pickup mpg with new engine types

[haven]

Pickup mpg has improved in the last couple of years. Chiefly responsible are new engine and transmission choices.

Edmunds.com has posted long term test results for two of these new models. Each truck, as tested, cost about $50,000 delivered.

First, Edmunds tested a 2014 Ram Ecodiesel 4x4 for more than 50,000 miles. This model has a 3.0L V6 turbodiesel and 8 speed automatic transmission. Max torque produced is 420 ft-lb. Edmunds averaged 21.8 mpg in all conditions, single worst mpg recorded was 15.1 mpg (one tankfull while towing).

Modern diesels inject diesel exhaust fluid, a form of urea, to help control emissions. Edmunds reported using a gallon of DEF per 1000 miles of driving. At $12 for a 2.5 gallon jug of DEF, that means you'll spend an extra half a cent per mile driven. That's $250 over 50,000 miles.

Next, Edmunds tested an aluminum-bodied 2015 Ford F150 4x4 with the 2.7L turbo gas V6 and 6 speed automatic. Max torque for the V6 is 375 ft lb. Average mpg over 30,000 miles of operation was 17.0 mpg, single worst tankful was 13.3 mpg (again, while towing).

Any truck can record high mpg on a single tank, given the right conditions. The value of Edmunds' testing is that it's over many miles, in different conditions, with several drivers.

Edmunds says the range of the Ram Ecodiesel is about 700 miles of highway driving. The Ford also has a 700 mile range, thanks to an optional 36 gallon fuel tank.

Would you be interested in either truck Edmunds tested, or do you prefer the old-school V8?

 

[p nut]

I read the edmunds LT tests on these trucks before buying 3 months ago.
_
While I love V8's, I test drove a 2.7 F150. Thing that impressed me was the power from this little V6, while getting better mpg than the v8. I also appreciated the quietness, and advanced tech features such as start/stop over the V8.

I had gone into truck purchase mode all set to buy a 5.0, but after the test drive, I drove home in a 2.7.

 

[Ducky's Dad]

Simple is good. The twin-turbo EcoBoost is far from simple. I prefer not to have any aluminum body panels on a truck. Between EcoBoost and aluminum body, the Ford is probably a money pit when it's older.

The EcoDiesel is attractive, and would probably be my first choice if I needed a new half ton.

 

[BrianV]

Yes, if I were looking at buying a new 1/2 ton I would consider the new powertrain technologies. While MPG is not the most important factor for me as maintenance, registration and insurance cost can also be a significant part of the yearly operating costs of our vehicles. I am happy to also see decent fuel range, with larger fuel tanks and increased mpg. This was deciding factor over a 4runner when we purchased a new Grand Cherokee Ecodiesel for my wife. It got seriously old fueling up every 3 days in her old car with ~300 mile range.

We haven't had to fill the DEF yet but I understand that the cheapest place to fill DEF is at truckstops or other bulk fuel places, ~$2.50/gal from the pump.

 

[p nut]

Simple is good. The twin-turbo EcoBoost is far from simple. I prefer not to have any aluminum body panels on a truck. Between EcoBoost and aluminum body, the Ford is probably a money pit when it's older.

The EcoDiesel is attractive, and would probably be my first choice if I needed a new half ton.

Compared to a modern V8, can you explain what makes a V6 TT more complex?

 

[jaxyaks]

Ram with the Pentastar V6 will get you over 20MPG city and 24-25 highway and won't cost 50K Worst tank I every got in 40K was 19mpg

 

[IdaSHO]

Compared to a modern V8, can you explain what makes a V6 TT more complex?

Or eco-diesel for that matter

 

[haven]

The Ram 3.6L gas V6 provides 269 ft lb of torque at 4000 rpm.
The Ram Ecodiesel puts out 420 ft lb at 2000 rpm.
The Ford 2.7L gas turbo V6 makes 375 ft lb at 3000 rpm.

So it's not surprising that the 3.6L gets somewhat better fuel economy when running lightly loaded. That advantage goes away when towing or carrying a heavy load because you have to run at higher rpm to get enough torque.

The conventional V6 will be cheaper to buy and service. It just depends on how you plan to use the truck.

 

[Ducky's Dad]

what makes a V6 TT more complex?

It's that "TT" part. Two turbos are two things that can break and increase maintenance costs when the truck gets old. V8 trucks do not have twin turbos to break. My trucks get very old before I dump them. If you buy a new truck every three or four years, it's probably not a big deal. The EcoDiesel has its own level of complexity, but its fuel economy is way better that the Hemi alternative, and it comes wrapped in a steel body. And I prefer Dodge trucks to Ford trucks.

 

[ExplorerTom]

I know a guy that just lunched the first turbo in his TT ecoboost. Broke the compressor side off the first turbo. But was still able to drive home on the highway for about an hour without sucking it through the intake.

I did a cost break down between operating my thirsty 5.4l 16 year old V8 in my Expedition vs a "new" truck that I had to finance $30k and got better gas mileage. Even with 11-13 mpg, the Expedition is significantly cheaper to own. Cheaper registration, cheaper insurance, NO monthly payment. I even figured in $150/month in repair costs.

 

[Ducky's Dad]

I know a guy that just lunched the first turbo in his TT ecoboost. Broke the compressor side off the first turbo.

And we have a winner!!!!

 

[p nut]

It's that "TT" part. Two turbos are two things that can break and increase maintenance costs when the truck gets old. V8 trucks do not have twin turbos to break. My trucks get very old before I dump them. If you buy a new truck every three or four years, it's probably not a big deal. The EcoDiesel has its own level of complexity, but its fuel economy is way better that the Hemi alternative, and it comes wrapped in a steel body. And I prefer Dodge trucks to Ford trucks.

Out of curiosity, have you actually owned late gen Turbo engines or is this rhetoric from 30 years ago? Turbos have gotten much more reliable, and longevity has increased dramatically.

By the way, you do know the Ecodiesels are turbos as well, right?

 

[BrianV]

I did a cost break down between operating my thirsty 5.4l 16 year old V8 in my Expedition vs a "new" truck that I had to finance $30k and got better gas mileage. Even with 11-13 mpg, the Expedition is significantly cheaper to own. Cheaper registration, cheaper insurance, NO monthly payment. I even figured in $150/month in repair costs.

That is typically always the case. The vehicle 'you' own is usual worth more to 'you' than it is on the open market, you know its quirks and how its been maintained etc.
No incremental improvement of mpg is going to make buying a brand new vehicle cheaper. It's when you need to change classes of vehicles or when the vehicle is getting old enough that the wiring harness is getting questionable and every bushing on it is worn out that you begin to see the value in a 'new' vehicle. As ever dollar you pour into the old rig (but not doing a total frame off resto) has a greater and greater chance of literally burning up before your eyes. Another 5 or 10 years you may begin to feel this way about your Expedition.

 

[Ducky's Dad]

Out of curiosity, have you actually owned late gen Turbo engines or is this rhetoric from 30 years ago? Turbos have gotten much more reliable, and longevity has increased dramatically.

By the way, you do know the Ecodiesels are turbos as well, right?

Don't own a turbo, don't want a turbo, all my current trucks are V8s. Turbo issues are not rhetorical, they are real, as indicated by the failure reported by another poster. I worked in aerospace and military ship design, and anybody in those businesses can verify that complexity breeds potential failure modes and generally increases life cycle costs. The best solutions are generally the simplest solutions that will get the job done. Ford is building a product for the masses, and I am not their target market. Anybody who likes that product is free to buy it, but I won't (yet). As the technology matures and improves, and as regulations force us into those vehicles, buying patterns will change. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. My trucks need to work, and occasionally need to carry rather heavy loads. It is not unusual for me to have a 4400 pound load in the bed of one of my pickups. Not a trailer, an actual load. I'm not going to screw around with a small displacement motor that has been tweaked to provide an "acceptable" level of performance for the typical buyer. My primary work truck is now 18 years old and used hard. I doubt that an EcoBoost with an aluminum body would have held up to my kind of use for that period of time. And yes, I know the EcoDiesel has a turbo. Note that I previously said it has its own level of complexity.

 

[p nut]

Don't own a turbo, don't want a turbo, all my current trucks are V8s. Turbo issues are not rhetorical, they are real, as indicated by the failure reported by another poster. I worked in aerospace and military ship design, and anybody in those businesses can verify that complexity breeds potential failure modes and generally increases life cycle costs. The best solutions are generally the simplest solutions that will get the job done. Ford is building a product for the masses, and I am not their target market. Anybody who likes that product is free to buy it, but I won't (yet). As the technology matures and improves, and as regulations force us into those vehicles, buying patterns will change. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. My trucks need to work, and occasionally need to carry rather heavy loads. It is not unusual for me to have a 4400 pound load in the bed of one of my pickups. Not a trailer, an actual load. I'm not going to screw around with a small displacement motor that has been tweaked to provide an "acceptable" level of performance for the typical buyer. My primary work truck is now 18 years old and used hard. I doubt that an EcoBoost with an aluminum body would have held up to my kind of use for that period of time. And yes, I know the EcoDiesel has a turbo. Note that I previously said it has its own level of complexity.

It's funny to see what people consider to be valid reasoning. Often it is, "that's the way I was taught," "that's what makes sense in my head," or "that's what a guy said on the internet." (an acquaintance of a guy, in this case ). Without any sort of actual knowledge, they point to age-old rhetoric, or anecdotal evidence to confirm their own opinion, whether it be engine warm-up on a cold day, aero efficiency of driving with the tail gate down, 3k oil changes, or in this case, reliability of FI.
_
Turbo's have been around for a long time. There are plenty examples of turbo charged vehicles going well over 300-400k. Just look at the historical data of turbo diesels. FI engines have continued to evolve. i.e., Ford's engine block for the 2.7 now uses CGI: Same material used in diesel blocks. 2017 3.5's will get it, making them more durable. Turbos are liquid cooled, which give them much longer life. Heat has been the main culprit of early failures of turbo's, which were more prevalent in older turbo designs, but modern day turbos run much cooler. Add to that, lower peak torque of the Ecoboost compared to it's V8 counterpart makes them even more efficient. This why you see other manufacturers considering or implementing their own versions of efficient turbo designs (such as Honda). And let's not forget to mention Ecoboosts are running 2 less cylinders than you. Complexity!! :elkgrin:
_
Aluminum bodies: Well, they've been used on big-rig's and industrial equipment for ages. But maybe you run your truck much harder.
_
All engine designs have their weak points. I'm not saying Ecoboost will outlast a V8, or vice-versa. I believe both engines will serve the user well, given proper maintenance. What I am saying is throwing out erroneous remarks blindly without doing one's own due diligence or at least personal experience is just wrong.