dfw

**Zeek** · 05-12-2014, 01:48 AM

I bet people will see 30+MPG with the Ecodiesel Rams on the highway after there tuned. Ripout all the emissions crap and viola with the 8 speed auto that thing is going to turn like 1200 or less rpms at 65mph it will be like 400hp 850tq! With the diesels the higher you turn them up the better mpg you get.

**rlhay2** · 05-12-2014, 10:36 AM

To me, it really comes down to the following:

If you will never tow nor haul a heavy load. (i.e. typical truck use), then the nod goes to the Ecoboost F150.

But...

If you do tow or haul heavy loads (i.e. travel trailer, car hauler, etc..) the Ram Diesel should be strongly considered.

Originally Posted by re-rx7

The option is around 3 grand. The diesal is where you never make up the cost. Diesal is considerably more then gasoline.

Considerably more?!?! Diesel cost 10% more than regular fuel in the current market.

And for that 10% fuel surcharge, the owner gets 30-50% better fuel economy.

Oil changes are more expensive but longevity is also generally better.

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

3k is easily recouped when the truck is a DD. The difference between 15 mpg on DD duty and 25 MPG is fairly significant.

The only thing that will force Chevy or Ford to get in the diesel game is if Dodge makes a killing on this EcoDiesel

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Zeek

I bet people will see 30+MPG with the Ecodiesel Rams on the highway after there tuned.

My 7000lb 3/4 ton gets 22 MPH on the highway. Thus 30 MPG from a 1/2 ton is not at all preposterous.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-12-2014, 02:17 PM

I think every automaker could benefit from a small diesel in a light duty truck. I think Ram got the size and power output right, vs. what Cummins is going to shove in the the Nissan/Toyota. Virtually, don't improve the towing capabilities or power of the current 1/2 tons, just make them more fuel efficient while keeping costs relatively down.

Inserting a 300HP+ diesel into a light duty truck is going to flirt real close to the prices of a similar trim leveled 3/4 ton which isn't the answer. At that point, just pony the extra couple grand and get the big boy truck. As far as the EB engines, I believe they are great performers, but being fuel efficient...no. Proof is in the numbers and most people are averaging 15-17 which is what V8's get.

re-rx7 · 05-12-2014, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

I think every automaker could benefit from a small diesel in a light duty truck. I think Ram got the size and power output right, vs. what Cummins is going to shove in the the Nissan/Toyota. Virtually, don't improve the towing capabilities or power of the current 1/2 tons, just make them more fuel efficient while keeping costs relatively down.

Inserting a 300HP+ diesel into a light duty truck is going to flirt real close to the prices of a similar trim leveled 3/4 ton which isn't the answer. At that point, just pony the extra couple grand and get the big boy truck. As far as the EB engines, I believe they are great performers, but being fuel efficient...no. Proof is in the numbers and most people are averaging 15-17 which is what V8's get.

It may be getting close to that MPG but the real adavantage is the Tq delivery when a load is being pulled. Look at the TQ peak of the EB vs the V8 comp. Hell look at where most of it is avail.

**JDMLOL** · 05-12-2014, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

Proof is in the numbers and most people are averaging 15-17 which is what V8's get.

I'm sorry but this is dead wrong. My dad's fx2 gets ~19 plus or minus .5 mpg avg with heavy city driving and 22 or more on the hwy. The all aluminum f150 should yield higher with the 3.5 and even higher with the 2.7. Plus the damn thing tows an almost 22 foot bass boat with a helmet head 225 evinrude like there's nothing there. Even then it's yielding 16-17 mpg when my 2008 5.3/4l60e ecsb silverado was yielding between high single digits and 11 mpg.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-12-2014, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by JDMLOL

I'm sorry but this is dead wrong. My dad's fx2 gets ~19 plus or minus .5 mpg avg with heavy city driving and 22 or more on the hwy. The all aluminum f150 should yield higher with the 3.5 and even higher with the 2.7. Plus the damn thing tows an almost 22 foot bass boat with a helmet head 225 evinrude like there's nothing there. Even then it's yielding 16-17 mpg when my 2008 5.3/4l60e ecsb silverado was yielding between high single digits and 11 mpg.

I understand a couple people are getting decent mileage with their EB. But being a statistics guy, I look at averages with a decent pool to pull data from. Based on the information at fuelly (which everyday people update their fuel consumption via text), the EB trucks average in the 15's.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/gas%20v6/truck

That is proof, no heresay or "that one time I got XX MPG and that is what I will tell everyone because I don't want to be wrong about the vehicle I bought."

**DirtyD** · 05-12-2014, 02:34 PM

The main reason I see someone buying a EB over a normal V8 is for towing because the TQ curve on those motors is insane, and comes in so low in the RPM. Plus if you lived at higher elevation, where the turbos make up for the air density loss.

re-rx7 · 05-12-2014, 03:58 PM

Well I dont see Ford being to worried about it. Dodge never gets within sniffing distance of their sales anyway. You guys are talking Diesal prices now not in the future. The past has shown us that they do go up considerably. The Eb is an easier alternative to diesal and makes alot of Tq down low as well. Most people dont pull enough with a 1/2 ton to warrant a diesal. Most will upgrade to a 3/4 ton and call it a day. ITs a marketing gimmick.

**DirtyD** · 05-12-2014, 07:35 PM

Not all EBs are getting those results though. That is why people are still hardpressed to believe the hype. Some are having amazing luck, others aren't.

**JDMLOL** · 05-12-2014, 09:18 PM

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens to have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

**DirtyD** · 05-12-2014, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

I understand a couple people are getting decent mileage with their EB. But being a statistics guy, I look at averages with a decent pool to pull data from. Based on the information at fuelly (which everyday people update their fuel consumption via text), the EB trucks average in the 15's.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/gas%20v6/truck

That is proof, no heresay or "that one time I got XX MPG and that is what I will tell everyone because I don't want to be wrong about the vehicle I bought."

Originally Posted by JDMLOL

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

The F150 boards are a good source for what real EB owners are seeing. I know awhile back there was a big stink rising about people not getting the mileage Ford was claiming.

It's not just F150s though, because there have been a number of people with EB explorers and escapes that have the same complaint.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-13-2014, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by JDMLOL

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens to have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

The pool of data doesn't distinguish all that true. But it is safe to say that ford didn't sell too many 3.7l v6 F150s in 2013, an overwhelming majority will be the EB judging on the profile photos. To have a loaded test where only 2wd or 4wd is what I don't want. I want to see the average from all over America because that is how getting averages work. Don't want data from trucks in a vacuum.

I think forums are the worst place to get the truth, particularly with domestic brand forums. Most people are brand loyal (which I am not) & won't admit when they have a vehicle that gets beat by someone else. All I know is I won't buy an EB based on what I believe are poor results in terms of fuel economy. Towing performance, yes I think it produces the best numbers. However, I still have my doubts on longevity of those engines vs a tradition NA V8.

re-rx7 · 05-13-2014, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

The pool of data doesn't distinguish all that true. But it is safe to say that ford didn't sell too many 3.7l v6 F150s in 2013, an overwhelming majority will be the EB judging on the profile photos. To have a loaded test where only 2wd or 4wd is what I don't want. I want to see the average from all over America because that is how getting averages work. Don't want data from trucks in a vacuum.

I think forums are the worst place to get the truth, particularly with domestic brand forums. Most people are brand loyal (which I am not) & won't admit when they have a vehicle that gets beat by someone else. All I know is I won't buy an EB based on what I believe are poor results in terms of fuel economy. Towing performance, yes I think it produces the best numbers. However, I still have my doubts on longevity of those engines vs a tradition NA V8.

Why do you question longevity?

**DirtyD** · 05-13-2014, 09:20 AM

Consumers just haven't had the trucks long enough to say they are reliable in higher mileage applications. Same with the 6.7 PSD, 5.0, etc. All of these motors are still new by todays standards, so only time will tell how they live up to high mileage.

Yeah, Ford did a torture test themselves, but nobody else has done so, so 1 data point can't be taken as the truth.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-13-2014, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by re-rx7

Why do you question longevity?

Longevity is only questioned because of fairly new tech. A twin turbo designed for heavier duty use instead of speed is new tech. The reliabilty of an engine constantly being fed boost seems like greater chances for things to fail vs. a traditional V8 which loafs along.

This is just my speculation though. I have no data to back it up, just me being skeptical. Diesels have proven that a turbo'd engine can last, but the characteristics between the two engines are quite different. I think the EB can be reliable as a heavier duty engine, but I wouldn't want to put my money there until these things have more data points (only in terms of longevity, I don't think the fuel economy will ever be there).