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.)

[wilber1]

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

Or even worse, ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans, where a significant amount of thrust comes from the intake fan turned by, gasp, torque...

True but RPM determines how much power is being produced by that torque and of course in the case of rocket engines, none of it is produced by torque.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hybridhunter wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

Shocking!
Or not......

Nice try, but the 22 would be the city mileage and your Eco Ford might be able to hit that on the highway with a good tail wind.

Even if you don't like the data presented, at least acknowledge that the source has very little perceived bias,, if anything, the author tends to favor diesels and the data is comparably generated relative to the other data from other vehicle. Fact is, that is not great towing mileage for that combo.
Driven conservatively, the ecoboost engines can get excellent mileage. Eco or boost, pick one, right?

What I was pointing out is the 22 MPG is the city rating for the Eco-diesel, the same mileage the Eco-boost is rated to make for highway mileage. The eco-boost can make decent mileage but nowhere near 28+ MPG. BTW I'm sure goducks10 was not slamming the Eco-diesel but when posting a snippet of a story you should note what the post represents ie city, highway or combined.

Don

[RoyJ]

wilber1 wrote:

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

Or even worse, ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans, where a significant amount of thrust comes from the intake fan turned by, gasp, torque...

[Fast_Mopar]

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

About the same? Sounds to me like only one truck was tested, not two trucks. It's difficult to compare when only one truck was involved in the test.

Ecoboost Fords can get good fuel economy, but according to the EPA, a 2WD F150 Ecoboost is rated at 22 mpg highway and 2WD Ram Ecodiesel is rated at 28 mpg highway. Those are unbiased EPA numbers, not my numbers. So, according to the EPA, the Ecodiesel has an advantage. But hey, I'm just a shill.

[wilber1]

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
The question wasn't for you. I am agreeing with you. Mostly.

I'm surprised the relationship between HP and torque is so difficult to grasp and are often treated as one or the other when for the purpose we are speaking of, they are interdependent. You can't make power without torque but unless you make power, torque gets you nowhere. Power is the measure of how far and fast torque can get you somewhere.

Going back to the old weight lifter analogy. Torque is how much you are lifting. Power is the number of reps you can do in a given time with that weight.

Gotcha. Didn't realize you were trying to make a point asking that question...

We can blame the media for dumbing things down and misleading people. And also Shelby for that infamous "torque wins races" quote, which was taken out of context for half a century.

Want to muddy the water with turboprops? Better not.

[Hybridhunter]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

Shocking!
Or not......

Nice try, but the 22 would be the city mileage and your Eco Ford might be able to hit that on the highway with a good tail wind.

Even if you don't like the data presented, at least acknowledge that the source has very little perceived bias,, if anything, the author tends to favor diesels and the data is comparably generated relative to the other data from other vehicle. Fact is, that is not great towing mileage for that combo.
Driven conservatively, the ecoboost engines can get excellent mileage. Eco or boost, pick one, right?

[RoyJ]

wilber1 wrote:
The question wasn't for you. I am agreeing with you. Mostly.

I'm surprised the relationship between HP and torque is so difficult to grasp and are often treated as one or the other when for the purpose we are speaking of, they are interdependent. You can't make power without torque but unless you make power, torque gets you nowhere. Power is the measure of how far and fast torque can get you somewhere.

Going back to the old weight lifter analogy. Torque is how much you are lifting. Power is the number of reps you can do in a given time with that weight.

Gotcha. Didn't realize you were trying to make a point asking that question...

We can blame the media for dumbing things down and misleading people. And also Shelby for that infamous "torque wins races" quote, which was taken out of context for half a century.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hybridhunter wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

Shocking!
Or not......

Nice try, but the 22 would be the city mileage and your Eco Ford might be able to hit that on the highway with a good tail wind.

[wilber1]

DSteiner51 wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

DSteiner51 wrote:

DirtyOil wrote:

But try explaining what "torque" pulls a million pound jetliner of the ground...

Torque is the lever that lifts the weight, torque is the flywheel that turns the wheels, torque is the compression, combustion and the thrust that sends the jetliner into the wild blue yonder... you can have all the hp you want.. but without the torque, your not getting anywhere.

Sorry, flat out false. Horsepower gets my airplane off the ground, all 87ft lbs at 34,000 rpm, gets my rig up the hill (220ft lbs at 5000rpm. Go back to 8th grade. You have no business past that.

What about rocket engines that have no rotating parts? What about when you blow up a balloon and release it? What propelles it across the room?

Very simple, and it's not torque. It is thrust and speed which the horsepower can be calculated. The more horsepower the better. 5000lbs of thrust with no speed =0. The lbs thrust is in the balloon and it goes nowhere. Only when there is speed will the balloon be propelled. Go back to 8th grade and start over.

I'm quite aware of that. Perhaps, I missunderstood you original statement.

[wilber1]

RoyJ wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
What about rocket engines that have no rotating parts? What about when you blow up a balloon and release it? What propelles it across the room?

A given force at a given velocity.

Multiply them together and guess what you get - power! That's why I stated power is universal.

Doesn't matter where the force comes from: a blast of air, jet nozzle, propeller, or torque (which is simply force in angular domain), it generates power at a given velocity. That power is what puts objects in motion and gives them acceleration.

Torque is a mean of producing power, as is the fossil fuel. Saying torque is which get you up the hill is as ridiculous as saying is the dead dinosaur that gets you up the hill. Both correct, just ridiculous in terms of physics and engineering.

The question wasn't for you. I am agreeing with you. Mostly.

I'm surprised the relationship between HP and torque is so difficult to grasp and are often treated as one or the other when for the purpose we are speaking of, they are interdependent. You can't make power without torque but unless you make power, torque gets you nowhere. Power is the measure of how far and fast torque can get you somewhere.

Going back to the old weight lifter analogy. Torque is how much you are lifting. Power is the number of reps you can do in a given time with that weight.

[DSteiner51]

wilber1 wrote:

DSteiner51 wrote:

DirtyOil wrote:

But try explaining what "torque" pulls a million pound jetliner of the ground...

Torque is the lever that lifts the weight, torque is the flywheel that turns the wheels, torque is the compression, combustion and the thrust that sends the jetliner into the wild blue yonder... you can have all the hp you want.. but without the torque, your not getting anywhere.

Sorry, flat out false. Horsepower gets my airplane off the ground, all 87ft lbs at 34,000 rpm, gets my rig up the hill (220ft lbs at 5000rpm. Go back to 8th grade. You have no business past that.

What about rocket engines that have no rotating parts? What about when you blow up a balloon and release it? What propelles it across the room?

Very simple, and it's not torque. It is thrust and speed which the horsepower can be calculated. The more horsepower the better. 5000lbs of thrust with no speed =0. The lbs thrust is in the balloon and it goes nowhere. Only when there is speed will the balloon be propelled. Go back to 8th grade and start over.

[Hybridhunter]

goducks10 wrote:
Just got my latest Trailer Life mag. They did a test of a Ram 1500 Ed and a Lance 1995 TT. Lance is 9'9"Hx8'x23'9". Weighed 4860lbs.

The Ram ED has 3.92 gears and is the Outdoorsman model. It got 22mpg solo and 12.6mpg towing. About the same as an Eco Ford.

Shocking!
Or not......

[RoyJ]

wilber1 wrote:
What about rocket engines that have no rotating parts? What about when you blow up a balloon and release it? What propelles it across the room?

A given force at a given velocity.

Multiply them together and guess what you get - power! That's why I stated power is universal.

Doesn't matter where the force comes from: a blast of air, jet nozzle, propeller, or torque (which is simply force in angular domain), it generates power at a given velocity. That power is what puts objects in motion and gives them acceleration.

Torque is a mean of producing power, as is the fossil fuel. Saying torque is which get you up the hill is as ridiculous as saying is the dead dinosaur that gets you up the hill. Both correct, just ridiculous in terms of physics and engineering.

[wilber1]

DSteiner51 wrote:

DirtyOil wrote:

But try explaining what "torque" pulls a million pound jetliner of the ground...

Torque is the lever that lifts the weight, torque is the flywheel that turns the wheels, torque is the compression, combustion and the thrust that sends the jetliner into the wild blue yonder... you can have all the hp you want.. but without the torque, your not getting anywhere.

Sorry, flat out false. Horsepower gets my airplane off the ground, all 87ft lbs at 34,000 rpm, gets my rig up the hill (220ft lbs at 5000rpm. Go back to 8th grade. You have no business past that.

What about rocket engines that have no rotating parts? What about when you blow up a balloon and release it? What propelles it across the room?

[DSteiner51]

DirtyOil wrote:

But try explaining what "torque" pulls a million pound jetliner of the ground...

Torque is the lever that lifts the weight, torque is the flywheel that turns the wheels, torque is the compression, combustion and the thrust that sends the jetliner into the wild blue yonder... you can have all the hp you want.. but without the torque, your not getting anywhere.

Sorry, flat out false. Horsepower gets my airplane off the ground, all 87ft lbs at 34,000 rpm, gets my rig up the hill (220ft lbs at 5000rpm. Go back to 8th grade. You have no business past that.