Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Wins Motor Trend Comparison Test

RM015_004FNL II

The test drivers at Motor Trend have curiously announced the winner of its 2015 half-ton comparison test right before its Truck of the Year announcement, and the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is still the king of the roost. Motor Trend named the EcoDiesel the winner of its Truck of the Year last year (the second year in a row for the Ram 1500), beating a small group of all-new or significantly revised competitors.

The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel beat the all-new 2015 Ford F-150 Lariat with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost and 2015 Chevrolet Silverado LTZ with the 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V-8 in several scored exercises.

We can only assume Motor Trend had some of these trucks in-house for its annual Truck of the Year contest and decided to do a quick head-to-head comparison while it had the opportunity. Of course, in announcing the 2015 Ram the winner of this half-ton comparison, it stands to reason the 2015 Ford F-150 will not win Motor Trend's 2015 Truck of the Year contest, likely to be announced in a few weeks. Some have speculated the F-150 was the odds-on favorite but now wouldn't make sense to give the award to the F-150 when it couldn't beat a segment competitor in a head-to-head competition.

To its credit, Motor Trend did track test the trucks with a load and take the test trucks to Davis Dam, which straddles the Arizona/Nevada border, for some towing. Ford's new, smaller EcoBoost crushed all the others (loaded and unloaded), offered almost twice the payload and weighed about 1,000 pounds less doing it all, just missing out of the top spot when all the final opinions were hashed out.

This is an impressive victory for the Ram 1500 and the EcoDiesel engine, and officially puts the MT Truck of the Year award up for grabs. From what we've heard, some of the competitors for this year's Motor Trend Truck of the Year award include the Ford Super Duty, the Chevy Silverado Heavy Duty, the GMC Canyon, and the Chevy Colorado. We'll know more later.

To read Ram's press release, click here.

Manufacturer's images

 

RM015_014FNL II

 

Comments

Jason and Lou are idiots.

@TRX-4 Tom - Ford PR has hyped the 2.7 Ecoboost and aluminum. That is a definite truth. That hype has damaged Ford.
With that being said, the buzz on the internet is that 10-15% mpg gains were to be expected with the weight loss reported by Ford.
A former Ford engineer on another site pointed out a few interesting facts:
1. An aluminum truck is not the end game. It is the start of an aluminum strategy for virtually the entire Ford line up. Work out the bugs and costs on the high volume high profit vehicle than work on down through the rest of the line.
2. Aluminum is not the only part of the strategy. Ford's strategy has been to 1st change the frame/body etc. then move on to drivetrain. That means we will see driveline changes.

A 10 speed is coming and there are strong rumours of a new diesel.

As others have pointed out - the benchmark for what one considers fair test criteria for 1st place changes based on which vehicle wins 1st place.


2.7 ford 0-70 mph 8.6 sec. empty

3.0 ram 0-60 mph 8.8 sec. empty

2.7 ford 0-70 mph 22.2 sec. loaded

3.0 ram 0-60 mph 23.9 sec. loaded

10 mph less in the same time for 1000 lb heavier is no big deal.

Throughout the MT article there are links to "related articles" and each link sends you to a Ram truck related story. All of the auto advertising blocks on the bottom of the webpage seems to be for Ram as well. Very interesting.

All these idiotic Ram fans make me laugh. You could easily tell there was a biased from the beginning. I also love how the Ram broke down during the test yet they scooted that under the rug.

The ecodiesel is slow, heavy, and expensive. Hell my idi almost does 0-60 as fast as that thing. Yep thats some real engineering there. Plus with the ecodiesels higher premium, more expensive fuel, def, and costly oil changes, the ram would take for ever pay back if at all. Plus I like how the ram can carry less than 1000lbs. That's pathetic. The Ford did a heck of a job. Quick, efficient, light weight, and the cheapest of the three.

I love the idea of a diesel in a 1/2 ton. The fact of the matter is the Eco Diesel doesn't make any sense @ it's $3,000-$4,000 cost. It will never pay for itself no matter how you try to justify it. Not even in resale. It makes absolutely zero sense other than to say I got a diesel. If I were buying a Ram I'd save the $4,000 it's a no brainer. I love the biased of the media, including this very site here. The Ford 2.7 was impressive in the test, but I think it should not be offered in anything more than a super cab 4x4 as it was in the test and the 3.5 Eco should be the only option in a super crew. I still find it hard to believe that the 3.5 with less power and torque can achieve anything better than marginal mpg gains over the 3.7 it replaced. I personally will wait for the Ford to offer it's upgraded transmission for 2016 before I consider a new truck. Maybe then the diesel options from Ram and Nissan will make sense due to higher fuel prices????

As of late many have probably noticed my dissatisfaction towards the new aluminium F-150.

The Motor Trend "Shootout" really highlights my logic. It's a lack of refinement on Ford's part.

Let's face it, none of the Ford supporters have yet to discuss the refinement improvement of the new F-150. Because they are very few and far between. They just want to highlight data and acceleration, etc. What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate into real on road performance. I have constantly fought on this site regarding the new mid sizers on this.

I would expect Ford have invested multiple billions on the F-150 and the least I'd expect was a leap in refinement similar to how the Colorado improved against the current midsizers. Ford in Australia with the Ranger made a huge leap in refinement. Ford in the US with full size trucks couldn't make it happen, what a real pity, but expected.

This new Ford should have be a leap forward, it wasn't and this test has shown that the competition with just a diesel is a better vehicle or at a minimum an equal vehicle. Steering, suspension, handling with a trailer in tow, FE and generally daily driving.

I've been trying to state this all along, but to be continually shot down. Aluminium, so f....ing what. It's just a material and not what makes the truck function. Good engineering does that.

I don't really think Ford will remain at number one, the new F-150 is only as good as the vehicle it replaced.

Maybe Ford should have done what Fiat had done and just drop a diesel in a new lighter steel truck. It could have used a slightly modified Ranger chassis.

Funny how Ford's lightweight high tensile steel Class 2 pickup is returning be FE than the aluminium one as well. 32mpg on the highway. No EcoBoost powered aluminium F-150 will ever achieve that.

Well, I was correct again.

As an aside. If the Colorado does very well and Ford is forced to bring the global Ranger in to compete against it the new Frontier and Taco will really put some egg onto Fords face.

That will mean it misread the market twice.

To me it seems Ford's best current pickup is the Class 2 global Ranger. 0-60 isn't the be all and end all. It's how it drives, tows, handles a load, etc. Technology for technologies sake will be transparent to the consumer, especially when it cost more to have something not very special.

Oh, this is my first comment in this article.

Congrats to Ram! My only complaint with the 1500 is the payload. But that's easy to fix. That would be a good reason to switch to aluminum, even if the fuel economy advantage is almost immeasurable.

So these trucks are all the new SAE J2087 towing standard, but the Ford is rated the least by over 1,000lbs and clearly handed the Chevy and Dodge their lunch when towing the 7,000lb trailer. So after years of over rating their trucks, it appears Ford is under rating them? At least this one.....

So, if the Ram only has a payload of 960 lbs how can it even be classified as a 1/2tone truck?

Every time you see a 1971 Chevy Vega rusting out on cinder blocks in a trailer park somewhere, just remember that the Vega was Motor Trends Car of the Year in 1971.

Go look at a list of MT Car of the Year winners and it will make you laugh out loud (unless you owned one).

Happy Thanksgiving!

I don't care, still buying a 2015 F-150.

First how would you fix manufacture rated cargo capacity???

So no bed access in the ram so you still have to old fashion jump up on the tailgate. Mt said 360 camera is a must. 2 strikes so far against the ram. Extremely slow but "felt quick"...... Strike 3. More expensive to operate and purchase is another strike against the ram. Heck even the ford tells you if you have a trailer light burnt out and which one it is. Does the ram do that? MT even said the ford is just as stable as the ram but could feel the bumps more and stiffer ride..... BFD.
Took 1 foot more to stop. Stop the presses. It's a failure!!! Lol

As far as welded aluminum which ram and gm will go to vs ford rivet adhesive.... How much more expensive would it be to replace a panel on the truck if it's weld aluminum. According to some experts here the ford trucks are going to be expensive to fix and it's just rivets and adhesive.... Not some patented very specialized welding process

@beast and Alex,
I don't think the fix for the Ram's cargo capacity is that easy. I'd suspect it will need a new chassis redesign.

If one looks at how a load is spread on the chassis with a leaf vs coil setup you will understand why. Leaf suspended suspensions are over a much broader area. The Ram will need additional structural changes to improve chassis, hence the weight will increase.

The same goes for this aluminium F-150 more so than the Ram. For it to change to a coil suspended assend the chassis will need to be redesigned.

For the Ford, it's new chassis design with varying wall thicknesses for the chassis rails will need to be addressed. The Ford chassis is at a minimum in thickness along it's length to suit localised loads.

I don't know to answer this. Do you? Input some numbers, but I think rivets and adhesives are gonna be more expensive.


I'm not talking on a manufacturing level.... I'm talking on a body shop/repair level. Pretty easy to drill out rivets and slap some new adhesive and slap some new rivets on when replacing a panel vs the local dinky body shop trying to weld aluminum that precision robots welded together.

Maybe ram will be the first back to back to back truck of the year.

@beast
Have drilled out many aluminum rivets on snowmobiles. Pretty darn easy. Any power sports equipment place could prolly handle the task as they do it daily in my area once the snow flys and people start bring there sleds in that they wreck. The polaris snowmobiles are glue and riveted. It's not hard and a lot easier then welding

Renault Alliance which was MTCOY in 1983 I recall they were particularly impressed with the "pedestal seats". MT is no longer a serious automobile mag. GM must be wondering what happened to their new truck in one short year. Seems old already.

Alex why is the ram eco diesel so slow compared to the 2.7 in everything even though it has more torque if you are the end all be all of smartness on here.

F-150 may not be “Best Buy”
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2014/11/f-150-may-not-be-best-buy
As others have pointed out - the benchmark for what one considers fair test criteria for 1st place changes based on which vehicle wins 1st place.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Nov 26, 2014 1:22:17 PM

@LOU,

The editors of KBB.com recently announced that the new Ford F-150 pickup is the “Best Buy” for 2015.

It’s a bit of a mystery how a truck that isn’t yet available for purchase and has no track record at all could be called a best buy. In addition, the specifications, capabilities and prices of the basic models would indicate there are better buys, including the Ram 1500.

READ MORE AT ALLPAR. JUST THE FACTS.


As others have pointed out - the benchmark for what one considers fair test criteria for 1st place changes based on which vehicle wins 1st place.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Nov 26, 2014 1:22:17 PM

@LOU,

F-150 may not be “Best Buy”
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2014/11/f-150-may-not-be-best-buy

The editors of KBB.com recently announced that the new Ford F-150 pickup is the “Best Buy” for 2015.

It’s a bit of a mystery how a truck that isn’t yet available for purchase and has no track record at all could be called a best buy. In addition, the specifications, capabilities and prices of the basic models would indicate there are better buys, including the Ram 1500.

READ MORE AT ALLPAR. JUST THE FACTS.

As can be seen, the Ram 1500 Tradesman V6 is competitive in horsepower, torque, payload and towing capacity while coming in at a lower price. Furthermore, as Allpar has reported previously, the Ram’s body is going to be less costly to repair which could mean lower insurance costs.

On top of everything else, the Ram has a track record: twice Motor Trend Truck of the Year and the winner of the magazine’s recent half-ton pickup comparison; twice Truck of Texas and recipient of a shelf-full of other awards and recommendations.

Yes, the F-150 is shiny and new but “tried and true” usually trumps “shiny and new” when it comes to a credible “best buy.”

Because fast is not good. Torque is what's counts.
This message has been approved by Scott girlfriend.

Ya when it comes to vehicles slow and tiny capacities is what everybody and every manufacture try's to achieve with there vehicles. Every manufacture strives to achieve a compact like car capacity for there trucks.

And as far as rivets for aluminum this is an approved ford tool for installing and removing rivets.... Obviously it would be to hard for beast and the like to operate and welding and grinding are much easier to then welding. I don't think beast know that you use self piercing rivets and it creates a stonger connection then welding.
http://youtu.be/kd5AOkI5oFk

I too got a kick how the Fiat had problems (the only pickup) and they were excused away.

They same thing happened awhile back when PUTC did a comparo--the only pickup that had mysterious problems was the Fiat. And that is why they claim the bottom of all of the reliability charts... .

@beast
Why would the hole be larger???? The battery powered tool removes the rivet not elongating the hole. Just line up the tool and it does the work of removing the rivet. Heat the seam up to release the adhesive. Remove damage panel. Use some adhesive remover to clean it up. Apply some new adhesive and line up the new panel and attach with adhesive. Line up your tool with the old hole on the old panel and use self piercing rivets so it pierces the new panel.

Very simple

@beast

It parts of the tool I posted. It has a rivet adapter, removal adapter and metal flatten adapter. Just research yourself as you obviously don't have the understanding to even debate advanced materials and bonding procedures. There are several methods that are approved by ford. And nothing new to industry that have been using aluminum. Such as aerospace industry, boating industry, power sports industry. You can research it or not either way but the tried and true steel is becoming and will become the wooden spoke wagon wheel of the auto industry.

You guys thinking the RAM diesel should have won the towing contest...me too...but fact is the 2.7 Ford kicked it's but towing 7000#. You can't say that wasn't a fair contest....and whoever heard that if you wanted maximum towing in a truck you had to get the Gas option (Hemi) over a diesel...LOL...that's the 3.0 TuRD wEaCODiesel from what I see....and MPG means nothing unless you're comparing the same fuels...Diesel is $3.99 here and Gas has dropped to $2.53....Gas is always cheaper in the states...it just varies between 10-50% cheaper over time which makes it the cheapest to operate...especially after you take into account the cost of the Urine (ha ha), ~12qts of $10/qt oil, and $60 oil filters needed for newer Diesels. Looking like the diesels can't compete with Turbo gassers....TQ curve just as flat on Turbo gassers with 2x + the operating RPM.

@Scott

Yes, fast is not good for the Hemi 6.4L guys. They are only used to going 30 mph when towing. And yes, torque is all that counts which is why the 3.5L Ecoboost has more torque than the 5.7L Hemi, and our 6.7L diesels have tons more torque than than the puny little 429lb-ft in that 6.4L Hemi. Let's see how fast they flip this one to fit their Ram propaganda.

@1L-L-A

I need to tow 8500lbs at 80 which is my speed limits on freeway. Heck big rig limit is 70 mph but they run 75+. I don't care about a few mpg's less when towing cause time is money, and time is to precious to waste on the road. Ecodiesel does not cut it or any 1/2 ton ram for that matter. My 6.2 halfton ford does it well. As I have 434 ft lbs of torque on tap with gobs of hp as well. If I pull 400 miles at 80 it only takes 5 hours vs the 7 or 8 it would take with a ram 1/2 ton. If I had a Ecodiesel I would prolly have to stop and get warranty work done just like motortrend does so it may take me a couple days with a ram vs my 6.2 ford 1/2 ton.

The worst piece of so called Automotive Journalism I've ever read. These guys call themselves professionals while providing test results with overloaded vehicles on public roads? It's no wonder MT gives free subscriptions out at the Auto Shows. And for Cars.com to tout it on here and not repute it just lowers their credibility. Automotive Journalism has lost all objectivity. As soon as I started to read this I knew they already picked a winner so the conclusion was forgone. They had every excuse in the book for the Ram.

Scott given equal gearing your rate of acceleration is directly related to engine power, not torque. That is what axle was pointing out to you that you don't get.

I also seriously doubt you are pulling 8500 lbs at 80 mph in any truck, especially a half ton. And, if you did, that 6.2L v8 would probably be returning between 5 and 6 mpg. You would probably have to fuel twice in your 400 mile trip. Nice fantasy.

Mileage man so you are saying that basically hp is how fast the torque or work is getting down. So at the peak torque of of 420 the ecodiesel may be making 150 hp so the 420 ft lbs happens really slow and tha is why the 2.7 is a much better tow vehicle then the Eco diesel is because it gets it work done quicker due to it greater power?

9 mpg to be exact on the 6.2 ford at 80. 36 gallon tank and stop for 10 minutes and fill up once. In a 400 mile trip. Well worth it to save a couple hours as my time is worth more then fuel savings.

With only 240 hp that slow turd Ram should get the best mpg. 240 hp is a joke and no wonder it takes a half hour to pass. Looks like Ram one mostly on the subjective ratings of car people. But I'm also thinking their skirts were all blown up by the fuel economy. If a Prius was in it would have one a MT test even if it took 5 days to pass something.

http://www.dieselramforum.com/forum/3-0l-ecodiesel-v6-discussion/2969-dyno-chart-3-0l-ecodiesel-dohc-v6-w-engine-specifications.html
Found a dyno chart on the ram and it is only making 150 hp or so at the crank when it's making it peak torque. So even though it is making great torque it is way down on power. Then you factor in drive train loses you could only have 100-120 or so hp trying to accelerate the 6000 lbs truck. I see it now why the Eco diesel is really slow and can't pull a trailer or haul cargo very well even though it's a diesel. It's cause its originally design as a car motor that doesn't have a lot of power cause it wasn't designed to move all that weight. Ram really needs aluminum to lighten that thing so that it's low powered diesel doesn't have to try and accelerate 6000 lbs.

With that dyno chart I posted on the Eco diesel it is making under 100 hp at the crank at 1500-1600 rpm. Even with 3.92 rear end ratio and lower gear ratios in the lower gears of the 8 speed compared to the competitions setup even higher torque magnification of the rams drivetrain can't make up for the lower power of the ecodiesel in its lower rpm ranges. Thanks mileage man and axle for clearing this up for me. Couldn't wrap my head around why the ecodiesel performed so poorly even with the highest rated torque values but you guys helped clear it up!!!! Thanks guys.

Scott, what I'm saying is that the ability of the engines to accelerate is *directly* tied to the power output. If you are testing maximum acceleration, assuming equal gearing, the engine making more power will accelerate the fastest. All of these engines produce enough peak horsepower to cruise at speeds in excess of 100 mph, so top speed is not relevant to the discussion.

The ecodiesel will not accelerate a vehicle as quickly as the 2.7L ecoboost will (assuming equal gearing). It will in turn have a substantially lower bsfc. Every vehicle choice is a compromise, each consumer needs to weigh the pros and cons of each choice to come to a decision. Right now with the price disparity so high between gasoline and diesel, which is an anomally in that it is winter and gasoline prices have plummeted, there is a very difficult economic climate for the ecodiesel in the United States. This will likely not persist for very long. If you are willing to mod your diesel (most are not) the ecodiesel is far and away the best economic choice for many (probably most). As it stands I do think Chrysler dropped the ball somewhat on the peak output for the ecodiesel. It should be in the 280hp - 300hp range. You can get this with a tune, so either Chrysler should've tuned it or used a larger displacement engine. A 3.6L V6 diesel would probably be just about right for the American halfton truck market. A good 3.6L diesel would probably put out peak numbers similar to what is rumored from the upcoming cummins in the titan ~300hp ~550lbft torque.

HEMI
very informative information and I agree with you.
you made me think that my 2013 F-150 with the 5.0 V8 gets 15 MPG, but the new 2.7 V6 EB isn't much of an improvement at 17-18 MPG.
But with 2 or 3 better MPG I will lose a lot of power and performance, is that worth it? would I be better off keeping my 2013 F-150 ?

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT!

F-150 may not be “Best Buy”
by Bill Cawthon • Posted on November 26, 2014

Ram-Ford-Pickups-Web

The editors of KBB.com recently announced that the new Ford F-150 pickup is the “Best Buy” for 2015.

It’s a bit of a mystery how a truck that isn’t yet available for purchase and has no track record at all could be called a best buy. In addition, the specifications, capabilities and prices of the basic models would indicate there are better buys, including the Ram 1500.

When it comes to pricing, there would appear to be some adjustments being made by the folks in Dearborn. Pickups are normally among the more profitable vehicles sold in the U.S., but Ford alarmed financial markets in October when it said it wouldn’t know margins on the new F-150 until the second half of next year.

What is certain is that the new F-150 has higher costs. Aluminum currently sells for about $2,200/ton, compared to $630-$750/ton for sheet steel and $300/ton for recycled scrap steel. Due to the different processes needed to weld aluminum, Ford has switched its body building to a more costly method using of thousands of different-sized rivets and special adhesives.

Yet, with these increased costs, the new F-150 with a base 3.7-liter V6, regular cab and eight-foot bed, is priced just 1.6% higher than its 2014 predecessor. This means Ford either cut some content or is eating a portion of those costs. If the latter is the case, fleet sales and incentives, if they’re offered, could be painful.

That might be a short-term bonus for buyers but the F-150 accounts for such a huge portion of Ford sales – 30% of total Ford Motor Company sales through the end of October – and profits that Ford either needs for the new F-150 to generate larger sales volumes than ever or it will need to raise prices to a more sustainable level, opening even more doors for the less-costly Ram.

In September, Morgan Stanley downgraded Ford stock to “underweight” and cut the target price a dollar to $16 — mostly due to Ford’s ongoing European issues, but partly due to uncertainty about the new F-150. According to a report in the Financial Times, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas made the changes because he expects margins to be lower because of upfront costs and competition from Ram and Chevrolet.

Another payoff for Ford buyers is supposed to be better fuel economy and, compared to previous F-150s, the new truck delivers. But other than the highly-touted 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6, the engines don’t yield significantly better mileage than competing gasoline-engine trucks from FCA and GM (and don’t come close to the Ram diesel). The 3.5-liter EcoBoost does have more horsepower and torque than competing V6s, but doesn’t have better standard towing or payload capacities. Ford’s “best-in-class” claims depend on specific configurations and the addition of optional equipment.

It’s likely that the F-150 supplied to KBB.com was a typical review vehicle: top-of-the-line Platinum SuperCrew with all the bells and whistles and a sticker price in excess of $50,000. General Motors and Ram typically do the same thing. Getting a real-world basic pickup in a press fleet is far less common.

But a best buy has to start with a good base, and when it comes to good bases, the Ram 1500 Tradesman is a formidable competitor – especially equipped with the Pentastar V6 and the 8-speed transmission.

Since neither Ram nor General Motors sell turbocharged gasoline engines and the Ford EcoBoost engines are expensive options, Allpar compared the Ford F-150 XL with the naturally-aspirated 3.7-liter Ti-VCT V6 and 5.0-liter Ti-VCT V8 engines to the Ram 1500 Tradesman and the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 WT. All trucks were configured with the standard automatic transmission, regular cab, and 8-foot box. Rear axle ratios were selected to be competitive. None of the trucks had any options other than the engine, box size, and axle ratio. No incentives were factored in to manufacturer suggested retail prices and destination charges are included.
2015 HALF-TON FULL-SIZE V6 PICKUPS
Brand, Model & Engine Axle City Hwy. Comb. HP Torque Towing Payload Price
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 WT 4.3-liter V6 3.23 18 24 20 285 305 6,100 1,950 $27,060
Ford F-150 XL 3.7-liter Ti-VCT V6 3.55 18 25 20 282 253 5,100 1,910 $26,915
Ram 1500 Tradesman 3.6-liter V6 3.55 17 25 20 305 269 6,300 1,900 $26,660
2015 HALF-TON FULL-SIZE V8 PICKUPS
Brand, Model & Engine Axle City Hwy. Comb. HP Torque Towing Payload Price
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 WT 5.3-liter V8 3.42 16 23 19 355 383 7,200 1,940 $28,155
Ford F-150 XL 5.0-liter Ti-VCT V8 3.55 15 22 18 385 387 9,200 1,930 $28,510
Ram 1500 Tradesman 5.7-liter Hemi V8 3.55 15 22 17 395 410 9,050 1,750 $27,985

As can be seen, the Ram 1500 Tradesman V6 is competitive in horsepower, torque, payload and towing capacity while coming in at a lower price. Furthermore, as Allpar has reported previously, the Ram’s body is going to be less costly to repair which could mean lower insurance costs.

On top of everything else, the Ram has a track record: twice Motor Trend Truck of the Year and the winner of the magazine’s recent half-ton pickup comparison; twice Truck of Texas and recipient of a shelf-full of other awards and recommendations.

Yes, the F-150 is shiny and new but “tried and true” usually trumps “shiny and new” when it comes to a credible “best buy.”

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2014/11/f-150-may-not-be-best-buy
Posted by: HEMI | Nov 26, 2014 10:10:21 PM

So mileage man what you are saying is the really low power of the ram will accelerate it really slow. So if you need to pass and you step on it with trailer in tow that is why it takes so long for it to pick up any speed to pass? You are making it even clearer in explaining everything.... Like how the higher power duramax usually beat the 6.7 cummins in the performance test when there are hd comparisons. The duramax had more hp then the cummins but less torque which with the duramax hp advantage it usually is quicker.

More HP can get the job done quicker, but more torque will get the job done easier and more efficiently. If you believe that's a contradiction, then you just don't understand how it works. I think the EcoDiesel is plenty powerful for a 1500. I wonder if Ford will use its Lion 3.0 V6 diesel in the US. That has 270 HP / 440 lb-ft.

Doubt ford will make that diesel as ford customers aren't asking for really slow with little to no capacities. Ram customers are really the only one that ask there car company for less capabilities.

The nissan cummins won't be as efficient as the ram but it will completely destroy the ram diesel while offering a few mpg's less, just like the 2.7 destroys the vm diesel. The 5.0 cummins nissan will be good competition for the 2.7 ecoboost!

Of course beast they have sold any yet. They are not on the lots yet. But the last ecoboost sold over a half million in a few short years in the 1/2 tons when people said the engine would never sell. They will sell 10's of thousands of the 2.7 when they are finally available. Ford customers asked for improved efficiency, more capability and better performance and ford delivered on what there customers wanted. The most efficient gas 1/2 ton, the least cost to operate while delivering better performance then the competitors v8's and diesel 1/2 ton. Also if you want class leading capacities of cargo and towing capacities for has you covered!!! That is what ford customers asked for and got it.

I don't think Ford will have any trouble selling the 2.7. It would be a great engine if you plan to tow occasionally. The 3.0 diesel would pay off quicker the more you tow with it, but still gets amazing fuel economy when not towing too. It's easy to justify either one of them over the other for different reasons.

See beast watch for about 4-15 seconds of this vid and that is what ford customers asked for and they got. We ford guys use our trucks as trucks and couldnt accept the reduced capacities that ram has came out with to increase efficiency for the epa.
http://youtu.be/-n2uEx8CojE
Just imagine how extremely better the ecodiesel would be if they used aluminum and weighed 1000lbs less like the ford. How much power is used up moving the extra unneeded 1000lbs all the time that the ram weighs compared to the ford. Ford seen 9% efficiency gain on the 3.5 ecoboost by going to aluminum. If ram used aluminum on the ecodiesel and got the same 9% gain it could easily be epa rated at 31mpg all the while increasing its capacity.

@Scott


I guess I was wrong. I guess they have nothing to combat what I said because they chose to ignore it and only focus on my last sentence. I guess they've come to terms with only being able to go 30 mph when towing with the 6.4L Hemi and the fact that the 3.5L Ecoboost has more torque that the 5.7L Hemi since torque is more important to them.


They are also more delusional then I thought if they think anything they said influenced my truck decision. With all the small little irritations I am finding with this truck(one is finding out that I cannot tune it like you still can the Fords or GMs, and this thing severely needs to be tuned to tune this Cummins the right way) , I might just up and sell it when the new F350s come out. I got this thing so cheap that I couldn't pass it up. Hell, due to how much Ram and that dealer dropped their drawers on the price, I can sell it right now and still make a good profit even after the drive off the lot drop in value.

@beast

I usually just ignore you these days because it is not worth my time to even acknowledge your existence. Hell, even saying that wasn't worth the time. But I will make an exception to fix your incorrect remark. Well, you are usually incorrect in your little spinning of words, but this time you are exceptionally so.

"You worked for Cummins and you don't know to tune it?"

For your info, you cannot tune the 13-14 Ram's like you can previous year models. The ECM encryption makes this next to impossible to custom tune. I will have to buy a more expensive external module. Ford and GM ECMS are not encrypted and can easily be custom tunes. Believe me, what Ram did to this Cummins, it needs to be tuned. The drive by wire is laggy and unresponsive making the truck fell not as powerful as the engine could be. I can hit the throttle and it does nothing for the first 10% of throttle input. The 100,000 mile drive train warranty is nice, but the torque management Ram puts on this engine to ensure the drive train lasts in that 100,000 miles sucks a--. The shifting on this thing blows because it shifts too soon to where I am in 6th by the time I hit 40 mph. It was shame on me for not knowing these new 2013-2014 can be tunes as easily as the previous years. It is sad really because it really needs it for all the bad tuning Ram did to it. I have driven F650s with a 6.7L Cummins and they were not nearly this bad. I think Cummins deserves a better truck for it to be put in. Too bad Toyota and Nissan does not make a bigger truck to put this 6.7L in along with the 5.0L.

@1L, you are comparing a truck that really exists to your fantasy truck. You criticize the Ram Cummins for not being perfect, and act like you are praising your imaginary Nissan or Toyota 2500. That's the good thing about imaginary trucks, they can be as perfect as you imagine them to be.

2.7 beats all competitors v6 motors and gm's 5.3 v8. I sure hope it doesn't beat the ram hemi cause if it does there is something wrong with the world or the hemi. The 3.5 ecoboost is what easily beats the hemi. In a couple years in these comparisons after gm goes to aluminum you ram guys are going to complain the truck weight difference is unfair and the ford and gm will have to add weight to make it fair so the hemi can keep up. Next year when the superduty goes to aluminum and drops 1000 lbs and improves on its class leading performance even more over ram you guys are going to cry more as you rams get redesigned tailgates but the exact same or less performance. It's going to be classic!!!!

@Alex

Read what I wrote again. I was was not praising Toyota or Nissan. I was just wishing they(or any other manufacturer) would also have the 6.7L Cummins available as an option just like how a Cummins ISX is available in just about every Class 7 and 8 truck no matter the brand. Although, now that I remember Toyota encrypts their ECMs as well. I just think it is a shame what Ram did to this motor all for the sake of fuel economy and a 100,000 mile warranty I care nothing about. I wish they would at least give me the opportunity to tune it the way I want it like Ford and GM do.

Bizarre review results- the folks at MT must be smokin and snortin again. After I read the article twice , looked at the statistics chart and did several double takes at the "Test winner" rankings I realized This must be the New Math or a truck test that would come out of a White House daily briefing. Actually I much more lean towards the White House briefing. Ok kids which one of these are really true - Obama Care, Ram Eco Diesel ranked #1 and Benghazi - give up , alright I'll tell you it was Benghazi.
So I am going down the chart looking at who came out on top for each measurement. From what is in print , I see Ram winning and losing in the following;
Dimensions LOSER - Horse Power, weight to power, turns lock to lock, Driver leg room, shoulder room, Pay Load Capacity(HUGE fail!).
Test Data - LOSER with one single win and it is an amazing one foot in braking(stop the presses).
Consumer info only two wins- Ram having a longer warranty(very needed due to unreliability factor) and MPG , but this is not a winner when you do the cost per mile.
I looked at Motor Trends past picks for car & truck of the year, wow what a checkered past of hits and severe misses but whatever, its all good fun and games. The real winner is the sales board- to be determined, stay tuned



The comments to this entry are closed.