RAM EcoDiesel a Flop for Towing

[nomad297]

Here's the lowdown.

Bruce

[ShinerBock]

Bionic Man wrote:
Except that every comparison that I have seen states that, comparably equiped, the EB and EcoDiesel are priced very similar. You can state that it is $4000 more expensive as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true.

By all means, don't take my word for it. Build and price one out for yourself.

Ford
http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-F-150?branding=1〈=en#/Models/

Ram
http://www.ramtrucks.com/hostc/bmo/CUT201513/models.do?

[wilber1]

Huh?!? First you say you would never WOT your truck up a long grade and don't believe in abusing machinery. Now you are defending a truck that had to go WOT and was stressed out barely holding 50 mph(10 mph under the speed limit) when it was not even carrying the max weight the Ram rated it for versus a truck that was considerably less stressed pulling the same weight while easily able to do the speed limit. You are contradicting yourself which makes me wonder what is more important to you, your own beliefs or your need to defend a Ram product? It seems like your own beliefs are taking a sideline here.

I said, why do you have to go up the hill at 50 MPH. How do you get having to go up the hill at WOT out of that? 240 HP seems to be the limit for the V6 3.0L diesels in North America, be they VW, Mercedes or Motori, I assume because of emission standards. BMW does a bit better at 255 HP. This is not true in Europe where Audi offers a 313 HP twin turbo version of their 3.0 and next year a triple turbo version putting out 353 HP. I think these engines are very underrated for North America.

No, the Ecoboost would be less stressed than that Ecodiesel. Not only was the Ecoboost running at a lower RPM, but the higher compression ratio of the Ecodiesel puts more stress on the block than the Ecoboost. However, that is a moot point since the both these engines have a CGI(Compacted-graphite iron) block like the the bigger diesels do to handle the stress. Diesel engines are inherently "overbuilt" to handle the stresses of compression ignition which is one of the reasons why they last longer, and the 2.7L EB is built the same way with less stress on the block to make it's power.

Two words for you. Boost Pressure. To make the same amount of power, you have to mix the same amount of fuel and air and burn it. A smaller displacement engine will have to either turn faster or operate at a higher manifold pressure to process the same amount of fuel and air in the same amount of time as a larger displacement engine.

Lastly, the reason why gasers never achieve EPA numbers has more to do with the fuel uesed and the test itself. If you read how they do the test you will find that they never exceed 60 mph so if one thinks they will get the EPA numbers at 70 mph then they are being overly optimistic. Another factor is the fuel. The EPA test uses non-ethanol gasoline which is rare in the real world. Most gasoline at the pumps is E10 which reduces your fuel efficiency by about 5% which is a 1-2 mpg loss for most trucks. For the diesel test, the EPA uses the same stuff you get at the pumps as summer #2 diesel so you don't get that loss right of the bat like gasoline. However, you will get a loss in the cold months(usually October to March) when stations switch over to winter #1 diesel that has about a 5,00-8,000 Btu reduction in energy which reduces your power and fuel economy.

So what? Most gasoline is E10 which doesn't change the fact that diesels do better in the real world. All vehicles get worse mileage in cold weather, doesn't matter if they are gas or diesel. Never seen #1 diesel on the west coast.

[Bionic_Man]

Except that every comparison that I have seen states that, comparably equiped, the EB and EcoDiesel are priced very similar. You can state that it is $4000 more expensive as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true.

[jerem0621]

jus2shy wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


Do the math of the added $4,000 cost of the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. The added cost of maintenance where both are recomended to change the oil at 10,000 miles but the Ecoboost oil change will cost about $40-50 to where just the oil filter alone for the Ecodiesel cost about that much. Edmunds.com reported that the oil change for their long term test Ecodiesel costs them $154 here..

Not going to dispute the oil change cost, as that's the reality of many european diesels. Best price I could find the oil that the 3.0 calls for is 7 bucks a quart in the open market and the filter is especially heinous in price @ 50 bucks. However, you can't compare the $4k up-charge for the Ecodiesel against any other vehicle except the vehicles in its line (Hemi and Pentastar). I've personally optioned up an F-150 XLT against a RAM Bighorn (2.7 versus 3.0) and found that they nearly matched in price and several other automotive rags made the same observation (Motortrend).
However, maintenance costs for the Ecodiesel at this point will be higher. Still, I wonder how the hell they get away with a $25 fuel filter when the HD diesel guys have to spend roughly $100 for fuel filters... Well, I wonder what the ISV in the Nissan will do as many believe, for RAM, that's the engine that got away.

Then there is the added cost of diesel in the mix. Going by the EPA highway numbers and the most up to date average cost of gasoline versus diesel in the US of unleaded being $2.457 with diesel being $.40 higher, the 28 mpg of the Ecodiesel is equivalent to a gasoline engine getting 24 mpg which is well below the 2.7L Ecoboost EPA numbers so the Ecodiesel would cast more in fuel. If you go by the real world combined numbers that most review sites are getting for both engines(Ecodiesel 23 mpg and 2.7L Ecoboost 20 mpg) then you would still pay more in fuel for the Ecodiesel than the Ecoboost per year. So there's no added fuel cost benefit there either unless you were towing more than 15% of your annual mileage which most don't. There is also the factor that Ram only offers the Ecodiesel with a 27 gallon tank while the Ecoboost can be optioned with a 37 gallon tank giving you a longer or equal range for the most part even when towing.

Again, this depends on where you live and where you do the majority of driving. Diesel in the PNW has flipped flopped with Unleaded for the past few weeks and unleaded is only about a dime cheaper than Diesel as I type this. Where as in the northeast, Diesel is way more expensive than gas. Then for realistic fuel economy, I like to look at the fuel economy curve for the manufacturers. Ford 2.7's fuel economy really can't be determined because there isn't enough samples yet. But the sample base is building and in 6 months, we should get a clear picture of where the average is. As it stands, the distribution is from 16 to 21mpg with no curve to speak of. As for the Ecodiesel, it seems to have a great number of users posting between 21 and 26 mpg average (I'm ignoring the outliers on the high and low sides). That's a 5 mpg difference from lowest to lowest and highest to highest when comparing curve to curve (although the 2.7 will need more samples before we can firm-up an analysis between the two). But as it is, that's 25% fuel economy difference from Ecoboost to Ecodiesel.

So basically, this is what you get with the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. You have to pay about $4,000 more for it up front. You have to pay over 3 times as much for maintenance. You have to pay more in fuel for most of the time unless you tow more than 15% of your annual mileage. All this for something that has less pulling power, less payload, and struggles to even keep within 10 mph of the speed limit going up hills. So where is the benefit in it?

I think people are being blinded by only looking at the MPG number and the fact that it is diesel, but neglect to look at the big picture and do the math. I can see paying more for the Ecodiesel if it had better towing performance and more capability along with its fuel mileage which is why I went with the Cummins over the 6.4L Hemi in my 2500. However, I can't see paying more all the way around and getting less performance and less capability. It just doesn't make sense.

Again, that's some broad generalization. Some people, the math works out, others it doesn't. Some people merely want the ability to carry bulky, but light items along with their family and many never hook a hitch up to a half ton truck. The Ecodiesel works well in that regard and those that occasionally tow something small. I'm not in that boat, and many on here are not in that boat.

"OPINION ALERT"

Plus no matter what you do to the little EcoBoost the truck that it's wrapped in is UGGGGGLLLY...by far the worst looking F150 ever. IMHO 😄

I would choose the EcoDiesl over the EcoBoost based on the personal preference of me hating the looks of the new F150 alone.

But, something I have said before is that the EcoDiesel has no real advantage over the Pentastar Ram. In sheer HP the Pentastar wins. In seat of the pants feel the Pentastar wins (IMHO again, I drove them back to back)

Now, how reliable will the EcoDiesel actually be once some users have logged serious towing miles? That remains to be seen.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

[jus2shy]

ShinerBock wrote:


Do the math of the added $4,000 cost of the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. The added cost of maintenance where both are recomended to change the oil at 10,000 miles but the Ecoboost oil change will cost about $40-50 to where just the oil filter alone for the Ecodiesel cost about that much. Edmunds.com reported that the oil change for their long term test Ecodiesel costs them $154 here..

Not going to dispute the oil change cost, as that's the reality of many european diesels. Best price I could find the oil that the 3.0 calls for is 7 bucks a quart in the open market and the filter is especially heinous in price @ 50 bucks. However, you can't compare the $4k up-charge for the Ecodiesel against any other vehicle except the vehicles in its line (Hemi and Pentastar). I've personally optioned up an F-150 XLT against a RAM Bighorn (2.7 versus 3.0) and found that they nearly matched in price and several other automotive rags made the same observation (Motortrend).
However, maintenance costs for the Ecodiesel at this point will be higher. Still, I wonder how the hell they get away with a $25 fuel filter when the HD diesel guys have to spend roughly $100 for fuel filters... Well, I wonder what the ISV in the Nissan will do as many believe, for RAM, that's the engine that got away.

Then there is the added cost of diesel in the mix. Going by the EPA highway numbers and the most up to date average cost of gasoline versus diesel in the US of unleaded being $2.457 with diesel being $.40 higher, the 28 mpg of the Ecodiesel is equivalent to a gasoline engine getting 24 mpg which is well below the 2.7L Ecoboost EPA numbers so the Ecodiesel would cast more in fuel. If you go by the real world combined numbers that most review sites are getting for both engines(Ecodiesel 23 mpg and 2.7L Ecoboost 20 mpg) then you would still pay more in fuel for the Ecodiesel than the Ecoboost per year. So there's no added fuel cost benefit there either unless you were towing more than 15% of your annual mileage which most don't. There is also the factor that Ram only offers the Ecodiesel with a 27 gallon tank while the Ecoboost can be optioned with a 37 gallon tank giving you a longer or equal range for the most part even when towing.

Again, this depends on where you live and where you do the majority of driving. Diesel in the PNW has flipped flopped with Unleaded for the past few weeks and unleaded is only about a dime cheaper than Diesel as I type this. Where as in the northeast, Diesel is way more expensive than gas. Then for realistic fuel economy, I like to look at the fuel economy curve for the manufacturers. Ford 2.7's fuel economy really can't be determined because there isn't enough samples yet. But the sample base is building and in 6 months, we should get a clear picture of where the average is. As it stands, the distribution is from 16 to 21mpg with no curve to speak of. As for the Ecodiesel, it seems to have a great number of users posting between 21 and 26 mpg average (I'm ignoring the outliers on the high and low sides). That's a 5 mpg difference from lowest to lowest and highest to highest when comparing curve to curve (although the 2.7 will need more samples before we can firm-up an analysis between the two). But as it is, that's 25% fuel economy difference from Ecoboost to Ecodiesel.

So basically, this is what you get with the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. You have to pay about $4,000 more for it up front. You have to pay over 3 times as much for maintenance. You have to pay more in fuel for most of the time unless you tow more than 15% of your annual mileage. All this for something that has less pulling power, less payload, and struggles to even keep within 10 mph of the speed limit going up hills. So where is the benefit in it?

I think people are being blinded by only looking at the MPG number and the fact that it is diesel, but neglect to look at the big picture and do the math. I can see paying more for the Ecodiesel if it had better towing performance and more capability along with its fuel mileage which is why I went with the Cummins over the 6.4L Hemi in my 2500. However, I can't see paying more all the way around and getting less performance and less capability. It just doesn't make sense.

Again, that's some broad generalization. Some people, the math works out, others it doesn't. Some people merely want the ability to carry bulky, but light items along with their family and many never hook a hitch up to a half ton truck. The Ecodiesel works well in that regard and those that occasionally tow something small. I'm not in that boat, and many on here are not in that boat.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

^^^^^^ Good post.

[ShinerBock]

SGardiner wrote:
If your looking for a daily driver with good fuel economy that can also pull your 7,000 lb TT it looks like a good option to me.

The ike gauntlet is the exception and likely the most extreme conditions you would ever see.

Do the math of the added $4,000 cost of the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. The added cost of maintenance where both are recomended to change the oil at 10,000 miles but the Ecoboost oil change will cost about $40-50 to where just the oil filter alone for the Ecodiesel cost about that much. Edmunds.com reported that the oil change for their long term test Ecodiesel costs them $154 here..


Then there is the added cost of diesel in the mix. Going by the EPA highway numbers and the most up to date average cost of gasoline versus diesel in the US of unleaded being $2.457 with diesel being $.40 higher, the 28 mpg of the Ecodiesel is equivalent to a gasoline engine getting 24 mpg which is well below the 2.7L Ecoboost EPA numbers so the Ecodiesel would cast more in fuel. If you go by the real world combined numbers that most review sites are getting for both engines(Ecodiesel 23 mpg and 2.7L Ecoboost 20 mpg) then you would still pay more in fuel for the Ecodiesel than the Ecoboost per year. So there's no added fuel cost benefit there either unless you were towing more than 15% of your annual mileage which most don't. There is also the factor that Ram only offers the Ecodiesel with a 27 gallon tank while the Ecoboost can be optioned with a 37 gallon tank giving you a longer or equal range for the most part even when towing.

So basically, this is what you get with the Ecodiesel over the 2.7L Ecoboost. You have to pay about $4,000 more for it up front. You have to pay over 3 times as much for maintenance. You have to pay more in fuel for most of the time unless you tow more than 15% of your annual mileage. All this for something that has less pulling power, less payload, and struggles to even keep within 10 mph of the speed limit going up hills. So where is the benefit in it?

I think people are being blinded by only looking at the MPG number and the fact that it is diesel, but neglect to look at the big picture and do the math. I can see paying more for the Ecodiesel if it had better towing performance and more capability along with its fuel mileage which is why I went with the Cummins over the 6.4L Hemi in my 2500. However, I can't see paying more all the way around and getting less performance and less capability. It just doesn't make sense.

[womps]

And to add to the last post. If the Ecodiesel is WOT up a mountain and the Ecoboost is going up the same mountain at the same speed with the same load, then the Ecoboost would have a lot less strain on it than the Ecodiesel because you would not need anywhere close to WOT to stay even with the Ecodiesel. Boy, there is a lot of Eco's in that paragraph!!

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:
I would never run my truck or any of my other vehicles at WOT up a long grade or just about any other time for that matter, so what it will do at WOT doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe in abusing the machinery just to get up a hill a minute or two faster.

wilber1 wrote:
Why do you have to go up the mountain at 50 mph? Everything is a compromise and everyone choses the compromise that works best for them.

Huh?!? First you say you would never WOT your truck up a long grade and don't believe in abusing machinery. Now you are defending a truck that had to go WOT and was stressed out barely holding 50 mph(10 mph under the speed limit) when it was not even carrying the max weight the Ram rated it for versus a truck that was considerably less stressed pulling the same weight while easily able to do the speed limit. You are contradicting yourself which makes me wonder what is more important to you, your own beliefs or your need to defend a Ram product? It seems like your own beliefs are taking a sideline here.

wilber1 wrote:
They do? I think they are both interesting trucks and if I was looking for an economical half ton I would check them both out. I do take some exception to the idea that the EB is working less hard because it is working below it's rated max power. Everything else being equal, I would expect a 2.7 L engine to be more stressed than a 3.0L engine when producing equal HP. I would also wait until more real world fuel economy numbers come in as the smaller diesels have a reputation of meeting or exceeding EPA estimates while gassers never seem to. Time will tell but I think both trucks will sell well.

No, the Ecoboost would be less stressed than that Ecodiesel. Not only was the Ecoboost running at a lower RPM, but the higher compression ratio of the Ecodiesel puts more stress on the block than the Ecoboost. However, that is a moot point since the both these engines have a CGI(Compacted-graphite iron) block like the the bigger diesels do to handle the stress. Diesel engines are inherently "overbuilt" to handle the stresses of compression ignition which is one of the reasons why they last longer, and the 2.7L EB is built the same way with less stress on the block to make it's power.

Lastly, the reason why gasers never achieve EPA numbers has more to do with the fuel uesed and the test itself. If you read how they do the test you will find that they never exceed 60 mph so if one thinks they will get the EPA numbers at 70 mph then they are being overly optimistic. Another factor is the fuel. The EPA test uses non-ethanol gasoline which is rare in the real world. Most gasoline at the pumps is E10 which reduces your fuel efficiency by about 5% which is a 1-2 mpg loss for most trucks. For the diesel test, the EPA uses the same stuff you get at the pumps as summer #2 diesel so you don't get that loss right of the bat like gasoline. However, you will get a loss in the cold months(usually October to March) when stations switch over to winter #1 diesel that has about a 5,00-8,000 Btu reduction in energy which reduces your power and fuel economy.

[8iron]

SGardiner wrote:
If your looking for a daily driver with good fuel economy that can also pull your 7,000 lb TT it looks like a good option to me.

The ike gauntlet is the exception and likely the most extreme conditions you would ever see.

I'm not sure the ED has the payload to handle a 7000# TT. Most of the ones I've looked at have less than 1100# payloads. But then again I've only looked at crew cab loaded up models.

[SGardiner]

If your looking for a daily driver with good fuel economy that can also pull your 7,000 lb TT it looks like a good option to me.

The ike gauntlet is the exception and likely the most extreme conditions you would ever see.

[wilber1]

hone eagle wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
I would never run my truck or any of my other vehicles at WOT up a long grade or just about any other time for that matter, so what it will do at WOT doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe in abusing the machinery just to get up a hill a minute or two faster.

Look at the video again. The Ram Ecodiesel was screaming (for a diesel) at 3,500-4,000 rpm at wide open throttle only being able to do 50 mph for most of the way up with no power to spare if needed. It struggled almost all the way up the mountain and took longer to get up the mountain.
Ram 1500 3.0L Ecodiesel tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet


The 2.7L Ecoboost was between 2,500-4,000 rpm not at wide open throttle most of the way while easily able to do the speed limit with power to spare if needed. It had the quicker time up the mountain with little struggle.
Ford F150 2.7L Ecoboost tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet

Ironically, the Ram gives that 1500 Ecodiesel a higher tow rating than what Ford gives that 2.7L Ecoboost. This is what I am arguing about because I think it is a bunch of bull because like you, I don't think a vehicle should have to struggle that hard with no power to spare when towing less than it's max. I think that Ram needs to lower that tow rating on that Ecodiesel to something it can do without struggling so hard.

Why do you have to go up the mountain at 50 mph? Everything is a compromise and everyone choses the compromise that works best for them.

Why? because the sae tow standard that Ram fans constantly throw out there -uses this hill and that speed limit?
If it failed 'the standard'..........

They do? I think they are both interesting trucks and if I was looking for an economical half ton I would check them both out. I do take some exception to the idea that the EB is working less hard because it is working below it's rated max power. Everything else being equal, I would expect a 2.7 L engine to be more stressed than a 3.0L engine when producing equal HP. I would also wait until more real world fuel economy numbers come in as the smaller diesels have a reputation of meeting or exceeding EPA estimates while gassers never seem to. Time will tell but I think both trucks will sell well.

[hone_eagle]

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
I would never run my truck or any of my other vehicles at WOT up a long grade or just about any other time for that matter, so what it will do at WOT doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe in abusing the machinery just to get up a hill a minute or two faster.

Look at the video again. The Ram Ecodiesel was screaming (for a diesel) at 3,500-4,000 rpm at wide open throttle only being able to do 50 mph for most of the way up with no power to spare if needed. It struggled almost all the way up the mountain and took longer to get up the mountain.
Ram 1500 3.0L Ecodiesel tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet


The 2.7L Ecoboost was between 2,500-4,000 rpm not at wide open throttle most of the way while easily able to do the speed limit with power to spare if needed. It had the quicker time up the mountain with little struggle.
Ford F150 2.7L Ecoboost tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet

Ironically, the Ram gives that 1500 Ecodiesel a higher tow rating than what Ford gives that 2.7L Ecoboost. This is what I am arguing about because I think it is a bunch of bull because like you, I don't think a vehicle should have to struggle that hard with no power to spare when towing less than it's max. I think that Ram needs to lower that tow rating on that Ecodiesel to something it can do without struggling so hard.

Why do you have to go up the mountain at 50 mph? Everything is a compromise and everyone choses the compromise that works best for them.

Why? because the sae tow standard that Ram fans constantly throw out there -uses this hill and that speed limit?
If it failed 'the standard'..........

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

🙂 Hi, as mentioned, this engine should not lose power at altitude because it is NOT naturally aspirated. Seems to me that all of the tests started at 65 MPH and tried to maintain this speed all of the way. This Dodge never made it to the 65 MPH starting speed. Diesel fans are always talking about torque. Torque is what counts, but now that they lost to a smaller GAS engine they all talk about the horse power being less. WOW, what happened to the almighty diesel torque bragging rights? This Dodge did have more torque, didn't it? It's not necessarily how fast the truck is, but it's ability to pull the load. This load was under it's rating and still too much for it. Not mentioned in the video, but I saw 45 or 46 MPH at the top of the mountain. Dodge is so engrossed with the big six cylinder Diesel, that they let the 5.0 Cummins V-8 go to Nissan and Toyota; This in my opinion was a huge mistake on their part. The 5.0 Cummins V-8 would have been a huge success for the Dodge 1500.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
I would never run my truck or any of my other vehicles at WOT up a long grade or just about any other time for that matter, so what it will do at WOT doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe in abusing the machinery just to get up a hill a minute or two faster.

Look at the video again. The Ram Ecodiesel was screaming (for a diesel) at 3,500-4,000 rpm at wide open throttle only being able to do 50 mph for most of the way up with no power to spare if needed. It struggled almost all the way up the mountain and took longer to get up the mountain.
Ram 1500 3.0L Ecodiesel tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet


The 2.7L Ecoboost was between 2,500-4,000 rpm not at wide open throttle most of the way while easily able to do the speed limit with power to spare if needed. It had the quicker time up the mountain with little struggle.
Ford F150 2.7L Ecoboost tows 7,200 lbs up the Ike Gauntlet

Ironically, the Ram gives that 1500 Ecodiesel a higher tow rating than what Ford gives that 2.7L Ecoboost. This is what I am arguing about because I think it is a bunch of bull because like you, I don't think a vehicle should have to struggle that hard with no power to spare when towing less than it's max. I think that Ram needs to lower that tow rating on that Ecodiesel to something it can do without struggling so hard.

Why do you have to go up the mountain at 50 mph? Everything is a compromise and everyone choses the compromise that works best for them.