RAM 1500 Diesel Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This engine seems to be living up to it's hype. The gen-3 eco has some stiff competition against this one.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
I agree. The only downside is that lackluster interior design. And that was an LTZ - one of the highest trim levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Agreed, the interior is why I ordered a ram longhorn with the gen-3 ED. I drove the 3L Duramax & really liked it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
Chevy's redesign is awful. They have no clue on interiors. The duramax is interesting, and will be closely followed.
I'm convinced that Ram borrow some of the smarter brains internally including those who work on minivan designs to design the new gen interiors.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Like to see them do the same loop with the new ED. With 3.55 I suspect it will come in with nearly identical mileage. I think this engine is going to be a winner even though I don’t like the aluminum block nor the fact that the ECU is locked down. I don’t like the truck itself quite as well nor trust GM as much and I do value Ram’s 100k warranty over Chevy’s 60k. That said it is real competition. Like to see all 3 get 10 percent sales penetration of their 1/2 ton sales from the 3.0 diesels. Ram & GM might but Fords effort especially with their stupid launch and lack of advertising seems unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,627 Posts
This is the kind of stuff dreams are made of. My new Ram Cummins would have used twice the fuel.

Ironically Ram just sent me a brochure on my new truck discussing my valuable 60,000 mile powertrain warranty. Idiots abound when it does have a 100,000 mile warranty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,490 Posts
Yes a very good result. That said I believe the computer number on all these short trips moreso than the fill and calculate method. While I do not know how the computer works, given the accuracy of the fuel injection system it has the potential to be virtually 100% accurate unless there is intervention to make it purposely read higher or lower than reality.

Compare that to the practicality and likely accuracy of the fill, wait and fill again methodology. This guy didn't show how he did the second fill, slow, fast or on which notch of the preset. I have experimented with this and dribbling it in slow will get way more fuel in before it clicks off than doing it quickly. In one to the other mileage tests I watched the guys do the second click manually holding the trigger at one of the fillups and setting it to automatically shut off on the other fillup.

So looking at this guys numbers to get the electronic mileage reading he would have had to put in 0.145 gallons or about 2.32 cups more fuel. The amount of fuel added between the first and second click was 0.374 gallons or about 5.984 cups of fuel. Personally I have seen the amount of fuel added between the first and second click vary by more than 100% depending upon how you do it. In the winter when the fuel is colder it also foams less and it is always more added between the two clicks.

In summary, I think the variations in the difference of the two fills is too great to make these short runs meaningful for accurate mpg numbers. On a full tank of fuel of 25 gallons at 32 miles per gallon you have 800 miles. If the fill is off by the 0.145 gallons mentioned above and it should have been 25.145 gallons in 800 miles the mileage would calculate at 31.815 mpg so the same potential difference in fuel makes less than 0.2 mpg difference on a full tank but 1.2 mpg on the 103 mile run with 3.323 gallons of fuel added.

Regardless, good results for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,900 Posts
That said I believe the computer number on all these short trips moreso than the fill and calculate method. While I do not know how the computer works, given the accuracy of the fuel injection system it has the potential to be virtually 100% accurate unless there is intervention to make it purposely read higher or lower than reality.
I agree trying to get an accurate view of the fuel mileage on such short loops leaves area for inaccuracy.

That said ive had my computer calculation be as much as 5 mpg off. I do not trust it. If all my driving is the same for the whole tank it is usually within 1 mpg, but if you throw any towing off road etc. and combo of hwy or something else it heavily favors whatever your last use fuel economy was.

I often tow several hundred miles on the first part of a tank and finish the tank commuting to work the next week. I know my straight towing mileage and I know my empty commuting mileage. By the end of the week my computer calc will be almost exactly what my normal commuting mpg is ad miles/gallons to fill will be significantly less. I have and will probably never trust the computer generated number for much more than a ballpark figure. Yet most report it like its gospel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Like to see them do the same loop with the new ED. With 3.55 I suspect it will come in with nearly identical mileage. I think this engine is going to be a winner even though I don’t like the aluminum block nor the fact that the ECU is locked down. I don’t like the truck itself quite as well nor trust GM as much and I do value Ram’s 100k warranty over Chevy’s 60k. That said it is real competition. Like to see all 3 get 10 percent sales penetration of their 1/2 ton sales from the 3.0 diesels. Ram & GM might but Fords effort especially with their stupid launch and lack of advertising seems unlikely.
Just a quick side note; I don't know why ram did this on the gen-3 ED's but as of right now you can't get a 3.55 ratio rear end, it's either 3.92 or 3.21 take it or leave it. I just went through this while ordering my 2020 ED. I felt the best option for me would have been the good middle ground 3.55 but ended up ordering the 3.92 thinking that since I live in Colorado the 3.92 was probably the better choice for mountain driving. I almost went with the 3.21 for the in-theory better hiwy MPG's. I had 3.55's in my '14 ED & liked them. I sure wish ram would be more consistent in their option choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,627 Posts
Just a quick side note; I don't know why ram did this on the gen-3 ED's but as of right now you can't get a 3.55 ratio rear end, it's either 3.92 or 3.21 take it or leave it. I just went through this while ordering my 2020 ED. I felt the best option for me would have been the good middle ground 3.55 but ended up ordering the 3.92 thinking that since I live in Colorado the 3.92 was probably the better choice for mountain driving. I almost went with the 3.21 for the in-theory better hiwy MPG's. I had 3.55's in my '14 ED & liked them. I sure wish ram would be more consistent in their option choices.
Seriously? Never found the build sheet from Ram showing that. Just surprised. Like to see that in print. If so, sure is stupid.

Bet the dealer screwed up. Still no Ecodiesel on the Ram site for you to practice a build.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Seriously? Never found the build sheet from Ram showing that. Just surprised. Like to see that in print. If so, sure is stupid.

Bet the dealer screwed up. Still no Ecodiesel on the Ram site for you to practice a build.
Captain, It doesn't make sense but It's a fact! Try building a 5.7 hemi & you'll see the same thing, if you select the 3.55 it will default to the 3.6 gasser. The RAM build configurator won't let you choose the 3.55 with the ED. I was watching the computer screen when my truck was being configured & questioned why it wouldn't let you get the 3.55's as I was building my 2020 ED that I ordered on Oct 14th.

The ED is on the Costco auto build site. If you try picking the 3.55 with the ecodiesel selected, it will default to the 3.6 gasser as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
I'd like them to put the Chevy baby Diesel up against the four cylinder Chevy gasser on that loop, running side by side. EliminTing weather variations.
Once towing once unladen. Don't refill until both loops have been done.
Then repeat with the ED v pentastar.
Then repeat f150 diesel v 2.7 EB.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top