Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

question....anyone know what sort of mileage the Ram is getting when towing?...

 

http://www.ramforum.com/f17/ecodiesel_maiden_voyage-45309/

 

His fuelly image shows 17.1 overall, which has some towing and considerable non-towing. I didn't read the entire thread to see what individual towing numbers were, but looking at his fuelly numbers, he has plenty in the 10-13 MPG range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, local boys....contractors by day, Havasu with toy trailers by weekends...the other plus is they say they dont even realize theres a trauiler behind them and pull the grapevine fine ( read STEEP )

 

They are stretching their numbers a bit. Sorry, they aren't really getting 18 MPG pulling that weight. Better than an EcoBoost? Definitely! But not 18 MPG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They are stretching their numbers a bit. Sorry, they aren't really getting 18 MPG pulling that weight. Better than an EcoBoost? Definitely! But not 18 MPG!

dont shoot the messenger, dont know how they driv, what rear end etc etc, but Ive heard it from more than one...Ive also heard unladen hitting 23.....then again I recall the 6.7 being hypermiled and hitting a documented 30 mpgs....THATS crazy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont shoot the messenger, dont know how they driv, what rear end etc etc, but Ive heard it from more than one...Ive also heard unladen hitting 23.....then again I recall the 6.7 being hypermiled and hitting a documented 30 mpgs....THATS crazy...

 

Not shootin ya, just telling you to find some boots, cause it's gettin deep! :)

 

My dad had an '11 6.7 and he could see 21-22 MPG empty. Not hand-calced, mind you, but his gauge was within 1 or 2 tenths, as opposed to my '08 which is usually off .5-1 MPG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet displacement is close to double....the point is Diesel is more efficient towing....no getting around that...

Are you completely missing the point here?

 

Vehicle A: Rated to 17k GCWR

Vehicle B: Rated to 33k GCWR

 

Which vehicle is going to more efficiently move 15k? Vehicle A or vehicle B?

 

Okay, now extrapolate to this scenario:

 

Vehicle A rated to 17k GCWR

Vehicle C rated to 13k GCWR

 

Which vehicle is going to more efficiently move 12k? Vehicle A or Vehicle C?

 

If you push the Ram diesel to its maximum output and then compare it with an EB that is operating at some fraction of its maximum output, the diesel is going to have a much more significant decrease in FE than the EB. Enough to call into question the premiums paid to own a diesel in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you completely missing the point here?

 

Vehicle A: Rated to 17k GCWR

Vehicle B: Rated to 33k GCWR

 

Which vehicle is going to more efficiently move 15k? Vehicle A or vehicle B?

 

Okay, now extrapolate to this scenario:

 

Vehicle A rated to 17k GCWR

Vehicle C rated to 13k GCWR

 

Which vehicle is going to more efficiently move 12k? Vehicle A or Vehicle C?

 

If you push the Ram diesel to its maximum output and then compare it with an EB that is operating at some fraction of its maximum output, the diesel is going to have a much more significant decrease in FE than the EB. Enough to call into question the premiums paid to own a diesel in the first place.

obviously we have completely lost each others point.....mine is engine for engine, towing the same lbs...youve lost me Richard, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously we have completely lost each others point.....mine is engine for engine, towing the same lbs...youve lost me Richard, sorry.

 

Engine for engine, towing the same amount depends on the engine.

 

Let's say you've got that EcoDiesel hooked up to the same transmission in the same truck as a 3.5L EB V6.

 

Let's say you're hauling a load that represents 95% of the rated capacity of the EcoDiesel and 70% of the rated capacity of the 3.5L EB.

 

Now assume that you drive both vehicles over the same course maintaining the same speeds and the same rate of acceleration.

 

I can guarantee you that the EcoDiesel will see a far greater fall off in mileage than the EB engine.

 

And that fall off may be sufficient to call into question the economics of paying extra for the EcoDiesel engine and diesel fuel, even if it does not result in the EcoDiesel returning lower mileage than the EB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Engine for engine, towing the same amount depends on the engine.

 

Let's say you've got that EcoDiesel hooked up to the same transmission in the same truck as a 3.5L EB V6.

 

Let's say you're hauling a load that represents 95% of the rated capacity of the EcoDiesel and 70% of the rated capacity of the 3.5L EB.

 

Now assume that you drive both vehicles over the same course maintaining the same speeds and the same rate of acceleration.

 

I can guarantee you that the EcoDiesel will see a far greater fall off in mileage than the EB engine.

 

And that fall off may be sufficient to call into question the economics of paying extra for the EcoDiesel engine and diesel fuel, even if it does not result in the EcoDiesel returning lower mileage than the EB.

not sure I agree...if you can keep the gasser OUT of being on turbo then maybe...but the first hint of a grade and its game over...not hearing good tow numbers for the eco V6 at all....I understand its all about torque, but on the ecoboosts that just seems to come at the expense of gas consumption.....in comparison, might not be the correct example, the diesels just seem to lope....a couple of tow truck companies I sell to have both V10s and 6.7s...they will echo that sentiment...

Edited by Deanh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure I agree...if you can keep the gasser OUT of being on turbo then maybe...but the first hint of a grade and its game over...not hearing good tow numbers for the eco V6 at all....I understand its all about torque, but on the ecoboosts that just seems to come at the expense of gas consumption.....in comparison, might not be the correct example, the diesels just seem to lope....a couple of tow truck companies I sell to have both V10s and 6.7s...they will echo that sentiment...

 

As soon as the owner of an EB truck uses the additional horsepower which it makes available over the EcoDiesel, all bets are off. You are not comparing like for like anymore. You are paying a price for a performance advantage.

 

If both vehicles are identically equipped except for the engine, then the horsepower required to sustain the same speed up an incline will be exactly the same for both vehicles. At this point, the question is strictly the efficiency of the engine at that RPM.

 

If the EcoDiesel is incapable of sustaining that speed on the incline, while the EB is capable, then the EB is providing a performance advantage that should--not unexpectedly--carry with it an increase in fuel consumption.

 

If the driver of the EB elects to accelerate faster than the driver of an EcoDiesel, then--again--the EB is providing a performance advantage that should, again, unsurprisingly, carry with it an expected increase in fuel consumption.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As soon as the owner of an EB truck uses the additional horsepower which it makes available over the EcoDiesel, all bets are off. You are not comparing like for like anymore. You are paying a price for a performance advantage.

 

If both vehicles are identically equipped except for the engine, then the horsepower required to sustain the same speed up an incline will be exactly the same for both vehicles. At this point, the question is strictly the efficiency of the engine at that RPM.

 

If the EcoDiesel is incapable of sustaining that speed on the incline, while the EB is capable, then the EB is providing a performance advantage that should--not unexpectedly--carry with it an increase in fuel consumption.

 

If the driver of the EB elects to accelerate faster than the driver of an EcoDiesel, then--again--the EB is providing a performance advantage that should, again, unsurprisingly, carry with it an expected increase in fuel consumption.

?? last I looked diesels werent tuned for Horsepower....torque...irrespective Rich, if both an eco gas and eco diesel are towing the same trailer up the same incline at the same speed, my money is on one having a substantially better mileage than the other.....so, i guess we will agree to dis-agree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat related to Jensen's and Dean's ongoing debate. I know several Ford engineers working in engine design in Dearborn. All work with V6 truck engines, both turbo and non-turbo. For their personal vehicles, all of them tow a lot of stuff (boats) and all own F-150’s with the 5.0L Coyote V8. None of them own a truck with an Ecoboost V6. Draw your own conclusions.


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They are stretching their numbers a bit. Sorry, they aren't really getting 18 MPG pulling that weight. Better than an EcoBoost? Definitely! But not 18 MPG!

The rule of thumb when towing on the highway is that you should expect the EPA City or Euro Urban fuel economy figure

And if you think about it, that figure works out about right around 15-16 mpg with F150 gasoline but that would not be

all out max towing like 11,000 lbs, more like 7,000 lbs.

 

With our diesel Rangers and Hiluxes, that works out at around US 20-22 mpg when towing around 6,000 to 7,000 lbs.

So the diesels do a good job in towing but you cannot expect a smallish diesel to be all things in all applications.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously we have completely lost each others point.....mine is engine for engine, towing the same lbs...youve lost me Richard, sorry.

The way to look at this is BSFC. Towing a heavy trailer (close to steady state) is an excellent way to get an accurate measurement of this. The diesel will always win in this test, (even if it's oversized for the task). An average tubo diesel in real world, on road duty will return about .35lbs/HP-Hr. A GOOD (efficient) gas engine will return .45lbs/HP-Hr.

 

I'd like to see a 4.4L Diesel F-150. Would be many times better than the V-6 Ram or Ford I-5 in terms of NVH and Power potential, while returning nearly as good of mileage depending on tune.

Edited by Hemiman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way to look at this is BSFC. Towing a heavy trailer (close to steady state) is an excellent way to get an accurate measurement of this. The diesel will always win in this test, (even if it's oversized for the task). An average tubo diesel in real world, on road duty will return about .35lbs/HP-Hr. A GOOD (efficient) gas engine will return .45lbs/HP-Hr.

 

I'd like to see a 4.4L Diesel F-150. Would be many times better than the V-6 Ram or Ford I-5 in terms of NVH and Power potential, while returning nearly as good of mileage depending on tune.

 

It would be very interesting to see the BSFC chart for the EcoDiesel under load.

 

I'd also note that you need to add a correction factor of roughly 20% to the diesel BSFC to account for the difference between measuring consumption by weight and the sale of fuel by volume.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a 4.4L Diesel F-150. Would be many times better than the V-6 Ram or Ford I-5 in terms of NVH and Power potential, while returning nearly as good of mileage depending on tune.

Good post.

Geared properly, a 4.4 TDV8 with 8-speed auto will give great fuel economy but its still roughly 10% worse than

a comparable 3.0TDV6. so where the Ram 3.0 gets 28 mpg, a 4.4TDV8 F150 may only score around 25 mpg

but would probably give much better economy when towing compared to gasoline engines - that the key here.

 

Are F150 buyers that fuel sensitive or can Ford avoid the expensive 4.4 and simply offer two Ecoboost V6 engines?

Ram has gone with a 3.0 TDV6 because it is available to Chrysler and already in use with Jeep, Interestingly, GM gave up its share in that same plant so clearly GM has other plans as does Ford - maybe both of them acting jointly through the 10-speed auto transmission to achieve something much better...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another possible aspect of Ford's logic.

 

Assume that the F150 is capacity constrained, that is, they're selling every F150 they can make.

 

Now, if Ford's margins on the 4.4L are lower than they would be on the 3.5L or 5.0L, then there is no business reason for Ford to sell a 4.4L

 

- they would not increase units sold, because they can't add capacity, there are no more units to sell

 

- the vehicle range would become less profitable overall as 4.4L units replace 3.5L or 5.0L units.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Richard, anything Ford does with F150 must to be increase total sales, not simply substitute an existing

engine for another - especially if it affects profitability.

 

Now that Ford will be offering a 2.7 EBV6, I think that puts pay to any idea of a TDV6 in that zone, I doubt Ford would

entertain the 4.4 unless it was a high profit "lifestyle" Truck-SUV option. Hard to know what Ford is thinking...

 

4.4/6.7 TDV8s in F250 would make it attractive to ROW markets wanting larger trucks, that may sway the balance..

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are most likely correct, however based on the numbers returned by the Range Rover with 4.4L 8 speed, (20.5 / 30.9 / 27) I suspect it may be closer.

 

RR weighs 5203lbs unladen

 

F150 weighs 5073lbs unladen (4x2, reg cab, 3.5 EB)

 

Both have the aerodynamics of a brick, with favor going to the RR.

 

US EPA smog regs may have a dramatic affect (I'll have to research that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the EPA regs have a pretty significant effect, and the EU test cycles aren't really comparable to the US test cycles. To get a sense of this compare VW's numbers on both continents:

 

(also remember the Imperial gallon conversion factor)

 

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/jetta-vi/which-model/engines/overview

 

2014 Jetta diesel 2.0 EU : 57.4 Highway / 38.6 City (corrected from 68.9/46.3 imperial) EU

2014 Jetta diesel 2.0 : 42 Highway / 30 City

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I quoted around 25 mpg for the 4.4, under Euro fuel economy figures the 4.4 TDV8

shows about 10% heavier fuel usage compared to a 3.0 V6 in the same vehicle so i think that

for discussion purposes, my 25 mpg estimate is close to the mark...

 

In that regard, fuel economy in highway mode is not that much improved over gasoline but I suspect the

EPA city figure would show more improvement which also filters through to greater efficiency when towing.

 

Either way, the 4.4 TDV8 would be a more premium product and I doubt that Land Rover would be willing to

share a premium engine (and cost) with Ford NA, perhaps Ford could access the previous 3.6 TDV8 as part

of increasing overall production?

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...