Ram EcoDiesel Makes Wards List of 10 Best Engines, Again


Making the prestigious Wards 10 Best Engines list for the third consecutive year — 2014-16 — the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel 3.0-liter V-6 was the only pickup engine on the 2016 list. The VM Motori-sourced engine from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles produces more than 400 pounds-feet of torque and has an EPA highway rating of 29 mpg, one of the highest of any pickup truck sold in the U.S.

According to Wardsauto.com, two other pickup diesel engines were considered: the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Duramax 2.8-liter inline four-cylinder (a Thailand-sourced turbo-diesel) and the Cummins 32-valve 5.0-liter V-8 turbo-diesel found in the all-new 2016 Nissan Titan XD. Even with those contenders, Wards editors remained convinced that the FCA engine still leads in the pickup segment for refinement and fuel efficiency.

Other winning engines included on the 10 Best list are the BMW turbocharged 3.0-liter inline six-cylinder, the Camaro (fundamentally the same engine, with a different tune, as in the Colorado/Canyon) direct-injection 3.6-liter V-6, the 1.5-liter inline four-cylinder Chevy Volt hybrid powertrain, the Ford Shelby GT350 Mustang 5.2-liter V-8, the 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder Hyundai Sonata hybrid, Nissan's 3.5-liter V-6, the turbocharged 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder boxer from Subaru, the Toyota Prius 1.8-liter inline four-cylinder hybrid and Volvo's supercharged, turbocharged 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder.

Cars.com photo by Evan Sears



The Ford V-8 mentioned by someone here, is made in very small numbers by HAND, and is in a car that normally sells for well under 30K, but is sold in the same car for over 60K!!! That is something to crow about why?

This couldn't have come at a worse time for vehicles made of steel. A 227% tariff on the steel they use. Expect steel prices to go through the roof.

@johnny doeboy, I don't have to go and ask anyone about you. We all know you use a ton of different names on here and it can be told by the way you act.

@Truck Crazy:
That cheap Korean and Chinese steel was used in the previous gen F-150.

@Truck Crazy:
That cheap Korean and Chinese steel was used in the previous gen F-150.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Dec 20, 2015 5:08:24 PM

you have a source for that information?

Yup! Hope Chrysler has room for another award of excellence.





Nope truck kid, I just use this one name johnny doe. All ways have all ways will, as I said go ask Mark Williams he'll tell yah.

It good to see the Frod fans not discuss why no Ford pickup engines are in Wards 10 Best Engines.

They will want to discuss anything other than Fords lack of showing.


WardsAuto editors spent October and November evaluating 36 all-new or improved powertrains.

The EcoBoost engines are not all new so they are not included.

The 3.5 EB did win in 2010 when it was new. Duh.

Ecodiesel is not new either. It just keeps winning 3 years in the row.

I guess it is a world class engine....... once they ignore the failures of the cam gear on the exhaust cam

@truck crazy:
The steel comment was a joke. New f-150 no longer using steel in body thus now oversupply of steel. Get it?

But the ED was a winner in the previous year. The previous year winners are included in the competition by default and the ecodiesel is not new but it was improved for 2016:

the engine received a calibration update for 2016 to improve throttle response at part-throttle and acceleration from a stop

source: TT

Also remember the fallout from last year's competition:

Quote RJ from BOF:

I loved the hesitation after mentioning the 19MPG, "which is................ not great" followed by "If you took this truck on a long highway cruise you would probably push 28MPG which is the highway rating on this truck. So, you know, that's achievable. I'm very confident you could get that mileage if you really tried, and that is phenomenal for a large full size pickup."

Take a long second look at this sentence:

"I'm very confident you could get that mileage if you really tried, and that is phenomenal for a large full size pickup."

In other words, they consider this to be a 'phenomenal' engine on the basis of a mileage figure that they did not achieve and which their tester thinks you would have some difficulty achieving.



PS Which of these two engines fell furthest from its EPA rating in "real world" testing by Wards?

The EcoDiesel (19/23) or the "Nano" Ecoboost (19/20)?

Wards are so far down the track with Ecodiesel that they simply cannot recant without looking like fools.

Reviewers should have known better with lavish praise, it paints your into a corner....

@Dave Z, The Wards people are pathological liars. All aboard the EcoBoost train. Right engines, at the Right time.

Did you just post blueovalforum link? Sucker. LOL.

Ecodiesels gets better real life MPG than EPA.
Ecoboost gers worse MPG I in reak life than EPA.
Plain and simple.

Blue oval forum? I thought this was the blue oval forum.


Good find and I had forgot about that. That definitely puts a question mark on Ward's awards. Very poor judgement and behavior on full display.

So does wards poor judgement extend to the gt350 as well? Either they exercise questionable findings or not

Ram Trucks are really winning a lot of awards

@johnny, I never said anything about steel.

If one looks at Wards 10 Best engines list it really highlights how Ford is dropping the ball with its engine technology and how best to design and develop a worthwhile pickup truck engine or any engine for that matter.

It took what is essentially an aftermarket organisation to produce a better Frod engine to make the list. The flat plane engine looks nice. But it ain't no pickup engine.

You can now see why Ford needs the three litre Lion V6, the hybrid for it's F-150. So, Ford is required to rely on an old engine, like the 3.2 diesel. Which would of been a better option for the aluminium F-150.

Ford is way behind here with the EcoThirst engines.

The aluminium F-150 has shown when design and engineering is that little bit out over many areas the product (pickup) can produce a very ordinary outcome. Don't get me wrong, the aluminium pickup is competitive, but it should of been a scorcher.

Ford's lacklustre aluminium F-150 has been just an average pickup that is too expensive for what you get. Ford is relying on the Ford name to sell the pickup, like Toyota does with its pickups in the US and globally.

But, like Toyota, Ford's actual market share is shrinking. This shrinking has me thinking that it will be easier for other manufacturers to take more market share from Ford.

This is also shown when an older chassis like the Ram can outperform the aluminium F-150 on several occassions.

Or, better still, a midsizer, which many on PUTC denegrate out performs the aluminium F-150 in some reviews as well.

I wonder how many diesel Colorados will be bought in lieu of a 2.7 EcoBoost for business. It seems many like the little diesel Colorado for it's exceptional work capacity and FE, along with a refined vehicle as good as a full size in many repects. Something we've been accustomed to here in the global world.

Ford needs to keep the prices low on the F-150 to sell them.

Ford is between a rock and a hard place with it's F Series. It took a big gamble, it has invested massive resources, ie, money into the vehicle, and they must sell them cheap to move them, just to compete with much older platforms as is illustrated in some reviews and in real life with some of the incentives. Fords needed to move the pieces of aluminium off the lots, so to speak and yet so early in it product life cycle. This must embarass some of the Ford execs.

Even this Wards Best 10 is showing the true colours of the aluminium Ford, or better still Ford's reliance on a poor decision.

I wonder in five years if Ford sells in Ram numbers? The US pickup market is transforming. New pickups will be out in five years.

I'd bet a new and far better Tundra will happen.

Nissan is serious with the Titan, designing the new Titan to fulfill the needs of 85% of the pickup segment. The old Titan on managed to fulfill the needs for a 35% market segment.

The new midsizers will take sales away from fullsize trucks as the consumer realises they can tow more than the average 5 000lb trailer comfortably.

Yes Ford you have done well .......................... not.

Yup, Ford initially sold the aluminium F-150 on big FE promises. The problem is Ford just can't design and engine. Even the aluminium change only has given Ford a 1mpg gain.

The heavier Ram with this VM out tows the 2.7 EcoThirst and returns at least 10mpg better. Even with a 50c difference between diesel and gas the VM Ram will still pay for itself.

What an embarrassment for Frod.

Wasn't the 6.0 Diesel one of Ward's 10 best (and please don't start listing the weak excuses for why it was a total disaster because it was an EPIC disaster)? I also know that there were a few years they put the 1.0 Ford 3cyl turbo on there a few times and while its a marvel of engineering and efficiency its not holding up well in the real world. The Fiat ED is a winning formula and its sales have proved it so. Its level of power, displacement, efficiency is very correct for a full size half ton all while meeting emissions (or at least as far as we assume right now :) ). The problem with Wards 10 best is they get all engineery and theoretical. Its obviously a very acacdemically rated/chosen group. And while that's not a bad thing as long as it taken at face value much like the "car of the year" being something new and unproven, cool doesn't always pan out.

And just think....

there's going to be a Wrangler with this engine in 18 months.


@BIgAL, This is about the RAM, not about the Ford ecoboost, or Fords Military grade aluminum, please stop whining already, I do agree there needs to be discipline on the these forums, they should start by throwing you out, most fo the rediciulous stuff on here, is started by you

Too bad the Ford 3.0 V6 diesel found in Land Rover didn't get consideration. It has more power and torque then the EcoDiesel and gets 28 mpg in the 4WD Range Rover.

While the Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel gets 30 mpg, that's only for the 2WD version, the 4WD gets the same 28 mpg. The RAM 1500 gets 29 mpg in the HFE model, that has 2WD and other tweaks. The 4WD version gets 27 mpg.

That being said, its no mystery Italians actually do know how to make engines. Even the 6.7 Cummins started as joint Iveco (Fiat) - Cummins project.

The 5.0 Cummins may be a good engine but at 5.0 is an oil guzzler. With the exhaust break should have been in installed in the RAM 2500 or the Power Wagon.

"inline four-cylinder boxer"?

I would love to see that.

It's nice to see the EcoDiesel being successful.

After reading Datsuns tow test against a 5.0 f-150 I see why the vm motor is in the ram instead of the 5.0 cummins, good call ram. The same reason The ecoboost motors are kind of a bust, sorry ford, it's a great idea but the mpg don't hold up in the real world. If you need to tow heavy buy a 3500/350, if you want milage and light towing capability buy a ecodiesel. Sorry boys you can't have a race truck and 30mpg well...Maybe with a 5.9 cummins

For 2017, Consumer Guide recommends solely the Ford F-150. Based on thousands of consumer responses, the F-150 had the best reliability and overall performance compared to other brands on the market. Because their survey is based on thousands of responses, I'll not be swayed by a minority of GM or Ram nay-Sayers. I had a 1998 F-150 for 16 years and only did brakes, tires, and battery replacements. Not a single problem with that truck. Tried something different the last few years, a Chevy Silverado. Little crap, like instrument display panel, engine nox sensors, went out. Guess what?...my next truck will be a Ford again!

I have a 2014 eco diesel with 51000 miles and have had no problems. By the way I have towed with it and it pulls great. once with 7500 pound and avg/15mpg with it and another with 5000 pounds and avg. 17.2 Both runs where over 400miles. yes lets go ram

Say what you will about the ECODIESEL.
I have 31000 miles on my 2014 Crew Cab 4WD Ecodiesel.
My average everyday driving around western PA is 22 to 23 mpg running around back roads and 4 laners combined
On the 4 laners I usually run around 70 to 75 mph.

At 55 miles per hour on fairly level back roads, I have gotten
30 mpg more than once,

There is no other 5700 pound truck that comes close to this mileage.
Just keeping my fingers crossed that I have one of the BETTER

The comments to this entry are closed.