dodge ecodeisel or ford f150 ecoboost

[fordmantpw]

Well interesting debates. It still won't be at least a month maybe to this summer till we decide.

But the truck will be carrying 1,000lb of tools everyday 7 days a week. And tow a est. 12 ft or smaller trailer a day or 2 a week with around a 1,000lb.

Like I said before the only reason looking at ecodeisel is milage but if they can't handle that it's useless.

Have heard mostly good about the ecoboost, a lil bad but mostly that they are beasts.

Like I also said we ain't looking into heavy on the Chevy or gmc but are still looking at them. But for what we have found around here to us are overprice. He ain't much to Chevy but has owned them but can't get comfortable, and even a 2012 rides like a car. And that is what year he would look at

If it is hauling 1000 lbs of tools every day, the EcoDiesel won't be an option if you wish to stay under the payload rating. Add in a driver and his lunch and you are at 1200 lbs. If you can swing a '15 F150, it has the smaller 2.7L V6 EcoBoost which will get you an extra couple MPG over an earlier 3.5L EcoBoost.

Do an honest comparison with fuel prices and expected fuel economy (search Fuelly - Track and Compare your MPG for true real-world data), higher maintenance cost for the diesel, etc. You won't save near the money the salesman told you in fuel. Currently, fuel prices are about equal for gas and diesel, but go back over the past 5 years and diesel has typically been 20% (or more) higher. That exactly matches the 20% expected fuel economy increase, which means it costs MORE to drive a diesel, even with the better fuel economy.

On a related note, I drive a diesel, and it may be my last due to the advancements of gas engines.

Best of luck in your choice!

 

[joefromga]

Great thread. Will be watching it closely, because I may have to decide whether or not to get the 3.5 L eco-boost in the Ford F150 soon.

The ecoboost is torture tested and performed flawlessly. It's an awesome engine.

In one test they maxed out the towing capacity of the truck and towed it on a Nascar track for 24 hours at FULL THROTTLE only stopping for gas. They used the same motor for 4 different tests and then broke it down to test tolerances and it was in perfect condition after all that.

 

[joefromga]

I bought a 2015 F150 5.0L V8 last September. I test drove the ecoboost(s) and didn't care for the turbo lag. The 5.0 just moves when you press the pedal.

You weren't experiencing turbo lag. They're solved that problem years ago and now use twin scroll turbos.

Most likely it was transmission lag wanting to shift too low. You can use the manual button if you need to but there's always a learning curve especially with better and more modern technology.

 

[Diamondpilot]

My wife got a Ram ecodiesel truck last summer when our old Sierra crapped out. I was lobbying for the Ecoboost, but she never even got around to a test drive, after trying the Ram. With only about 8000 km, she is getting just over 10 l/100km (roughly 23mpg); this drops to about 13 l/100km (18 mpg) when we tow the 2-horse trailer. Although the Ram is quite comfortable and does fine for our uses, I think the ecoboost would have been a much more competent towing vehicle, overall. The smaller Ecoboost might be a better comparison to the Ecodiesel...what do others think? The torque of the ecodiesel is impressive, but it falls short on HP...the ecodiesel is 240hp/420fp vs. 325hp/375fp for the 2.7l ecoboost and 365hp/420fp for the 3.5l ecoboost. The horsepower difference is significant in acceleration, passing, maintaining speed on a grade, etc.

Your thoughts mirror mine.

I have a 2012 Ecoboost with 72,000 miles. Trouble free so far other than a heater control for $80

We have Eco Diesels at work. Were not impressed. Our 5.3 Chevy 1/2 tons get 1 mpg less and have more power. Or F150's with the 5.0 have more power but slightly less mpg but both are much more capable trucks in quite a few ways.

Chris

 

[farm boy00]

Thanks a bunch everybody. Well my father stopped at a local ford dealership and found a ext. Cab long box manual 6.0 diesel 100%bullet proofed and around 135,000 miles for $1,300 but he wants to pay with cash so the price will drop. So far that is amazing price and was owned by a diesel mechanic so bullet proof was done right so that will probably be what we are looking at and will maybe have our 7.3 sold soon for more cash.

If that don't work we are going to keep looking but they had alot of other really nice trucks he likes and he's a huge fan of the 6.0. Had one before but wasn't bulletproofed. Thanks a bunch for all info on this subject and hopefully it has and will help lots of other people

 

[sd455dan]

I beg to differ, my Volkswagen Jetta has achieved 50+ mpg and has a payload of 1193 lbs, the parent's Passat has a payload of 1250 lbs and regularly sees 45 mpg....the ecodiesel isn't going to get 30mpg.

On second thought, I guess you are correct.....if I drive the piss out of my Jetta I can only achieve 40 mpg.....it is incapable of getting 30 mpg

Yeah- but hauling things like a large refrigerator would be a real hassle with a Jetta

 

[farm boy00]

Yeah- but hauling things like a large refrigerator would be a real hassle with a Jetta

Don't get started. Try commercial grade fridges
http://img.chinaqualitycrafts.com/n...upright_kitchen_strong_commercial_freezer.jpg weight easy 7-1,000lb

 

[Morning Wood]

$1300 or $13k?

 

[roadhunter]

The non Dodge crowd likes to make a really big deal about payload on the ecodiesel claiming the suspension bottoms out and truck won't' move if you put a cooler of beer in the bed.

It's little more than haters pointing to a number on a page not based on any experience. I remember reading DP's ecodiesel review and it was obviously biased and did not take into account the driving conditions encountered as things like elevation, wind, grade, etc... that make a difference driving in North Dakota and Montana as opposed to sea level and no wind or grade.

Now if somebody with actual experience in the truck not handling a load wants to speak up I'd love to hear it. I suspect that even with a load that truck goes down the road just fine even if the weight is over the published payload number in the brochure.

Funny how people suddenly think a 240 HP engine with over 400 Ft pounds of torque is a dog. I remember my dad's old 6.2 diesel barely had 100 Hp and it still pulled a heavy load just fine.

 

[4570Man]

If you want to go by the numbers I can only haul 2,500 pounds in the back of a diesel Chevy 3500. Our Ford F-350s one has a 5.4 gas and one a 7.3 diesel carry the same pathetic rating. I don't hesitate to put 4 tons on either of the diesel trucks. I have hauled more, but 4 tons is about all they want. I don't know if I'm legal or not. I have 16,000 pound plates, so I think TDOT is happy.

 

[bdog]

If you want to go by the numbers I can only haul 2,500 pounds in the back of a diesel Chevy 3500.

Must be an older SRW? My 16 GMC 3500 dually has a payload of over 6,000lb. I think the 16 3/4 tons are over 3,500lb payload.

 

[PsRumors]

Yeah- but hauling things like a large refrigerator would be a real hassle with a Jetta

Yeah, that can be a hassle LOL

 

[farm boy00]

$1300 or $13k?

Sorry typo. $13,000

We usually don't haul that much over 1,000lb. But total of tools, ladder racks, tool boxes, ladders gets up to a 1,000lb.

Man oh man if I had pictures of a 99 150 we had. Big tool boxes on the side, and doing a hr drive every day packed up level with the tool boxes.

Here's a picture for reference of how high the tool boxes were. For a month straight it was level to the tailgate almost of tools

 

[newbury]

Only reason we look at them is cause a inspector has one, almost 2 years into it and I think close to 200,000 miles and no problems. But he thinks he lost mpg when he changed rim size to 16. I think he changed tire size too

Yup, I lost mileage when I went with bigger than stock tires on my VW TDI, but on the upside things got closer

Oh wow. From knowing someone that owned one said that he was getting over 30 usually. But for us if we could get mid 20s that's great. We do put a size bigger tire too when we wear out factory size.

But for any heavy towing we will have a big 1 ton 7.3 diesel and a 3/4 ton 7.3 diesel

My 2002 7.3 was returning 15mpg/13 mpg towing.

I don't understand people settling for what they can find in the lot. Order a vehicle the way you want it. If you want a base model order a base if you want top of the line order that. If you settle for less than what you want when buying it's more common for people to trade early because they were never truly happy with the vehicle.

Most of us balance $$ vs want. In 2012 I wanted a brand new 7.3 F350, I settled for a 2002.

I beg to differ, my Volkswagen Jetta has achieved 50+ mpg and has a payload of 1193 lbs, the parent's Passat has a payload of 1250 lbs and regularly sees 45 mpg....the ecodiesel isn't going to get 30mpg.

On second thought, I guess you are correct.....if I drive the piss out of my Jetta I can only achieve 40 mpg.....it is incapable of getting 30 mpg

I can go 30 miles on a gallon with my Jetta all the time, and still have a quarter gallon left.

Sorry typo. $13,000

We usually don't haul that much over 1,000lb. But total of tools, ladder racks, tool boxes, ladders gets up to a 1,000lb.

Man oh man if I had pictures of a 99 150 we had. Big tool boxes on the side, and doing a hr drive every day packed up level with the tool boxes.

Here's a picture for reference of how high the tool boxes were. For a month straight it was level to the tailgate almost of tools View attachment 461175

That's one nice thing about my dually, I can go get almost 2 tons of rock in the bed.

 

[wawajake]

That's a big typo......smile, glad you found something, and considering you were not looking newer than 2012 it might of been good that you kept away from the first ecoboosts , the reviews you were getting here I suspect were the newer ones. .............and the slanted biases you were getting about ecodiesel were not real world . I too think it is funny that my 79 Chev 350 and my 83 Dodge 318 had less than 200hp and we towed 23 foot campers etc etc. that 240 hp ecodiesel would do fine these days for most typical middle of the road truck owners, but your Dad's daily tool hauling etc takes priority over MPG and an engine you seem to know !! Good for you.

 

[CR172]

You weren't experiencing turbo lag. They're solved that problem years ago and now use twin scroll turbos.

Most likely it was transmission lag wanting to shift too low. You can use the manual button if you need to but there's always a learning curve especially with better and more modern technology.

All I know is I didn't care for it and bought the V8 and very happy with it. I know new tech makes a difference but the old saying still holds true, "there ain't no replacement for displacement".

 

[4570Man]

Must be an older SRW? My 16 GMC 3500 dually has a payload of over 6,000lb. I think the 16 3/4 tons are over 3,500lb payload.

The Chevy is a 1999. The Ford diesel is a little older. Both trucks are more than capable of hauling more than 2,500 pounds.

 

[Snobdds]

All I know is I didn't care for it and bought the V8 and very happy with it. I know new tech makes a difference but the old saying still holds true, "there ain't no replacement for displacement".

The new saying is...there's no replacement for turbo psi.

At 14 psi coming out of the turbo, it doubles the displacement of the engine. So a 3.5 liter is really a 7 liter at 14psi.

That's why engineers are able to get so much out of so little these days. Again, technology is amazing.

 

[fordmantpw]

The non Dodge crowd likes to make a really big deal about payload on the ecodiesel claiming the suspension bottoms out and truck won't' move if you put a cooler of beer in the bed.

It's little more than haters pointing to a number on a page not based on any experience. I remember reading DP's ecodiesel review and it was obviously biased and did not take into account the driving conditions encountered as things like elevation, wind, grade, etc... that make a difference driving in North Dakota and Montana as opposed to sea level and no wind or grade.

Now if somebody with actual experience in the truck not handling a load wants to speak up I'd love to hear it. I suspect that even with a load that truck goes down the road just fine even if the weight is over the published payload number in the brochure.

Funny how people suddenly think a 240 HP engine with over 400 Ft pounds of torque is a dog. I remember my dad's old 6.2 diesel barely had 100 Hp and it still pulled a heavy load just fine.

It has nothing to do with squatting the truck or how fast it goes down the road, or what it is capable of towing, it is about staying within the legal limits of the truck, as defined by the manufacturer. Why on earth do you have to throw such a fit whenever someone brings this up?

 

[wawajake]

The new saying is...there's no replacement for turbo psi.

At 14 psi coming out of the turbo, it doubles the displacement of the engine. So a 3.5 liter is really a 7 liter at 14psi.

That's why engineers are able to get so much out of so little these days. Again, technology is amazing.

Yep but lets see how many 100,000 miles they go , we know the typical truck V8 engine can with proper oil changes make it without too much hassle , but how long will the turbos go , might do great , or might cost $2300 or more .

Ford F-15 EcoBoost Replacement Cost | Tundra Headquarters Blog