Ram1500 EcoDiesel V6 revealed!

handirifle · Feb 20, 2014

buickanddeere said:
It's about diesel stAtus instead of cost per mile.
Next a chrome exhaust stack, big tires and a lift kit.
A lot of money to make up for having a small male organ.

Not that I have ANY desire to be "more European" but this is one thing I do think they got right. They have far more diesels over than per capita than we do. I believe the reason isn't ALL mpg, although that is a good one, but the driving power they produce, at lower RPM's. To me lower RPM's equals longer engine life.

I believe as production numbers go up, in all categories, the cost to add a diesel will go down and make them more compatible, if not surpass gas engines. From where I sit, and have been doing my own research, diesels are just really coming onto the USA scene and are becoming cleaner and more powerful. The cost of gas engines is on the rise as well. The new direct injection engines require the same technology as diesel engines, ultra high pressure fuel pumps, high pressure injectors and to develop the power to compete with bigger engines, turbos and their related controls.

Historically, turbo gas engines do not hold up as well as turbo diesel engines. I'm glad to see more options come around it makes car buying more interesting.

buickanddeere · Feb 21, 2014

handirifle said:
Not that I have ANY desire to be "more European" but this is one thing I do think they got right. They have far more diesels over than per capita than we do. I believe the reason isn't ALL mpg, although that is a good one, but the driving power they produce, at lower RPM's. To me lower RPM's equals longer engine life.

I believe as production numbers go up, in all categories, the cost to add a diesel will go down and make them more compatible, if not surpass gas engines. From where I sit, and have been doing my own research, diesels are just really coming onto the USA scene and are becoming cleaner and more powerful. The cost of gas engines is on the rise as well. The new direct injection engines require the same technology as diesel engines, ultra high pressure fuel pumps, high pressure injectors and to develop the power to compete with bigger engines, turbos and their related controls.

Historically, turbo gas engines do not hold up as well as turbo diesel engines. I'm glad to see more options come around it makes car buying more interesting.

I didn't realize you operated your light truck and passenger car at max rated rpms and max HP 24/7 like an irrigation pump.
Around here engine rebuild shops are going out of business as they are not highway engines to rebuild. Way back in the days of carbs and leaded fuel. Valve jobs and 75,000 miles and complete overhauls before 100,000 miles were the norm.
Now lets move up to 2014!from the 1960's, 1970's and mid 1980's where you are stuck.
Gassers now make 300,000 miles with boring regularity, better than emissions diesels.
The vehicle frame and chassis is worn out and corroded away by then.
This talk of extending engine life for light highway vehicles is not longer a consideration.
We are not talking about the virtues of a 900rpm medium diesel on a ship propulsion system or gen set vs an 2500rpm LPG irrigation engine.

Ford850 · Feb 21, 2014

I'd say it's a wash between diesel and gas. Diesel engines have been saddled with emissions controls, hurting mpgs and power. They cost more to build, buy, and maintain. They also cost more to feed daily. But they still provide more torque than some gas engines, and better mpgs than some gas engines.
Gas engines have really been improved in power and torque over the years, raised to diesel levels in some cases. They get better mpgs now too, but not as high as diesel. These higher tech gas engines now cost somewhat closer to a diesel engines, but cost much less to feed daily.
If you plan keep your truck for only a few years, you'll be paying dearly for a diesel up front, and you can hope the resale value will let you recoup some of that expense.
If you plan to keep it for 10 years +, then you'll probably break even on the up front expense of a diesel.
If you tow a LOT, then diesel tips the scale and wins due to the high mpgs while towing.
In the end, It will cost all of us about the same, no matter which engine we buy.

handirifle · Feb 22, 2014

buickanddeere said:
I didn't realize you operated your light truck and passenger car at max rated rpms and max HP 24/7 like an irrigation pump.
Around here engine rebuild shops are going out of business as they are not highway engines to rebuild. Way back in the days of carbs and leaded fuel. Valve jobs and 75,000 miles and complete overhauls before 100,000 miles were the norm.
Now lets move up to 2014!from the 1960's, 1970's and mid 1980's where you are stuck.
Gassers now make 300,000 miles with boring regularity, better than emissions diesels.
The vehicle frame and chassis is worn out and corroded away by then.
This talk of extending engine life for light highway vehicles is not longer a consideration.
We are not talking about the virtues of a 900rpm medium diesel on a ship propulsion system or gen set vs an 2500rpm LPG irrigation engine.

Well if you insist on being rude and insulting, all I can say is your whole comment was pointless at the least. NO ONE said anything about running any engine wide open, nor did I say all gas engines wore out fast. I specifically said BOOSTED gas engines. Show me some stats on THEIR longevity before you come off so rude the next time. The Ford Ecoboost is the first of it's kind in a truck, that is meant for actual hauling. Unlike the supercharged 2 door models they have offered in the past, that are built for immature NASCAR wannabees. By the way, where are all those supercharged hot rods? There have been turbo cars and supercharged trucks in the past, but none of them have shown longevity. Sure normally aspirated engines live a long time, but any type of supercharged gas engines have had short road lives.

94BULLITT · Feb 22, 2014

handirifle said:
Well if you insist on being rude and insulting, all I can say is your whole comment was pointless at the least. NO ONE said anything about running any engine wide open, nor did I say all gas engines wore out fast. I specifically said BOOSTED gas engines. Show me some stats on THEIR longevity before you come off so rude the next time. The Ford Ecoboost is the first of it's kind in a truck, that is meant for actual hauling. Unlike the supercharged 2 door models they have offered in the past, that are built for immature NASCAR wannabees. By the way, where are all those supercharged hot rods? There have been turbo cars and supercharged trucks in the past, but none of them have shown longevity. Sure normally aspirated engines live a long time, but any type of supercharged gas engines have had short road lives.

Here are some Lightnings with over 100k on them. That is a lot of miles for a truck that lives it life a 1/4 mile at a time.

Used Ford F150 - Regular Cab Pickup in 22625 Area - on Cars.com

fordmantpw · Feb 22, 2014

94BULLITT said:
Here are some Lightnings with over 100k on them. That is a lot of miles for a truck that lives it life a 1/4 mile at a time.

Used Ford F150 - Regular Cab Pickup in 22625 Area - on Cars.com

Oh no, not facts! AHHHHHHH, my eyes!!!!! :shocked:

Diamondpilot · Feb 22, 2014

handirifle said:
Well if you insist on being rude and insulting, all I can say is your whole comment was pointless at the least. NO ONE said anything about running any engine wide open, nor did I say all gas engines wore out fast. I specifically said BOOSTED gas engines. Show me some stats on THEIR longevity before you come off so rude the next time. The Ford Ecoboost is the first of it's kind in a truck, that is meant for actual hauling. Unlike the supercharged 2 door models they have offered in the past, that are built for immature NASCAR wannabees. By the way, where are all those supercharged hot rods? There have been turbo cars and supercharged trucks in the past, but none of them have shown longevity. Sure normally aspirated engines live a long time, but any type of supercharged gas engines have had short road lives.

I have to disagree. Many imports such as BMW and some domestic makes like Buick and Ford make turbo and supercharged cars for years. The run fine well into the 300,000 mile range or better.

Chris

aczlan · Feb 22, 2014

handirifle said:
There have been turbo cars and supercharged trucks in the past, but none of them have shown longevity. Sure normally aspirated engines live a long time, but any type of supercharged gas engines have had short road lives.

Haven't looked at Volvos much have you? Volvo has had turbocharged engines in their cars since the 80s and its not uncommon to see them with 200-300k miles. Dad had a '98 S70GLT with a turbo. It was over 215k miles when it met with a telephone pole and the turbo seals were just starting to weep a little.
No, they aren't boosted to the level that the EcoBoost is, but like the EcoBoost, they were built from the ground up to have a turbo on them, so they last and last.
Some links to look for yourself:
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/miles.shtml
http://jalopnik.com/5892129/why-do-car-collectors-drive-1987-volvo-740-turbos
http://volvoforums.com/forum/volvo-850-16/anyone-ever-taken-high-mileage-850-vacation-60942/
http://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49717

Aaron Z

jejeosborne · Feb 22, 2014

handirifle said:
I specifically said BOOSTED gas engines. Show me some stats on THEIR longevity before you come off so rude the next time. The Ford Ecoboost is the first of it's kind in a truck, that is meant for actual hauling. Unlike the supercharged 2 door models they have offered in the past, that are built for immature NASCAR wannabees. By the way, where are all those supercharged hot rods? There have been turbo cars and supercharged trucks in the past, but none of them have shown longevity. Sure normally aspirated engines live a long time, but any type of supercharged gas engines have had short road lives.

As you mentioned, the ecoboost is too new to have and longevity data to prove either side of this argument. Same can be said about this new 3 liter diesel.

The Ford Lightning was before my time but I sure wouldn't have been immature to have wanted one. Also I hate NASCAR but enjoy being immature behind the wheel sometimes so you demographic profiling isn't 100% accurate.

One must realize the older boosted motors were typically modified normally aspirated motors which I agree would have had a shorter lifespan. Hopefully the newer specifically designed engines prove to be equal.

tcartwri · Feb 22, 2014

Not to pile on here.... but boosted gas motors are as reliable as their NA counterparts. RPM is what kills a gas motor. The additional loads on a boosted motor are all compressional, which the rotating assembly can deal with very easily.

The ecoboost got in trouble with their intercooler design, which was introducing accumulated condensation into the motor resulting in broken parts and destroyed catalytic converters.

tcartwri · Feb 22, 2014

Don't know why I'm getting so many double posts lately.

wmonroe · Feb 22, 2014

Why can't we have a n/a gas engine, turbo gas, and diesel option with everyone b!+$ing. Truck threads on this site aren't very enjoyable anymore, all the gas fans bash any diesel option and the diesel fans bash the gas engines. Everyone just needs to relax, if I want a gas or Diesel engine that gets 10 or 50 mpg and might cost 100k it's my money why does every care so much.

Midniteoyl · Feb 22, 2014

wmonroe said:
Why can't we have a n/a gas engine, turbo gas, and diesel option with everyone b!+$ing. Truck threads on this site aren't very enjoyable anymore, all the gas fans bash any diesel option and the diesel fans bash the gas engines. Everyone just needs to relax, if I want a gas or Diesel engine that gets 10 or 50 mpg and might cost 100k it's my money why does every care so much.

Because, well, somebody's gotta be right! Or better than other's... or both.

sld · Feb 23, 2014

You can spin it any way you want but the new Dodge payload capacities are unacceptable. It will catch on like wildfire at some point unless they correct the situation before it does. My guess is they will address it before any major damage is done. I just wouldn't want to be the sucker that owns ones of these "prefix" trucks.

I drive an F250 and don't need the full capacity most of the time. But 490 lbs? Unbelievable! That is probably less than ANY vehicle minus the sub-compacts.

Fordman1981 · Feb 23, 2014

sld said:
You can spin it any way you want but the new Dodge payload capacities are unacceptable. It will catch on like wildfire at some point unless they correct the situation before it does. My guess is they will address it before any major damage is done. I just wouldn't want to be the sucker that owns ones of these "prefix" trucks. I drive an F250 and don't need the full capacity most of the time. But 490 lbs? Unbelievable! That is probably less than ANY vehicle minus the sub-compacts.

Before I condemn the new Eco diesel ram I will have to see the door sticker for myself. I'm not in the market for one but out of curiosity I will probably go look at there capacities for myself when they hit the lots. Most of the magazines and YouTube reviewers know less about trucks than my dog.

Egon · Feb 23, 2014

Review: 2014 Ram 1500 Eco Diesel (With Video) | The Truth About Cars

Towing & Payload

The 2014 Silverado痴 1,875 to 2,100 pound payload easily bests the Ram痴 1,340-1,620 pound range and even the F-150′s 1,510-2,090 is superior depending on how you align the trim level comparisons. (Ford still offers a 滴eavy Duty package on the F-150 which gives it a stronger frame comparable to the F-250 but Ram and GM have killed similar packages on their models.) Likewise the Ram Eco Diesel痴 9,200lb tow rating pales in comparison with the Silverado痴 12,000lb towing rating. Until you actually tow or haul that is.

Can't verify any of the information.

Ford850 · Feb 23, 2014

Fordman1981 said:
Before I condemn the new Eco diesel ram I will have to see the door sticker for myself. I'm not in the market for one but out of curiosity I will probably go look at there capacities for myself when they hit the lots. Most of the magazines and YouTube reviewers know less about trucks than my dog.

I agree with most of this. But the RAM ED tested does have 490 lb payload. The actual truck window sticker was posted, and all the trucks were weighed/scaled. I'm sure there are stripped down versions with the ED that can get the payload up closer to a half ton. If someone wants a commuter car\truck that they can haul light loads occasionally, this Ram ED would be a good choice.

HHR · Feb 23, 2014

Ford850 said:
I agree with most of this. But the RAM ED tested does have 490 lb payload. The actual truck window sticker was posted, and all the trucks were weighed/scaled. I'm sure there are stripped down versions with the ED that can get the payload up closer to a half ton. If someone wants a commuter car\truck that they can haul light loads occasionally, this Ram ED would be a good choice.

I've never seen "Ram" and "ED" in the same sentence before.

DarkBlack · Feb 23, 2014

Egon, That article seems to agree with what I've been saying here:

Quote from review:
"It doesnç¨š hurt that the Ram is slightly cheaper than the Ford or Chevy when comparably equipped. Toss in the first small diesel, the only 8-speed automatic, a load leveling air suspension system and you have quite simply the best tow vehicle in the half-ton segment."