Diesel Reviews

HotHareSpey

Active Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
186
Points
43
Well the reviews are in - 24/25mpg around town 35mpg hwy

Pretty damn good.

I’m getting 18/19 around town and 19/20 hwy with the ORG (65-74mph)

I was getting a solid 20 overall and 22-24hwy until I had the truck treated with anti rust protection which added a ton of weight.

Any comments on the diesel?
 

go-ram

Well-Known Member
Messages
360
Reaction score
292
Points
63
Fast forward to 10min
.
Thanks for the embedded video. That's a great review - a lot of information without a lot of unnecessary yakking. 35 MPG on the dash readout at highway speeds with AC running, even on flat ground, is very impressive for a 6,000 pound vehicle, especially one with the capability of a half-ton pickup. The automotive journalists who have done first-drives with both this 3rd-gen Ecodiesel and the Chevy 3.0 L Duramax straight-six seem to think that the Chevy/GMC twins with the straight-six and 10-speed transmission is a better powertrain. But as those same journalists point out, the Ram 1500 is a much nicer truck overall, hence the nod still seems to go to Ram, so far, despite the driving characteristics of the new 3.0L Duramax. It'll be really interesting to see the inevitable half-ton diesel shootouts turn out at TFL Truck, Trucktrend, etc.
 
Last edited:

spaightlabs

Active Member
Messages
181
Reaction score
180
Points
43
I had a 17 EcoD with a 3.55 - got worse mileage in town than my 14 5.7 with a 3.92. and my 19 with 3.92

Did great on longer trips. If you are driving 25 or 30 mile trips you will do well. 3 to 5, nope.

I'd bet my last dollar under 5% of users will see 35 for anything remotely resembling regular use/conditions...
 

go-ram

Well-Known Member
Messages
360
Reaction score
292
Points
63
I had a 17 EcoD with a 3.55 - got worse mileage in town than my 14 5.7 with a 3.92. and my 19 with 3.92

Did great on longer trips. If you are driving 25 or 30 mile trips you will do well. 3 to 5, nope.

I'd bet my last dollar under 5% of users will see 35 for anything remotely resembling regular use/conditions...
.
A coworker has a 2015 Ecodiesel, drives 5 miles one-way to work, routinely gets 22-23 MPG overall, or at least he did before the recent AEM (Approved Emissions Modification, a.k.a Ecodiese re-tune to comply with EPA and CARB emissions shortfalls).

You're right, it'll definitely be a small % of users a small % of the time that will achieve 35 MPG. Still, it's nice to know that it can get that, if one strives for that. It gives the owners options to reduce their fuel bills.

ADDED: https://jalopnik.com/ram-ecodiesel-real-world-fuel-economy-over-50-000-hard-1762998445
 
Last edited:

HotHareSpey

Active Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
186
Points
43
Engine detail and information straight from the designer

BE SURE AND WATCH THE INTRO!!

Mark really likes to take a different approach to car reviews





 
Last edited:

ldoh

Active Member
Messages
132
Reaction score
94
Points
28
I think two reviews report the new ED as noticeably less fuel efficient than the new GM 3.0L. I get the feeling FCA is stalling to release the numbers. Maybe they are hoping to be able to squeak out 1 additional last minute mpg.
 

HotHareSpey

Active Member
Messages
166
Reaction score
186
Points
43
Would you really consider a GM over the RAM? Especially for a few mpgs Oren a couple $$

I bought this truck because I really like the ergonomics and the performance
 

ldoh

Active Member
Messages
132
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Would you really consider a GM over the RAM? Especially for a few mpgs Oren a couple $$

I bought this truck because I really like the ergonomics and the performance
Yes, no doubt you are correct. The Ram 1500 has a much nicer interior. I think GM said they plan to finally improve 1500 interiors in 2021.

But even then I would seriously consider the GM. Better MPG and an inline design is just icing on the cake. The previous ED design had a mystery bottom end issue with a significant number of low mileage catastrophic failures. As far as I know, FCA hasn't said anything about improvements to that portion of the new engine.

We'll see but I would be surprised if the GM 3L didn't out tow the new ED. That 10 speed auto with improved turbo and tight intake cooling plumbing should pay dividends on the Ike Gauntlet 3L diesel comparison.
 

go-ram

Well-Known Member
Messages
360
Reaction score
292
Points
63
Yes, no doubt you are correct. The Ram 1500 has a much nicer interior. I think GM said they plan to finally improve 1500 interiors in 2021.

But even then I would seriously consider the GM. Better MPG and an inline design is just icing on the cake. The previous ED design had a mystery bottom end issue with a significant number of low mileage catastrophic failures. As far as I know, FCA hasn't said anything about improvements to that portion of the new engine.

We'll see but I would be surprised if the GM 3L didn't out tow the new ED. That 10 speed auto with improved turbo and tight intake cooling plumbing should pay dividends on the Ike Gauntlet 3L diesel comparison.
.
Like you, I wonder about the "bottom end" problems on some years of Gen-1/Gen-2 Ecodiesels. FCA never came clean, but I have heard from at least one very reliable source that the problem was the switch to a lower viscosity oil in pursuit of improved fuel economy. Supposedly, FCA switched back to a heaver-weight engine oil and most of the bottom-end failures went away.

There is a guy ("VernDiesel") who posted here on 5thgenrams who got over 300,000 miles on his Gen-1/Gen-2 Ecodiesel, as a long-haul deliverer of boats & travel trailers. It's well worth reading all that VernDiesel posted in that thread ("Towing my 32' travel trailer"), because he really knows his vehicle and explained exactly how he did the maintenance, which oil he used, etc. Of course highway towing is exactly what the Ecodiesel was built for, and highway miles at the hands of a good driver and good mechanical mind like VernDiesel is a recipe for engine longevity, hence his 300,000+ mile Ecodiesel life.

I also read a post somewhere in the past six months or so where the guy claimed to have insider knowledge, and he said rest assured that VM Motori is well aware of the reliability issues on the Gen-1 & Gen-2 Ecodiesels, and that they had supposedly addressed them in this Gen-3 design. No way of knowing until they get a lot of real-world miles, but logic would tell us that even though FCA & VM Motori were not forthcoming about the bottom-end problems of the previous EDs, they most likely addressed it with this new engine, becaise it cost them a ton of money to replace all those blown EDs from years past.

I do agree that, for a truck, the straight-six diesel from GM is probably a better starting place than the V6 architecture that FCA & Ford adopted. But remember, both FCA's and Ford's 3.0 L V6 diesels were originally designed to go in the engine bays of front-wheel-drive sedans, so they had to be compact, and the Vee-configuration makes the most sense for sedans & SUVs.

Kudos to GM for going the most logical way with their light-duty diesel engine for their half-ton pickups - time will tell how good it really is. But remember, both Ford fans and Chevy/GMC fans have FCA to thank for their half-ton diesel engines, because FCA led the way and forced the competition to catch up.
 

RAMpage

Well-Known Member
Messages
207
Reaction score
111
Points
43
Location
Ottawa, ON Canada
I never even came close to 35mpg with my '15 ED Laramie. It was close to what my previous 5.7 got on the highway. Then when FCA said their "fix" for the issues was to change the oil type I jumped ship as quickly as I could. My ED didn't like the cold either. Another "fix" from FCA at the time was to give owners a $5 vinyl grill cover which would scratch the paint.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top