Diesel Ram 1500 terrible Payload

uterep wrote:
Wow that is so bad ..you won't be towing anything with this truck !!

It truly is a Mall Queen, put 4 guys in the truck and your done

Mall Queen. I don't care who you are that's just funny.

Disappointing, but clearly that thing isn't aimed at the RV crowd.
Or folks with 4 wheelers.
Or firewood.
Or... Oh, I'll just stop now.../sarcasm

All jokes aside, I still like this thing if I wasn't RV-ing. Decent torque and great MPG and all the diesel rattle goodness...but then at that price I'd still have a tough time justifying it...

Old-Biscuit wrote:

otrfun wrote:
For those RV.NET users who demand only the best in-class payload and tow capacity numbers, it's a given the Ecodiesel is not for you. From your perspective the Ecodiesel is a terrible, terrible choice. Totally get it.

BUT . . . the Ecodiesel could be a reasonable choice for those folks on RV.NET that tow smaller TT's with a loaded weight of around 4,000-5,000 lbs. and a tongue weight of 400-750 lbs. I see a LOT of these types of TT's on the road every year. I believe there's a large, silent minority of folks right here on RV.NET that tow these very kinds of TT's.

What's really gonna make or break this truck is the Ecodiesel's ability to pull off its best-in-class, EPA mpg numbers in the realworld---it's not gonna be payload. In a couple of months we're going to start getting some REAL numbers from REAL owners. If, and this is a big if, if this truck can consistently produce 14-16 MPG numbers towing an average 4,000-5,000 lb. TT at 65 MPH (level ground, no wind), IMO it'll be a huge success with this segment of RV.NET users.

For those that say no way, well, Consumer Report (and other testers) have consistently reported 40-50% better MPG with the Ecodiesel vs. other 1/2 ton trucks with similar torque specs under the same test conditions. Granted, some will argue the Ecodiesel may get better mileage, but its 0-60 times (or HP) aren't competitive. All I can say is torque does the work, not HP.

On another note, I'd venture to say, for some, MPG or payload won't even be a concern with the Ecodiesel. For some, having 420 ft. lbs. of torque available at just above idle while towing their 4,000-5,000 lb. TT will make their day. It's the diesel experience--some want it, some don't.

Only time will tell.

I understand what you're saying and agree BUT $51,000 :S:S:S:S

Sure, if you want the gold-plated tow hitch and shift knob--lol!! A local dealer priced out a 4x4 Ecodiesel for a friend of mine for a tad more than $35k.

Old-Biscuit wrote:

otrfun wrote:
For those RV.NET users who demand only the best in-class payload and tow capacity numbers, it's a given the Ecodiesel is not for you. From your perspective the Ecodiesel is a terrible, terrible choice. Totally get it.

BUT . . . the Ecodiesel could be a reasonable choice for those folks on RV.NET that tow smaller TT's with a loaded weight of around 4,000-5,000 lbs. and a tongue weight of 400-750 lbs. I see a LOT of these types of TT's on the road every year. I believe there's a large, silent minority of folks right here on RV.NET that tow these very kinds of TT's.

What's really gonna make or break this truck is the Ecodiesel's ability to pull off its best-in-class, EPA mpg numbers in the realworld---it's not gonna be payload. In a couple of months we're going to start getting some REAL numbers from REAL owners. If, and this is a big if, if this truck can consistently produce 14-16 MPG numbers towing an average 4,000-5,000 lb. TT at 65 MPH (level ground, no wind), IMO it'll be a huge success with this segment of RV.NET users.

For those that say no way, well, Consumer Report (and other testers) have consistently reported 40-50% better MPG with the Ecodiesel vs. other 1/2 ton trucks with similar torque specs under the same test conditions. Granted, some will argue the Ecodiesel may get better mileage, but its 0-60 times (or HP) aren't competitive. All I can say is torque does the work, not HP.

On another note, I'd venture to say, for some, MPG or payload won't even be a concern with the Ecodiesel. For some, having 420 ft. lbs. of torque available at just above idle while towing their 4,000-5,000 lb. TT will make their day. It's the diesel experience--some want it, some don't.

Only time will tell.

I understand what you're saying and agree BUT $51,000 :S:S:S:S

yep, who will blow that kind of money, and put up with the hassle of a diesel, Just to tow a TT that a smaller less expensive SUV cross over could tow.

Maybe they got their wires crossed.
Perhaps they wrote the payload for the new Fiat....

otrfun wrote:
For those RV.NET users who demand only the best in-class payload and tow capacity numbers, it's a given the Ecodiesel is not for you. From your perspective the Ecodiesel is a terrible, terrible choice. Totally get it.

BUT . . . the Ecodiesel could be a reasonable choice for those folks on RV.NET that tow smaller TT's with a loaded weight of around 4,000-5,000 lbs. and a tongue weight of 400-750 lbs. I see a LOT of these types of TT's on the road every year. I believe there's a large, silent minority of folks right here on RV.NET that tow these very kinds of TT's.

What's really gonna make or break this truck is the Ecodiesel's ability to pull off its best-in-class, EPA mpg numbers in the realworld---it's not gonna be payload. In a couple of months we're going to start getting some REAL numbers from REAL owners. If, and this is a big if, if this truck can consistently produce 14-16 MPG numbers towing an average 4,000-5,000 lb. TT at 65 MPH (level ground, no wind), IMO it'll be a huge success with this segment of RV.NET users.

For those that say no way, well, Consumer Report (and other testers) have consistently reported 40-50% better MPG with the Ecodiesel vs. other 1/2 ton trucks with similar torque specs under the same test conditions. Granted, some will argue the Ecodiesel may get better mileage, but its 0-60 times (or HP) aren't competitive. All I can say is torque does the work, not HP.

On another note, I'd venture to say, for some, MPG or payload won't even be a concern with the Ecodiesel. For some, having 420 ft. lbs. of torque available at just above idle while towing their 4,000-5,000 lb. TT will make their day. It's the diesel experience--some want it, some don't.

Only time will tell.

I understand what you're saying and agree BUT $51,000 :S:S:S:S

The Ecodiesel obviously isn't targeted at the RV market. No shock here. As was stated, it will make (or break) itself with MPG.

By the way, if you need a bigger payload, Chrysler does have another, best in class, option. It's called a 3500.

301TBS wrote:
Maybe the have started using the J2807 standards?

I think you nailed it. We'll see soon enough. Then we'll have the 2013 owners bragging up their TV compared to a 2015 :W

For those RV.NET users who demand only the best in-class payload and tow capacity numbers, it's a given the Ecodiesel is not for you. From your perspective the Ecodiesel is a terrible, terrible choice. Totally get it.

BUT . . . the Ecodiesel could be a reasonable choice for those folks on RV.NET that tow smaller TT's with a loaded weight of around 4,000-5,000 lbs. and a tongue weight of 400-750 lbs. I see a LOT of these types of TT's on the road every year. I believe there's a large, silent minority of folks right here on RV.NET that tow these very kinds of TT's.

What's really gonna make or break this truck is the Ecodiesel's ability to pull off its best-in-class, EPA mpg numbers in the realworld---it's not gonna be payload. In a couple of months we're going to start getting some REAL numbers from REAL owners. If, and this is a big if, if this truck can consistently produce 14-16 MPG numbers towing an average 4,000-5,000 lb. TT at 65 MPH (level ground, no wind), IMO it'll be a huge success with this segment of RV.NET users.

For those that say no way, well, Consumer Report (and other testers) have consistently reported 40-50% better MPG with the Ecodiesel vs. other 1/2 ton trucks with similar torque specs under the same test conditions. Granted, some will argue the Ecodiesel may get better mileage, but its 0-60 times (or HP) aren't competitive. All I can say is torque does the work, not HP.

On another note, I'd venture to say, for some, MPG or payload won't even be a concern with the Ecodiesel. For some, having 420 ft. lbs. of torque available at just above idle while towing their 4,000-5,000 lb. TT will make their day. It's the diesel experience--some want it, some don't.

Only time will tell.

I am still wayne_tw wrote:
1300 LB PAYLOAD IN A 1500 SERIES PICK UP IS ACTUALLY QUITE GOOD!

In who's world?? Not mine. My pay F150 pay load beats that EASY.

Why don't they just up the GVWR on those rigs?? Or, if they did, what is the GVWR on them??

I just got a 2013 F150 Max Tow XLT SuperCab 4x4 and it's got a #7700 GVWR and a #1900 payload per the sticker. I looked at a 4x2 version of the same truck and it had a #2000 payload, so the 4x4 didn't take too much payload away.. ;)

Mitch