2.7L MPG hint on twitter
10-01-2014, 05:03 PM
#22
XLT SuperCrew (full four-door crew cab) 2WD with road tires. No cargo, four people onboard.
Test 1: Doing my darnedest to squeeze every drop out of the tank: 23.5 MPG over about 50 miles of 70% rolling hill highways, 30% windy dirt roads.
So with four people aboard and hilly highways this truck can get almost 24 mpg? That's pretty darn impressive. I know he was granny driving but in less than ideal conditions. I bet 27 would be no problem on a road trip.
Test 1: Doing my darnedest to squeeze every drop out of the tank: 23.5 MPG over about 50 miles of 70% rolling hill highways, 30% windy dirt roads.
So with four people aboard and hilly highways this truck can get almost 24 mpg? That's pretty darn impressive. I know he was granny driving but in less than ideal conditions. I bet 27 would be no problem on a road trip.
10-01-2014, 09:31 PM
#23
Senior Member
Last time I checked, a 4WD Ram ecodiesel with eight speed transmission is rated for 22mpg combined. Where I live diesel is currently selling for $3.80 and regular is $3.30.
So, 3.30/3.80=.87
And .87 X 22mpg = 19.1mpg
Therefore this 2.7L needs to get EPA ratings of about 19mpg combined and 24mpg highway for me to view it as a success.
So, 3.30/3.80=.87
And .87 X 22mpg = 19.1mpg
Therefore this 2.7L needs to get EPA ratings of about 19mpg combined and 24mpg highway for me to view it as a success.
10-02-2014, 11:58 AM
#24
The Ram EcoDiesel sounds good on paper but reality paints a different picture: first, it's a $2,800 to $4,000 option. The fuel, on average, 15% higher & maintenance is also higher - more oil, filters, fuel treatment. The 2.7L EB builds I've done are $0-$400, runs regular gas, has better payload capacity & just flat out pulled the Ram @ Davis Dam. a Laramie ltd with a 3.0 ED payload drops to 859 lbs. fully optioned it's only 770.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
The following users liked this post:
Aquapools (10-02-2014)
10-02-2014, 03:47 PM
#25
The Ram EcoDiesel sounds good on paper but reality paints a different picture: first, it's a $2,800 to $4,000 option. The fuel, on average, 15% higher & maintenance is also higher - more oil, filters, fuel treatment. The 2.7L EB builds I've done are $0-$400, runs regular gas, has better payload capacity & just flat out pulled the Ram @ Davis Dam. a Laramie ltd with a 3.0 ED payload drops to 859 lbs. fully optioned it's only 770.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
not to mention having 4 people in the truck. if all men, 200 lbs each is reasonable. thats an extra 800lbs in the truck. it pretty well negates any weight savings in the aluminum and makes it more equivalent to what the 2.7 could have done in the old body. which for an engine in the old steel body those figures wouldn't be bad at all.
10-02-2014, 07:54 PM
#26
Senior Member
The Ram EcoDiesel sounds good on paper but reality paints a different picture: first, it's a $2,800 to $4,000 option. The fuel, on average, 15% higher & maintenance is also higher - more oil, filters, fuel treatment. The 2.7L EB builds I've done are $0-$400, runs regular gas, has better payload capacity & just flat out pulled the Ram @ Davis Dam. a Laramie ltd with a 3.0 ED payload drops to 859 lbs. fully optioned it's only 770.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
Ram has had rust issues with the bodies for years. Not a problem with the new F150. The 2.7 & 3.5 are cheaper engine options, run quicker, haul & tow more. Even if the Ram ED still gets better mpg, it's a 14 year duration to pay itself off, if you drive above average miles per year. I just don't see the advantage to the diesel over the EB or even the 5.0.
10-02-2014, 08:17 PM
#27
I agree about the other negatives of the Ram ED. But the fact is that Ford is making small turbo charged engines only because of fuel economy. If fuel economy wasn't a concern they would just stick to large V8's. Likewise, fuel economy is the main reason for the Ram ED. Both have pros and cons but I think the 2.7L eco will be a far more practical and cost effective engine than the Ram ED. That being said, I still think this thing needs to return at least 19mpg combined and 24mpg highway to justify it's existence.
10-02-2014, 09:39 PM
#28
Senior Member
Maybe I'm being too optimistic but 24 mpg on the highway should be no problem for the 2.7. I've seen 22 and 23 on long trips with my 2013 SC EB 3.31 gear driving 75 mph. Those numbers are from the onboard computer but the total miles (575) on a tank of gas match up. 700 fewer lbs and a smaller engine should get it done.
10-02-2014, 09:58 PM
#29
Senior Member
Maybe I'm being too optimistic but 24 mpg on the highway should be no problem for the 2.7. I've seen 22 and 23 on long trips with my 2013 SC EB 3.31 gear driving 75 mph. Those numbers are from the onboard computer but the total miles (575) on a tank of gas match up. 700 fewer lbs and a smaller engine should get it done.
10-02-2014, 10:10 PM
#30
Senior Member
Yes, I completely agree. The 2014 3.5L EB SC 2wd is rated at 22 hwy. I guess the big question is, how much will the weight loss and smaller engine bump mpg? I'm thinking Ford already knows the answer to that question or they wouldn't be doing the 2.7 in the first place.