Topic: First Drive: 2016 Ford Explorer Platinum

[SaskSpecV]

Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 24.9 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 9.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 84 mph
EPA city/highway driving: 21/28 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg

source: C&D instrumented test

Not sure which test you were looking at the Jeep diesel, (C&D may have tested it more than once), but in the comparison test with other diesel utes it got 24 mpg, 9.0 seconds for 5-60, 1/4 mile was 16.1 @84.  Not quick compared to other diesels (probably just too damn heavy - 5400 lbs).  But there is not question the GC EcoDiesel will get significantly better mileage than the Explorer Sport - the F150 with 3.5L EcoBoost doesn't come close to the EcoDiesel RAM, despite the lower weight of the F150.  And that difference seems to be magnified in "real-world" conditions - especially towing.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-summit-ecodiesel-4x4-vs-2013-volkswagen-touareg-tdi-2013-mercedes-benz-ml350-bluetec-4matic-2013-porsche-cayenne-diesel-2013-bmw-x5-xdrive35d-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-7

[EV-Light]

Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 24.9 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 9.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 84 mph
EPA city/highway driving: 21/28 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg

source: C&D instrumented test

Not sure which test you were looking at the Jeep diesel, (C&D may have tested it more than once), but in the comparison test with other diesel utes it got 24 mpg, 9.0 seconds for 5-60, 1/4 mile was 16.1 @84.  Not quick compared to other diesels (probably just too damn heavy - 5400 lbs).  But there is not question the GC EcoDiesel will get significantly better mileage than the Explorer Sport - the F150 with 3.5L EcoBoost doesn't come close to the EcoDiesel RAM, despite the lower weight of the F150.  And that difference seems to be magnified in "real-world" conditions - especially towing.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-summit-ecodiesel-4x4-vs-2013-volkswagen-touareg-tdi-2013-mercedes-benz-ml350-bluetec-4matic-2013-porsche-cayenne-diesel-2013-bmw-x5-xdrive35d-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-7

fixed those...I had to type them manually because of the way C&D arranged the data in the table.

When you compare apples to apples, the Explorer is $15k cheaper....and that will buy a lot of gas.

[Calbrez]

58K is a bargain when you consider all the Euro trash stuff sells for 80K++

Angela Merkel can keep them... I'd stick to this 'merican classic

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 24.9 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 9.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 84 mph
EPA city/highway driving: 21/28 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg

source: C&D instrumented test

Not sure which test you were looking at the Jeep diesel, (C&D may have tested it more than once), but in the comparison test with other diesel utes it got 24 mpg, 9.0 seconds for 5-60, 1/4 mile was 16.1 @84.  Not quick compared to other diesels (probably just too damn heavy - 5400 lbs).  But there is not question the GC EcoDiesel will get significantly better mileage than the Explorer Sport - the F150 with 3.5L EcoBoost doesn't come close to the EcoDiesel RAM, despite the lower weight of the F150.  And that difference seems to be magnified in "real-world" conditions - especially towing.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-summit-ecodiesel-4x4-vs-2013-volkswagen-touareg-tdi-2013-mercedes-benz-ml350-bluetec-4matic-2013-porsche-cayenne-diesel-2013-bmw-x5-xdrive35d-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-7

The 2.7L Ecoboost is closer in performance to the diesel Ram and the EPA gives a 1L/100km spread between them in the combined rating (11.8 vs 10.7).

[redman]

 ^^^^^
On paper maybe but feedback from ecoboost owners have not been favorable.
On the other hand VM 3.0L engine owners are achieving better than posted F.E. numbers.

[EV-Light]

^^^^^
On paper maybe but feedback from ecoboost owners have not been favorable.
On the other hand VM 3.0L engine owners are achieving better than posted F.E. numbers.

not sure where the feedback is coming from, the new 2.9T seems to achieve great mileage in various test from magazines. But let's not even talk about performance, the diesel engine struggles to carry the weight of the Ram...it's quite sad!

[redman]

^^^^^
On paper maybe but feedback from ecoboost owners have not been favorable.
On the other hand VM 3.0L engine owners are achieving better than posted F.E. numbers.

not sure where the feedback is coming from, the new 2.9T seems to achieve great mileage in various test from magazines. But let's not even talk about performance, the diesel engine struggles to carry the weight of the Ram...it's quite sad!

Speaking of not knowing where the feedback is coming from. I'm not reading or hearing the Ram struggling at all considering torque values on the 3.0L are greater than the most other gas V8's on the market. Can you show us this feedback.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/putting-ram-1500-ecodiesel-work

[EV-Light]

^^^^^
On paper maybe but feedback from ecoboost owners have not been favorable.
On the other hand VM 3.0L engine owners are achieving better than posted F.E. numbers.

not sure where the feedback is coming from, the new 2.9T seems to achieve great mileage in various test from magazines. But let's not even talk about performance, the diesel engine struggles to carry the weight of the Ram...it's quite sad!

Speaking of not knowing where the feedback is coming from. I'm not reading or hearing the Ram struggling at all considering torque values on the 3.0L are greater than the most other gas V8's on the market. Can you show us this feedback.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/putting-ram-1500-ecodiesel-work

e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXbVfWE72_M

towing...12:20 is when it gets interesting and a comparison with the 2.7T shows up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpcJJxhvPWU

[redman]

  ^^^
Watched your posted video's and heard no negatives with any reviewer only heard that the Ford gave you a faster 0-60 but the Ram was able to do everything the F150 could with less drama and better fuel economy.
My money is on getting er done for less. I'll save my outright speed for another vehicle, such as a sports car.

[mixmanmash]

  ^^^
Watched your posted video's and heard no negatives with any reviewer only heard that the Ford gave you a faster 0-60 but the Ram was able to do everything the F150 could with less drama and better fuel economy.
My money is on getting er done for less. I'll save my outright speed for another vehicle, such as a sports car.

I looked at other videos and the F150 climbed the same hill with the same llad with less effort than the Ecodiesel.  The Ecodiesel had to be pinned, where the Ecoboost did not.  That said, yes it did consume more fuel.

[dirtyjeffer]

  ^^^
Watched your posted video's and heard no negatives with any reviewer only heard that the Ford gave you a faster 0-60 but the Ram was able to do everything the F150 could with less drama and better fuel economy.
My money is on getting er done for less. I'll save my outright speed for another vehicle, such as a sports car.

I looked at other videos and the F150 climbed the same hill with the same llad with less effort than the Ecodiesel.  The Ecodiesel had to be pinned, where the Ecoboost did not.  That said, yes it did consume more fuel.

why would the diesel need to be pinned??

it has more torque than the Ecoboost (and i think more gears in its transmission).

[mixmanmash]

  ^^^
Watched your posted video's and heard no negatives with any reviewer only heard that the Ford gave you a faster 0-60 but the Ram was able to do everything the F150 could with less drama and better fuel economy.
My money is on getting er done for less. I'll save my outright speed for another vehicle, such as a sports car.

I looked at other videos and the F150 climbed the same hill with the same llad with less effort than the Ecodiesel.  The Ecodiesel had to be pinned, where the Ecoboost did not.  That said, yes it did consume more fuel.

why would the diesel need to be pinned??

it has more torque than the Ecoboost (and i think more gears in its transmission).

It did.  Ike Gauntlet is a hell of a tough test.  See the video and then watch the video on the EcoBoost at tfltrucks.com.  Apparently the diesel could climb while pinned at 50mph @ 3500RPM.  The EcoBoost was 60mph @ 3500ish RPM.  If the EcoBoost was pinned, it would have been gaining speed and would be at a higher RPM.

Diesels have great low end torque, but suffer at higher RPMs.  More so on the VM Motori engine compared to the Germans.  This helps for average pulling as the RPMs are low where the torque is and even on smaller climbs where you can ride the waft of torque without having to shift down a gear.

Also, the lack of HP hurts a diesel climb as HP is the rate of application of torque.  Again, if this had been a larger diesel engine with similar HP to the EcoBoost, it would have climbed with similar ease.

[EV-Light]

  ^^^
Watched your posted video's and heard no negatives with any reviewer only heard that the Ford gave you a faster 0-60 but the Ram was able to do everything the F150 could with less drama and better fuel economy.
My money is on getting er done for less. I'll save my outright speed for another vehicle, such as a sports car.

I looked at other videos and the F150 climbed the same hill with the same llad with less effort than the Ecodiesel.  The Ecodiesel had to be pinned, where the Ecoboost did not.  That said, yes it did consume more fuel.

why would the diesel need to be pinned??

it has more torque than the Ecoboost (and i think more gears in its transmission).

Lots of people seem to confuse torque with power, simply put...you can have 420lbs of torque, which will get you off the line quickly, but as soon as you gain speed, power comes into play and that's where the Ecodiesel fails, there's tons of torque but lack of power.

The videos above prove that, 0-60mph the Ram gets roasted - the Ecoboost is ~4s faster and the towing test is brutal....the F150 is a whole 2min faster! And honeys the mileage difference is minimum...4.3mpg vs 6.1mpg!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dirtyjeffer]

Lots of people seem to confuse torque with power, simply put...you can have 420lbs of torque, which will get you off the line quickly, but as soon as you gain speed, power comes into play and that's where the Ecodiesel fails, there's tons of torque but lack of power.

The videos above prove that, 0-60mph the Ram gets roasted - the Ecoboost is ~4s faster and the towing test is brutal....the F150 is a whole 2min faster! And honeys the mileage difference is minimum...4.3mpg vs 6.1mpg!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i am very familiar with HP and torque.

regarding the fuel economy, while both are poor, the Ford still uses almost 50% more fuel...that can add up.

[mixmanmash]

Lots of people seem to confuse torque with power, simply put...you can have 420lbs of torque, which will get you off the line quickly, but as soon as you gain speed, power comes into play and that's where the Ecodiesel fails, there's tons of torque but lack of power.

The videos above prove that, 0-60mph the Ram gets roasted - the Ecoboost is ~4s faster and the towing test is brutal....the F150 is a whole 2min faster! And honeys the mileage difference is minimum...4.3mpg vs 6.1mpg!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i am very familiar with HP and torque.

regarding the fuel economy, while both are poor, the Ford still uses almost 50% more fuel...that can add up.

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

[dirtyjeffer]

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

probably, but my buddy with an F150 that has the 3.5 EB engine sees lows 20s in the city (as in , 20-22 liters/100 kms)...not towing, just booting around town (he bought the truck because he loves how it looks "cool")...meh, it's his money.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

probably, but my buddy with an F150 that has the 3.5 EB engine sees lows 20s in the city (as in , 20-22 liters/100 kms)...not towing, just booting around town (he bought the truck because he loves how it looks "cool")...meh, it's his money.

The 3.5EB has a lot more power than the 3.0L diesel. The 2.7L EB would be closer to the Ecodiesel and the EPA has a 1L/100km difference between them in combined fuel consumption.

Driving habits have a huge impact on fuel consumption, and there is no way of knowing if your friend would have equally dismal fuel consumption in the Ram diesel.

[redman]

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

probably, but my buddy with an F150 that has the 3.5 EB engine sees lows 20s in the city (as in , 20-22 liters/100 kms)...not towing, just booting around town (he bought the truck because he loves how it looks "cool")...meh, it's his money.

EPA posted numbers and real reviewer posted numbers tell a different story. Ford Eco engines users are recording higher fuel consumption than the EPA rated numbers while Ram Eco-diesel users are recording better than posted F.E. results.

I don't think the Ram diesel is under powered. It seems that many other gasoline engines are overpowered for most of the tasks they're doing. We just have an insatiable lust for more power and our normal shifts with every engine generation. A 2000 F150 V8 with the 4.6L gas engine had 220HP and 290TqFt of power. The 5.4L had 260HP 350TqFt and few complaints but some feel now that the VM engine with 240 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque is too low ? Seems more than sufficient for 99% of ½ ton drivers. The Ram HFE model is rated at fuel economy to 29 mpg highway, 21 mpg city, and 24 mpg combined.

[Fobroader]

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

probably, but my buddy with an F150 that has the 3.5 EB engine sees lows 20s in the city (as in , 20-22 liters/100 kms)...not towing, just booting around town (he bought the truck because he loves how it looks "cool")...meh, it's his money.

EPA posted numbers and real reviewer posted numbers tell a different story. Ford Eco engines users are recording higher fuel consumption than the EPA rated numbers while Ram Eco-diesel users are recording better than posted F.E. results.

I don't think the Ram diesel is under powered. It seems that many other gasoline engines are overpowered for most of the tasks they're doing. We just have insatiable lust for more power and our normal shifts with every engine generation. A 2000 F150 V8 with the 4.6L gas engine had 220HP and 290TqFt of power. The 5.4L had 260HP 350TqFt and few complaints but some feel now that the VM engine with 240 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque is too low ? Seems more than sufficient for 99% of ½ ton drivers.

Not when you can get a 1/2 ton with more power for the same price. That diesel is hugely expensive for what you get IMO anyways. The Ford ecoboost or any of the V8s just make more sense to me.

[redman]

Under those specific conditions (climbing Ike Gauntlet), yes it is 50% more.  But overall, not nearly as much.

probably, but my buddy with an F150 that has the 3.5 EB engine sees lows 20s in the city (as in , 20-22 liters/100 kms)...not towing, just booting around town (he bought the truck because he loves how it looks "cool")...meh, it's his money.

EPA posted numbers and real reviewer posted numbers tell a different story. Ford Eco engines users are recording higher fuel consumption than the EPA rated numbers while Ram Eco-diesel users are recording better than posted F.E. results.

I don't think the Ram diesel is under powered. It seems that many other gasoline engines are overpowered for most of the tasks they're doing. We just have insatiable lust for more power and our normal shifts with every engine generation. A 2000 F150 V8 with the 4.6L gas engine had 220HP and 290TqFt of power. The 5.4L had 260HP 350TqFt and few complaints but some feel now that the VM engine with 240 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque is too low ? Seems more than sufficient for 99% of ½ ton drivers.

Not when you can get a 1/2 ton with more power for the same price. That diesel is hugely expensive for what you get IMO anyways. The Ford ecoboost or any of the V8s just make more sense to me.

To each his own the Ram makes more sense to me especially after reading quotes like the one below from Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150
"Unfortunately, the 2.7 EcoBoost’s EPA fuel-economy ratings of 18 mpg city and 23 mpg highway don’t translate to the real world. We averaged 16 mpg over more than 1000 miles of mixed winter driving, and we didn’t load the bed with car parts, tow a trailer, or disable the overly aggressive stop-start engine function."

We love this F-150’s carlike demeanor and performance. But despite being quick off the line, the V-6s don’t sound or feel like truck engines, and that’s something we miss. For about $43,000, or the cost of this F-150, one could get a similarly equipped V-8 from Chevy or Ram. Show us someone who isn’t a sucker for a V-8 and we’ll show you a very nontraditional truck buyer

Anyway I'd take the engine longevity of a turbo diesel over a turbo gasoline engine anytime considering the difference in turbo spool RPM rates.