Someone on another forum did the cost for 100k miles:

100K miles acquisition + fuel @ combined cycle estimate using today's fuel prices (S. Louisiana avg)
Ram Tradesman EcoDiesel purchase = $31,410
Ram Tradesman Fuel = (23mpg @ $3.40 per gal for 100K) $14,782.60
Ram Tradesman Cost Estimate @ 100K miles = $46,192.60

EB 2.7 purchase = $27,409
Ford F-150XL Fuel = (22mpg @ $2.50 per gal for 100K) $11,363.64 (of note, I filled up with regular unleaded at the local Shell for $2.42/gal)
Ford F-150XL Cost Estimate @ 100K miles = $38,772.64

F-150 costs $7419.96 less than the RAM for the first 100K miles (excluding non-warranty repairs and regular maintenance items)
This assumes that vehicles were purchased at full retail prices and that no discounts were given at the time of sale.

 

^^^^ I'm on my way out the door so don't have time to detail it but those numbers are BS...
Around here diesel is a $.35-.40 delta not $.98/ gal.. Plus I suspect the mileage ratings are also off..


I have the 3.0 Ecodiesel in my '14 Jeep Grand Cherokee and can tell you that I am averaging almost 28 mpg in mixed driving over almost 7000 miles.

 

This has nothing to do with 2.7 mileage, but the old Motori CRD Jeep diesel (same Italian company that makes the current Ram diesel) had a lot of serious and fatal problems. Turbos were failing before 100k, EGR was a major issue, and there were catastrophic failures of rods, etc. This was compounded by difficulty in finding parts and in finding mechanics to work on them.

It is certainly possible that the new Ram diesel will be a good long term engine, but it is also possible that it will be a turkey and end up an orphan like the old Jeep CRD diesel. I would feel better if Chrysler was using a Mercedes diesel engine but that bridge has been burned.

I would put my money on the Ecoboost even though the 2.7 is a new design. Ford is committed to the design and it will be common in terms of its use and parts/service availability in the US.

The cost/mileage example above is ridiculous in its simplicity. You need to consider purchase price of the new vehicle, minus trade-in value. And consider maintenance and repair costs in addition to fuel mileage.

George

 

Well the Motortrend Truck of the Year announcement is out and this is exactly the "TROUBLE" that I was referring to when titling this thread. This award was Ford's to loose and loose it they did.

I get the payload numbers and towing numbers that will inevitably be cited in response by F150 die-hards but the demand within the truck market is evolving payload/towing are assumed by more and more buyers and the differences among the big 3 are quite frankly - very thin. A couple of hundred pounds here and there are not going to move the needle any more. But what is increasingly moving the needle???

FUEL EFFICIENCY!!!

And why is this the trending consideration? This is the only one of the three (towing/payload/mileage) that directly affects the truck owner in the wallet. Again, I understand among the die-hards - bigger badder trucks with bigger badder motors are big deals. But more and more its fuel efficiency because no one and I mean no one likes to pull away from the pump and feel like they just poured wasted dollars into their fuel tank.
Just say'in there is a lesson to be learned here the devil in details lies in the MPG numbers and GM just did an end run and got the prize.....

 

Motor Trend has chosen such winners as the Chevy Vega, the Chevy Citation, the Plymouth Volare, the Renault Alliance, the Chrysler Cirrus, and the PT Cruiser as Car of the Year in the past.

I don't think I need to say much more, do I?

George

 

I like the TOTY article, and it reveals much about the competing trucks out there. But just because they picked a vehicle doesn't mean it will be successful.

The Colorado that they picked as winner is in a segment that's been declining for years. The 4WD model is only rated for one mile per gallon more than a comparably equipped F150 is, which isn't that impressive to me. I'm sure it's a fine truck, but the overwhelming majority of people have recently gone for full size trucks that just don't cost much more to own or operate.

Another factor will be pricing, as we all know these trucks very rarely sell for MSRP. I paid $11K less than MSRP on my '13, but those discounts are impossible to predict this early in the game for both the Colorado or F150. Dollars matter to a guy like me, and the better truck in my eyes is always that which accomplishes what I need it to at the best value.

Time will tell.

 

Well, first of all all the references you cite relate to the CAR of the year award. Let's stay on topic and review TRUCK of the year shall we....

2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_15002013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram2012 Ford F-1502011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado HD2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram Heavy Duty2009 Ford F-1502008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tundra2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma2004 Ford F-1502003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram Heavy Duty2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Avalanche2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado Heavy Duty2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tundra1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado1998 Mercedes-Benz M-Class1997 Ford F-1501996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Tahoe1995 Chevrolet Blazer1994 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram1993 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Grand_Cherokee1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Van Chateau Club Wagon1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Navajo1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AerostarThe F150 has 4 selections - notably for the most part in years of major redesign (I note the Aerostar award - ranks right up there with the Vega). I think the case can be made these selections certainly don't hurt sales and I would bet that if one tracks sales records you'll find increases in the months if not the year following the selection announcement.

Be that as it may let's face it Ford got 98 yards with this redesign and muffed it at the end. They left the prospect of their own higher speed transmission until the 2016 model year (I bet) and the the further prospect of their own light duty diesel until 2017 or 2018. This is unfortunate because these components are the easy, low hanging fruit in the truck mileage game when compared to the truly hard decision to go with the aluminum body. Ram figured this out with their 8 speed and the V6 eco-diesel.

Can you imagine an aluminum bodied, 3.5L Eco-boost with a 10 speed transmission? Or an aluminum bodied F150 AND a light duty diesel AND a 10 speed transmission? That configuration is a game changer, will move the needle in a huge way and will win many, many awards.

This is a shame as Ford has done the hard work - the shift to aluminum is huge - billions of dollars of investment and for a couple of million more or maybe even a few hundred thousand they should of done the transmission and the light duty diesel and stole the entire show! Just say'in...

 

If Ford is not ready to put a 10 speed trans into production, they are not ready.

Likewise, if they don't have a viable diesel engine to offer and can't build such an engine in the right quantities, they can't do it.

It is so easy for armchair quarterbacks to say what Ford "should have done" when they have no clue as to the engineering or production challenges. I can probably include myself in that category although I have enough connections in Detroit that I could probably find the right engineers to talk to at all of the Big 3 if I had a question that was important to me... Actually, I have a friend who I've known since I was 8 (now 62) who works at GM and he designed the hard points in the layout of the Colorado/Canyon when adapted to the US market.

My own opinion is that Ford should build the F150 with a lower, smaller front end to get some major aerodynamic advantages. And maybe lower the load height a couple feet so humans could put stuff in the bed without needing a ladder or forklift. If you are pushing a pole barn thru the wind, there is a given amount of wind resistance that needs to be overcome.

Has the smaller truck segment been declining because of lack of demand or because of lack of availability of the right products at the right price? Ford has 5 different SUV sizes and basically 1 or 2 large pickups. They used to sell more Rangers than they sell Lincolns in total and I bet they would do so now if they had a decent product.

As for Motor Trend, they make their choices to sell magazines, not because they have some kind of insider knowledge of how well a product will succeed... I have never taken them seriously as a car magazine and I've been reading car magazines since 1962.

George

 

If one purchases a vehicle based on the opinions of an auto mag then one hasn't done enough research.

Looks like the 10 speed transmission will be available in the 2017 MY. The 6R80 came to market in the 2009 F-150's with plenty of glitches and they are still quirky. Let Ford and GM (joint venture) properly develop and test this product so we can enjoy a smoother transition.

As for TOTY, it's nice title and I would have loved to have seen Ford bring this one home again but let's face it, Ford didn't complete the package with the latest goodies. The 10 speed should have been available in the 2015 MY and in my opinion, that would have sealed the deal. Ford simply didn't deserve it yet.

But you see, Ford likes to play games with these mid model runs and offer something new half way through it's design cycle to spur more sales. Clearly it works as there are plenty of folks who must have the latest and greatest all the time and there are future TOTY trophies to win.

 

Ford simply didn't deserve it yet.

Post sounds right on the money except that Colorado/Canyon seems like a different segment. Now if the Ram 1500 with the eco took the prize it would make a bit more sense. They did bring the new engine and tranny to market together. Best Truck just seems like a huge category, they should just stick to 1/2 ton for the award and call it a day.

 

The Ram Ecodiesel did win TOTY last year. They only consider new or redesigned models, so a truck in the running last year is ineligible this year unless it's gone through a substantial redesign.

And I don't think anyone is playing games with product lifecycles. It takes a long time to engineer a major component like an engine or transmission. I believe four years is the standard development time at Ford; the 6.7L PSD made headlines because it was only done in three.

 

Kinda expected the F150 to win 2015 TOTY with the Colorado/Canyon grabbing it next year with the 2.8L Duramax diesel engine (unless Ford dropped the mic by pushing the 10spd out a year early).
Maybe the positive to come from this loss is that the Ranger reboot might get more momentum for an earlier return.

Sidenote: While the TOTY award helps sales, Ford still out sold everyone despite Ram winning back to back awards.

 

............................................... ........