GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
2015 Ram EcoDiesel versus 2015 Ford F-150 2.7L EcoBoost – Highway MPG [Report]
Posted by Andre Smirnov - February 14, 2015
TFLTRUCK




Which gets better MPGs on the highway? The 2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel or the 2015 Ford F-150 2.7L EcoBoost? The answer may be obvious if you look at the EPA estimates for each truck, but we had a hunch that we would see different numbers on the stretch of I-25 highway north of Denver. This is TFLtruck’s “eco” real-world fuel economy test.

Route / Environment:

The highway run consists of a 33.5 mile highway-only loop: 18 miles northbound on I-25 and 15.5 miles southbound. Both trucks were tested the same day (Feb 13, 2015) within two hours of each other. The temperature was around 64F with calm wind conditions. Both trucks accelerated with partial throttle via the on-ramp and cruise control was set at 65 MPH. We selected 65 MPH because this is the speed limit on many highways around the country and most states limit the speed of towing pickups to 65 MPH.

Both trucks were empty with one person (the same driver in both trucks). Both trucks had nearly full fuel tanks. The Ford used up several gallons before the test and was showing closer to 3/4 tank.

Result:

The 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCab 2.7L EcoBoost Lariat 4×4 recorded 27.8 MPG on the trip computer. The 2015 Ram 1500 CrewCab 3.0 EcoDiesel Outdoorsman 4×4 recorded 30.1 MPG.

Both trucks cruised effortlessly, but the Ford was actually running closer to 1,700 rpm at 65 mph. The Ram was humming at around 1,900 rpm. The EcoBoost surprised with a number considerable higher than the EPA highway estimates. The EcoDiesel’s result was not a big surprise as diesels tend to get better results on the highway.

more at the link...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMERICA 123

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Interest Numbers.

Dodge diesel gains 2 mpg overall at a lost of 85hp.

Now some here on this site would state that as a Win, But you can maltipy Torque but not HP, so it is a Dodge win, with 420ft/lbs and 45 ft/lbs more.

But Ford wins with the $3700 savings, and the cost of fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,181 Posts
Unscientific, but pretty darn good for both.

Why is the RAM rear end so strong with that much TQ from the engine? Why wouldn't they lower that to eek out more MPG's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,566 Posts
I say it is a win for both as they are different choices
the ED is better and I bet will be better in a wider range of uses BUT the FE does NOT offset the cost of the DIESEL fuel premium
and for truck costs RAM has more sales then FORD at least around here + the NEW F150's hype-O-matic working overtime will (i assume) shore up prices a bit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
The real take away given the uselessness of the test and then the 'results'...... some - somewhere are still nervous....... about the Ram ED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
When the 10 speed comes online it will probably match or beat the ecodiesel. What is the payload capacity of the F-150 in that configuration? The payload of the Ram is a joke in most ecodiesel trims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Yes, it is........ or better said , yes it is - in certain builds and configurations.

And yet .... it still works and still sells more than well enough with good numbers behind the sales figures.

And yes, as has been mentioned previously, one thing to appreciate about the new F150 Series are the vehicle non towing payload capabilities -

So yeah, a bit of a joke in some instances .....

Right up there with the notion an 2.7 EB F150 is going to deliver mpgs within striking range of the ED 3.0 Ram.

Especially under any kind of load and or adverse conditions.

Well, better get used to it because the Colorado / Canyon 2.8TD has some seriously interesting potential / potential mpg as well.

Especially if they bring it with the right AT......


And then.....


Don't want to salt the wound, but really if you place big stock in the coming 10 sp AT then golly, be careful because....... given how that could play even better with a diesel - and with an extra dash on top of that for a 'smaller' 4 in a smaller and lighter truck than Ram.......... you may at least somewhat regret what you wished for.


Of course then there will be what it can provide for all the Gen Vs........


***

Speaking of hypotheticals that will change the equations, there are many available to Ram on their next go around as well -


BTW, Is all of this increased EB 2.7 angst a response to the 3.0 ED equipped Ram HFE variant ?

Can we expect more of this kinda' junk from this kind of Ford / Toyota biased 'source' ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,454 Posts
Interest Numbers.

Dodge diesel gains 2 mpg overall at a lost of 85hp.

Now some here on this site would state that as a Win, But you can maltipy Torque but not HP, so it is a Dodge win, with 420ft/lbs and 45 ft/lbs more.

But Ford wins with the $3700 savings, and the cost of fuel.
Crew cab vs Supercab. There's your $3700 savings.

Plus, this was a 32 mile loop. This was not a MPG test at all. It was a first drive that happened to give a MPG result.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,540 Posts
This comparison has to be filed under....

DUHHHHHHHHHHHH

Diesels are inherently more fuel efficient. This test was a joke.

The surprise was how efficient the Ford was. The RAM was no surprise.

RAM does need to be careful - there is a diesel waiting to go into the Ford should there be a sizable enough market for it. This has already been confirmed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,300 Posts
I say it is a win for both as they are different choices
the ED is better and I bet will be better in a wider range of uses BUT the FE does NOT offset the cost of the DIESEL fuel premium
and for truck costs RAM has more sales then FORD at least around here + the NEW F150's hype-O-matic working overtime will (i assume) shore up prices a bit
have you seen how heavy that pig is? It needs the torque to move
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,495 Posts
"on the trip computer" = WORTHLESS information

The new Ford 2.7L EB only got 15.6mpg in the Ward's test "even under a light foot":

http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost

"The observed fuel economy is not that good. The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive and 23 mpg (10.2 L/100 km) on the highway with 4-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot.

Several editors drove the truck for 253 miles (407 km), and the trip computer displayed a low of 17.6 mpg (13.3 L/100 km) and a high of 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).

We checked consumption old-school (253 miles divided by 16.16 gallons [61 L] to refill the tank) and came up with an even more disappointing figure: 15.6 mpg (15 L/100 km)."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
A static 65 MPH is hardly representative of anywhere - their choice because it is the "towing pickups" speed limit is only valid if they were towing. I'm guessing there were not too many hills either, even rolling ones can nuke pickup fuel economy.

When the 10 speed comes online it will probably match or beat the ecodiesel.
I wouldn't be so sure on that - the 8-speed has hardly made a difference for GM for EPA ratings, and the 10-speed will have only a slightly wider gear spread and minimally lower parasitic losses than the 8L90. If they managed a 1 MPG increase on the combined cycle, I'd call that a win.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top