Ram 1500 EcoDeisel mpg figures released

eluwak wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
For $4000 less, and only 2000# less towing capacity. Not to mention 300 free reving horsepower to get me onto the highway or put a smile on my face at a light, 3.0 diesel seems to be an easy sell only to "diesel guys".

I still think 240hp is setting the bar too low. Nissan is going to steal this niche with their cummins. Dodge, ahem, Ram will have 1 good year IMO.

I think 240 hp is plenty for most people. People tend to buy HP and drive TQ... I've loved my low HP diesel cars when I had them. The only thing I see that might cause a problem with the Ram ED is if they decide not to give it a higher payload rating (1800-2000 lbs should do nicely).

If Nissan doesn't drop that C into a HD chassis they will probably have a major loser on their hands.

Couldn't agree more. The ability to put more HP to the ground at normal operating RPM's is more important than a peak number that we rarely if ever use.

I had a 2004 Jetta TDI 5 spd manual which only had 100 HP but felt like a lot more. It didn't have much of a 0-60 time but the way it pulled out of corners and could pull hills in higher gears than normally aspirated gassers with quite a bit more peak power, made it very satisfying and somewhat entertaining to drive.

I gave it to my son who had been driving a 2002 Mazda 5 spd manual with 30 more HP. Yes the Mazda was quicker in a straight line but it took him a while to get used to the idea that the Jetta would easily climb hills in 4th that he needed 3rd to make in the Mazda.