The ecodiesel equipped Ram has turned out to be an impressive engine, particularly with a GDE tune. Its achilles heel is poor heat management under load, since the intercooler obstructs most of the radiator. The Garrett turbo they chose to use also has very little headroom in terms of handling EGTs. I suspect Chrysler will address those shortcomings whenever they provide the next Ram 1500 update.

Even with those limitations if you yank the DPF, and particularly if you add a water/methanol injection system this engine will easily run up right to the torque limits of the 8HP70 transmission (maybe in an update Chrysler will have to move to an 8HP90 for ecodiesel applications?). To be clear that would put the ecodiesel right on par with the Cummins ISV in power/torque production (though at slightly higher rpms).

Its a shame more people don't have a chance to tow with an ecodiesel and a hemi, despite the paper ratings the ecodiesel is an improved towing experience than a hemi (and shockingly more efficient).

I am still hoping that Ford will update their ecoboost with their "bobcat" technology they previewed many years ago. Probably the closest thing to a diesel experience one can get (diesel emissions stuff can be a huge hassle). I suspect that will never happen though.

There's been too many low mileage ecodiesel engine failures, head recalls, and other issues for my risk tolerance.

Gotta wonder why VM's smaller 2.8L engine didn't garner as much interest.

Cummins 5.0L was been let down with Nissan's lackluster effort.

Two of my relatives have one. One in a jeep, one in a ram. Both get great mpg, but both have already spent time in the shop on multiple occasions. My dad decided to pass on the ecodiesel after hearing about those problems saying "it's definitely not a cummins." I don't think either of my relatives regret their purchase though. Reading on the ram forums seems there are a lot of different issues. Oil in the coolant. Exhaust system leaking into the cab. Injection pump failures.

@Beebe

It's unfortunate, but thing like this happen. The oil cooler is outsourced and it's just poor solder job and coolant attacking joints. The engine is still the best.
Exhaust system leaking to the cab has been fixed a year ago.
I would probably replace this oil cooler with aftermarket one as soon as I would get the key from dealer, but even that could be defective. Nissan Titan had similar problem with Transmission fluid leak in the radiator.

Congrats for best diesel engine to FIAT again, like many of you like to say.

Ford has the only v8 on the list. No Hemi's, no hellcats, no lt's from gm.

GM has 3 engines on the list. Another example of GM leading. Don't worry FORD fans, by chasing GM, ford advances it's products.

My point is ford is the only one with a v8 on the list..... Duh

So what. All magazines like that motor. But it's on a list with a motor you blue oval boys think is junk so really how good can it be

Obviously engines aren't put on this list with durability/longetivity/quality in mind.

FCA recalls 55,687 more Jeep Cherokees

December 18, 2015 - 11:08 am ET

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles today recalled 55,687 Jeep Cherokee SUVs for a problem with power liftgate components that could lead to a fire. Six months ago, FCA recalled more than 164,000 Cherokees for the same problem.

https://www.autonews.com/article/20151218/OEM11/151219867/fca-recalls-55687-more-jeep-cherokees-for-liftgate-problem

What a big baby roadram is.

Only ford crying babies could jump from FIAT truck best diesel engine award 3 times in the row, to Cherokee power lift gate moisture shield or mention V8 you can't get in the ford truck, just to feel better.
I am going out. Have a nice day losers.

Only ford crying babies could jump from FIAT truck best diesel engine award 3 times in the row, to Cherokee power lift gate moisture shield or mention V8 you can't get in the ford truck, just to feel better.
I am going out. Have a nice day losers.

Anybody that thinks a 3.0 ecodiesel with the problems and reliability of a 6.0 ford is a better diesel then a 6.7 cummins is crazy. the ecodiesel is riddled with problems compared to a 6.7 cummins, less capable, less reliable, less power. The list goes on and on.

In other news fiat Chrysler blowing through money due to there bad fuel economy.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TZ2ZN20151216

@johnny doeboy or gmsnotgreat Ford chases no one. Why would they chase gm and take a step backwards because Ford sets the pace that the others follow. You know its true and it has to hurt you. Idiot.

Best engine? Let's give it 6 years or so and see how "reliable" they are. I took my 2000 Silverado 5.3 V8 to 275,000 miles with no rebuilds and original transmission before I sold it. Now, that'a a "Best" engine in my opinion.

I knew you bomb tossers wouldn't take long. Predictable. Really Alexandria. Best you can do? I'll let you in on something most here already know: I'm no fan of tiny problem plagued Italian diesels. Wards credibility is suspect

And unlike others I don't post disparaging articles to make myself feel good. That's a sign of a small man

In my opinion best engines were, 289, 302, 350, 225, 318. Reliable, starts every day, little maintenance, lasts forever

@Woopud
They sell them in Grand Cherokee since 2011. It's reliable engine for sure.

They sell a couple hundred a month is all in the Cherokee. They aren't reliable in the truck

They sell a couple hundred a month is all in the Cherokee. They aren't reliable in the truck

Best v8 out there current is the 6.2 gm. No other v8 compares

@Truck Crazy:
Ford chased GM for a decade before they finally offered up a comparable diesel option for their HD trucks. That's a fact, no bull.

Gmsgreat.
The 7.3 was better then gms diesel of the time. The 6.7 ford is better then gms current offering. 2003 to 2010 I will agree that gm had a better diesel. But gms been chasing ford diesel for a half of a decade now.

They sell 4000 in the truck every month . Looks reliable to me.

2000 of those go in to get check engine lights fixed. To long term testers on Internet sites.... Edmunds and motortrend. Both sites had major break downs on there ecodiesel.

@scott:
I agree with you on most of that point. I like honesty. I wish there were more posters like you and not so many posers.

2000 of those go in to get check engine lights fixed.

Posted by: scott | Dec 20, 2015 2:03:42 PM

Source ? Never mind. It's Scott.

@scott:
Duramax has only been upstaged by the 6.7 powerstroke since its last update. That's my opinion. Again, I agree totally with the rest of your comments.

@scott:
Duramax has only been upstaged by the 6.7 powerstroke since its last update. That's my opinion. Again, I agree totally with the rest of your comments.

----------------------- WHERE'S THE ECOBOOST? -------------------

It is good to see the diesel VM 6V receive recognition for the great engine it is. It is very economical, torqy, with enough power to propel the 1500 Ram along nicely.

............................ Ford on the other hand had only one engine in Wards List of 10 Best Engines, even though this engine is a modified engine from what is more or less an after market supplier.

Here is a comment from Wards on why the 2.7 EcoBoost or the endearing term I give it now the "EcoThirst" was not considered.

The Wards comment and link;

"But there’s a big problem: 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)."

http://wardsauto.com/2015/where-s-eco-ecoboost

At Gmsgreat.

The 6.7 powerstroke has been out for a 1/2 of a decade now... Times flies... 6.7 has been out longer now then the 6.0 was in existence.

Congrats to FCA for the recognition. The EcoDiesel is a great engine, no matter if Ford turds think otherwise.
We'll see GMs 2.8 Duramax on that list next year, for sure.
I'm glad manufactures are recognizing what customers want and are giving us choices.

Ecoboost 2.7 is a biggest fail in the truck.

2.7 ecoboost has no any problems in the trucks. Nobody buys them.

I pooped in the refrigerator!

@gregory j
You won't see the 2.8 duramax on the ward list next year, you also won't see the 5.0 cummins either. They were test this year by wards and didn't make the 10 best list. Wards test each year involves taking the winners of the previous year and then new powertrains on the market to test. So since the baby duramax didn't make the 10 best list it won't be tested next year cause it's not new. As long as a engine stays in the 10 best list it will be tested the following year even though it's not new.

Good job ram. Seems like this engine will be a good performer in reliability and longevity. Most diesels are but they have a good spot being the only half ton with turbo diesel right now. Ram is not my brand of choice currently but this engine would be a nice option to have.

@Truck Crazy:
Ford chased GM for a decade before they finally offered up a comparable diesel option for their HD trucks. That's a fact, no bull.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Dec 20, 2015 1:53:30 PM

It is true. Since the 6.0L and the 6.4 the 6.6L was a more durable engine. Even though there were injector issues with some 6.6L engines as a whole they were very reliable. But to be fair when the 6.6L had to meet 2010 emissions there were more engine failures due to the regen calibrations and oil grow. But GM made a good move to add a 9th injector in the exhaust to get rid of those issues. The 6.6L has a weird bore stroke ratio for a diesel. But it does work good for great mid range power. Ford needed the 6.7L to recover from the 6.0L and 6.4L. I would still take a 6.0L truck over a 6.4L. Once you understand the 6.0L it can be reliable.

Not sure how the 6.6L is doing right now but last I heard they were having the same issues as the Ford 6.7L with the Bosch CP4 pump failing and killing the entire fuel systems. But other companies are having the same issues with the CP4 pumps.

At Gmsgreat.

The 6.7 powerstroke has been out for a 1/2 of a decade now... Times flies... 6.7 has been out longer now then the 6.0 was in existence.

Posted by: scott | Dec 20, 2015 2:15:05 PM

Actually the 6.0L has been out longer. International started using it in 2002 and Ford started in 2003. It was last put in a Ford product in 2010 in the Econoline van. The 6.7L started as a 2011 model year in late 2010 till current. They are doing a good job at getting the bugs worked out of it though.

Ya. The 6.0 was out longer then it was in the superduty. But in superduty is was 2003.5 to 2007. It had a shorter run in the superduty the the 6.7 which is in its 5th model year.

I still think the 6.4 HEMI V8 is the best.

GUTS
GLORY
BEST IN CLASS V8
RAM!!!!!!!

I agree. Ram has the best engines.

----------------------- WHERE'S THE ECOBOOST? -------------------

It is good to see the diesel VM 6V receive recognition for the great engine it is. It is very economical, torqy, with enough power to propel the 1500 Ram along nicely.

............................ Ford on the other hand had only one engine in Wards List of 10 Best Engines, even though this engine is a modified engine from what is more or less an after market supplier.

Here is a comment from Wards on why the 2.7 EcoBoost or the endearing term I give it now the "EcoThirst" was not considered.

The Wards comment and link;

"But there’s a big problem: 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)."

http://wardsauto.com/2015/where-s-eco-ecoboost

----------------------- WHERE'S THE ECOBOOST? -------------------

It is good to see the diesel VM 6V receive recognition for the great engine it is. It is very economical, torqy, with enough power to propel the 1500 Ram along nicely.

............................ Ford on the other hand had only one engine in Wards List of 10 Best Engines, even though this engine is a modified engine from what is more or less an after market supplier.

Here is a comment from Wards on why the 2.7 EcoBoost or the endearing term I give it now the "EcoThirst" was not considered.

The Wards comment and link;

"But there’s a big problem: 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)."

http://wardsauto.com/2015/where-s-eco-ecoboost

----------------------- WHERE'S THE ECOBOOST? -------------------

It is good to see the diesel VM 6V receive recognition for the great engine it is. It is very economical, torqy, with enough power to propel the 1500 Ram along nicely.

............................ Ford on the other hand had only one engine in Wards List of 10 Best Engines, even though this engine is a modified engine from what is more or less an after market supplier.

Here is a comment from Wards on why the 2.7 EcoBoost or the endearing term I give it now the "EcoThirst" was not considered.

The Wards comment and link;

"But there’s a big problem: 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)."

http://wardsauto.com/2015/where-s-eco-ecoboost

----------------------- WHERE'S THE ECOBOOST? -------------------

It is good to see the diesel VM 6V receive recognition for the great engine it is. It is very economical, torqy, with enough power to propel the 1500 Ram along nicely.

............................ Ford on the other hand had only one engine in Wards List of 10 Best Engines, even though this engine is a modified engine from what is more or less an after market supplier.

Here is a comment from Wards on why the 2.7 EcoBoost or the endearing term I give it now the "EcoThirst" was not considered.

The Wards comment and link;

"But there’s a big problem: 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)."

http://wardsauto.com/2015/where-s-eco-ecoboost

Ya. The 6.0 was out longer then it was in the superduty. But in superduty is was 2003.5 to 2007. It had a shorter run in the superduty the the 6.7 which is in its 5th model year.

Posted by: scott | Dec 20, 2015 2:46:28 PM

The 6.0L was never meant to be in the Superduty that long either. It was supposed to be a short term engine till the 6.4L was ironed out. International had so many development issues with it the 6.0L stayed in the game longer than originally planned. But with 2010 emissions regulations there was no choice but to put in the 6.4L. At least this is the story I heard from an old coworker that worked for International a few years ago.

Ford sets the pace that the others follow. You know its true and it has to hurt you. Idiot.

Posted by: Truckcrazy | Dec 20, 2015 1:01:20 PM

Hey truck kid, first time I posted on this story. I only use this name go ask Mark Williams if you want, he'll tell yah.

It also seems you have a very short memory truck kid. Go back one story.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2015/12/spied-2017-ford-f-150-turbodiesel.html