Ram 1500 Eco Diesel Review

Forum Sponsor
Sprinters and rust go together like PB&J. All of my Sprinters have come with heavy rustproofing on the underside and it held up very well over the years. Unfortunately all of my panels rusted from very minor paint chips. When looking at the chip it seems like there is almost no paint at all. Unless you spring for the premium metallic paint option your only getting a single stage paint job and that's the heart of the rust issue.

This time I went for the metallic 3 stage option, and I'm also getting the entire front end covered in 3M Clear Shield, since that is the spot that always rusted first and worst for me. I will see how it goes and report back.

I have never waited more than 2 days for parts from Germany, but in fairness never required much in the way of repairs. When I was pricing the Transit vs Sprinter in November the Transit as spec'd was $48k and the Sprinter was $51k, but also a couple more options (Not avail on the Transit).

One thing I wonder about is the resale value. I got 16k for my '10 Sprinter with 310km's from Mercedes. I never did get a trade in value from Ford, since I am still waiting for my local Ford dealer to get an Eco Boost equipped Transit in stock so I can drive it. Talked to him in late October, it still has not arrived. It's delivery date was mid November and according to the salesman who called last week is still on the way. Not encouraging. I haven't told him yet that I already custom ordered a Sprinter because I was tired of waiting and have taken delivery of it. I still want to drive it if it ever shows up
 
Torren said:
I am still waiting for my local Ford dealer to get an Eco Boost equipped Transit in stock so I can drive it. Talked to him in late October, it still has not arrived. It's delivery date was mid November and according to the salesman who called last week is still on the way. Not encouraging. I haven't told him yet that I already custom ordered a Sprinter because I was tired of waiting and have taken delivery of it. I still want to drive it if it ever shows up
Click to expand...

Let me know your thoughts, majority (forums and car mags) are reporting that the Transit rides and handles better than the Sprinter. And I'm confident the 400 lb/ft of torque of the 3.5Eco will raise your eyebrows.

I checked with my dealer today (ordered a 2015 Transit 3.5 EcoB, 3+ weeks ago), and he says they haven't even created a VIN for it yet, meaning its not even close to production yet. Likely won't see this thing til April.

At the end of the day, you won't go wrong with either one for different reasons. Both great choices. It will be great to compare it to our 14 Sprinter though and see which one will rule for future fleet upgrades. :)
 
I see the whole picture now. The eco boost is the bestest because Sunny has one on order!

It all makes sense now.
 
dricked said:
I see the whole picture now. The eco boost is the bestest because Sunny has one on order!

It all makes sense now.
Click to expand...
Don't hate on me for doing my research and due diligence.

Earlier, it was proven that the cheaper and 1000lbs lighter Ford 2.7 Eco running regular gas Destroyed the diesel Ram in acceleration and 7000lbs towing, doing all this within 1mpg of the Ram's city epa rating.

Companies that demonstrate intelligent engineering, efficiency and value are the ones that earn my money....

Sent from my Passport
 
caboose56 said:
Where did it say it was using 87 octane?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread, there was a MotorTrend article linked. Clearly stated the Ford was running reg when they did their testing.

Sent from my Passport
 
Earlier in this thread, it was shown that the Ecoboosts do not live up to their fantasyland EPA ratings, and the diesel Rams generally exceed them.

Turbo gasoline engines in general don't live up to their EPA ratings, and diesels usually exceed them. It's not just Ford, and it's not just Ram.
 
^ different drivers, altitudes, styles will yield different results for numerous reasons.

at least with EPA, all the vehicles are consistently tested using the exact same measures and standards across the board. Not anecdotal accounts.

good enough for me....
 
SunnY S said:
^ different drivers, altitudes, styles will yield different results for numerous reasons.

at least with EPA, all the vehicles are consistently tested using the exact same measures and standards across the board. Not anecdotal accounts.

good enough for me....
Click to expand...

Consistently entirely out of touch with the real world. The most repeatable of all tests is proabably fuel economy at idle, but what does that have to do with reality?

I put much more faith in aggregate statistics (a collection of real world experiences) than a stupid test. Obviously there will be some outliers, but the average/median should be a reasonable representation of what I can expect.
 
SunnY S said:
Earlier in the thread, there was a MotorTrend article linked. Clearly stated the Ford was running reg when they did their testing.

Sent from my Passport
Click to expand...

I only see the Car And Driver link that you posted which states that the F150 was using 91-octane fuel.

Edit: The motortrend link doesnt show up when I view on mobile for some reason. Found it.
 
Last edited:
Brian P said:
Earlier in this thread, it was shown that the Ecoboosts do not live up to their fantasyland EPA ratings,
Click to expand...

So much for fantasy land mpg ratings.....

From the forums: 2015 Transit EcoB, medium roof, towing a 2500lbs trailer, and carrying 1000lbs of gear, average speed around 55-57mph and at some point hitting 70mph on the downhills. EPA rating on this vehicle is 19mpg


AD72oT6.jpg


k4JPlig.jpg


the guys are saying the computer is only off by 1-2mpg when they do hand calculations, and the example above is a barely broken in unit. On his return trip, he got slightly lower mileage, but avg around 17-18mpg for both ways..

Perspective : the old premium option Ford V10 engine in the Econoline, was rated for 10mpg, and surely worse when towing!
 
Last edited:
SunnY S said:
^ different drivers, altitudes, styles will yield different results for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...

... and accumulating a real world average of a fairly substantial number of owners (Fuelly) wipes out all the outliers.
 
The Transit towing that trailer recording that mileage is plausible for steady highway on level ground without going very fast. That trailer is entirely within the frontal area of the van and has rounded corners, so it shouldn't add much to the drag. If you are going steady on level ground, the weight won't matter. If you are not driving very fast, the drag won't be too killer.

One thing is for sure; the old E-series would never touch that, no matter what engine you put in it.

I can coax my ProMaster below 10 L/100 km by driving at 90 km/h on cruise control and never stopping, but it will drive me bonkers to go that slow. Yesterday, slogging through snow, in stop and go, and cold conditions, was 16.3 L/100 km, which is the worst I've ever seen ... and it was hardly a surprise.

No one with a full size Transit is on Fuelly yet.

I know another guy with a full size (long and high roof) Transit with the 3.2 diesel, and he's saying 19 mpg, but that's with company drivers who don't have to pay for the fuel, so it likely has the binary accelerator pedal issue.
 
Brian P said:
so it likely has the binary accelerator pedal issue.
Click to expand...

^ good one. :lol:


For the record, theres 11 pages on the Transit forum for 3.5Eco engine mpg, seemingly all the guys are getting within the epa estimates or better.
 
Ok so back to trucks not vans.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...50_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/specs.html

Things that really matter between the Ford Eco Boost and Ram Eco Diesel:
Ram = More fuel efficient
Ram = Tighter Turning Radius
Ram = Highest Towing Capacity
Ram = Shortest Stopping Distance (How is this possible if the Ford is lighter and the brake specs similar?)

The acceleration and 1/4 times don't really matter to me because any enthusiast knows that if it is really important then a good tune on a diesel can not only better fuel economy but also up the power output substantially.

I was really hopeful when the Ford Eco Boost came out but it doesn't deliver. I have two family members with them and they both say they purchased the wrong truck due to lack luster fuel economy and general issues . There is two trucks I borrow all the time one an Eco Boost and the other an 2014 Hemi Ram. I actually seem to get better fuel economy with the Ram and my driving habits vs the Eco Boost.
 
rbjeepthing said:
Ram = Shortest Stopping Distance (How is this possible if the Ford is lighter and the brake specs similar?)

.
Click to expand...

Easy, the Ram as 20inch wheels, the Ford has 18s. and yet the difference is a measly 1ft, insignificant.

When you look at this test, where the Ford has 20's as well, it blows away the Ram by 20ft! and handles better too.
 
SunnY S said:
Easy, the Ram as 20inch wheels, the Ford has 18s. and yet the difference is a measly 1ft, insignificant.

When you look at this test, where the Ford has 20's as well, it blows away the Ram by 20ft! and handles better too.
Click to expand...

20's typically weigh more and rotational mass is huge so that argument doesn't stick. Also stop posting that comparison as that one they use a Ram with a 5.7 Hemi which has nothing to do with this thread period.
 
rbjeepthing said:
20's typically weigh more and rotational mass is huge so that argument doesn't stick. Also stop posting that comparison as that one they use a Ram with a 5.7 Hemi which has nothing to do with this thread period.
Click to expand...

What does the type of engine the vehicle has have to do with braking? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom