First drive Ram 1500 diesel

otrfun wrote:
believe it's been discussed before, but a 4 cylinder version of the 6 cylinder 6.7 Cummins would seem to make an excellent candidate for a mid-sized diesel (4.5 liters). The R&D and productions costs would be dramatically lower vs. a totally new design.

That is what the Tector is. Fiat and Cummins co developed the 5.9 Litre diesels as part of the European Advanced engine project (EEA)then went their separate ways.
4.5, 5.9 and 6.7 Cummins and CNH upgrades
CNH and Cummins Divorce

The EEA/Iveco 6.7L has replaced the 5.9L CDC in the Dodge trucks but has a Cummins badge on it, will that all change now with Cummins out of the EEA? Will FPT now sell direct to Daimler and leave Cummins out of the picture. Wait and see I guess

Since Cummins was a partner in the EEA which developed the 6.7L that is obvious they would brand/sell it.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

It has been said that when the SAE tow rating goes in effect, it is going hurt Frod the most but not the Ram. Funny that both GM and Ram where ready to adapt the new ratings but Ford would not.

In poker that's known as a tell. As in Fords ratings are a joke, but the buying public is to stupid or gullible to understand this.

How so? Both pickuptrucks.com and Fast Lane Trucks have shown the Ecoboost to be a tow monster up and down the Eisenhower pass, which, IIRC is used in the SAE tow ratings.

And none of the big guys used them but from the tone in this article, the 2015 F150 will use it:
Standardized Tow Ratings

What your not taking in consideration is the Ram also has the 8 speed trans.

It has been said that when the SAE tow rating goes in effect, it is going hurt Frod the most but not the Ram. Funny that both GM and Ram where ready to adapt the new ratings but Ford would not.

In poker that's known as a tell. As in Fords ratings are a joke, but the buying public is to stupid or gullible to understand this.

Don

RobertRyan wrote:

Otrfun wrote:
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.

Engine is detuned for heavier use in a IVECO Eurocargo light truck.
IVECO Tector
Fiat does have a sleeved down IVECO diesel that fits that bill.

The Tector 5 engines (4 cylinders and displacement of 4.5 litres) are available in 3 power ratings: - See more at: http://www.iveco.com/uk/products/pages/new-eurocargo-euro-vi-tector-5.aspx#sthash.zk70Q1mO.dpuf

Look nice! Good specs. The larger one has a good bit of torque, about 550 ft. lbs. Kinda anemic on HP (only 210), which is fine for commercial use. In the consumer world, I think it may be viewed as not "sporty" or peppy enough. IMO, 275 HP and 500-550 ft. lbs. of torque is the sweet spot for filling the 1/2 ton - 3/4 ton payload/towing gap. And, more importantly, it's gotta deliver this power and torque with a minimum of low 20's MPG highway fuel economy (empty).

I believe it's been discussed before, but a 4 cylinder version of the 6 cylinder 6.7 Cummins would seem to make an excellent candidate for a mid-sized diesel (4.5 liters). The R&D and productions costs would be dramatically lower vs. a totally new design.

GWolfe wrote:
One thing about Nissan hopefully upping their payload is they don't have their own HD trucks to compete against. If Nissan came out with a 2000-2200 lb payload package with the 5.0l diesel it could lure away folks looking at any of the big three HD trucks.

We can't leave out the fuel economy issue which is the primary reason for using a mid-sized 4.5 - 5.0 liter diesel in the first place. Let's assume Nissan came out with a 1/2 ton Nissan 5.0 Cummins diesel with 2000 lbs. of payload. IMO it would only lure folks away from the Big 3 if, 1) the fuel economy was at least 3-4 mpg better than the typical 6.7 3/4 ton diesel, and 2) the tow capacity was at least 12,500 lbs. Or, the MSRP was substantially lower than a comparably equipped Ram 2500/Ford 250 diesel--which I believe is unlikely. Otherwise, what's the attraction? IMO, just payload and tow capacity won't sell trucks. Gotta have an attractive balance of payload, tow, and fuel economy. There's a reason why there are so many MPG threads here, and on other forums---it's an important and emotional topic for many.

Otrfun wrote:
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.

Engine is detuned for heavier use in a IVECO Eurocargo light truck.
IVECO Tector
Fiat does have a sleeved down IVECO diesel that fits that bill.

The Tector 5 engines (4 cylinders and displacement of 4.5 litres) are available in 3 power ratings: - See more at: http://www.iveco.com/uk/products/pages/new-eurocargo-euro-vi-tector-5.aspx#sthash.zk70Q1mO.dpuf

One thing about Nissan hopefully upping their payload is they don't have their own HD trucks to compete against. If Nissan came out with a 2000-2200 lb payload package with the 5.0l diesel it could lure away folks looking at any of the big three HD trucks.

otrfun wrote:

Turtle n Peeps 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.

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.

The gossip I'm hearing (nothing scientific) says the 2013-2014 Ram 2500/3500 6.7 trucks (with DEF) are getting about 1-2 mpg better fuel economy (empty) than their 2012 counterparts (without DEF).

Ref your comment about EPA testing, the EPA doesn't do fuel economy tests on vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb. or higher. Unfortunately, the GVWR on nearly all 3/4 ton (and larger) trucks exceeds 8,500 lbs. Wish the EPA would include them. Certainly would make it easier to shop & compare new trucks from the Big 3.

I agree 100%.

My point with DEF and a tune is this:
With DEF you can tune a LOT of EGR out of the system and jack a lot of injector timing in but still keep the NOX very low.

Cummins use to be the mileage king with the 5.9. Then when the twins and Ford came out with DEF and Cummins stayed with heavy EGR; Cummins dropped to 3 place in mileage. 6.7 heavy EGR Cummins mileage test.

Now that Cummins went to DEF you can throw a blanket over all 3 as far as mileage goes. (Or so I have been told) :)

otrfun wrote:
The gossip I'm hearing (nothing scientific) says the 2013-2014 Ram 2500/3500 6.7 trucks (with DEF) are getting about 1-2 mpg better fuel economy (empty) than their 2012 counterparts (without DEF).

Ref your comment about EPA testing, the EPA doesn't do fuel economy tests on vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb. or higher. Unfortunately, the GVWR on nearly all 3/4 ton (and larger) trucks exceeds 8,500 lbs. Wish the EPA would include them. Certainly would make it easier to shop & compare new trucks from the Big 3.

Well I keep pretty close tabs on my truck's fuel economy.Here's my Fuelly link so you can see what mileage I'm getting unloaded and with what ratio of City vs. Highway. My best was an all highway run and a hair under 22mpg. I tend to get 18 to 19mpg's at 60/40 city/highway. I routinely break 20mpg going to the coast driving over the west hills (looking at the dash mpg's in this case), it's the slower in-town driving that kills my fuel economy. For once, my dash computer is actually pretty accurate at less than 4% off a majority of the time. DEF greatly reduces the use of EGR.

Turtle n Peeps 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.

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.

The gossip I'm hearing (nothing scientific) says the 2013-2014 Ram 2500/3500 6.7 trucks (with DEF) are getting about 1-2 mpg better fuel economy (empty) than their 2012 counterparts (without DEF).

Ref your comment about EPA testing, the EPA doesn't do fuel economy tests on vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb. or higher. Unfortunately, the GVWR on nearly all 3/4 ton (and larger) trucks exceeds 8,500 lbs. Wish the EPA would include them. Certainly would make it easier to shop & compare new trucks from the Big 3.