Ram1500 EcoDiesel V6 revealed!

[fordmantpw]

If you have to 'beef up a spark-ignited block' to take the torque of / near a diesel, you dam near have a diesel without the same thermal efficiency.

So the question is, why would you do that? Pay a couple more sheckels & finish the job for 20% higher mileage plus more durability. Eco-boost is a tide-over gimmick. Today's blogosphere is all about Ford accelerating their new light diesel program code-named 'Lion'. Perhaps some other posters should read about what Ford is doing & why before blindly worshiping a brand?

The reason you don't "Pay a couple more sheckels" is because it's not a couple, it's a lot! The 3.2L diesel in the Ford Transit van is a $4k+ premium over the EcoBoost. And with that, for 20% higher fuel economy, you get to pay 30% more for fuel. Tell me how diesel makes sense in that case if you aren't towing regularly.

And the rumor on the Lion diesel is just that, a rumor (started by a notoriously incorrect site...TTAC.com). If Ford was going to put a diesel in the F150, don't you think it would be the one that is already going into the Transit vans? The one that is already emissions-tested and bolted up to the same tranny as the trucks?

Don't forget, the 2.7L EcoBoost that is going to go in the F150 is supposed to get near the same fuel economy as the Ram (27-28 has been reported for the 2.7 EB). Why pay an extra $2500 for the diesel when it only gets 0-1 MPG better fuel economy on 30% more expensive fuel? Don't say durability, because that's a non-starter until both engines have had some time on the road. Don't say towing, because a half-ton truck isn't big enough to stress the engine more than a gasser can take. The block of the 2.7 is CGI, the same material as the 6.7L PowerStroke.

And this isn't a 'brand' discussion (for me). I would be saying the same thing if the diesel was in the Ford and the EcoBoost in the Ram.

 

[jejeosborne]

This new diesel actually has more area under the curve than the ford, but it stops pulling at 4K. It should be a very nice towing combination.

<img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=358859"/>

It would be interesting to see this graph in pound-feet to make a comparison. Are you saying it has more area under the curve up to 4000 rpms? I am betting there is little difference at any rpm range.

The 8 - speed is what helps this low rpm range motor be acceptable.

 

[DarkBlack]

power means nothing. it means the engine speed where the peak torque is acheived.

You seem to be dominating the thread with your opinions of what's what so I figured I'd pay attention to your posts.

What you say here is incorrect. "Rpm at peak engine torque" is just that. That particular Rpm is always lower than the RPM of max power in an IC engine. It's not the same thing.

 

[DarkBlack]

Exactly the key - the duty cycle. Guys wanting to haul livestock 24/7 shouldn't buy one.

What's your point? Would you advocate buying anyone's 1500 series if your going to haul with it 24/7??

 

[DarkBlack]

If you have to 'beef up a spark-ignited block' to take the torque of / near a diesel, you dam near have a diesel without the same thermal efficiency.

So the question is, why would you do that? Pay a couple more sheckels & finish the job for 20% higher mileage plus more durability. Eco-boost is a tide-over gimmick. Today's blogosphere is all about Ford accelerating their new light diesel program code-named 'Lion'. Perhaps some other posters should read about what Ford is doing & why before blindly worshiping a brand?

I think you may be confusing chemical potential energy ( diesel fuel vs gasoline BTU's) with thermal efficiency of an engine. They are 2 different things. Both are very relevant but separate issues of science.
The Eco-boost deserves credit for bringing diesel like low rpm torque with the advantages of a gas design, such as simple emmisions, oil requirements, cold weather etc...
Ram deserves credit for bringing an affordable true diesel to a segment of people who might fancy the idea of having a true diesel with it's low rpm torque. This same group of buyers would not buy a diesel otherwise.

Not much unlike the recent popular explosion of subcompact diesel "tractor" sales to everyone with 1/4 acre grass to mow...

 

[tcartwri]

It would be interesting to see this graph in pound-feet to make a comparison. Are you saying it has more area under the curve up to 4000 rpms? I am betting there is little difference at any rpm range.

The 8 - speed is what helps this low rpm range motor be acceptable.

The flat part of the curve is ~420 ft.lbs.

 

[Industrial Toys]

If it has adequate "Drink Holders" it will be popular!

 

[DarkBlack]

Trust me it is, and will be popular. Average American sees the diesel as an expensive macho machine.

 

[3930dave]

Trust me it is, and will be popular. Average American sees the diesel as an expensive macho machine.

Only because they have no other choices in this market. Deereman summarized well how this market is artificially skewed away from diesels.

Rest Of World has access to the basic diesel road going products that some of us would like to use for "non-macho" reasons.

Rgds, D.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Now this is interesting. How many will line up to pay extra for this vs. 23 MPG for Ford Ecoboost?

And how long will each last? :confused3:

Not me yet. I bought gas and diesel today. Gas, $3.19. Diesel, $4.09

Chris