access means more efficient operation. Efficient operation means higher fuel economy for a given task. The vast majority of torque on most consumer diesel engines is available from just above idle (1,000 RPM) to almost 3,000 RPM. Compare this to a typical 1/2 ton V8 where substantial torque is not available until 2,000-3,000 RPM. During normal, day-to-day operation (shifting, stop and go, etc.) a diesel will usually spend much more time running in the most efficient part of it's power band than a gas engine.