Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Mds debuted in the 5.7l hemi in 1500 trucks in
My 12' 5.7 had mds.....
this is anecdotal but, I just got back from a 4 day round trip to Monterey from Sacramento. 2015 ram 2500 6.4 4x4 CC 4.10 rear end, always drive with MDS turned off. Lots of hills around Monterey, traveling at 70 -80 mph mostly highway. 17 miles/gallon. Usually, driving around town and stop/go to work 11-12 mpg
My 08 tundra 5.7 with 4.30 rear end quad cab 4x4 always got around 16 -18 highway.
My 14 ram 1500 5.7 QC 4x4 6 speed, mds off, with 3.55 rear end got around 16-18 highway also.
EVIC or hand calculation?
I'm sorry guys but this is really splitting hairs here.......in the real world, or at least the one I drive in.....there is no real meaningful difference between 14.9mpg and 16mpg for me. On a hunting trip driving from New England to MT or SD it is the difference of $20 each way on a $300 gas bill......to me that is virtually no difference whatsoever.
At that point, it will come down to payload, features and price a heck of a lot more than fuel economy.
The Eco Diesel is the first rig that really had enough of an improvement in fuel economy to make me take notice. Every gasser seems to be a 14-17mpg rig with occasional better performances and worse performances. It is what it is. The biggest difference in the past 15 years has been that while the fuel economy is very similar, the power levels have almost doubled for that economy.
trip meter/odo divided by gallons per gas stop. I really don't trust the EVIC on gas mileage nor that oil change meter either. I don't know if tire pressure made a difference but I had 60 psi front 80 psi rears - forgot to deflate before I took off after doing some hauling prior. AC was off, does that even matter these days for fuel economy?
However if you compared it to other vehicles that it was as capable and with the same or better performance like the Ford 6.2L, GM 6.2L, Ram 5.7L, and Tundra 5.7L; it got pretty good fuel mileage. Heck, just looking at Fuelly.com would show you that if you got a 17.5 mpg average then you are doing better than even today's V8s that now have MDS and 8 speeds since most of those are getting between 16-17 mpg average.
South Texan said:My point was that when the Ecoboost came out, it did deliver better mileage than other V8 engines while also having better performance and capabilities than most V8s at the time. It was outperforming the big GM 6.2L (non Ecotec) while returning better fuel economy than the substantially less powerful GM 5.3L (non Ecotec) which had the best V8 fuel economy at the time.
Add the fact that Fuelly has the 3.6L at averaging 20 mpg and the Ecodiesel averaging 22.5 mpg, the fuel cost would be more for the Ecodiesel given prices being at $1.50 for regular and diesel being $.20 more. I can see paying more for better performance and more capabilities even if the fuel mileage was less, but not for less performance and less capabilities.
It's more of you said my 2012 EcoBoost did better than today's V8's with MDS and 8 speeds.
I showed that was false. Ford didn't reinvent the wheel with the EcoBoost. They unfortunately gave it a misleading name.
My parents traded off their 4cyl ecoboost Escape because it could barely touch 20mpg. Their Jeep Cherokee gets 25-26.
It's more of you said my 2012 EcoBoost did better than today's V8's with MDS and 8 speeds.
I showed that was false. Ford didn't reinvent the wheel with the EcoBoost. They unfortunately gave it a misleading name.
Heck, just looking at Fuelly.com would show you that if you got a 17.5 mpg average then you are doing better than even today's V8s that now have MDS and 8 speeds since most of those are getting between 16-17 mpg average.
Absolutely. So the ecoboost has a lower bore x stroke displacement. Doesn't mean anything because it displaces more air by using a turbo.
At full boost the effective displacement of the Ecoboost is 7.0L. Some see that and think that is throughout the while engine speed, but that is only at full boost which at around 2,500 rpm and carries it for a few hundred rpms. With is why the 3.5L Ecoboost is making more horsepower and torque than even the 420hp and 460lb-ft GM 6.2L does at 2,500 rpm. It slowly tappers off with less effective displacement after that since the turbos are very small for quick spool up times and are not made for high rpm power.
The problem is that trucks are too heavy to utilize the technologies. You're rarely in fuel saving mode with either. You can't overcome physics. That's why in the real world they get about the same mileage and guys that turn off mds in their hemis see little difference.
At full boost the effective displacement of the Ecoboost is 7.0L. Some see that and think that is throughout the while engine speed, but that is only at full boost which at around 2,500 rpm and carries it for a few hundred rpms. This is why the 3.5L Ecoboost is making more horsepower and torque than even the 420hp and 460lb-ft GM 6.2L does at 2,500 rpm. It slowly tappers off with less effective displacement after that since the turbos are very small for quick spool up times and are not made for high rpm power.
Absolutely correct. You're rarely going to be at full boost so actual displaced air is comparable. If the ecoboost sat at max boost most of the time then it would get terrible mileage. The point I'm trying to make is that the big 3 all use a progressive displacement technology in their half ton trucks but it doesn't seem to help much in the real world and they all wind up with roughly the same actual mileage in the end because of physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a heavy parachute. Gas is the energy source. Physics make the fuel mileage debate pointless.