Topic: First Drive: 2016 Ford Explorer Platinum

[Sir Osis of Liver]

   ^^^^^
As the numerical ratio goes up, towing capacity increases, but fuel economy goes down. Therefore, a truck with optional 3.73 gears, for example, will tow a heavier trailer than one with 3.55 or 3.21. But it will also use more fuel in all situations because the engine will rev higher.
The same question can be asked if the RAM has 3.73 gears how much more could it tow ? I have a feeling Ford went with the higher 3.73 in order to compete with the Ecodiesel natural towing advantage.

The Ford has 115 hp more than the diesel. It's the one with the advantage.

The narrow power band of a diesel wouldn't really take advantage of short gears.

Sure more HP at a dramatically higher RPM. The Ford 2.7L gets it's full power at 325 hp @ 5,750 rpm vs the RAM ecodiesel at 2000 RPM. Optional higher gears 3.73 help get those RPM's higher faster.
Trucks are not just about HP comparing RAM 3.0L  Torque   420 lb-ft vs 2.7L 375 lb-ft.

http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2015-ford-f-150-2-7l-ecoboost-vs-ram-1500-ecodiesel

Autoguide writes: "Let me reiterate that neither truck felt sketchy, as each was well below its posted towing limit. The F-150, however, was definitely more unsettled than the Ram and the Ram made me feel more confident"

That's a bit of cherry picking:

The first and most staunch difference you’ll notice is that the Ram drives heavy and the F-150 drives light. The Ram is a whopping 750 lbs heavier than the F-150, with a curb weight of 5,611 lbs compared to the F-150’s 4,806 lbs. But I’m not just talking about the actual pounds here. The steering is heavy, the steering wheel is big and thick, and the hood bulges and makes the nose feel like it’s far away from the low driving position.

But most of the settled feeling came from the airbag suspension when towing. That has nothing to do with the powertrain. Down the road, that airbag suspension is going to run into maintenance issues.

The take away from that article is about a 5-6mpg difference in fuel consumption for roughly a $4k premium to get into the diesel.

Speaking of cheery picking. You left this out :
The heavy-set nature of the Ram keeps the truck rooted to the ground like an oak tree, while the F-150’s light nature makes it feel more like a sapling in the wind. The Ford’s steering is easy to use and isn’t so bad as to make the truck feel dangerous, but the Ram’s more direct, heavy setup feels better when hauling weight. It communicates more to the driver, while the F-150’s wheel keeps you fairly isolated.

That's just reiterating this part of my quote:

The first and most staunch difference you’ll notice is that the Ram drives heavy and the F-150 drives light. The Ram is a whopping 750 lbs heavier than the F-150, with a curb weight of 5,611 lbs compared to the F-150’s 4,806 lbs

The Ram drives "heavier" because it is heavier, to the tune of 750lbs. Some people want to emulate a Freightliner I suppose, but I don't think I'm one of them. In day to day stuff, I'd like something responsive.

[mixmanmash]

   ^^^^^
As the numerical ratio goes up, towing capacity increases, but fuel economy goes down. Therefore, a truck with optional 3.73 gears, for example, will tow a heavier trailer than one with 3.55 or 3.21. But it will also use more fuel in all situations because the engine will rev higher.
The same question can be asked if the RAM has 3.73 gears how much more could it tow ? I have a feeling Ford went with the higher 3.73 in order to compete with the Ecodiesel natural towing advantage.

The Ford has 115 hp more than the diesel. It's the one with the advantage.

The narrow power band of a diesel wouldn't really take advantage of short gears.

Sure more HP at a dramatically higher RPM. The Ford 2.7L gets it's full power at 325 hp @ 5,750 rpm vs the RAM ecodiesel at 2000 RPM. Optional higher gears 3.73 help get those RPM's higher faster.
Trucks are not just about HP comparing RAM 3.0L  Torque   420 lb-ft vs 2.7L 375 lb-ft.

http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2015-ford-f-150-2-7l-ecoboost-vs-ram-1500-ecodiesel

Autoguide writes: "Let me reiterate that neither truck felt sketchy, as each was well below its posted towing limit. The F-150, however, was definitely more unsettled than the Ram and the Ram made me feel more confident"

You sure about that?  The peak HP number for the diesel is at 3600RPM.  The torque number is at 2000RPM.  Hence why it needed to be at 3600RPM to climb Ike Gauntlet, pinned while the EcoBoost did not (EcoBoost probably makes more HP at 3600RPM).  If you are OK with that, that's fine.  But the EcoBoost is the winner for towing ease in terms of power.

As for the fuel economy difference climbing Ike Gauntlet, I'd like to see the test redone where the EcoBoost is run at a slower climbing speed, matching that of the Ecodiesel.  Chances are, the difference wouldn't be as much.  It's be like the Prius vs. M3 thing that Top Gear did showing the Prius consumed more fuel.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Holy Fack
This is about a facking Explorer !
How does this compared CUV compare to a pick up ?
Has anyone driven an Ecodiesel ?
Anyone that pays for one really does not give a for 0-100 times , it all about the L/100km

Save this BS until there is a truck thread 

[redman]

Holy Fack
This is about a facking Explorer !
How does this compared CUV compare to a pick up ?
Has anyone driven an Ecodiesel ?
Anyone that pays for one really does not give a for 0-100 times , it all about the L/100km

Save this BS until there is a truck thread 

 

This is about the Explorer and has got out of hand.
At the end of the day it is all about L/100km given that all are capable contenders .

Where’s the Eco in EcoBoost?
http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Holy Fack
This is about a facking Explorer !
How does this compared CUV compare to a pick up ?
Has anyone driven an Ecodiesel ?
Anyone that pays for one really does not give a for 0-100 times , it all about the L/100km

Save this BS until there is a truck thread 

 

This is about the Explorer and has got out of hand.
At the end of the day it is all about L/100km given that all are capable contenders .

Where’s the Eco in EcoBoost?
http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost

"Anecdotes are a kind of evidence, your honor" ~Lionel hutz.

There are far too many variables in road testing to make fuel consumption meaningfully comparable.

And engine note as a consideration when judging the quality of an engine is completely stupid.

The average for the 2.7L over at Fuelly is 13L/100km for the 2.7L turbo, which compares favourably to the 14L/100km with the 5.0L. The Ram diesel is sitting at 10.4, which is pretty good. A person will have to decide if the extra cost and performance penalty is worth the better fuel consumption.

One caveat, people who tend to gravitate towards diesels are usually the high mileage drivers. This helps the numbers on Fuelly because of the higher proportion of highway kilometers. For the 2015 Ecodiesel versus the 2.7L Ecoboost, the average Ram has driven 11,870kms versus 5,295 kms on average driven by the Ford drivers.

[redman]

Holy Fack
This is about a facking Explorer !
How does this compared CUV compare to a pick up ?
Has anyone driven an Ecodiesel ?
Anyone that pays for one really does not give a for 0-100 times , it all about the L/100km

Save this BS until there is a truck thread 

 

This is about the Explorer and has got out of hand.
At the end of the day it is all about L/100km given that all are capable contenders .

Where’s the Eco in EcoBoost?
http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost

"Anecdotes are a kind of evidence, your honor" ~Lionel hutz.

There are far too many variables in road testing to make fuel consumption meaningfully comparable.

And engine note as a consideration when judging the quality of an engine is completely stupid.

The average for the 2.7L over at Fuelly is 13L/100km for the 2.7L turbo, which compares favourably to the 14L/100km with the 5.0L. The Ram diesel is sitting at 10.4, which is pretty good. A person will have to decide if the extra cost and performance penalty is worth the better fuel consumption.

One caveat, people who tend to gravitate towards diesels are usually the high mileage drivers. This helps the numbers on Fuelly because of the higher proportion of highway kilometers. For the 2015 Ecodiesel versus the 2.7L Ecoboost, the average Ram has driven 11,870kms versus 5,295 kms on average driven by the Ford drivers.

Some possible concerns with regards to the new 2.7L engine. It's highly boosted and man do those gas turbo's spin.
The 2.7L uses of a pair of comparatively small water-cooled turbochargers that spin at 53,000 RPM at idle, screaming to up to 170,000 rpm full out.
The twin-turbo configuration, which uses low-pressure BorgWarner turbochargers, is similar to that of the 3.5-L EcoBoost V6, with peak boost of 29-31 psi (200 kPa).

[tooscoops]

was wondering how this got so many pages.... became a diesel vs ecoboost thread!

not to add to that thread derailment, but pricing keeps getting brought up... a)the 3.5 shouldn't be compared to the diesel, but iirc, the 2.7 can't be had on a 4x2, the trucks that equate the huge majority of trucks purchased. b)if you do use the 3.5 to compare pricing and the avg. truck purchased, with current incentives, they are nearly the same for the majority of buyers (financed, ford = 45k and ram 49k at 2% lower apr)... that is going at full msrp minus incentives... which ram has more room to move on (no employee pricing, so full pop rather than a % back)

anywho... all the trucks have a buyer that they are perfect for. no one truck is the best for everyone.

as for the actual thread topic, i rented a 2014 explorer and found it a nice ride... but nothing special. i would think this package would wow me a bit more and i actually think the pricing is pretty good.

[Cord]

but iirc, the 2.7 can't be had on a 4x2

It can be had on a 4x2.

[tooscoops]

sorry, mistyped... i meant it couldn't be on a 4x4... but definitely could be wrong there too!

[EV-Light]

sorry, mistyped... i meant it couldn't be on a 4x4... but definitely could be wrong there too!

The 2.7 can be had in either 4x4 or 4x2!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OliverD]

The only configs you can't get the 2.7 in:

SuperCrew 4x4 with 6.5' box
SuperCab 4x4 with 8' box

It's available in everything else.

[tooscoops]

gotcha... when i was doing my price comparo, i must have picked the 6'5' box.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Which engines do they install in police Explorer?

[OliverD]

Which engines do they install in police Explorer?

3.7 V6 and the 3.5 EB.

[Calbrez]

What is the reliability track record for the Explorers over the few/couple of years? Explorer owners, would you consider these thins reliable? I really like this vehicle and it's at the top of my replacement list when my current wheels dies..