2014 Ford Escape Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2018 Ford F-150 Powerstroke vs. 2018 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel: comparing the specs

Now that Ford has finally released specifications for its diesel Ford F-150, we can finally see how it stacks up against its sole competition, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Naturally, since we haven't driven the new diesel F-150, we can't tell you which is better on the road, but there are interesting things we can glean from the numbers. Compare these and other potential new vehicle purchases using our tool. For one thing, the two trucks are extremely similar from a powertrain perspective. Both trucks use a turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 diesel, with the Ford using a 10-speed automatic, and the Ram using an 8-speed automatic. The Powerstroke engine is built in the U.K. but specifically tuned by Ford for American pickup truck duty. It is also is related to the diesel V6 used by Jaguar and Land Rover. The Ram 1500's engine is made by VM Motori. Only 10 horsepower and 20 pound-feet of torque separate the two, with the Ford getting the slight advantage. The Ford also produces its horsepower and torque slightly sooner than the Ram. Peak power in the Ford comes at 3,250 rpm compared to 3,600 rpm in the Ram, and peak torque arrives at 1,750 rpm in the Ford, and 2,000 rpm in the Ram. View 9 Photos More significant differences become apparent in the payload and towing area, both of which put the Ford at an advantage. The F-150 Powerstroke can carry 2,020 pounds of cargo, or tow 11,400 pounds. The Ram EcoDiesel, depending on configuration, can carry 1,100 to 1,600 pounds of cargo, and tow between 7,560 and 9,210 pounds. Fuel economy might go to the Ford if it hits the company's target of 30 mpg highway. That would beat the Ram's 27 mpg highway. We don't know what Ford's target city mpg is, but the Ram manages 20 in town with two-wheel drive. Four-wheel drive drops the city rating to 19 mpg. View 6 Photos The biggest decider between the trucks might be cost. Ford is only offering its diesel engine on higher end trims, which means that the cheapest diesel F-150 starts at $46,315. That's for a two-wheel drive Lariat extended cab with a 6.5-foot bed. Ram on the other hand, offers the diesel in everything from its ultra-bare-bones Tradesman pickup, allowing for a base price of just $28,585, up to the fancy Laramie Longhorn and Limited trims. Ram's diesel is also available with all cab variants, while Ford's is only offered in extended- and double-cab body styles.

Chevy says not to look at the 2019 Silverado's fuel economy rating

The 2019 Chevy Silverado is hitting dealerships soon, and one of the most notable changes for the new full-size pickup is the addition of a 2.7-liter turbocharged inline-four. The engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in volume consumer models like the Silverado LT and promises more power, less weight and — most importantly — better fuel economy. The thing is, the gains in efficiency haven't been as dramatic as some might have hoped, especially when stacked up against competitors from Ford and Ram. As Automotive News reports, GM's response is a little murky. First, let's talk numbers. We're pulling all figures from FuelEconomy.gov, the official U.S. government source for fuel ratings. Fuel economy numbers on trucks vary greatly based on a number of factors. Bed and cab configuration play a part, but so does a four-wheel-drive system. You also have to factor in tires, transmissions, rear-axle gearing, hybrid systems and cylinder deactivation. Things like that can make the difference between best- and worst-in-class. The EPA's website doesn't give enough information a lot of the time, so there's really no easy way to compare apples-to-apples. First, take a look at the ratings for the 2019 Silverado. A 2.7-liter model with two-wheel drive is rated 20 city, 23 highway and 21 combined. That's both better and worse than a two-wheel drive 2018 Silverado with the 4.3-liter V6 (18 city, 24 highway and 20 combined). The updated 2019 Silverado with a 4.3-liter V6 has yet to be rated. With less weight and a smaller engine, many hoped Chevy would make bigger gains. It's unusual to see any decrease in a fuel economy metric these days. GM says that it's not done tuning the new 2.7-liter engine, so fuel economy could theoretically increase. Expanding further, a V8-powered 2019 Silverado (17 city, 24 highway and 19 combined) actually gets better highway fuel economy than a turbocharged four-cylinder powered truck in certain configurations, even if the latter has a better overall average. But that's only with two-wheel drive, the 8-speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. A Silverado with the 5.3-liter V8 and a 6-speed automatic is rated at 15 city, 22 highway and 17 combined. The biggest issue with the Silverado 2.7-liter doesn't come from within GM itself but from Ford and Ram. GM cites the Ford F-150 with the 3.3-liter V6 and the Ram 1500 with the 3.6-liter V6 as the closest competitors to its new 2.7-liter inline-four.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.