Sweet, take a look at the 2013 RAM truck..

[Glocktogo]

At some point I think the law of diminishing returns is going to kick in. So you're going 75mph in 8th gear at 1500 rpm. The MDS kicks in and four of the 8 cylinders stop producing power and become parasitic drag on the engine. The .38 Drag Coefficient kicks in and with the reduced available torque, speed drops off and the engine starts to lug. The cruise control (or your foot) compensates by pushing more fuel to the engine. This reduces fuel efficiency and at some point, either the transmission hunts a lower gear or the MDS shuts off to get more torque, possibly both.

My GS 460 in contrast has an ultra low .27 drag coefficient. All 8 cylinders produce power full time and it has 339 lb ft of torque at a relatively low 3600 RPM. The transmission never hunts and will hold 8th gear with gentle acceleration and all but the steepest inclines, even in a headwind. The result is actual real world MPG figures that exceed the EPA highway rating on a routine basis.

I had an 86' F-150 with a 302 and the AOD 4 speed auto trans. With the anemic torque produced by that engine, the transmission was constantly hunting and shifting. That led to terrible fuel economy and early transmission failure. I would've gotten better fuel economy and longer transmission life out of a C-6 three speed auto in that case. I think Ford tried to overdo it with a 0.67:1 overdrive ratio. They would've made a far better trans if they'd have been more conservative on the ratio, say 0.87:1 instead. The Dodge ZF unit will have a 0.667:1 ratio in 8th gear and a final drive ratio of 2.81. Coupled with a .38 drag coefficient and MDS, the 2013 Ram 1500 may wind up having great EPA numbers but poor real world observed mileage. I'd hold off on purchasing one until some real world figures start showing up. This may wind up being a paper Ram, but real world lamb.

 

[inactive]

The 300 has done quite well in real world reports with the V6 and ZF transmission (which is also used in the Audi A8, by the way ):

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/2n...ion/97678-2012-8-speed-v6-real-world-mpg.html

But I agree, a truck is a whole different animal. We're still in wait-and-see mode.

 

[Glocktogo]

The 300 has done quite well in real world reports with the V6 and ZF transmission (which is also used in the Audi A8, by the way ):

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/2n...ion/97678-2012-8-speed-v6-real-world-mpg.html

But I agree, a truck is a whole different animal. We're still in wait-and-see mode.

Those results actually seem to reinforce my assumptions. The large difference between their observed city/mixed driving results being lower than my V-8 results, in comparison to their better highway results indicates that torque range is critical. The V-6 has more work to do getting the car up to speed than a torquey V8. Once they get up to speed and into the torque curve, it's easier to maintain speed. The MDS on the Hemi and high CD numbers on the RAM may work against that. I'm thinking the 8 Speed will work better in city/mixed driving than on the highway in the RAM. But, I could be wrong!

 

[inactive]

The real answer is that most people can get by with a midsize truck (Tacoma, Frontier) or dare I say, compact (Colorado) but feel the need to get a big 1/2 ton or larger. People buy trucks on the whole for the occasional furniture haul, or bags of soil and mulch. I am speaking nationally here; Oklahomans use their trucks a good bit more.

I had a Ranger than would easily up up 24 miles per gallon. In 1994. It had a bed, which is the main reason I liked a truck (moving bulky items, not necessarily heavy ones). If Ford ever made a true quad cab Ranger (not a Sport Trac), I'd be driving one today. I have a Dodge midsize as a result, though it like the Ranger is no longer being manufactured. The Nissan, Toyota, and GM are my only options going forward.

 

[Glocktogo]

The real answer is that most people can get by with a midsize truck (Tacoma, Frontier) or dare I say, compact (Colorado) but feel the need to get a big 1/2 ton or larger. People buy trucks on the whole for the occasional furniture haul, or bags of soil and mulch. I am speaking nationally here; Oklahomans use their trucks a good bit more.

I had a Ranger than would easily up up 24 miles per gallon. In 1994. It had a bed, which is the main reason I liked a truck (moving bulky items, not necessarily heavy ones). If Ford ever made a true quad cab Ranger (not a Sport Trac), I'd be driving one today. I have a Dodge midsize as a result, though it like the Ranger is no longer being manufactured. The Nissan, Toyota, and GM are my only options going forward.

I had an 01' Tundra and it was about perfect. The current full sized Tundra and Big 3 are way too big. The Taco would get my nod these days. I have an 02' 4Runner and it does very well, even towing my 20' bass boat.

 

[farmerbyron]

Those results actually seem to reinforce my assumptions. The large difference between their observed city/mixed driving results being lower than my V-8 results, in comparison to their better highway results indicates that torque range is critical. The V-6 has more work to do getting the car up to speed than a torquey V8. Once they get up to speed and into the torque curve, it's easier to maintain speed. The MDS on the Hemi and high CD numbers on the RAM may work against that. I'm thinking the 8 Speed will work better in city/mixed driving than on the highway in the RAM. But, I could be wrong!

I agree with your logic GTG. A powerful v-8 has plenty of mileage potential if you can keep your foot out of it. I know you can get 30 mpg out of a vette if you really try.

One example I have experienced with v-8 vs v-6 is a trip to CO. My FIL had a 2wd v-6 loaded and I had a 4x4 v-8 loaded with a four wheeler plus other crap. We figured up the mpg and I was getting better than him even with a heavier load.

This little ecoboost experiment by ford is not the way of the future IMO. Sure you can turbo up a v-6 to match the power of a v-8 but you are going to sacrifice longevity and reliability. With the cost of repairs you will see very little to no cost benefit from using a turboed up smaller motor rather than a larger displacement motor.

 

[Shadowrider]

I agree with your logic GTG. A powerful v-8 has plenty of mileage potential if you can keep your foot out of it. I know you can get 30 mpg out of a vette if you really try.

One example I have experienced with v-8 vs v-6 is a trip to CO. My FIL had a 2wd v-6 loaded and I had a 4x4 v-8 loaded with a four wheeler plus other crap. We figured up the mpg and I was getting better than him even with a heavier load.

This little ecoboost experiment by ford is not the way of the future IMO. Sure you can turbo up a v-6 to match the power of a v-8 but you are going to sacrifice longevity and reliability. With the cost of repairs you will see very little to no cost benefit from using a turboed up smaller motor rather than a larger displacement motor.

Have you not seen this torture test?
The initial dyno regimen is very impressive. What they did to it is pure torture on an engine. I'd venture that few normally aspirated engines would live through thermal shock like that.

But I'd still like to see a 3.6 to 4.0L turbo diesel in a half ton truck.

 

[Glocktogo]

Have you not seen this torture test?
The initial dyno regimen is very impressive. What they did to it is pure torture on an engine. I'd venture that few normally aspirated engines would live through thermal shock like that.

But I'd still like to see a 3.6 to 4.0L turbo diesel in a half ton truck.

Do want!

[Broken External Image]

 

[farmerbyron]

Have you not seen this torture test?
The initial dyno regimen is very impressive. What they did to it is pure torture on an engine. I'd venture that few normally aspirated engines would live through thermal shock like that.

But I'd still like to see a 3.6 to 4.0L turbo diesel in a half ton truck.

I can't pull the video up on my phone but I imagine you are referring to the one where they simulated 150,000 mi then put in up against the competition. Simulations are great and all but there is no substitute for real world miles and a large number of trucks on the road. Keep in mind it is a marketing video after all. Just looks like a train wreck of an engine to me.

FWIW I own a 2004 f-150 and the reliability is not the best. Cam phaser/engine ticking, spark plugs breaking off in the heads, rear end going out at 70,000 mi. are all common issues with the 2004-2008 fords.

 

[doctorjj]

I'd say Ford's torture test is better than your wild speculation based on nothing.