Ram 1/2 ton Diesel a hit...did Ford miss the boat?

[Bryan1]

A couple quotes from f150online and fordmantpw:

 

F-150 2.7L EcoBoost is $495. over the base.

Ram 3.0L EcoDiesel is $4,500. over the base.

That's a big blow to Ram right there! For $4k more, you can get 1 extra MPG AND pay more for fuel. Yay Ram!!

----

Now what boat was that again?

[fordmantpw]

Thanks Sooner, that was how I read the difference between Ford's strategy with EB 27 versus Ram's exclusive policy for the 3.0V6 diesel,

considering the premium is above the Hemi, I'd say it's at least $2,000 more than EB 27.

 

Try double that at $4k.

 

The EB 2.7 is a $500 option over the base 3.5L

The ED 3.0 is a $4500 option over the base 3.6L.

 

This doesn't bode well for the Ram being a money saver on fuel. It will take a LONG time (if ever) to recoup that extra $4k if you factor in the cost of fuel, even if the 2.7L only comes in at 26 MPG.

 

EDIT: I see Bryan beat me to it.

Edited July 28, 2014 by fordmantpw

[jpd80]

^^^^ Thanks guys, I was deliberatly conservative on the added cost of the 3.0 Diesel vs Ecoboost 2.7

in the hopes that someone like the pair of you would elaborate further.

 

Wow, a $4,500 upcharge for a diesel when the Ecoboost 2.7 is a fraction of that,

I'd take the 2.7 EB over the 3.0 Diesel and pocket the $4,000 difference.

 

I can see the 2.7 EB adding spice to Ram's pricing of the Diesel, surely cross shoppers

are going to point this iut everytime the notice the added cost... or maybe that's why

Ram is trying to bury the cost in higher series products...

Edited July 28, 2014 by jpd80

[Bryan1]

Using this fuel comparison calculator and the AAA average fuel prices for gas and diesel.

 

If the 2.7 EB is 26 mpg and the 3.0 ED is 28 mpg.

 

You save $26. driving 15k miles a year. After 7 years $184.

 

$4000 / $26 = 153 years to break even.

 

http://calcnexus.com/fuel-cost-calculator.php?miles=15000&price1=3.52&price2=3.84&mpg1=26&mpg2=28&calc=1

[akirby]

On the larger diesel engines part of the higher cost is the higher torque capacity transmission and other parts that must be upgraded. Not sure if that's the case with the 3.0 ED.

[fordmantpw]

But...resale!

 

But...it's a diesel!

 

But...torque!

But...towing fuel economy!

 

But..........but..........but................

[fordmantpw]

On the larger diesel engines part of the higher cost is the higher torque capacity transmission and other parts that must be upgraded. Not sure if that's the case with the 3.0 ED.

 

I don't think so since the ED only has 10 more ft-lbs of torque than the Hemi. I'm pretty sure it's the same tranny in both trucks.

 

EDIT: I just realized we are talking base to ED. Yes, the base comes with a 6 speed and the ED comes with an 8 speed, so that is part of the cost.

 

But, what good are those 2 extra gears if they don't give you more capacity OR fuel economy?

Edited July 28, 2014 by fordmantpw

[akirby]

 

I don't think so since the ED only has 10 more ft-lbs of torque than the Hemi. I'm pretty sure it's the same tranny in both trucks.

 

So it's just marketing driving the higher cost? Or is the engine itself that much more?

[fordmantpw]

 

So it's just marketing driving the higher cost? Or is the engine itself that much more?

 

See my edit regarding the tranny.

 

I think there are two things going into the extra cost:

 

1) Diesels are expensive! The aftertreatment costs are ridiculous! The cost in a Transit to go from a 3.7L to 3.2L PowerStroke is something like $5-6k.

2) Ram thinks they can charge a premium since they are the only one in the market with a half ton diesel. And if you just look at the MPG numbers, it's a solid winner right now in the MPG area.

[fordmantpw]

It just occurred to me...I wonder if Ford is taking a bit of a loss on that 2.7L for the first year. It has to cost more than $500 more to build than the 3.7L with CGI, twin turbos, auto-start/stop.

[SoonerLS]

It just occurred to me...I wonder if Ford is taking a bit of a loss on that 2.7L for the first year. It has to cost more than $500 more to build than the 3.7L with CGI, twin turbos, auto-start/stop.

 

That's possible, but it doesn't seem likely, given Ford's recent history of making everything pull its own weight. If they were, it seems to me that they'd keep it in the higher-end trims (like Ram is doing with the EcoDiesel) where it'd be easier for the truck to make up the difference.

 

If they're expecting the EB27 to be a volume mill, it very well might not cost that much more than the D37, particularly if it has some parts commonality with the EB35 (or other EBs).

[jpd80]

It just occurred to me...I wonder if Ford is taking a bit of a loss on that 2.7L for the first year. It has to cost more than $500 more to build than the 3.7L with CGI, twin turbos, auto-start/stop.

Or perhaps the rationale is that most F150s sold are XLT Crew cabs with a lot more inbuilt profit,

offering the 2.7 EB on XL is probably a way of enticing more buyers outside the bell curve..

 

I wonder if we're looking at what will become the main engine in F150 once buyers realize how versatile it is.

Sure some will still want the bigger EB and 5.0 V8 but I'm beginning to wonder if the 3.5 EB did a super job

of changing perople's perceptions of small boosted engines.

Edited July 29, 2014 by jpd80

[jpvbs]

Is Ford handling the CGI casting and machining in-house for the 2.7?

[SoonerLS]

I wonder if we're looking at what will become the main engine in F150 once buyers realize how versatile it is.

Sure some will still want the bigger EB and 5.0 V8 but I'm beginning to wonder if the 3.5 EB did a super job

of changing perople's perceptions of small boosted engines.

Speaking as one of those "real trucks have a V8" guys, I never really considered the EB35 to be a "V6," per se (would that be the inverse of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? ), but I do think it has helped. The twin facts that their drivers seem to love the EB35 and that the mills have, by and large, been trouble-free have probably helped even more.

 

I will say that one of the criteria I had in picking my truck was the V8, but if the Tremor had been available when I was shopping, I very likely would have been in the EcoBoost camp.

[T-bird]

Question: I have and love the 35EB engine in an F150 other than hoped for fuel mileage. It is bar none the best I've owned for seamless power. I believe I can however pretty much tell when the turbo is working by watching the fuel mileage monitor. I plan to buy a 2015 with EB and will lean to another 35 versus the 27. My thought is with the reduced weight the 35EB won't be cutting in until a higher mph versus the 27. I just think the smaller displacement needs to work too hard at highway speeds and is a contributer to my current mpg dissatisfaction. Am I out to lunch on this? Thoughts on what one can expect?

[Hemiman]

Think of the turbo's, or any boost as a displacement adder. Under boost, the engine receives a greater fuel/air charge. This can be equated to a displacement value of a larger engine.

 

Under load (highway speeds in your case), it takes the same hp to overcome mechanical friction and push the truck through the air, no mater what engine you have. (within a few %)

 

That said: If the 2.7 is making that hp without an RPM increase, you won't have any worse mpg than the same truck with a 3.5. (probably slightly better). Under part or light load, you should see an improvement.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Hemiman

[jpd80]

The magic happens with the program strategies. Normally, increasing boost under light cruise to approximate a larger engine

would cause a turbo engine tor un rich, it is this area that Ford's combustion studies are zeroing in on and seeking to extend

the zone of "lean boost" by the use of increased EGR to suppress the onset of detonation.

 

They talk a good game, I wonder just how much is transferable to fuel economy in the real world versus giving good numbers

on a testing cycle...

[matthewq4b]

^^^^ Thanks guys, I was deliberatly conservative on the added cost of the 3.0 Diesel vs Ecoboost 2.7

in the hopes that someone like the pair of you would elaborate further.

 

Wow, a $4,500 upcharge for a diesel when the Ecoboost 2.7 is a fraction of that,

I'd take the 2.7 EB over the 3.0 Diesel and pocket the $4,000 difference.

 

I can see the 2.7 EB adding spice to Ram's pricing of the Diesel, surely cross shoppers

are going to point this iut everytime the notice the added cost... or maybe that's why

Ram is trying to bury the cost in higher series products...

 

 

 

Here where pricing makes up the difference.

 

2 equivalently equipped 1/2 ton trucks one Ram one F-150 both fairly basic short box crew cabs the Ram comes in a 33,780 with the 3.0L ED a $2850 option not $4500. Check The F150 with the 3.7L comes in a $34,790

 

So even with the diesel the Ram is under cutting the F-150 price wise.

 

This is why there is a high demand for them. Yes the engine is a pricer option but the base cost of the truck it's self is lower. So Ford in the end is competing with a higher cost gas engine gasser to lower cost diesel. Come on guys do your home work before making statements.

 

All price was taking Ram.com and Ford.com same zip code same equivalent build options, except engines.

 

Matthew

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

 

 

Here where pricing makes up the difference.

 

2 equivalently equipped 1/2 ton trucks one Ram one F-150 both fairly basic short box crew cabs the Ram comes in a 33,780 with the 3.0L ED a $2850 option not $4500. Check The F150 with the 3.7L comes in a $34,790

 

So even with the diesel the Ram is under cutting the F-150 price wise.

 

This is why there is a high demand for them. Yes the engine is a pricer option but the base cost of the truck it's self is lower. So Ford in the end is competing with a higher cost gas engine gasser to lower cost diesel. Come on guys do your home work before making statements.

 

All price was taking Ram.com and Ford.com same zip code same equivalent build options, except engines.

 

Matthew

 

Of course, to get a 3.7 in a SuperCrew, you can't get the base F150 trim (XL) like you can in the Ram (Tradesman). You have to step up to the STX.

 

Also, I went and did the same build-and-price without options. The Ram website itself showed a $4500 hike (engine plus beefier transmission) on the Tradesman, pushing past $37k. So... yeah.

Edited August 1, 2014 by papilgee4evaeva

[Mad Hatter]

 

 

 

Here where pricing makes up the difference.

 

2 equivalently equipped 1/2 ton trucks one Ram one F-150 both fairly basic short box crew cabs the Ram comes in a 33,780 with the 3.0L ED a $2850 option not $4500. Check The F150 with the 3.7L comes in a $34,790

 

So even with the diesel the Ram is under cutting the F-150 price wise.

 

This is why there is a high demand for them. Yes the engine is a pricer option but the base cost of the truck it's self is lower. So Ford in the end is competing with a higher cost gas engine gasser to lower cost diesel. Come on guys do your home work before making statements.

 

All price was taking Ram.com and Ford.com same zip code same equivalent build options, except engines.

 

Matthew

What is the base engine in the Ram you configured? I ask because back when the 3.0L diesel was announced, it had ~$4,500.00 premium over the 3.6L gas. That $2,800.00 was the premium over the 5.7L Hemi. But perhaps I've missed something since?

[jpd80]

 

 

 

Here where pricing makes up the difference.

 

2 equivalently equipped 1/2 ton trucks one Ram one F-150 both fairly basic short box crew cabs the Ram comes in a 33,780 with the 3.0L ED a $2850 option not $4500. Check The F150 with the 3.7L comes in a $34,790

 

So even with the diesel the Ram is under cutting the F-150 price wise.

 

This is why there is a high demand for them. Yes the engine is a pricer option but the base cost of the truck it's self is lower. So Ford in the end is competing with a higher cost gas engine gasser to lower cost diesel. Come on guys do your home work before making statements.

 

All price was taking Ram.com and Ford.com same zip code same equivalent build options, except engines.

 

Matthew

So how come 4x2 ED tradesman on the Ram configurator is a $4,000 option and at $34,690?

 

How come when I build and price a '14 F150 XL Crew cab 5.5 box on Ford's configurator

it comes out at $32,590 much less than the Ram Tradesman?

 

Maybe you are looking for trucks already on the yard subject to discount and less discount at Ford?

 

Why would a truck with restricted supply that selling well need discount?

 

Apples to apples Matthew....

Edited August 1, 2014 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

So how come 4x2 ED tradesman on the Ram configurator is a $4,000 option and at $34,690?

 

How come when I build and price a '14 F150 XL Crew cab 5.5 box on Ford's configurator

it comes out at $32,590 much less than the Ram Tradesman?

 

Maybe you are looking for trucks already on the yard subject to discount and less discount at Ford?

 

Why would a truck with restricted supply that selling well need discount?

 

Apples to apples Matthew....

Don't forget the 1500 off the top with the Ford that may or may not apply.

 

So apples to apples.

 

And it appears their is variance in pricing across Zip codes.

Edited August 3, 2014 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

Don't forget the 1500 off the top with the Ford that may or may not apply.

 

So apples to apples.

 

And it appears their is variance in pricing across Zip codes.

So Matthew what is crucial to remember here is that the EcoDiesel carries a surcharge that's more than the V8 Hemi

while the 2.7 EB by Ford's own reconing will cost less than the 5.0 V8 - that tells me that every 2.7 Ecoboost will cost

significantly less than a comparable Ram EcoDiesel.

 

When we're talking prices with the new '15 F150, you can bet that Ford will have the last word,

bulk sales of the 2.7 Ecoboost almost guarantee that truck for truck, the cost will be less than

any comparable Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel - you can take that to the bank.

 

They have to Matthew, look at how Ford has come out of the blocks and taken pot shots at the Ram ED in that tow challenge,

it's clear that Ford will try that same PR campaign with the 2.7 EB SFE truck closer to launch, I'm betting they go after price too.

What I'm saying is that Ford clearly sees the Ram ED as a serious threat to selling uncontested volume of EB 2.7 F150 so i think

that there's a lot more behind this story....and that we will be bombarded with facts...err, PR that makes the '15 F150 look great.

Edited August 3, 2014 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I just did a search on cars.com to see what Ram diesel's vailability was:

Of the 57,000 dealer inventory, only about 2,000 are 3.0 EDs and of those,

only around 122 are single cab versions, the rest are all crew cabs.

 

Of those 1900 odd Ram ED 4-door cab models only a handful weer tradesman below 30,000,

the price jumped up over $32,000 quickly after the first eight or ten vehicles. So I think that

RAM is definitly aiming at the higher retail market and not so much commercial fleet sales.

And who can blame them, if buyers want a diesel, they can pay for a well optioned truck

Edited August 3, 2014 by jpd80