Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

[Hybridhunter]

You just know it's not gonna be close!

So which is better? Horsepower or torque lol.
(The answer is both, apparently.)

[NinerBikes]

Hybridhunter wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:
Yawn. The Ford has 85 horsepower more than the Ram. Of course the Ford will win.

Yep, 35% more HP for the EB.

But less torque and fewer gears and 10% less torque.
HP beats torque, even with a lesser gearbox. And it was not even close!

APT wrote:
No surprises from me. If you arbitrarily limit engine speed to 3000rpm the Ram diesel would be quicker and use less fuel. That's how many truck owners drive. But WOT that 2.7L looks like a great combo. I can't wait to see EPA ratings and real world owners!

If you arbitrarily cap frivolous engine option spending at $2K, you wouldn't be able to buy one.

larry barnhart wrote:
I think there is a different driving style for different drivers so different vehicles seems to be a good thing. Some like to race and some like to enjoy the drive.

chevman

You like to smell the roses when you pass? You don't like having power in reserve when climbing? You'd rather run the ED at 100%, when you could instead run the 2.7 at 80%?

News flash, the ED makes 240hp at 3600rpm, the 2.7 makes almost the exact same at that rpm, slightly more actually. So racing or not, when climbing a hill, real world conditions, you will be working the ED 100% not so with the 2.7L

Newsflash, I'm never ever near that 240HP peak figure while towing. Another Newsflash, I drive the speed limit, I'm not racing to the top of anything. Your arguement is based solely on peak numbers. Only an idiot runs their motor while trailering at peak numbers. I'm lucky if I do use peak torque, at around 1700-2400 rpms, but I'll never run a diesel anywhere near peak horsepower.

Here's your sign.... anytime you want to see work get done, with heavy loads... ships, freighliners, trains, whatever, where there is heavy weight involved, invariably, the drive plant chosen is a turbo diesel. End of subject matter. It's never a race, when work needs to be done, it's what kind of power your motor makes under the peak curve that matters, and how far away you can stay from being at the peak curve while doing the required work, leaving a margin of safety for the longevity of the motor.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Stop that Troy. :B

[FishOnOne]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
LOL I clicked the wrong link $50.00

Don

OMG... That looks like the filter out of the 6.0 PSD. Come to think of it the lower bed plate and the 4 bolts/cylinder also look it came from a 6.0 PSD.

JK... :W

[boocoodinkydow]

Hybridhunter wrote:


I'm a bit of a numbers guy. Ram has sorta lost their way IMO. Low payload and the ED which to me, is too compromised. I have nothing against the ram, and it's hard to argue against the performance / value equation of the pentastar/9speed combo. But when some here are pretending the Ram ED is somehow ideal as a tow rig (especially when exceeding ratings on a half ton is easy to do) I have an issue with that, especially when other brands lead in those areas, for cheaper.

For a somewhat pokey truck,(well the pokiest on the market anyhow) that gets great mileage, it's a home run. I am not up for pretending it's going to be great at towing the house on wheels that most of us use. If I recall correctly, it requires around 110-120hp to tow an average rv at 65-70 mph, plan accordingly.

What you've been preaching for the last few months is finally beginning to sink in. I now understand that the ecodiesel will never amount to a pimple on an ecoboost's a$$. It's probably the most incapable vehicle any manufacturer has had the audacity to place on four wheels; totally unworthy of the nomenclature of "truck". Anyone remotely considering purchasing one must surely be mentally deficient. Thanx for showing me the error of my ways. I'm putting my ed up for sale & searching for a more capable tow vehicle. (Anyone got a lead on a well used yugo?)

Now that your message has been delivered & thoroughly understood, go away, PLEASE!!!

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hybridhunter wrote:


I'm a bit of a numbers guy. Ram has sorta lost their way IMO. Low payload and the ED which to me, is too compromised. I have nothing against the ram, and it's hard to argue against the performance / value equation of the pentastar/9speed combo. But when some here are pretending the Ram ED is somehow ideal as a tow rig (especially when exceeding ratings on a half ton is easy to do) I have an issue with that, especially when other brands lead in those areas, for cheaper.

For a somewhat pokey truck,(well the pokiest on the market anyhow) that gets great mileage, it's a home run. I am not up for pretending it's going to be great at towing the house on wheels that most of us use. If I recall correctly, it requires around 110-120hp to tow an average rv at 65-70 mph, plan accordingly.

First the Ram comes with the 8 speed not the 9. As far as your comment about other brands leading ....sorry the other brands are not compliant to the new standard and have refused to test to it. The Ram and the Toyota are. So lets just wait and see how far Ford and GM have to de-rate their trucks.

After I take delivery of my "poky" Eco-diesel let me know when you want to go for a ride. The one I test drove had the 3:55 gears and was plenty fast. The one I ordered today has the 3:92 gears. Funny thing NO ONE that has tested the Ram has said what gears were in it. The stock is the 3:21 with a 3:55 and 3:92 as options.

Lastly if you assessment of the needed HP is true then the Eco-diesel has double that so what's your point here?

Don

[Hybridhunter]

Fordlover wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Hybrid, from your past posts, I would be willing to bet good $$ that the likelihood of you buying a RAM is about the same as me buying a Ford. Who are you trying to fool?

From what I've seen, hybrid hunter is far more likely to buy a ram than you are a ford. Really think about it... Your seething hatred towards ford comes across loud and clear. I've not seen the same attitude towards ram from hybrid hunter. He may not be a fan of the ecodiesel, but at least he doesn't unilaterally poopoo an entire brand like others on here.

I'm a bit of a numbers guy. Ram has sorta lost their way IMO. Low payload and the ED which to me, is too compromised. I have nothing against the ram, and it's hard to argue against the performance / value equation of the pentastar/9speed combo. But when some here are pretending the Ram ED is somehow ideal as a tow rig (especially when exceeding ratings on a half ton is easy to do) I have an issue with that, especially when other brands lead in those areas, for cheaper.

For a somewhat pokey truck,(well the pokiest on the market anyhow) that gets great mileage, it's a home run. I am not up for pretending it's going to be great at towing the house on wheels that most of us use. If I recall correctly, it requires around 110-120hp to tow an average rv at 65-70 mph, plan accordingly.

[Hybridhunter]

parkersdad wrote:
Don't worry they will tune that diesel to make closer to the eco-boost horsepower before long. Keep in mind it is in the first year of this motor. They will turn it up horsepower and torque believe me.

How about a tuned ecoboost? Nuff said....

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

LOL I clicked the wrong link $50.00

Don

[Fast_Mopar]

boocoodinkydow wrote:
fwiw, a real world comparison. a couple of months ago, my son was unable to get an acceptable deal on an ecodiesel so opted for his second choice; an ecoboost. ironically, his bottom line was $400 more for the lariat ext cab than for an ed crew cab he wanted to order (it was the principle, dad). he has a 16' vee-nose trailer in which he tows his harley; est gross weight of roughly 2500#. on a trip from nashville to indy, he clocked 12.1 mpg at a speed of 65mph. a second trip to st louis netted only 10.6. i borrowed his trailer & made a round trip from east tn to nashville & back hauling a goldwing, a bmw touring bike & a ton of useless gear; est weight 4k+. with the cruise set at 65, my ecodiesel got 15.8 mpg. his best unloaded mileage has been just over 22; my best was 30.6, both hand calculated. while the ecoboost is admittedly a superior tow vehicle under extreme conditions, conditions i will most likely never subject my truck to, the comparison trips we took showed absolutely no iferiority of performance in any way from my ram. i have no resevations at all in considering tow duty with a 6-7k tt. i totally understand this isn't the ultimate tow vehicle in it's class but more than willing to accept less than optimum capabilities with heavy loads to reap the exceptional fuel econmy this pony offers.

Great post.

[parkersdad]

Don't worry they will tune that diesel to make closer to the eco-boost horsepower before long. Keep in mind it is in the first year of this motor. They will turn it up horsepower and torque believe me.

[TurnThePage]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

I don't know. This one is doing pretty good. :B In fact, this truck can beat a really nice stroker small block car I drive.

I got goosebumps watching that!

I'm still waiting for more news on the ED (& new F150). I may be waiting myself into a 3/4 ton and bigger trailer now! :B

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

boocoodinkydow wrote:
does it come as a sudden revelation to some that a gas engine has better acceleration than a diesel with similar displacement?!?! this spectacular comparison test just to make a point that's been commonly accepted since the inception of the diesel engine. in the world of 3/4 & 1 ton trucks, gas option drivetrains have been faster than the diesels forever. why would you think it should be different in the 150/1500 series??

I don't know. This one is doing pretty good. :B In fact, this truck can beat a really nice stroker small block car I drive.

[boocoodinkydow]

boocoodinkydow wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well the cost of a Mopar filter is 28.00 form these guys LINK and they also sell the Bluespark Tuner LINK. I have an appointment at 9:00 8/7/14 to order my 2015 Eco-diesel.

Don

congrats, don. you'll love the truck. (but that's a fuel filter)

[boocoodinkydow]

fwiw, a real world comparison. a couple of months ago, my son was unable to get an acceptable deal on an ecodiesel so opted for his second choice; an ecoboost. ironically, his bottom line was $400 more for the lariat ext cab than for an ed crew cab he wanted to order (it was the principle, dad). he has a 16' vee-nose trailer in which he tows his harley; est gross weight of roughly 2500#. on a trip from nashville to indy, he clocked 12.1 mpg at a speed of 65mph. a second trip to st louis netted only 10.6. i borrowed his trailer & made a round trip from east tn to nashville & back hauling a goldwing, a bmw touring bike & a ton of useless gear; est weight 4k+. with the cruise set at 65, my ecodiesel got 15.8 mpg. his best unloaded mileage has been just over 22; my best was 30.6, both hand calculated. while the ecoboost is admittedly a superior tow vehicle under extreme conditions, conditions i will most likely never subject my truck to, the comparison trips we took showed absolutely no iferiority of performance in any way from my ram. i have no resevations at all in considering tow duty with a 6-7k tt. i totally understand this isn't the ultimate tow vehicle in it's class but more than willing to accept less than optimum capabilities with heavy loads to reap the exceptional fuel econmy this pony offers.

[boocoodinkydow]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well the cost of a Mopar filter is 28.00 form these guys LINK and they also sell the Bluespark Tuner LINK. I have an appointment at 9:00 8/7/14 to order my 2015 Eco-diesel.

Don

congrats, don. you'll love the truck.