1 2 3 4 5 6
z31maniac
z31maniac UltimaDork
10/8/13 1:47 p.m.
93EXCivic wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
Javelin wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: Okay, got it. The Tundra was better at being a Camry than the Dodge. That makes sense.
What's wrong with a truck not riding like crap? Or being nice? As I mentioned, since this will become my DD, Road Trip and Tow vehicle......I have no desire to drive a beat up and/or poorly optioned vehicle. It cracks me up that you put it as a negative for the Tundra that it was nicer and it rides better.
I have driven the Tundra and Ram. I think the Ram drives better then the Tundra and the interior on roughly the same price Tundra is not as nice IMHO. Fords seem to have the nicest interiors but they also seem to have a higher price tag at the dealership. If Dodge wasn't an option (which I still you are wrong to discount just because it is a Dodge), I would pick F-150. Although I haven't driven a Titan or Chevy.

Regardless of Javelin's hyperbole about Ram DESTROYING the Tundra, I suspect it might be marginally better.

I'm sorry, the Chrysler/Dodge brand's history of reliability scares me off.

As Ford's being more $$ and nicer, that's a fair trade-off......and at least as far as MSRP is concerned.......the loaded 4x4 crew cab trucks are all within a few thousand of each other.

Xceler8x
Xceler8x GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
10/8/13 1:49 p.m.

Do you guys remember this?

What the Inside of a Tortured Ford EcoBoost V-6 Looks Like

~~~~~

In case you’re one of the three or four people who haven’t been following the F-150 EcoBoost torture test story online, here’s a recap:

A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.

A leakdown test was performed to measure how well the engine’s 24 intake and exhaust valves and piston rings were still able to seal the cylinders. One cylinder was found to have a cautionary 13 percent air loss past the combustion chamber’s seals, while all other cylinders were acceptable with single digits of air leakage.

Oil pressure at idle on the dyno was normal, in the mid-40 psi range.

After the dyno, engine 448AA, which had never been opened or inspected, was shipped to the Detroit auto show where, on Saturday, it was torn down for inspection in front of a live audience of more than a thousand Ford engine enthusiasts and their families.

The teardown was narrated for the audience by Jim Mazuchowski, Ford’s chief engineer for V-6 engines. Powertrain engineer Phil Fabien explained the advantages of things like turbocharging, direct fuel injection and twin independent variable cam timing while engine technicians Chris Brown on the right bank and Chris Rahill on the left bank took the engine apart using a pair of air wrenches and hand tools.

As they went, the engine parts were laid out on three huge tables so that when the tear-down was complete, the engineers and the audience could take a closer look. During the tear-down, engineers Steve Matera, Kirk Sheffer and Jeanne Wei organized the parts and made some key measurements.

Valve lash, which measures valvetrain clearance between the camshafts and valves, was checked at 0.17 mm on the intakes and 0.38 mm on the exhausts. That’s well within normal range for both, according to Ford. Crankshaft end play was measured at 0.12 mm, also acceptable.

The timing chain, which controls valve timing and synchronizes engine operation, was still within normal tolerances. With age, a timing belt loses tension, and a hydraulically operated timing chain tensioner is used to compensate for slack. The tensioner has 10 teeth that work like a ratchet to maintain tension. The EcoBoost V-6 used three teeth, well within the timing chain’s operating specs.

We didn’t get a photo of the valves, but they had carbon deposits similar to that found (and seen in pictures) on piston combustion surfaces.

Visual inspection of the cylinder heads, twin turbos, piston crowns, ring lands, rod bearings and cylinder bores by the engineers and your correspondent showed no major signs of anomalous wear after 163,000 miles of endurance testing. The main bearings showed cosmetic grooves but not excessive wear through the metal.

Engineer Wei said each and every part would be taken back to Ford’s labs to be checked with scales, cameras, lasers, micrometers and other measuring tools to get the final details on the rich, full life of EcoBoost V-6 engine 448AA.

You can see the disassembled engine with your own eyes until Jan. 23 at NAIAS.

doc_speeder
doc_speeder Reader
10/8/13 1:55 p.m.

There's gotta be a typo there somewhere. I can't drive 150,000 miles in 300 hrs...What am I missing?

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
10/8/13 1:56 p.m.

In reply to z31maniac:

He didn't say it was nicer or rode better, he said it was more "car like".

I have driven both and IMO the coil-spring Ram rides way better than the leaf spring Tundra. The new interiors are also nicer, especially on the high-end versions (Laramie/Longhorn/Limited). I can see that the low-end and mid-pack Dodge interiors might not match the low/mid Yota.

z31maniac
z31maniac UltimaDork
10/8/13 2:01 p.m.
DaveEstey wrote:
Javelin wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: Nice as in you had a Ram with vinyl followed by a leather Tundra or nice as in the Pentastar V6 Ram wasn't as capable as the V8 Tundra? I'm confused. Like-for-like the Ram (and the other domestic trucks) *demolish* the Tundra in every category (towing, payload, economy, and even luxury if that's your thing). There's a reason Toyota's sales aren't even a blip on the radar.
Both were optioned up roughly equally. Toyota rode nicer and everything seemed to be better quality. It felt like a big comfy car. I still like my diesel F250 better though. If I buy a truck I want a TRUCK.

Actually he did say it rode nicer and was higher quality.

Look, verbatim.

LainfordExpress
LainfordExpress HalfDork
10/8/13 2:03 p.m.

1607/24 = 66.95 mph, not 82. Maybe they were driving an "average" of 82 while actually moving, but clearly they had to stop for fuel. Their real average over the 24 hour period was 66.95 mph. Says math.

Bobzilla
Bobzilla UberDork
10/8/13 2:04 p.m.

I spent too many miles behind the wheel of the 1st gen Tundra. God what a pile of crap. 160k miles required 3 transmissions. Got 14mpg unloaded with the V6/auto/2wd and was the most uncomfortable vehicle I've ever owned.

Swank Force One
Swank Force One MegaDork
10/8/13 2:07 p.m.

By 1st gen Tundra, you mean 2nd gen T100, right? The not-really-a-half-ton-truck 2nd gen T100? A truck that has nothing in common with the truck being discussed here besides a bad on the hood?

This thread reminds me why i don't post "what car" threads here anymore.

alfadriver
alfadriver PowerDork
10/8/13 2:08 p.m.
doc_speeder wrote: There's gotta be a typo there somewhere. I can't drive 150,000 miles in 300 hrs...What am I missing?

It's not actually 150k miles-

run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles

It is a very strenuous test, especially the heat cycling, which grows and shrinks the block/head pretty badly. All OEM's have tests like that.

logdog
logdog GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/8/13 2:23 p.m.
alfadriver wrote:
doc_speeder wrote: Part of the issue is towing speed? (North) Americans seem to feel that if a truck can't pull a 10,000lb trailer up a 8% grade with a 50mpg cross wind at 70mph, it's underpowered and not heavy enough...I don't think Europeans have the same MENTALity.
funny you bring that up. For virtually all truck towing ratings, the actual rating is decided via a test that runs up an incline (5% grade), normally in the summer (the location is at the Arizona-Nevada border so call it 110F), but the speed limit is only 45mph. And most of the time, the limit is the cooling system not being able to do that. Other testing includes acceration up 12% incline, and other handling issues. The standard is called SAE J2807- which makes trucks post 2013 actually comparable to each other, and not some made up manufacturer number. Still, if you compare the test with your real world requirements, you can really get an idea of capability of what you want. Like the SUV I want should be fine in level Michigan with 3200lb car + trailer.

Did Ford finally adopt the SAE standard? Thats cool. Last I heard the big 3 left Toyota alone to adopt the standard. I think its a really good idea.

Tom_Spangler
Tom_Spangler GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/8/13 2:24 p.m.
HiTempguy wrote:
Tom_Spangler wrote: If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat.
Well it won't. It'll average low 20's. Tough to beat physics and all. But most ecoboost owners I've met (and fuelly) are reporting well below 20mpg average.

Including me. That's why I'm calling BS on the diesel Ram's mileage. Low 20s? Maybe if you keep it under 60. That's the only way my truck gets the 21 it's rated for on the freeway. Insert standard disclaimer about driving style, gear ratios, weather, etc.

alfadriver
alfadriver PowerDork
10/8/13 2:48 p.m.

In reply to logdog:

As far as I know. But could be wrong- certainly should be using it.

Bobzilla
Bobzilla UberDork
10/8/13 2:59 p.m.
Tom_Spangler wrote:
HiTempguy wrote:
Tom_Spangler wrote: If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat.
Well it won't. It'll average low 20's. Tough to beat physics and all. But most ecoboost owners I've met (and fuelly) are reporting well below 20mpg average.
Including me. That's why I'm calling BS on the diesel Ram's mileage. Low 20s? Maybe if you keep it under 60. That's the only way my truck gets the 21 it's rated for on the freeway. Insert standard disclaimer about driving style, gear ratios, weather, etc.

I've been hearing "You're a liar" about fuel economy for years. Simple fact of the matter is :what drivetrain, what rear end ratio, what tire size,etc all make differences. Gas trucks can get 24mpg on the highway at 75mph if you get the right configuration.

logdog
logdog GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/8/13 3:20 p.m.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to logdog: As far as I know. But could be wrong- certainly should be using it.

I was curious so I googled it. Apparently nobody wants to be first (other than Toyota). Its from a GM article but its current.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130926/COL14/309260022/2014-Chevy-Silverado-2014-GMC-Sierra

The Society of Automotive Engineers — which creates standards for everything from oil viscosity to measuring engine horsepower — has created a single standard towing test, but GM did not use it for the new 2014 pickups. That would be a big deal, except Ford, Ram and Nissan also use their own tests. Only the Toyota Tundra uses the SAE testing standard.

nocones
nocones GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/8/13 3:26 p.m.
Bobzilla wrote: In reply to z31maniac: It's the only vehicle I've ever owned that the seats do not hurt even after 24+ hours in them.

I swear every time we talk about trucks the duration of your comfort standard grows. I don't know what scares me more. The fact that you have sat in your truck seat without moving for 24 hours straight or the fact that you have sat in multiple cars seats without moving for 24+ hours that you can make a comparison.

Comfort is too subjective to talk about it like it is some sort of objective feature. You could say something about the dimensions of the seat or the firmness relative to some hardness standards but to say they are comfortable comfortable is a personal opinion. I spent 8 years designing ergonomic seating products and there is simply no standard seat design that generates comfortable seating for everyone. I had a co worker with a cloth interiored Chevy of the same year as bobs truck and found the seats to simply OK after a 1 hour trip. Other people may find them to be amazing. Thats why you personally need to try them.

Vigo
Vigo UberDork
10/8/13 3:30 p.m.
Jaynen wrote: Has mpg been confirmed anywhere or anyone actually TESTED this ram? Also people used to bash the reliability of the same motor in the Grand Cherokee yes? What about the new titan coming with the cummins?

The test-drive articles are starting to flood in, now. The consensus seems to be that urban stop-and-go is getting 22, mixed driving 24-26, 'not-frugal' mountain driving 20. These are averages over journalist test drives depending on where they drove. The highest number ive seen that a journalist experienced was 27mpg, although i doubt any journalist test drive is going to reflect a true highway number unless they specifically test for it. I havent seen any such claims yet.

Also, it's a different engine than the older diesel grand cherokees, but the same engine as the current diesel grand cherokees.

As for the Titan 5.0 diesel, it's not going to produce exceptional mpg numbers. I havent seen what the rest of the truck is going to be like (diesel is supposed to be concurrent with redesign iirc) so i dont have much to say. But, buying a brand new Titan as of today is kind of like paying full price for a 10 year old truck. It's kind of a dinosaur in the current market.

Tom_Spangler
Tom_Spangler GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/8/13 3:32 p.m.
Bobzilla wrote:
Tom_Spangler wrote:
HiTempguy wrote:
Tom_Spangler wrote: If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat.
Well it won't. It'll average low 20's. Tough to beat physics and all. But most ecoboost owners I've met (and fuelly) are reporting well below 20mpg average.
Including me. That's why I'm calling BS on the diesel Ram's mileage. Low 20s? Maybe if you keep it under 60. That's the only way my truck gets the 21 it's rated for on the freeway. Insert standard disclaimer about driving style, gear ratios, weather, etc.
I've been hearing "You're a liar" about fuel economy for years. Simple fact of the matter is :what drivetrain, what rear end ratio, what tire size,etc all make differences. Gas trucks can get 24mpg on the highway at 75mph if you get the right configuration.

I suppose, but that would have to be considered an extreme outlier. Fuelly is probably the best place to look for real world mileage, because there is a large sample size and a variety of configurations and driving styles.

z31maniac
z31maniac UltimaDork
10/8/13 3:39 p.m.
Vigo wrote:
Jaynen wrote: Has mpg been confirmed anywhere or anyone actually TESTED this ram? Also people used to bash the reliability of the same motor in the Grand Cherokee yes? What about the new titan coming with the cummins?
The test-drive articles are starting to flood in, now. The consensus seems to be that urban stop-and-go is getting 22, mixed driving 24-26, 'not-frugal' mountain driving 20. These are averages over journalist test drives depending on where they drove. The highest number ive seen that a journalist experienced was 27mpg, although i doubt any journalist test drive is going to reflect a true highway number unless they specifically test for it. I havent seen any such claims yet. Also, it's a different engine than the older diesel grand cherokees, but the same engine as the current diesel grand cherokees. As for the Titan 5.0 diesel, it's not going to produce exceptional mpg numbers. I havent seen what the rest of the truck is going to be like (diesel is supposed to be concurrent with redesign iirc) so i dont have much to say. But, buying a brand new Titan as of today is kind of like paying full price for a 10 year old truck. It's kind of a dinosaur in the current market.

Have any links?

Vigo
Vigo UberDork
10/8/13 3:40 p.m.
If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat.

Sorry i didn't catch that the first time around, but uhh.. go read the articles. The lowest one i have even found was 20 mpg, and that was 'less than frugal driving in a mountainous area with plenty of elevation changes'. Even the ones that are saying 24 are usually saying something about they weren't exactly babying it or there was some other guy who got 26 or 27.

While you're looking into it i would also see if you can find a good hat recipe.

Have any links?

Enough that it's tedious to Ctrl C Ctrl V them all.. how about this? https://www.google.com/search?q=3.0+ram+diesel+driven&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You can usually tell which articles involve an actual test drive without clicking on them.

yamaha
yamaha PowerDork
10/8/13 3:52 p.m.
alfadriver wrote: 2- my shocker- the 3.5l GTDI engine is the highest take rate for all powertains on the F150. Why? I can't actually fathom, but it has happend. So there are a LOT of cars out there working hard. I love truck buyers. I would never be one, but my wallet very, very much appreciates them. Especially the ones who buy a superduty for $15k more than it costs to make.

Well, its fast? I saw a lady running high 14's with her 4x4 crew cab the other night.

And you can thank my dad sometime for buying that shiney new '13 f-350. He seems amazed at how much has changed since his '99 was new.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
10/8/13 8:22 p.m.
z31maniac wrote: As Ford's being more $$ and nicer, that's a fair trade-off......and at least as far as MSRP is concerned.......the loaded 4x4 crew cab trucks are all within a few thousand of each other.

I just saw that the Rams generally had much better deals but from what I saw the F150 and the Tundra are generally about the same price at the dealerships around here. The Ford is much nicer then the Tundra. Basically from the three new 1/2 tons I have driven I would probably with my own money buy the Ram but only really cause the incentives offered locally and it is much easier to find a stripped out model (which I know you don't want). The F150 would get serious consideration if I wasn't spending my own money. I would only buy the Tundra if I had to have a Toyota. YMMV.

Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
10/8/13 8:32 p.m.
Bobzilla wrote: I spent too many miles behind the wheel of the 1st gen Tundra. God what a pile of crap. 160k miles required 3 transmissions. Got 14mpg unloaded with the V6/auto/2wd and was the most uncomfortable vehicle I've ever owned.

If only a Korean company made a truck. :D :D

z31maniac
z31maniac UltimaDork
10/8/13 8:33 p.m.

From what I'm seeing advertised, without taking into consideration other rebates/incentives or haggling with a dealership I've already done business with.......say a loaded F-150 with a $53,000 MSRP....is being advertised at $46ish......and I'm confident I could get a few more off that.

It's a metric ton of money for a vehicle, no doubt. But they are a damn lot of vehicle too. Comfortably take 4 adults across country with luggage, tow a race car, etc. And if I could get 10+ years of reliable use out of one, it would be way worth it.

yamaha
yamaha PowerDork
10/8/13 9:39 p.m.

My BIL has about everything except leather in his crew cab xlt......he bought it around this time for $33k out the door. Sticker was around $44k.

Tyler H
Tyler H GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/8/13 10:08 p.m.

Glad I managed to make the most controversial post of the day. :) Nevermind the other tow vehicle post on the fornt page where many of the responses are suggesting 3/4 ton trucks.

Why do you want to eat new car depreciation for a tow vehicle? A 1500 series probably wont eat itself towing in the first 75-100k miles, so if prime time depreciation is acceptable, go for it.

If you're just towing short distances a few times a year, get a half ton.

I know a lot of people who went through two or three 1500 series trucks before they gave in.

Just filled up my truck today, 19.5 mpg, 590 lb-ft torque, plenty of room and half the price of a new half ton.

Actually, closer to a third the price.

My transmission guy LOVEs half ton trucks.

1 2 3 4 5 6

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
OqJhtKdD0hWFtq1me7PE09PmGOvjmzI6S2uGLOB9vpsqRo6UnKOZfsyvdG5rNBqm