View Single Post
Old 08-31-2013, 12:05 PM
Driver72 Driver72 is offline
Dodge Ram Forum Senior Member!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Gender: Male
Vehicle: 2014 Laramie CC 4x4 8spd 3.92
Trim Level: Laramie
Color: White w/ Blk interior
Rep Power: 0
Driver72 will become famous soon enough

Originally Posted by country-boy View Post
Driver72 - Thanks for some good points.
Actually, I used the combined mpg rating for the Hemi. It's rated at 14/20 or 15/21 depending on where you look and the configuration, but all of the window stickers I looked up show 17 combined.
The 14/20 was the old rating with the 6 speed auto.
With the 8 speed it's 16/22 and 18 combined for 2wd and 15/21 and 17 combined for 4wd.

Originally Posted by country-boy View Post
You're right that I used the high end on the ED mpg. My mistake. We could go back and forth all day long on the ED mpg. True, the jeep ED is rated at 21/28 for 4x4 (it's 22/30 for the 2WD). Motortrend reported they got 26.4 overall on a 4x4 after just a week of driving. So, for sake of argument, let's use 26 for the Ram. I honestly think this is conservative, based on reading quite a few sites - but nothing is solid... so we can only guess.
National gas/diesel ave price: 3.593 / 3.927
mpg (Hemi/ED): 17 / 26
price per mile = 0.15 / 0.21
So @ 18,000 miles/year, the savings with the ED is just under $1,100/year.
Even if you bring the ED down to 24 mpg, the savings is still $859/yr.

FWIW, I live in NY (unfortunately). Using the local average costs for gas/diesel here show even greater savings.

You're right that the ED gets the 3.55. While technically true there will be a difference between this and the 3.45 in the Jeep, I don't think you could measure it. Other tests have shown that a much bigger delta between ratios leads to maybe 1.0 mpg difference, and that's at highway. It drops off in city. So I didn't even bother to consider this factor in the comparison.

It's not just the 3.55 vs 3.45 which is probably only .3-.4 mpg difference, it's also that the Ram will weigh at least 300 lbs more equally equipped, and be far less aerodynamic, not so much aerodynamics actually, but it's profile and how much wider and taller surface area that needs to push through the wind that will affect gas mileage. I'd guess on average the Ram ED will get 2-2.5 mpg worse gas mileage than the JGC. I think your estimate of 24 mpg average will be close to realistic. And as you pointed out that's still a savings of $850+ a year. Pretty good.

Originally Posted by country-boy View Post
It's interesting when you start to compare the Pentastar. With a 3.55 rear end, the Pentastar performs almost even with the Hemi. It's 0.4 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile, and at almost the same speed (88). The 0-60 times are fairly close too (6.9 and 7.5). So it's not that the ED is slow, it's that the Pentastar is *fast*.
Well I don't think they've tested a comparably equipped Pentastar with a Hemi yet, both with the same gears.
The Pentastar no doubt performs well but that's because it weigh several hundred pounds less.
So technically it has 90 hp less than the Hemi, but when you take weight into consideration, the Hemi really probably has 50-60 hp more.
I think I've seen a Pentastar Crew Cab with 3.55's pretty well optioned doing 0-60 in the 7.5-7.7 second range.
A Hemi CC with 3.55's will do it in 6.8-7.0 (I've gotten 7.0 on my VBox, same unit most mags use, in my Laramie CC 4x4, and that time seems on par to what the mags are getting. Car and Driver recently got an even heavier Laramie Longhorn with the base 3.21 gears to do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds.

So I think equally equipped and with the same axle ratio the Pentastar is .5-.6 seconds slower 0-60. And that makes sense since it's 90 hp advantage diminishes to 50-60 hp when you take weight into consideration too.
Often 10 hp equates to .1 second (that's a very crude way to look at it, but it holds true more often than not).

I'll guesstimate now that the average Ram 1500 Crew Cab Ecodiesel with the 3.55 gears will run a 0-60 in the 8.1 to 8.3 second range.
Not too shabby.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the ED. I actually asked for a 1/2 ton diesel many years ago already, as I've always thought it silly not to have one.
But to me the 240 hp and 420 tq version in the Ram, is a bit short on power.
It's torque isn't that much greater than the Hemi (though the diesel will have it much lower in the rpm band I know) and the 240 hp rating is a bit low.

I used to own a (actually had two of them) BMW 335i and considered the BMW 335d too. BMW's 3.0 liter diesel made 265 hp and 465 tq.

If Ram made their 3.0 ED with 265 hp / 465 tq, that would be sweet (I know you can easily tune it to that, but it would be nice from the factory with it). Then it would not only equal the Pentastar in acceleration, but have a more significant difference in torque over the Hemi. And probably not affect the gas mileage too much, if at all.

Originally Posted by country-boy View Post
Still - I can't wait to drive the ED side-by-side with the Hemi and see how she does. Either way, I can't go too far wrong!

I agree, the ED is tempting, even for me, I just wish it had a bit more power from the factory, and the diesel option was only a grand or so more.
If it had both of those, I think I'd be all over it too. As it stands, the rumbling sound of the Hemi is a touch more tempting, but the gas mileage of the diesel is sweet too, even if it is 23-24 mpg average. Now you got me thinking. LOL
2014 Ram 1500 Laramie CC 4x4 with LSD and 3.92's
2013 Ram 1500 Laramie CC 4x4 with LSD and 3.55's -GONE-
Reply With Quote