Ram's new EcoDiesel

[farmerbyron]

If Ford wanted to put a diesel in the F150, they already have the Federalized 3.2 PSD that's going into the Transit van. Right now, their estimation is that the ROI on half-ton diesels isn't there, particularly when they can hit payload, towing, and mileage targets with engines that can be amortized across multiple vehicle lines.

Thing is that the targets are being moved up by Ram with this new offering.

 

[SoonerP226]

Thing is that the targets are being moved up by Ram with this new offering.

Perhaps you missed the fact that there's an all-new F150 coming out this fall, and they haven't released its new numbers yet?

 

[1911Sooner]

Just read the motor trend article. It's the same engine as in the Grand Chereokee. Direct injected too. Also reading in the same issure about the new Chevy Colorado coming out this year and will have a diesel engine option next year.

 

[farmerbyron]

Perhaps you missed the fact that there's an all-new F150 coming out this fall, and they haven't released its new numbers yet?

Nope. Didn't miss that.

https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?189820-New-F-150&highlight=f-150


Just don't think that Ford is approaching the increased fuel standards in the right way. A lower revving diesel is just a better concept than hopping up a smaller gas motor and lightening the chassis.

FWIW I owned a 04' F-150 from 12 miles on the odometer until 117k miles. It has shaped some of my views on Ford.

 

[11b1776]

Too bad the rest of the truck is made by dodge

Agreed. My 12 3500, with 12k miles has already been on the rack for a front pinion leak....I've had numerous Dodge/Ram/Chrysler products, all have had problems with quality, thats why this Ram has a full B2B warranty till 100k. You buy what you can afford, Ford wanted $10 grand more with a engine that had been in production for 2 years...

Then Chevy CC's are made for midgets, no offense to little people!

 

[doctorjj]

Diesel also has 15% more energy than gasoline. The MPG savings more than make up the difference than the closest gas motor. 700 miles in between fill ups is going to save money despite the price premium over gas.

You do realize that 15% more energy, resulting in 15% better fuel economy, but prices 15-20% higher is a wash at best. That was the point of my post, since you missed it the first time.

 

[farmerbyron]

You do realize that 15% more energy, resulting in 15% better fuel economy, but prices 15-20% higher is a wash at best. That was the point of my post, since you missed it the first time.

But diesel engines run at higher compression and thus are more efficient at utilizing that energy. It is no where near a wash economically speaking.


http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel1.htm

When working on his calculations, Rudolf Diesel theorized that higher compression leads to higher efficiency and more power. This happens because when the piston squeezes air with the cylinder, the air becomes concentrated. Diesel fuel has a high energy content, so the likelihood of diesel reacting with the concentrated air is greater. Another way to think of it is when air molecules are packed so close together, fuel has a better chance of reacting with as many oxygen molecules as possible. Rudolf turned out to be right -- a gasoline engine compresses at a ratio of 8:1 to 12:1, while a diesel engine compresses at a ratio of 14:1 to as high as 25:1.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/di_diesels.shtml

Diesel vehicles may be making a comeback. Diesel engines are more powerful and fuel-efficient than similar-sized gasoline engines (about 30-35% more fuel efficient). Plus, today's diesel vehicles are much improved over diesels of the past.

 

[excat]

You do realize that 15% more energy, resulting in 15% better fuel economy, but prices 15-20% higher is a wash at best. That was the point of my post, since you missed it the first time.

...and the 700 miles per tank doesn't mean diddly when you compare 2 vehicles with 2 different size fuel tanks. Of course if your diesel has a 25-30 gal tank, and your gasser has a 20-25 gal tank, you are going to get more miles out of that tank, even with only slightly higher MPG because there's more fuel. You have to compare cost per mile in the two.

Current rates I saw @ my last fill up (Friday 1/31/14):
Gas: $3.02/gal
Diesel: $3.40/gal

Eco-Boost rating from Ford's webiste: 22MPG Highway 22MPG@$3.02/gal= $0.1372/per mile

Dodge rating per the article at 28MPG Highway 28MPG@$3.40/gal= $0.1214/per mile

Not much of a direct difference in price per mile. I think you'll get better life out of the diesel than the gas. You will very rarely get a long life out of a gas fed turbo engine in comparison to a diesel, the high rpm's required to make power in the gasser are any enemy to longevity.

 

[11b1776]

Higher Rpms are relative to the size of the turbos, smaller turbos equal lower Rpms for power band, bigger turbos equal higher Rpms to get in the power band.

 

[doctorjj]

...and the 700 miles per tank doesn't mean diddly when you compare 2 vehicles with 2 different size fuel tanks. Of course if your diesel has a 25-30 gal tank, and your gasser has a 20-25 gal tank, you are going to get more miles out of that tank, even with only slightly higher MPG because there's more fuel. You have to compare cost per mile in the two.

Current rates I saw @ my last fill up (Friday 1/31/14):
Gas: $3.02/gal
Diesel: $3.40/gal

Eco-Boost rating from Ford's webiste: 22MPG Highway 22MPG@$3.02/gal= $0.1372/per mile

Dodge rating per the article at 28MPG Highway 28MPG@$3.40/gal= $0.1214/per mile

Not much of a direct difference in price per mile. I think you'll get better life out of the diesel than the gas. You will very rarely get a long life out of a gas fed turbo engine in comparison to a diesel, the high rpm's required to make power in the gasser are any enemy to longevity.

Thank you. And if the Ram comes in at 25-26 mpg EPA, then the price difference per mile goes away completely.