Ram 1500 Hemi vs Ecodiesel

[hemismith]

I can see how the Hemi has faster 0-60 times than the Ecodiesel because it has higher hp, but I would expect its towing performance to be better. But the test numbers, comments, tow rating, and seat of the pants feel make me question whether it really has 420 ft-lbs of torque. Do those towing tests keep it in gear all the way to redline? I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

I just like the idea of low-end torque, and no loss at altitude. At my elevation the Hemi would be down to 350 ft-lbs, and over some of the passes I go it would be under 290.

[hemismith]

rjstractor wrote:
I think something worth mentioning is the advantages of the diesel in the Ram 1500 vs the 2500 and 3500 trucks. In the 1500, the main advantage of the diesel is fuel economy, especially since the Ecodiesel upcharge is relatively small in comparison to the HD trucks. The Ecodiesel also provides decent towing performance, although the Hemi will likely perform better in all conditions with the possible exception of very high elevation.

In 2500 and 3500 trucks, the diesel gets better mpg, but since the upcharge is significant, the fuel economy is not the main attraction. The big draw for the HD diesel is vastly improved towing performance with heavy trailers, especially at high elevations.

Agreed; I had long hoped for a diesel in the 4 liter range, and was disappointed when they went more for economy.

I have a spreadsheet that compares the torque available based on gear, rpm, elevation, etc. If I can find decent torque curves I'll have to plug in the numbers; it still seems the diesel should do better based on the specs.

[hemismith]

MetalGator wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
I have a theory about that. Drivers today don't remember the time when our cars had lower gears, and no overdrive, and we ran pretty high RPM at highway speed. They have never heard a engine run as it was designed. All the RPM they have heard is at the shift point.

There is definitely some truth in this. My roommate in college had a 1977 Buick which had a 3 speed automatic and a 4.11 rear gear. That car would run at over 3000rpm on the highway and we never thought anything about it. He put well over 100K miles on the engine before he sold the car.

Maybe, but my 1969 Charger came with a 2.76 rear end ratio, and my 1970 Roadrunner had a 3.23. We swapped in steeper gears for racing, but it was pretty annoying as a daily driver.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

There are after market filter now for the Ecodiesel and all of the major oil companies now make the Euro blend oil. Amsoil now makes an oil for it. European Car Formula 5W-30 I-ESP Synthetic Motor Oil they are still working on getting their filter certified.

The Mopar filter can be had for 19.99 and less on eBay.

Don

[wilber1]

For me a big knock on the Ecodiesel right now is the cost of oil changes. Because FCA currently has a lock on the oil and filters being used, they want your first born for an oil change. My dealer had a six pack special on the last time I was there and the Ecodiesel package was double the one for my 6.7 Cummins.

[TurnThePage]

rjstractor wrote:

hemismith wrote:
I can see how the Hemi has faster 0-60 times than the Ecodiesel because it has higher hp, but I would expect its towing performance to be better. But the test numbers, comments, tow rating, and seat of the pants feel make me question whether it really has 420 ft-lbs of torque. Do those towing tests keep it in gear all the way to redline? I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

I think something worth mentioning is the advantages of the diesel in the Ram 1500 vs the 2500 and 3500 trucks. In the 1500, the main advantage of the diesel is fuel economy, especially since the Ecodiesel upcharge is relatively small in comparison to the HD trucks. The Ecodiesel also provides decent towing performance, although the Hemi will likely perform better in all conditions with the possible exception of very high elevation.

In 2500 and 3500 trucks, the diesel gets better mpg, but since the upcharge is significant, the fuel economy is not the main attraction. The big draw for the HD diesel is vastly improved towing performance with heavy trailers, especially at high elevations.

This is it in a nutshell.

I would like to add that my hemi powered 1500 with 3.92 gears has WAY more power than I've ever needed when towing my 6000+ lb trailer through out the cascade mountain range. I know the elevations aren't that high, but they're high enough. I've had no problem passing 5 vehicles at a time while climbing, accelerating the whole way. I'm a Ecodesiel fan, but I know it won't do that.

[rjstractor]

hemismith wrote:
I can see how the Hemi has faster 0-60 times than the Ecodiesel because it has higher hp, but I would expect its towing performance to be better. But the test numbers, comments, tow rating, and seat of the pants feel make me question whether it really has 420 ft-lbs of torque. Do those towing tests keep it in gear all the way to redline? I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

I think something worth mentioning is the advantages of the diesel in the Ram 1500 vs the 2500 and 3500 trucks. In the 1500, the main advantage of the diesel is fuel economy, especially since the Ecodiesel upcharge is relatively small in comparison to the HD trucks. The Ecodiesel also provides decent towing performance, although the Hemi will likely perform better in all conditions with the possible exception of very high elevation.

In 2500 and 3500 trucks, the diesel gets better mpg, but since the upcharge is significant, the fuel economy is not the main attraction. The big draw for the HD diesel is vastly improved towing performance with heavy trailers, especially at high elevations.

[MetalGator]

Terryallan wrote:

I have a theory about that. Drivers today don't remember the time when our cars had lower gears, and no overdrive, and we ran pretty high RPM at highway speed. They have never heard a engine run as it was designed. All the RPM they have heard is at the shift point.

So when they hear an engine running, making good power, running free, and clean, making a little noise, (which I love). It scares them. Most are afraid to use what they got, Never heard it work before

There is definitely some truth in this. My roommate in college had a 1977 Buick which had a 3 speed automatic and a 4.11 rear gear. That car would run at over 3000rpm on the highway and we never thought anything about it. He put well over 100K miles on the engine before he sold the car.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

They make anything you want; just buy it.

Don't like high RPM? Buy an Ecoboost that packs in the air early so it makes early power and torque.

Don't like gasoline? Buy and Ecodiesel. It's a diesel so it's fairly low RPM but it makes low power but gets outstanding mileage.

Ecodiesel not enough truck or power? Buy one of the big 3 diesels. The Cummins makes torque at a very low RPM and the other 2 are right there also.

As far as RPM wearing out the engine. How long are you going to keep your truck? If you are going to keep your truck 3 or 400,000 miles I could see your point. Even then, most other stuff will be junk (window motors, HVAC systems, starters, interior, yada, yada, yada, long before that.) But that's not even close to the average on here.

[Terryallan]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

Why? Why not run the engine up to where the engine makes it's rated power? People really need to get over their fright of high RPM's..

I have a theory about that. Drivers today don't remember the time when our cars had lower gears, and no overdrive, and we ran pretty high RPM at highway speed. They have never heard a engine run as it was designed. All the RPM they have heard is at the shift point.

So when they hear an engine running, making good power, running free, and clean, making a little noise, (which I love). It scares them. Most are afraid to use what they got, Never heard it work before

[hemismith]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

Why? Why not run the engine up to where the engine makes it's rated power? People really need to get over their fright of high RPM's. If they don't like high RPM then the only alternative is a supercharged engine where it gets it's air in early or a diesel engine.

The problem with modern computer control engines is they can pull power out at any time they want.

These high power hot rod engines have a very low duty cycle. Sure, they make big HP but then they will pull power to keep from melting down.

Yeah, you're not the first that's said that, and I agree that these engines are designed to rev. But as you mentioned it's about duty cycle; I'm not so much interested in brief acceleration but rather constant output for hill climbing. I've often had to drop to 2nd and rev to 4500 rpm to maintain a reasonable speed (50-55) for extended periods of time. Not only is that not comfortable, but I think that has to have an effect on the longevity of the engine.

So a tow rating is one thing, but how well it does it is another. I will watch the videos tonight, but in the past I've tried to have a 20 percent margin, but I wondered if the diesel didn't really need that margin.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

I'd like to see real-world tests run at no more than 4000 rpms or so.

Why? Why not run the engine up to where the engine makes it's rated power? People really need to get over their fright of high RPM's. If they don't like high RPM then the only alternative is a supercharged engine where it gets it's air in early or a diesel engine.

The problem with modern computer control engines is they can pull power out at any time they want.

These high power hot rod engines have a very low duty cycle. Sure, they make big HP but then they will pull power to keep from melting down.

[Kavoom]

I have the 5.7 with the 3.92 4WD. It is good to see how well overall the truck did. Now just sell the house in KS and get a TT.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

There are plenty of guys towing larger heavier trailers than the Ecodiesel is rated for. They are running trailers that are rated for the Hemi trucks and not having any problems doing so.

Are they running Pike's Peak at 70 MPH? Nope, but they are running it, just in the right lane. You know the ssslllooowww lane were they belong.

Don

[ShinerBock]

2015 Ram 1500 Ecodiesel 8-speed 3.92 towing 7,850 lbs up the Ike


2016 Ram 1500 Hemi 5.7L 8-speed 3.92 towing 9,000 lbs up the Ike