Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I would speculate the Ford Diesel is more efficient since its has to contend with a torque converter and the standard drive train, more power, and only 1mpg lower?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
I call bullsh*t, they say they 'hear' the diesel PM gets 22mpg combined, but TTAC extended review got almost 25mpg combined.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/review-2013-fiat-ducato-cargo-van-video/

That article is awful friendly to Ford at the expense of the PM.
I don't know how much more you can actually expect.

If a Transit goes from 19 to 25 MPG highway like they are "estimating" I'd be quite happy with the 30 percent or so improvement in mileage. I've been expecting less of a difference going from small gasoline V6s to diesel. Differential for PM should be in same ballpark.

By the way, I personally think it's hard to compare results from a single blogger driving a Ducato to what may be the EPA rating of a ProMaster with different emissions hardware. EPA ratings follow a controlled test and driving on highway is unpredictable, and greatly varied according to driver style and road conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
But the ProMaster has been given higher mpg ratings than all of the Ford models. I don't see how you think that the Ford is being favored by the reviewer.

Do you think that the ProMaster MPG ratings will change much once they actually test it instead of just estimating it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
How much journalistic effort or integrity is behind a statement like this:

the Ram ProMaster 3.0-liter I-4 EcoDiesel which we've heard is around 18/26 mpg city/highway

The article also states that the PM diesel will have a combined average of 22mpg.

They should cite sources of the diesel mpg. TTAC had an extended test of the Ducato 3.0 diesel, so I believe those numbers.

I think if there is real difference of 4 mpg over the Ford diesel, which the article is saying is only 1mpg.

FIAT also publishes NEDC numbers of the euro Ducato, which for the diesel is 8-8.5 l/100km (26.6-29.4 US mpg)
http://www.fiatprofessional.com/com/cmsen/pdf/ducato_goods_transport__ts_ebrochure_sett011.pdf
NEDC is optimistic compared to real world driving, but combined 25MPG for the PM is a more realistic number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
.....cut......

I think if there is real difference of 4 mpg over the Ford diesel, which the article is saying is only 1mpg.

.....cut......
Why would a PM diesel get 4 MPG higher than a Transit diesel?

Both have similar size engines, weigh roughly the same, are of similar size, and so on. The PM is FWD and manual, but the Ford uses a modern automatic that is fairly efficient. I can see a 1 MPG difference, maybe even 2, but 4 MPG seems excessive for vehicles that are so similar in many ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
3 or 4 mpg seems justifiable as the the PM is lower, lighter, less rotating mass re: driveline and rear axles, one less piston, and no torque converter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
I was pointing out that the FIAT 3.0 diesel does have euro mpg consumption figures, and was tested in the real world by TTAC. @25mpg.

The Ford does have a 6 spd automatic. So that could account for 1-2 mpg. It also makes a little bit more power, due to 200cc's extra displacement, but also which may be at the expense of efficiency.

There is also NEDC data which points out that the 3.2 Ford Transit with a manual gearbox gets between 26.-28.2 imperial mpg, which translates to US mpg of 21.8-23.5.

NEDC data from this site:
http://vanfueldata.dft.gov.uk/vehicles.aspx

If you look at the site's NEDC fuel data for the Ducato diesel, the figures are around 28-30 US MPG.

As I mentioned before, the NEDC figures are un-conservative compared to real world driving so expect real world MPG figures to be 85-90% of NEDC.

So if you factor in the real world adjustment I am comfortable with the combined mpg's:
Ford Transit 3.2: 19.5-21.2 mpg
Ram PM 3.0 Diesel: 25mpg

From extrapolations of the euro data, the FIAT in my opinion is the better engine.

What is maddening, is that both FIAT and Ford have 2.2 and 2.3 liter diesels that with manual gearboxes return 30mpg. Why they offer them in Mexico, Europe and the rest of the world and not here is maddening...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Hopefully they will release the diesels here in the next two months.
The 2.2 and 2.3 liter are just adequate and as the camshafts are belt driven, are possibly not the best for the US market
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
3 or 4 mpg seems justifiable as the the PM is lower, lighter, less rotating mass re: driveline and rear axles, one less piston, and no torque converter.
The Ford middle roof is almost the same height as the PM tall roof; both around 100 inches tall. The PM might have a lower floor, but overall dimensions are very similar. That applies to low roof models also.

Historically manual transmissions were more efficient, but for many years now automatics normally get higher EPA fuel economy ratings than manuals when installed in same vehicle. And this fact is consistent across most brands. This is in part true because automatic vehicles can be geared taller than their otherwise-exact manual-transmission counterparts.

And yes, FWD gets better MPGs in part due to lower rotating mass, but that number is quite small as it affects fuel economy -- particularly at near-steady highway speeds where rotating mass is mostly insignificant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
I was pointing out that the FIAT 3.0 diesel does have euro mpg consumption figures, and was tested in the real world by TTAC. @25mpg.

....cut....
What is the point of comparing either European or real-world ratings to an EPA rating when they are so different that they yield different results?

Maybe I'm just patient and willing to wait until official numbers are published. Or until Transit versus PM real-world testing occurs. Beyond that I can't justify a near 20 percent difference in fuel economy for similar vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Good point on the belt driven cams.

I found this article by the BBC really interesting on why the USA doesn't have a lot of diesels:
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels

One thing is for sure, if CAFE standards were revised to include commercial vans, then the smaller diesels and manual trans (or 7-9 speed autos) would be available in the US and 30mpg would be a viable target.

Hopefully they will release the diesels here in the next two months.
The 2.2 and 2.3 liter are just adequate and as the camshafts are belt driven, are possibly not the best for the US market
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Historically manual transmissions were more efficient, but for many years now automatics normally get higher EPA fuel economy ratings than manuals when installed in same vehicle. And this fact is consistent across most brands. This is in part true because automatic vehicles can be geared taller than their otherwise-exact manual-transmission counterparts.
Another aspect to consider is that EPA has a single standard to test vehicles with manual transmission, so the manufacturers just tune it to fare well on EPA test instead of providing their best overall efficiency.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top