<p></p><p>No doubt.&nbsp; The car companies seem to specialize in making an expensive thing more expensive and therefore limiting the market demand and then a few years later saying &quot;if there was a demand for diesels in the US we'd make them...&quot;.&nbsp; Then, along come the Germans who say &quot;hey, we've got something that is economical to run.&nbsp; We can use our existing technology + production facilities so here it is America&quot;.&nbsp; In 2013 VW&nbsp;sold 25% of it's US units as diesels.</p>

 

I've been very happy with the ambulance so far. You can't even tell the trailer is back there and modest grades between here and Portland don't even cause it to hint at needing to kick down a gear. The Big Boy test will be the haul to Laguna where we get real mountains. Fuel consumption has been rock solid at 21-22 per gallon with the cruise control set at 100*

*sorry - yes, a Canadian model in KPH but not bad for a 9,400 pound rig with a 12k gross and 20k TCW.

 

My only problem with diesel these days, despite it being better in every way, is that with urea tanks / reduced efficiency + increased price of diesel, it's no longer the gas saver it was 10 years ago at all. And then add it to the fact that you end up with a fully loaded truck to get a diesel, as people have said; it gets expensive quick.

It's really a shame, I'd love a diesel version of my f-150.

 

<p>You can buy the diesel in stripped-out&nbsp;3/4 ton pickups, and I think you can get the Ram diesel in a fairly basic pickup.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>*plays with a Ram configurator*</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>*that took much longer than expected*</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You can get a 2WD, standard cab, Tradesman trim, long bed with the ecodiesel. Can't get the diesel with the short bed. $31,125.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yeah it's a basic truck, but would really be a sweet, sweet tow vehicle. Can bump to the SLT trim for like $36k, and for a quad-cab with the 6'4&quot; bed it'd just a hair over $39k. Yikes. But that's a really nice truck that has absolutely everything you need, unless you need 4WD.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

Remember when you could get diesels in little jap pickups?

 

<p>No. I'm only 28.</p>

 

<p></p><p>There's still a few around that haven't died or otherwise reverted back to the soil&nbsp;yet.</p><p><img src="https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.miataturbo.net-vbulletin/498x297/80-isuzu_066d220ad7d76fb658fd11510a0c2c50d085ad9f.png " title="Isuzu PUP 4x2 or 4x4" /></p><p><em>Isuzu PUP 4x2 or 4x4</em></p><p><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

Horsepower is horsepower. 240hp in a full-sized pickup truck is an absolute joke. You'd have to be nuts to pick an Ecodiesel Ram over a new 2.7L F150, IMO.

 

Deeeerrrp. Double post thanks to my **** internet

 

Not a ram fan, in fact I have a 5.0 F-150. The 2.7 is also a great engine and in fact has a better torque curve for towing than my 5.0 V8.

All that said, the Ecodiesel manages 420lb-ft of torque @ 2000RPM. The 2.7L EB gets 375 @ 3000RPM, with the turbos humming. (I realize the Ecodiesel is also a turbodiesel, but my understanding is that it's for top-end power, not low-end torque).

End of the day? That ecodiesel has some low-end *****, which is exactly what you want for smooth towing without overheating.

 

creepy white van with a portable AC unit is the way to go.

 

Torque doesn't move stuff. Horsepower does.

420@2k = 160hp
375@3000 = 215hp

Both trucks make ~220whp@3600rpm. The Ecoboost goes on to make 260whp from 4400-6600. The low-end diesel torque gets you rolling from a stop, but when you're trying to pull 5 miles of 7% grade, horsepower is king.

BTW - the F150 is 1500 pounds lighter. 6100lbs (Ram) vs 4600lbs (F150).

 

18 wheelers with 450hp and 2000lbft would beg to differ. There's a reason high torque diesel trucks are kings of heavy towing...

My point was that I'd much rather pull up a mountain at 2000rpm and still be hitting peak torque with less stress on my engine. My 5.0 is the worst example of this since I have to rev up to 4k at times to keep a load moving, it's so damn peaky.

For what it is, the 2.7 is great. That doesn't make it automatically superior to a small turbodiesel for towing specifically by any stretch.

I do really like the new f150 and the eb engines. The low end power out of those twin turbos is awesome and it's impressive how far aluminum went with weight savings.

 

And there's a reason they take forever to get up to speed and then lose 20-30mph on steep hills. Torque is a unit of force... Aka, can the truck move the trailer or can't it? Horsepower is how quickly work can be done. Big torque with low hp means you CAN pull the trailer but you'll be doing it at 50mph in the slow lane.

Torque is a requirement for towing but hp is just as important.

 

<p> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>These have to be troll posts. HP is what matters to move a load? Maybe if you're OK with really running your vehicle hard just to move the load. But it's torque that moves the load. Why do you tow with a (300 hp when stock)&nbsp;Duramax instead of a 400 hp 6.2 V8 Ford or Chevy?</p><p>Put 10k pounds behind an ecodiesel ram and the same weight behind a 2.7 ecoboost and see which one can top the hill at a higher speed. I'd put my money on the Ram.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And the reason semi trucks take so long to accelerate and drop 30 mph on the hills is because they've got 1800 lb ft of torque... but it's moving 80,000 pounds. A 400 lb-ft engine moving 10k pounds is taking a relaxing drive in comparison.</p>

 

Errr.. the only way you get more power at 2k is by making more torque at 2k, since hp = (rpm*tq)/5252. I agree with your sentiment, except uh, I bet ya if those semis didn't have *80,000lbs* behind them, they'd climb hills just fine.

I understand what Savington is saying, and I'm not disagreeing with him.

What I disagree with, specifically, is this:
Diesel trucks are always down on power - that's because of the above relationship and the fact that yeah, they redline at like 3500rpm or whatever. They've always had less power than torque, but they've also always been towing monsters for a reason, because their power peak is down low with their torque peak.

What I mean to say is: I don't think anyone is nuts for choosing a small diesel. 420@2k with 30mpg is pretty sweet. So is getting 300's out of a freaking 2.7L gasser, so yay ford. Either one of these is doing far better than a lot of traditional gas V8's from the 90s in terms of power and torque at 2-3k, so that's awesome.



A waste of time the ecodiesel is not.

I agree with this guy. Forget fords and dodges, just get a good old gas V8 Chevy pedovan.

 

I recently borrowed my father's Ridgeline to drag my boat to Georgia and back. 3.5 liter with Honda VTEC power that kicks in above 4500rpm. 250hp@5700, 247ftlbs@4300.
My usual truck is a Tundra 4.7 with NO VTEC, 245hp@4800, 315ftlbs@3400.

Tundra gets about 1.5mpg better on the 900mi round trip because stupid Honda makes all the horsepowers but no ******* torque. Honda was constantly downshifting out of overdrive just to get the engine spinning fast enough to make any difference on level ground or slight grades. Two completely different driving experiences. Downshifting is very noticeable because the intake noise is intrusive, especially when VTEC KICKS IN YO! IT STARTS SCREAMING AT ME but really doesn't pull very well despite the NOISE.

I'm sure the Honda was designed to get better mileage when not towing, but it doesn't do both well.

 

Not picking a side here, but a great phrase I've heard is 'Torque determines if you can climb the hill, horsepower determines how fast you'll climb it.'


That said, my 6.0L F250 pulls my 16' open trailer like magic.

 

This x1000. There is nothing more annoying (and harder on your trans) than constant downshifting. More torque means you can leave the cruise on in overdrive and not worry about a thing. HP doesn't matter when you don't need to go above 2k rpms

 

<p>Savington made a good point that everyone then proceeded to ignore.&nbsp;<strong>1500lbs&nbsp;</strong>difference in weight. Thats almost a ******* miata...</p>