Topic: First Drive: 2016 Ford Explorer Platinum

[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.

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."

But why the fascination with fuel mileage on a truck. Thats not their forte, never has, never will be. If you are buying a truck, you are hauling something, you need some good old fashioned power, the eco diesel costs a lot of money and is not all that powerful.

[Cord]

But why the fascination with fuel mileage on a truck.

Because that's what compact car buyers that will never buy a truck in a million years think is important. 

[Fobroader]

But why the fascination with fuel mileage on a truck.

Because that's what compact car buyers that will never buy a truck in a million years think is important. 

Ahhh...ok....that makes sense. Ok, in that case I think every compact car should have a minimum of 250hp, rwd/awd, have a manual transmission, LSDs all the way around, Brembo brakes and tires with a minimum 235 width 

[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.

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.

It's Car and Driver. These are the same cats that were saying that their test Infiniti G35 or G37 got 13mpg average for during their test.

AP got relatively good fuel consumption with his 3.5L EB, but Blunderwriter didn't. It comes down to equipment and driving style.

There's no guaranty that diesels have better longevity these days. Emissions controls are much more complicated on diesels and they run higher fuel rail pressure, which leads to more potential points of failure.

[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.

It's Car and Driver. These are the same cats that were saying that their test Infiniti G35 or G37 got 13mpg average for during their test.

AP got relatively good fuel consumption with his 3.5L EB, but Blunderwriter didn't. It comes down to equipment and driving style.

There's no guaranty that diesels have better longevity these days. Emissions controls are much more complicated on diesels and they run higher fuel rail pressure, which leads to more potential points of failure.

All else being relative Car & Driver writes the following about the 2015 Ram Eco Diesel " We did witness an indicated 29 mpg on long, flat stretches of expressway at 65 mph in neighboring states with notoriously stringent speed-enforcement policies. (Hello, Cleveland!) Conversely, we were a little more aggressive with the accelerator pedal around town than the average owner is likely to be. Even so, when considered against the 15 mpg we saw in our test of a 2013 Ram 1500 V-6 and the 17 mpg of our 40,000-mile, long-term Ram 1500 Crew Cab V-6, the EcoDiesel’s 22 mpg is an impressive number."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ram-1500-4x4-ecodiesel-4x4-test-review

Only time can judge the overall longevity of these engines but I'm willing to bet the turbo will fail on a gas engine before it fails on a diesel.

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

[Fobroader]

The turbos do not worry me on the oil burner, its all the ancillarys and the environmental crap.

[dirtyjeffer]

The turbos do not worry me on the oil burner, its all the ancillarys and the environmental crap.

i believe most newer diesels are all going to urea to meet emissions...i think most of the troublesome emissions stuff was dropped in favour of erea (which is also likely much cheaper to build too).

[Fobroader]

The turbos do not worry me on the oil burner, its all the ancillarys and the environmental crap.

i believe most newer diesels are all going to urea to meet emissions...i think most of the troublesome emissions stuff was dropped in favour of erea (which is also likely much cheaper to build too).

Its still the biggest failure point on the newer diesel trucks.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

[redman]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

Those diesel pump numbers were based on U.S. diesel rates. Here however diesel is cheaper in the warmer months and only marginally more expensive in the colder months.
That being said 1L of diesel get's you further than 1L of gas roughly 33% more efficient.
No doubt that the 2.7L makes more HP at higher RPM rates but my goal if towing is low end torque and not how fast I can go 0-60. As Edmunds remarks regarding the RAM Ecodiesel
"...its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing"
The choice here would be based on application. If towing and doing long mileage my choice is clearly the RAM. If a low mileage lease with occasional truck usage then the F150 would make for a more fun ride.
Weekend warrior vs true trucker.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

Those diesel pump numbers were based on U.S. diesel rates. Here however diesel is cheaper in the warmer months and only marginally more expensive in the colder months.
That being said 1L of diesel get's you further than 1L of gas roughly 33% more efficient.
No doubt that the 2.7L makes more HP at higher RPM rates but my goal if towing is low end torque and not have fast I can go 0-60. As Edmunds remarks regarding the RAM Ecodiesel "its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing"
The choice here would be based on application. If towing and doing long mileage my choice is clearly the RAM. If a low mileage lease with occasional truck usage then the F150 would make for a more fun ride.

The spread here hit 20¢ the last few winters. It's about 6¢ cheaper at the moment.

And it's not 33% more efficient. The new emissions controls have hit diesel efficiency pretty hard. That's why the combined fuel consumption difference between the 2.7EB and the 3.0L ED is only 1L/100km, roughly 10%. A couple of more gears in the Ford will narrow that further.

If you like diesel, that's fine. Lots of people do. But it's not a slam dunk when it comes down to the numbers.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

From the Edmunds test:

Horsepower   325   240
Torque           375   420
Axle ratio           3.73   3.55
Manufacturer Tow Rating   8,100   7,660
SAE J2807 Certified           Yes           Yes
GCWR                           13,300   13,750
As-Built Weight   5,160   5,877
***As-Built Tow Rating   7,840   7,573

The Ford had the 3.73 gears. That's going to be a pretty good hit to its fuel consumption. It would have been interesting to see how it would have made out with the 3.55s.

[redman]

   ^^^^^
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.

[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.

[redman]

   ^^^^^
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 (Max Torque 375 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm vs the
RAM ecodiesel 240 @ 3,600 rpm (Max Torque: 420 lb-ft @ 2,000 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"

[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.

[EV-Light]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

Those diesel pump numbers were based on U.S. diesel rates. Here however diesel is cheaper in the warmer months and only marginally more expensive in the colder months.
That being said 1L of diesel get's you further than 1L of gas roughly 33% more efficient.
No doubt that the 2.7L makes more HP at higher RPM rates but my goal if towing is low end torque and not how fast I can go 0-60. As Edmunds remarks regarding the RAM Ecodiesel
"...its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing"
The choice here would be based on application. If towing and doing long mileage my choice is clearly the RAM. If a low mileage lease with occasional truck usage then the F150 would make for a more fun ride.
Weekend warrior vs true trucker.

the numbers also don't make sense in Canada...and I have already proved to you that the F150 with the Ecoboost is a better towing truck - it's okay if you like diesel, not everyone likes to be in a truck that's as slow as a Corolla - but the reality here is everything is pointing to the gas engine as being the better option for most people, not only the ones that will use the truck on the weekend.

[redman]

   ^^^^^
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.

[redman]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

Those diesel pump numbers were based on U.S. diesel rates. Here however diesel is cheaper in the warmer months and only marginally more expensive in the colder months.
That being said 1L of diesel get's you further than 1L of gas roughly 33% more efficient.
No doubt that the 2.7L makes more HP at higher RPM rates but my goal if towing is low end torque and not how fast I can go 0-60. As Edmunds remarks regarding the RAM Ecodiesel
"...its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing"
The choice here would be based on application. If towing and doing long mileage my choice is clearly the RAM. If a low mileage lease with occasional truck usage then the F150 would make for a more fun ride.
Weekend warrior vs true trucker.

the numbers also don't make sense in Canada...and I have already proved to you that the F150 with the Ecoboost is a better towing truck - it's okay if you like diesel, not everyone likes to be in a truck that's as slow as a Corolla - but the reality here is everything is pointing to the gas engine as being the better option for most people, not only the ones that will use the truck on the weekend.

Proved how ? I've included writer quotes and links to the contrary. Article after article clearly states that both are fine pickups for towing but the eco diesel does a better job and uses less fuel. Not just my opinion or conjecture.

[EV-Light]

Edmunds towing comparison of the Ford 2.7 ecoboost vs Ram 3.0 Ecodiesel. http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-towing-comparison-with-ram-1500-ecodiesel-part-2.html
"From behind the wheel, the Ram never feels labored, even when loaded near or at maximum capacity. What the numbers don't explain is the overall experience of the powertrain. The Ram's eight-speed transmission (compared to the Ford's six-speed) and its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing. Hit a hill and the Ram grunts along like nothing has changed."

They also said:

The Ford's higher-revving V6 offers more top-end punch, however, which can be useful over a short distance. It will get you to the top of most hills sooner and the power genuinely reduces time required to make a pass, which diminishes risk in many situations. Some will prefer it.

And:

Unsurprisingly, the Ram's diesel was significantly more efficient. It averaged 18.4 mpg while the F-150 averaged 13.5 mpg. But diesel typically costs more than gasoline, so it's the cost-per-mile that really matters. Considering the national average price-per-gallon of gasoline ($2.664) and diesel fuel ($2.854) as of May 4, the Ram's cost-per-mile is significantly lower than the F-150's: 15.6 cents vs. 19.7 cents, respectively.

That's a $410 difference over 10,000 miles of towing. Big enough to sway a purchase decision? Probably not for me when taken in isolation.

If it's a fleet truck, the extra cost of the diesel engine may make sense. How many people are going to be towing 16000kms with their truck?

Ford will be replacing the 6 speed with a 9 speed over the next few years. That should help even things out as far as driveability and efficiency.

Those diesel pump numbers were based on U.S. diesel rates. Here however diesel is cheaper in the warmer months and only marginally more expensive in the colder months.
That being said 1L of diesel get's you further than 1L of gas roughly 33% more efficient.
No doubt that the 2.7L makes more HP at higher RPM rates but my goal if towing is low end torque and not how fast I can go 0-60. As Edmunds remarks regarding the RAM Ecodiesel
"...its huge shelf of torque make this my truck of choice for towing"
The choice here would be based on application. If towing and doing long mileage my choice is clearly the RAM. If a low mileage lease with occasional truck usage then the F150 would make for a more fun ride.
Weekend warrior vs true trucker.

the numbers also don't make sense in Canada...and I have already proved to you that the F150 with the Ecoboost is a better towing truck - it's okay if you like diesel, not everyone likes to be in a truck that's as slow as a Corolla - but the reality here is everything is pointing to the gas engine as being the better option for most people, not only the ones that will use the truck on the weekend.

Proved how ? I've included writer quotes and links to the contrary. Article after article clearly states that both are fine pickups for towing but the eco diesel does a better job and uses less fuel. Not just my opinion or conjecture.

It comes down to cold heart numbers to me - a 0-60mph (e.g) truck that takes 11s to get there is sluggish to me and most buyers will probably feel the same way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk