Ram's new EcoDiesel

[ChuckC]

Mine can get better mileage than any V8, depending on how you drive it. It is more susceptible to dropping MPG depending on speed and load compared to a V8. For example, pulling my 21 foot Ranger bass boat to Mississippi and back, running 75-85, we got 12.8 mpg. My dad's 2011 3V 4.6, for example would get 16 in the same situation. Typical empty running on the interstate about 75-80 mph and I get 18-19. Following me home when I went and bought my deuce and a half, running 55 mph, the truck got 26 mpg. So speed and load really make it drop off. If you don't drive over 70, I'm sure you could get over 20 pretty easy. If you drive on back roads and run empty, you can get some really incredible mileage. If 90 percent of the time you are flying down the interstate pulling something, then you'd probably be better off getting a V8. My truck is a 2012 4dr 4wd Platinum, lifted 2". You're welcome to test drive mine if you want, GMT.

I saw 23 mpg in my wifes crew cab ecoboost one time right after we bought it according to the dashboard real time mpg thingamajig. That was on the cimmaron turnpike. Have not seen more than 21 or so since.

Pulled a 16' cargo trailer from tahlequah to ponca city and back and never got over about 8mpg, ouch!! Also took about twenty miles to finally coax it into 6th gear with the trailer on and it doesn't get much flatter than the roads south of ponca.

So yeah, you can get around twenty if you baby it, but get into the throttle a little and it drops like a rock.

 

[Shadowrider]

I own 3 diesel trucks, so I feel I'm speaking from experience when I say this. Diesel engines have been ruined by EPA regulations. Gas is the cheaper option.

Gas engines these days last for as long or longer than their diesel counterparts. The days of million mile diesels are gone. Being a pipeline welder who uses his truck for work, most everyone I know drives diesel trucks. Most of them are lucky to get 200k miles out of them. Diesels are more expensive to service and maintain. When you lose an injector, you can replace an entire gas engine for the money it would cost to replace just your fuel injectors on a diesel. I recently lost an injector in my 05 dodge, and although I spent 3k and replaced them within a week of noticing I had a problem, the damage to that cylinder was already done and it is currently getting a rebuild for 6k. That will 9k spent on that truck for one bad injector. That pricing is assuming everything else on the engine is still good, which with only 130k miles I hope I'm getting off easy.

This new diesel will also require Diesel Exhaust Fluid, so don't forget to factor the cost of filling that tank when figuring your mileage savings. You also have to really stay on top of your filtration. Letting your fuel filter go to long without changing it can let a tiny speck of dirt pass through and destroy a high pressure injector, leading to further engine damage. If you let your air filter go too long, you can let dirt through to dust and kill your turbo as well.

If you factor in the extra up front cost of a diesel at purchase, combined with the higher price of the fuel at the pump, plus the extra maintenance and repair costs, you will see that unless you actually need that extra low end power for pulling heavy loads, which you won't be doing with a 1500, diesel is just a bad buy.

There is certainly a lot of truth to what you are saying. Had to get new O2 sensors on my feed truck the other day. Service guy said it was probably due to all the emissions crap coupled with low speed driving while feeding cattle.

I shudder to think what kind of mileage could be had if the EPA would ease up. I think there are a lot of diesels rolling around Europe getting 50mpg but can't pass emissions here.

My dad's 03 cummins gets better mpgs than either the 07 or my 12. Things started going downhill when they added the particulate filter in 07.

Lots of truth to these. I knew all of this but didn't really realize how much damage to the positives the EPA has done it until these posts.

Another problem is the ULSD and it's lack of lubricity compared to the old stuff. The greenies just can't help themselves, with the old diesels and real fuel you had 40% less fuel consumption compared to gas in an engine of the same displacement. I don't care what the data shows, if you are burning 40% less fuel the overall volume pollutants have to be less. No way to argue that. Just think of what it could be today with the technology we have. Farmer you are right about Europe, and it's been that way for years. Japan too.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

Screw the EPA and there emissions bullchit! I will keep my O7 Duramax with tunes and dpf delete.

I also didn't get it with fuel mileage as a concern. The guys crack me up that go buy a $12,000 motorcycle to save on fuel. Well, on a financial sheet that rarely computes out to a savings. Get what truck you like and can afford and be happy.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

Screw the EPA and there emissions bullchit! I will keep my O7 Duramax with tunes and dpf delete.

I also didn't get it with fuel mileage as a concern. The guys crack me up that go buy a $12,000 motorcycle to save on fuel. Well, on a financial sheet that rarely computes out to a savings. Get what truck you like and can afford and be happy.

 

[AllOut]

But that's kind of the whole point. Not using the power when you don't need it and thus saving on fuel, but then still having the power when you do need it. So for the 99% of the time you're driving around, it's like you have a nice 6 cylinder. But being able to instantaneously swap in a strong V8 when you hook onto your boat or when the guy in the Hemi at the stoplight thinks his truck is fast. Four out of the 5 vehicles I own are boosted. I know all about turbos.

Which brings up an even better point.
Why not have those two small turbos in a good running V8 that still gets close to 20mpg when your not boosted. Then have some real power when you wanna roll into it.
How much better would it be to have a twin turbo 5.0 or 5.3? They'll have plenty of power when cruising and still get pretty good mileage. Sure as hell can't get worse mileage when towing then the existing Eco lol

 

[ChuckC]

Which brings up an even better point.
Why not have those two small turbos in a good running V8 that still gets close to 20mpg when your not boosted. Then have some real power when you wanna roll into it.
How much better would it be to have a twin turbo 5.0 or 5.3? They'll have plenty of power when cruising and still get pretty good mileage. Sure as hell can't get worse mileage when towing then the existing Eco lol

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Rooster1971]

Moto Vitori makes the motor. It is a GM designed motor that GM chose not to use because of their impending bankruptcy. Fiat isn't making it, they are buying it. Fiat does own them. It could still end up in GM trucks too. Chrysler/Fiat does not have an exclusive deal with Moto Vitori.

Chrysler is not doing anything new by putting a diesel in a half ton. GM did it for years. GM put diesels into Suburbans and Blazer/Tahoes too. Ford once was putting diesels in US Rangers and Fiestas, there were even diesels in Isuzu/Luv pickups. The GM Duramax is an Isuzu motor. There will be four cylinder Duramax motors in the Colorado/Canyon pickups in 2016. Nissan is going to have a 5.0 Cummins V8 in their half to pickups real soon too.

Chevy is putting a diesel in the Cruze compact car this year.

The early olds 350 based diesels in GM products were junk. They make the Ford 6.0 look like a gem when it came to head gasket failures. I would say they'd make a good boat anchor but that would be an insult to boat anchors. The later bbc based 6.2 and 6.5 liters weren't as bad. Most people swapped the 350D out than repaired.

 

[okietom]

The early olds 350 based diesels in GM products were junk. They make the Ford 6.0 look like a gem when it came to head gasket failures. I would say they'd make a good boat anchor but that would be an insult to boat anchors. The later bbc based 6.2 and 6.5 liters weren't as bad. Most people swapped the 350D out than repaired.

I know about that early GM deisel. I had one. I wrecked mine before there were any problems. I was getting free fuel on the rig I worked on. I could get 28 mpg with it. If i could buy one like it that was dependable I would.

The next deisels were ok. Even the little deisel Volkswagen sold wasn't too bad. No turbos meant no power.

 

[okietom]

Honda has a deisel motor that burns clean without the urea injection. No blue DEF tank to fill.

 

[okietom]

I don't know where you got the above info but Fiat OWNS the company. They bought 1/2 of it earlier while Penske owned the other half. Fiat THEN bought our Penske. GM does not own the company!!! lol

If Fiat owns them which they do, they DO have an exclusive because THEY own Chrysler!!!!!!! There is no way this side of hell GM would end up with a Chrysler/ Fiat owned engine producer. Help me understand how that would happen. As for doing something new they ARE! I don't see a single 1/2 ton US owned pickup using a small diesel engine. Chevy and Ford will join the ruckus understood but this is a new concept for the present market. By the way what happened to the DuraMax??

Penske owned it all and in 2007 sold 51% to GM. Penske in 2011 sold their 49% to Fiat. It wasn't until september of 2013 that Fiat bought out GM's part of the company. So Gm has had a controlling interest while Chrysler was using VM Motori's diesel motors. I also understand that even with Fiat now owning 100% that GM has the option to use the same motor in their vehicles.

There is a similar deal with the Nissan/cummins deal. Chrysler developed the motor with Cummins to put in half tons and Chrysler backed out. It was Fiat that caused them to use the VM Motori engine instead of the V8 Cummins that Nissan is going to use.

Dang Fiat, a V8 Cummins would have been a better motor than a V6 VM Motori.

So, yes Fiat owns VM Motori but only since September 21st of 2013. A little over four months. And no, the motor is not exclusive to Chrysler.

And it isn't new, GM started putting diesel motors in half tons in 1978 and quit in 1998. So how does that make what Chrysler is doing new? Ford and Dodge only put diesels into 3/4 tons and up. It is new for Chrysler but not GM. GM quit because of the cost of meeting new emission standards. The standards did not apply to the heavier trucks until the last few years.