Getting a new truck, compare RAM EcoDiesel vs F150 Platnum??

I've driven both the 2.7 and the 5.3 back to back, with exact same configuration and as similar rear gear ratios as I could find. There was no comparison, the 2.7 ran significantly better so I have to believe there's more parasitic loss in the drivetrain for the GM. After all the reading I've done, I also think Ford is sandbagging the 2.7 numbers a little. It runs very well compared to the 5.0 and 3.5eb, but Ford markets both of those as "premium" engines while the 2.7 is only a $500 upgrade from the 3.5 N/A. They can't have their little economy engine outselling the big guys, so they lowered the HP ratings and lowered it's tow rating.

I'm not being a Ford fanboy here, my next truck will probably end up being a Sierra as there's other things besides the drivetrain that I like better with the GMs. But I still got to be honest with mysefl, those ecoboost engines are no joke.

 

My cousin had a warrenty like that. Wasn't dealer backed but this was a few years back on an 06 F150 he bought. That truck nicked and dimed him to death. Finially got rid of it when he couldn't find anyone around the rural area he lived that would change the spark plugs, hello 5.4 modular engine!! Anyway just a warrenty thought.

 

They could be underated, but that test specifically says mathematically if you believe somone selling something they still are not according to their dyno.

I have seen in person myself and again you can research your self parasitic loss of different drivetrain.

Since you don't acknowledge facts I'll talk about my OPINION,
I personally don't give a hoot about either of those trucks, again in my personal somewhat educated opinion, I would go diesel or bigger cube gasser(gm) and mod that sucker. Then work its balls off.

I would do a TVS or dust off my tig machine and build my own turbo(easy 5-600 at the wheels low boost) for the 6.2 add a baby cam and use e85 at the track or street until I got tired of it. Then switch bag to gas.(flex fuel)

The 5.3 will do similar or an easy 400 to the wheels while retaining mpg if not gaining a few. I've actually been considering a 5.3 trailblazer/envoy to play with. It would be the Mrs!

That truck has the power of a diesel, but again while towing its gonna suck the gas bad just like the 2.7 Eco while under boost.

If I did not tow or treat it like a real truck anything would work. cough( f150 Eco) cough.
Thats the whole marketing approach of the Eco in my opinion.

 

All of the wheel dyno charts I've seen of the 5.3 since it arrived on the scene back this theory up. At least with the full sized trucks, compared to other brands the GM's do have less efficient drive trains than the other brands.

 

That's a little surprising to hear as historically Chevy trucks seem to pull a little better fuel mileage than Ford and Dodge. And painful to admit as a Ford fan...never made sense to me, back in the day, GM running low tech throttle body FI, Ford had MPFI and worse fuel mileage...of course Ford always seemed to like to restrict their exhaust too much IMO

 

GM trucks are usually lighter than fords. Well, that was until the alloy ones came along. Less mass = less gas.

 

I like my Superduty, but I was a lil sad to see my pretty tu-tone red n white OBS F150 S/C 4x4 go bye bye... (it went to a happy new home though )
Boy, I dunno...the EFI 351...they weren't no heroes for towing IMO...(hate admitting that)

 

That's the reason that 351W 's were used as ski boat motors over the 350. Moar powr. That was until they used up all the 5.8 blocks that is.

 

Ford's 5.0 will make some good numbers with an s/c.

 

The Vortec 350's are healthy but prior to that they were dogs.

 

The efi on the regular truck 351 ( non HO)was the issue. The non roller cam, and speed density efi, along with undersized throttle body held it back. Carbed, or proper efi with gt40 heads, and a better intake and they flew. The heavy chassis of the f series didn't help either. The first Gen Lightning moved, and that was still despite the heavy chassis, but that had a roller cam gt40'ized 351.

 

Wasn't the lightning faster than the 454SS? I think the lightning would bust a low 15 in the quarter which was fast in its day.

The upper intake is not too good on a regular 5.8. The lower is great though, holley copied it for their systemax intake for the 302. I hate working on those old EFI 5.0's and 5.8's. That stupid manifold hanging over the valve cover and then all the emissions junk in the way........

 

True that! We had one on the lot for a bit...it seemed to have severe traction control system issues though...

 

The Ford Explorers with the 5.0 were really choked up too. They had a GT40 topend also but no roller rockers, crappy manifolds, and a junk cam.

 

Yes, the 351 Lightning destroyed the 454SS, and the lightning weighed more.

True, the lower truck intake wasn't the issue on the 5.8 trucks, and Holley copied the ports, but the lower still was very restrictive.

Yeah, you had to move some stuff to work on them, but, you still could work on them.

Ahhhh, the good old days.

 

I'd rather work on a mod

 

A bigger difference...modern diesels VS old school mechanical pump with manual fuel cutoff...we don't need no stinking wiring! (once it is running)

 

Still a roller cam though. Plus gt40p heads. Guess where the upgraded gt40 heads on my classic ski nautique came from? The intake manifolds were gt40. All the manifolds that were gt40, regardless of FRPP, explorer, or cobra style, were all very very good. Within a couple hp here or there between them. The p heads required different exhaust manifolds or headers on mustangs to work from the explorer, but actually work better on a boat due to the water cooled exhaust manifold setup.