First drive Ram 1500 diesel

otrfun wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
If the 2014 Ram with DEF only gets 16-18 mpg hwy then it looks like the DEF is only a bonus for less regens. My 12 CTD gets 16-18 mpg hwy all day @70 mph. 18-19+mpg running 55-60.

Possibly.

But, there's no accounting for driving style (or BS). From 2007.5 on, owners (at fuelly.com & various forums) seem to report anywhere from 12 to 22 mpg highway (with and without deletes). A friend of mine just purchased a new 2014 2500 CC SB Tradesman 6.7 4x4 SRW. We just did a 100 mile loop empty at 70 mph and he got 19.3 mpg hand calculated. I mentioned 16-18 mpg highway in my post because these numbers seems to bring up the least amount of controversy with late model 6.7 Cummins owners--plus, 17 (or 16-18) is the result of averaging 12 and 22.

Well I can guarantee my 12 will never get 19mpg running 70mph so it does look like DEF helps.

goducks10 wrote:
If the 2014 Ram with DEF only gets 16-18 mpg hwy then it looks like the DEF is only a bonus for less regens. My 12 CTD gets 16-18 mpg hwy all day @70 mph. 18-19+mpg running 55-60.

Auto manufactures run the same dyno load program for fuel economy tests so it's apples and apples.

IOW's it's all relative. Some may get more than the EPA sticker, some might get less, but on average, the average person is going to get right at the EPA sticker. If you drove the 2014 Ram the same way you drove your 12 it would get better mileage. DEF allows the tune to be a lot better so they can pick up mileage without being dirtier. Win-win.

goducks10 wrote:
If the 2014 Ram with DEF only gets 16-18 mpg hwy then it looks like the DEF is only a bonus for less regens. My 12 CTD gets 16-18 mpg hwy all day @70 mph. 18-19+mpg running 55-60.

Possibly.

But, there's no accounting for driving style (or BS). From 2007.5 on, owners (at fuelly.com & various forums) seem to report anywhere from 12 to 22 mpg highway (with and without deletes). A friend of mine just purchased a new 2014 2500 CC SB Tradesman 6.7 4x4 SRW. We just did a 100 mile loop empty at 70 mph and he got 19.3 mpg hand calculated. I mentioned 16-18 mpg highway in my post because these numbers seems to bring up the least amount of controversy with late model 6.7 Cummins owners--plus, 17 (or 16-18) is the result of averaging 12 and 22.

If the 2014 Ram with DEF only gets 16-18 mpg hwy then it looks like the DEF is only a bonus for less regens. My 12 CTD gets 16-18 mpg hwy all day @70 mph. 18-19+mpg running 55-60.

tragusa3 wrote:
Yep. A lot of folks could use everything about the 2500, but don't need a fire breathing 800 ftlb engine.

I bet they could greatly increase sales on this one if they just gave it that extra 300-500 pounds of payload. It's quite frustrating really.

The new 1/2 ton Nissan, with the 5.0 Cummins diesel V8, projected for 2015-2016, could very well fill this void. No doubt this engine, with close to 550 ft. lbs. of torque is more than capable of towing 10,000 - 13,000 lbs.

The question is whether Nissan will bump up the payload to accommodate the increased tonque/pin weights. Payload and tow capacity are relatively easy R&D fixes. The true issue is fuel economy. If this Nissan 5.0 Cummins diesel can pull off a real-world, repeatable, 21-22 mpg highway, Nissan will have an opportunity to fill that huge void in payload/tow/MPG capabililty that currently exists between the 1/2 and 3/4 ton segment. If this Nissan 5.0 diesel gets less than 20 mpg highway, then IMO it's not going to do well. Potential buyers will simply purchase a Ram 2500 6.7 Cummins--a proven, full-featured 3/4 ton, tow-monster, instead. From all accounts, the 2014 Ram 2500 6.7 Cummins with DEF has been producing a pretty consistent 16-18 mpg highway.

thomasmnile wrote:
I don't really understand the 'old school' characterization of the Ecodiesel.
It does have a couple of features in common with the Ford 6.7 Powerstroke; a CGI block and 'structural' aluminum oil pan. Isn't that a 'new school' approach to weight reduction of a diesel engine?

Structural pan and CGI block are new-school. But in my post, I was referencing the Solenoid actuated injectors versus piezo crystal which is common in the PSD, Duramax and Cummins. And by no means does old-school mean bad. For example, a Cummins Turbo Diesel still uses old-school solid-tappet lifters versus hydraulic roller lifters which I know Ford uses and I think the Duramax uses as well. Heck, pushrods are typically considered old-school, but I see nothing wrong with that. The VM Motori block though is a DOHC design though, but it still flows from the inner valley to the outer valley like a traditional V-engine versus doing something like Ford did with the 6.7. The A630 block is actually an update of the 629 block that VM Motori has had out for a while. So I see it as a european ISB coming to America really.

Again, I understand the motive of picking this motor.
1-it puts out more power than the original Cummins ISB motor. In fact, it matches the base output of the 5.9 up until 2004. So it's more than up to the task of tow duties for a half-ton.
2-your typical half-ton owner doesn't need a whole lot of peak horsepower, but more usable power for typical half ton duties. This should appease those that use a truck as a truck vs. the hot-rodders. However, hot-rodders are also hip to diesels now a days and will probably play with this motor as well.
3-Fiat owns this engine, it's probably cheaper for them to source this engine than the ISV.

Nothing wrong with cheap and having been around for a while. In fact it could possibly be the very solution RAM needs for a truck. But only sales data will be able to tell the tale in the end. I just hope RAM keeps this engine out for a minimum of 2 years to hopefully get the fuel economy word out there. They did such a poor job of advertising the diesel Jeeps of yore that they are coveted by people who know about them, but most people have no idea they even exist.

goducks10 wrote:
The initial cost of the diesel option will be recouped on resale. Hopefully:)

If it develops a good reputation like the LBZ Duramax engine, yes you will. Like the 6.0 Power Stroke engine, maybe not so much.

tragusa3 wrote:
Yep. A lot of folks could use everything about the 2500, but don't need a fire breathing 800 ftlb engine.

Or the substantial upgrade price and weight, for that matter. Not sure if the 5.0 Cummins would save much weight or be less expensive though.

Yep. A lot of folks could use everything about the 2500, but don't need a fire breathing 800 ftlb engine.

I bet they could greatly increase sales on this one if they just gave it that extra 300-500 pounds of payload. It's quite frustrating really.

tragusa3 wrote:
I'm not a 0-60 kinda guy either. Much less am I going to flog my own. It was really the payload alone that kept me from this Ram. I wish it was on a truck with 2000 payload.

I agree. It's going to be interesting to see how the market plays out. IMO, I think Ram would have a real winner if they would simply offer a mid-sized, 4.0 - 5.0 liter diesel in a 2500 chassis. Possibly use something similar to the Cummins 5.0 V8 diesel proposed for the new 2015-2016 1/2 ton Nissan. This would fill that huge void in payload/tow/MPG capability that currently exists between the light-duty, 3.0 Ecodiesel 1500 and the big-daddy, 6.7 Cummins 2500.