Real world MPG numbers aren't what Ford is concerned with. They are just trying to beat the CAFE standards as an average of all vehicles they sell. Its like teaching kids how to pass state tests and not teaching kids real world job skills.

 

That's why I said potential

But I do know people get 22+ in both of their EB F150s, which 5.0s can't do. But they need the proper scenarios to achieve "better" mileage

 

This is getting complicated. As to what you know about diesels and turbos I had no way of knowing that. People talk about the success of turbos in diesel engines and compare them to gas all the time, like they are the same. As you know, they are not.

As to your arguments as to why Ford is doing what they are doing, that requires assumptive conclusions. Ford is selling ecos for one reason--money and their marketers don't care how they sell trucks. Multiple testers have concluded that consumers should by eco for towing and that the ecoboost is getting the same mileage as 5.0. As I recall those testers include consumer reports, motor trend and several others.

As to your point about the use of heavier duty trucks, again it seems to me that many people are using ecos for heavy hauling. I am pretty sure that this will be a short-lived truck when that is done and I think eco's hauling capacity as listed by ford is over-rated--not because it can't do it, but because except on occasion eco shouldn't do it. In that vain, I see the useful band of eco as pretty small. I think most people would do well with the 3.7, which I considered. For some hauling I thought the 5.0 would have enough kick. Then I see the eco for occasional heavy hauling. For the hauling eco is rated for on a frequent basis, I would sell people the power stroke. Not that it matters what I think.

 

Ford does know how to play the game of manipulating gas mileage to the test which is very different than real world driving.

 

Actually I just drove 500 miles on a tank with the 5.0 and got 21.9 with some off highway driving and 2 stops (one coffee and one to dispel coffee). Just because you know two people who say they get 22+, does not trump actual side by side testing. The truth too is that very few people spend a significant amount of time on the highway. I am going to look it up, but my guess is that most people drive less than 50% hwy. My only real point on the mileage issue is that even if you are saving some gas, it isn't enough to justify the extra $1000.

Please let me add that someone bought eco because it was less that the 5.0 comparably equipped. Let's not argue that because the eco motor cost $1000 more and all things equal the numbers speak for themselves. Now if someone went to the lot and bought the vehicle that fit their budged and the 5.0 and eco are similar, yeah I get it. That's why I ordered and paid for exactly what I wanted--nothing more--nothing less.

 

Look at what I got started. Wow. - Og

 

??


How so? Your eco experience isn't your fault. Thanks for sharing.

 

No negativity stated. I appreciate everyone's input. Just commenting on all the great reads. - Og

 

Go big or go home right?

 

Any thread from the last 6 months with the word "Ecoboost" anywhere in it has turned into this . . .


I'm not a diesel tech or something, just not dumb enough to draw direct comparisons between the two. I'll agree that people are towing too much weight with the EBs at times, but that goes for all of em, all half tons these days. A 3/4 ton is 10x more stable with a giant load on the back. But these new half tons can apparently handle it. That 22 I referenced isn't all highway hyper-miling. It's pretty hilarious that you have me sticking up for the EB though . . . cause usually I'm in your shoes, though with a MUCH more benign stance.

 

Heck my 5.4 can get 20-21 MPG's. Whippe do! The new Ram Eco-Diesel is gonna get about 700 Miles on a tankful with 420 Ft-Lbs torque! That is gonna be something!

 

removed

 

While the cummins diesel is awesome, if that's what Dodge is going to do, it is not in the same category or price. Not to start anything, but I am not a big Chrysler fan. I had some of that junk and it is gone. I know it's history and it may have changed, but When Iacoca got ran out of Ford his claim of his, to fame, was the mustang II (garbage). Then he went to Chrysler with the same mindset. Chrysler seems more about show than go.

It's cool if you have some special interest in Dodge. I just like things to be real. Yes it is getting torque of 420, but the hp is 240. That's plenty for me, but I am wondering why you are only telling part of the story. So it will go 700 miles on a tank...so? How big is the tank? I looked up the info and here is the whole story:

The fullsize Ram 1500's 3.0-liter V6 engine produces 240 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque and can tow 9,200 pounds.

"The customer who is concerned about fuel economy can now move up," he said. The EcoDiesel is projected to achieve 20 miles per gallon in the city and 27 mpg on the highway, significantly better than the standard Ram 1500, which achieves 16 mpg in the city and 23 on the highway with its standard 3.6-liter gasoline engine.

When the cost comes out we can figure out how long it costs to get your money back with the diesel. My bet is never, but I am interested.

 

I am not a huge Chrysler/Ram fan either however I do take my hat off to them for being the 1st of the Big three to offer a diesel option in a 1/2 ton pickup truck! Chrysler has not released MPG's yet but my research has yielded 700 MPG's per tankful. Ford/GM will follow suit if Chrysler/Ram has much sucess with this diesel motor in the 1/2 ton market!

 

Chrysler seems to act out of desperation and I am not seeing the point of a diesel in a half ton--unless ford did it. I am guessing you are going to spend an extra 5k...We'll see.