Diesel RAM Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
The 10 speed transition will be something to watch for, as for the 2015 F150, I agree it won’t match the ED, but I own an ED and I'm bias lol. I posted a thread with an article from Truck Trend yesterday that reported some MPG reports that were lower than this article is estimating for mileage. We will have to see what FORD brings, competition creates innovation!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
In hypermilled conditions, yea I'll say it has a chance, flat steady state fuel sipping sure. Introduce anything resembling normal day to day conditions and theres just no chance. We've seen the Ecoboost already and its struggles to crack 20 mpg reliably....

Just posturing...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
172 Posts
In hypermilled conditions, yea I'll say it has a chance, flat steady state fuel sipping sure. Introduce anything resembling normal day to day conditions and theres just no chance. We've seen the Ecoboost already and its struggles to crack 20 mpg reliably....

Just posturing...

I agree here. Ford isnt going anywhere with the ecoboost. I think people forget that diesel makes more power than gas, and is a good reason why we have great milage. Honestly, i havent seen anyone with the eco boost brag about milage.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
In hypermilled conditions, yea I'll say it has a chance, flat steady state fuel sipping sure.

Just posturing...
We've seen that you have to use premium to get the HP needed for real towing and then the mpg drops like a stone. The ED doesn't drop near as much when towing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Do not know how much weight they save with that aluminum body. Heard it was 700 lbs or something. Would be interesting to see the truck weight and compare it to a comparable Ram steel body (with aluminum hood).


If I add 700 lbs to my pickup there is literally no change in fuel mileage. To get a negative change I need to add rolling resistance in the form of a trailer. Add more resistance if that trailer has wind resistance issue.


A gas motor cannot pull efficiently. Ford cannot make a gas motor do what it is not designed to do. It's will not pull efficiently by design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
some good reads here on the correlation between weight and MPG

this one is good, but the study was done for the Aluminium Association so there may be some inherent skew

http://www.drivealuminum.org/research-resources/PDF/Research/2008/2008-Ricardo-Study.pdf

and this article, more general

How does weight affect a vehicle's efficiency?

Let's start with the easy and simple numbers. The EPA says that for every 100 pounds taken out of the vehicle, the fuel economy is increased by 1-2 percent. Based on a gallon of gasoline costing $2.58, this translates to savings of between $0.03-$0.05 a gallon. Of course, 100 lbs. in a small hatchback is going to make a bigger difference than those same 100 lbs. in a Tahoe, so make reasonable assumptions about what going lightweight can offer you.
So if EPA says 1-2% savings per hundred, Ford is banking on improvements in efficiency between 7 and 14%, but then we have to consider that 700 lbs coming out of a 4,000+ pound behemoth vs a 2,000 lb city car...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I think a ultimate MPG king is going to come down to a combination of things...

Aluminum parts
Diesel Engines
And a heavy duty CVT transmission than can handle the work load of a truck.

Now if they could perfect this it would be awesome a small diesel eletric motor. No battery, unlimited torque, and long range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
I think a ultimate MPG king is going to come down to a combination of things...

Aluminum parts
Diesel Engines
And a heavy duty CVT transmission than can handle the work load of a truck.

Now if they could perfect this it would be awesome a small diesel eletric motor. No battery, unlimited torque, and long range.
you know that's too efficient and logical to be a legitimate profit center ;)>:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Read all those weight-reduction charts from both links. In summation my original statement is correct. I don't see a difference because when towing, I usually am running at a "steady state". Those results show almost no change.


Overall running showed it to be something like as the percentage of weight is reduced the fuel economy (gas mostly) went up less that 1/2 of that weight percentage.


My conclusion is ... phooey.


Thanks for the information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I doubt the 2.7 turbo will in real life get MPGs worth bragging about. My son has a 2006 Toyota Tacoma 2.7 engine and manual tranny gets 23 mpgs on the freeway. 3,800 pounds and a 4 cyl 2,7. It takes so much gas to make so much horsepower. I am looking at the Ram Eco but reliability is most important. So I am looking for info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Do not know how much weight they save with that aluminum body. Heard it was 700 lbs or something. Would be interesting to see the truck weight and compare it to a comparable Ram steel body (with aluminum hood).


If I add 700 lbs to my pickup there is literally no change in fuel mileage. To get a negative change I need to add rolling resistance in the form of a trailer. Add more resistance if that trailer has wind resistance issue.


A gas motor cannot pull efficiently. Ford cannot make a gas motor do what it is not designed to do. It's will not pull efficiently by design.
You hit the nail on the head on this one. Ford may be able to match or even slightly beat the MPG with no load with their new engine. But as soon as you add a load or hook up a trailer, the gas engines MPG take a huge nose dive. This is where the ecodiesel keeps winning. You can hook up large loads and still have good MPG.
Now if your never going to use your truck to haul, then a gasser might be the right choice.
I wish the tests they do with the trucks weren't how fast a truck can tow a 7000lb trailer from 0-60! Who the **** is racing with a trailer? The tests should be, who is more capable and efficient pulling a 7000lb trailer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
My 2008 Ford F-250 crewcab 4x4 with a 6.8L V-10 would get ~12 mpg in day-to-day driving (vs. the 24-25 I'm getting in my Laramie ED). Hooking up my rafting trailer (~3500 pounds fully loaded) and driving to/from Idaho from New Mexico (~2800 miles round trip at elevations ranging from 1800' to 10,000' and highways speeds up to 80 mph), the mileage on the F-250 would drop to 8-10 mpg. On my most recent trip in early September I averaged 21.5 mpg with the Laramie. No problems handling/maintaining speed regardless of highway speed and/or grade and/or elevation. I passed RVs and 18-wheelers with ease. I'm consistently getting 27-28 mpg on the highway without the trailer. Needless to say, I'm quite pleased with the savings in fuel costs! Only complaint is that I am often delayed when I stop somewhere because people want to talk to me about my truck!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top