nihilus

Saw this on the below forum. It a thread on the Ike gauntlet run of the Grand Cherokee with the 3.0


http://www.ram1500diesel.com/forum/r...look-good.html


Here is a direct link to Tfl car:


http://www.tflcar.com/2014/05/2014-j...ng-test-video/


Just skipped through the video but this is what I got from it:


Performance- The ecodiesel took almost 9 minutes to pull a 5700# boat up the hill. That is pretty bad. The ram guys will claim tow/haul and 3.92 will make a huge difference. We will see about that.


High temps- The truck temps got rather high. They mention a bigger hood scoop for the Ram and other stuff on the thread to.


MPG- The Cherokee did well here, but to be honest it was only 5700# and an aerodynamic boat. I will gladly take the mpg hit knowing I can tow up a hill at safe speeds. Most people will not do this towing even 1% of the miles, but when they do its nice to be able to do it.


Kind of fun reading through the forums. Post #57 is rather rich. "add 1000 lbs and you get better towing capability. sheesh!


The 2.7 ecoboost will easily beat the ram diesel in every measure - power (close), mpg, and especially price.

my67falcon

Am I the only one who thinks that chick is annoying as hell?

nihilus

Haha yeah I think Nathan was getting annoyed. The engine "fell on it's face" when loosing momentum, as Nathan put it.


Ok watched the whole video now. I'm sorry, but this engine is a dog. The thing has an 8-speed transmission so gears will not matter much at all. Even when it did downshift, there was no improvement.


Again, temperature- 274 degrees is damn hot. I think ford made a good choice with the ecoboost.


Horsepower rules- Conventional wisdom would think torque is key, but that is just not the case with the Ike gauntlet. On the Duramax vs. the Cummins, the Duramax matched the Cummins despite having considerably less torque. The V-6 F-150 did amazing with a similar size boat as the Grand Cherokee despite having WAY less torque. Finally the ecoboost does great against even the biggest V-8s simply because it can "keep" more of its horsepower.

Wannafbody

My EB outpulls my dad's 6.0 Chevy from a stop.

zx12-iowa

The dodge diesel is not very strong but a mid weight engine for mid weight work at a good efficiency, mpg. So the Eco should out pull it. Even the 5.0 would out pull it. But the diesel,should have far better mpg

brulaz

yup, most "half-tons" are used for commuting and grocery-getting. The Ecodiesel with it's high mpg is aimed straight at that market. RAM gives the 5.7L hemi a higher tow rating. And neither of them have much payload.

Agreed the HP is nice for maintaining hwy speed on hills and passing, but personally, I'd rather have the mpg.

Wonder what the new Cummins 5L in the Nissan and Toyota will be like? 550 lb-ft torque and over 300 horses. Hope they don't put that in a low-payload truck. RAM should have kept it for their new 2500s with the rear coil suspension, saving the big, old Cummins for the 3500s that have the payload to handle it.

nihilus

My dad can beat up your dad.

nihilus

[QUOTE=brulaz;3583351]

Agreed the HP is nice for maintaining hwy speed on hills and passing, but personally, I'd rather have the mpg.
QUOTE]

Hell, I think the Ram's own pentstar v-6 with its 8-speed would give this engine a run for its money in mpg and pulling power. Just put a wood block under the gas pedal of aan ecoboost to match it as well. This engine is way overpriced, and you will never make your money back.

brulaz

Maybe so. Diesels traditionally have been for high mileage situations where a block that lasts 300-400K miles saves money. Not the case for grocery-getters I think. But up here in Canada it might be easier to make a case for it 'cause our fuel prices are so much higher than in the States.

smurfs_of_war

The ED is making some heads turn a bit given the unladen mileage, but up here- diesel is more expensive too. I was seriously thinking about one- but, as when the ecoboost came out and I had purchased my F150- I wanted it to mature a bit.
It was pretty surprising to see it rated so low. There was a REALLY detailed write up by a member on the ram forum I am on, he was really pleased with his- dragged a 9000lbs trailer for 4000 miles which included the Canadian Rockies. Wish I could find the link now.

Anyways, I am not here to defend the "little diesel that shouldn't". It's designed (IMHO) for the guys pulling their little 14' aluminum boat to the lake on weekends. Torque is one thing, but without the HP to keep the load rolling, what good is it?

3.92 won't help *that* much. A little for sure, but not enough to offset that dismal performance. The ED only have the option for a 3.21 or 3.92. Nothing in the middle. They did so much right with the new ZF box behind the engine only to shoot themselves in the foot like this. Makes no sense.

Before I get bashed too badly, Yes- I own a Ram- but I still enjoy this forum