RAM 1500 Ecodiesel, anybody seen one in the wild?

NinerBikes wrote:

...
Asking a 3.0 liter truck to handle a 2000 pound payload is a pretty unrealistic expectation in a 1/2 ton pickup. Get a one ton to fit the bill.

My F150's payload is 2035#. Guess that makes it a one ton. And the 3.5L Ecoboost F150 is doing a fine job with my ~2000# payload and 7500# trailer. Like I said, don't need anything more.

A diesel with similar torque, like the Ecodiesel, would have less HP but the max torque is down around 1500rpm rather than 2500rpm and would get better mileage. I could live with all that. But it has to come in a more capable truck (like the one I have now with >2000# payload).

brulaz wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

...
As for it being "fuel sucking"? It should be far thriftier than the big diesels, and likely will match the lower end V6's, yet pull better than an Ecoboost.

??
The Cummins 5L V8 diesel is not a magic motor. My prediction?

The Euro V6 diesels (like the Ecodiesel) are smaller and will defintiely have better mileage. They also have substantially less torque, not near the "mid-500s (lb-ft)" of the Cummins.

Compared to the Ecoboost, the Cummins has more torque at lower rpm, but its mileage could be worse.

I mean, really, it's a 5L V8. Just because it's a diesel doesn't make it that fuel efficient. I do agree that it will get better mileage than the >800 lb-ft monster diesels we see in the 250/2500 and above.

Do I need that much torque (550 lb-ft)? No. The Ecodiesel and Ecoboost provide all I need. As for HP, I don't use much, The Ecoboost has more than I need. I would sacrifice the Ecoboost's HP for the Ecodiesel's torque at lower rpms (420 lb-ft at 1500 rpm rather than 2500 rpm) and better mileage. *BUT* I need at least 2000# payload. Unfortunately RAM isn't building a truck that I want.

Asking a 3.0 liter truck to handle a 2000 pound payload is a pretty unrealistic expectation in a 1/2 ton pickup. Get a one ton to fit the bill.

Hybridhunter wrote:

...
As for it being "fuel sucking"? It should be far thriftier than the big diesels, and likely will match the lower end V6's, yet pull better than an Ecoboost.

??
The Cummins 5L V8 diesel is not a magic motor. My prediction?

The Euro V6 diesels (like the Ecodiesel) are smaller and will defintiely have better mileage. They also have substantially less torque, not near the "mid-500s (lb-ft)" of the Cummins.

Compared to the Ecoboost, the Cummins has more torque at lower rpm, but its mileage could be worse.

I mean, really, it's a 5L V8. Just because it's a diesel doesn't make it that fuel efficient. I do agree that it will get better mileage than the >800 lb-ft monster diesels we see in the 250/2500 and above.

Do I need that much torque (550 lb-ft)? No. The Ecodiesel and Ecoboost provide all I need. As for HP, I don't use much, The Ecoboost has more than I need. I would sacrifice the Ecoboost's HP for the Ecodiesel's torque at lower rpms (420 lb-ft at 1500 rpm rather than 2500 rpm) and better mileage. *BUT* I need at least 2000# payload. Unfortunately RAM isn't building a truck that I want.

ACDNate wrote:


How do you figure the 5.0l cummins is the best light truck engine on the planet? Do you have a pre-production Nissan Titan you've been driving around and testing?

Well at least it's a winner on paper. And if you recall, the Titan was the first "real" import branded truck. Other than a lack of options / configurations, it made all the domestics look pretty lame at the time.

goducks10 wrote:

What's the point of putting the more powerfull sic fuel sucking 5.0 in the low payload rated Ram?

Where do I start...... In the Ram? Utterly pointless, yes. But only because Ram is taking the wussy truck approach. They could build whatever they want to accommodate any engine they think would sell.
As for it being "fuel sucking"? It should be far thriftier than the big diesels, and likely will match the lower end V6's, yet pull better than an Ecoboost.

Check out the payload for the upper trim Ram. Less than 900#.

Link to screencap from Ram site.

So that's 2 large people, one suitcase, a barbeque and wood, and 200# left over for tongue weight, for a tow rating around 2000#. ya

ACDNate wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:

I think the 3.0 VM engine is a dud, and Dodge should have stuck with the 5.0 V8 cummins. That may just be the best light truck engine on the planet, and hopefully Nissan can pull it off.

How do you figure the 5.0l cummins is the best light truck engine on the planet? Do you have a pre-production Nissan Titan you've been driving around and testing?

I just need to know people in tech center who drove the 1500 test moles to know it was real good.

Hybridhunter wrote:

I think the 3.0 VM engine is a dud, and Dodge should have stuck with the 5.0 V8 cummins. That may just be the best light truck engine on the planet, and hopefully Nissan can pull it off.

How do you figure the 5.0l cummins is the best light truck engine on the planet? Do you have a pre-production Nissan Titan you've been driving around and testing?

Hybridhunter wrote:

wilber1 wrote:



And it's been obvious what you are about for a long time.

Well, now I'm curious. I'm not anti-Dodge, or Ford, or turbo's or anti diesel (more the mis application of the technology).
I think the 3.0 VM engine is a dud, and Dodge should have stuck with the 5.0 V8 cummins. That may just be the best light truck engine on the planet, and hopefully Nissan can pull it off.

Dodge (Ram / whatever) prolly best trans, possibly the suspension with the most potential (but poorly executed), and one of the most appealing products with the Hemi, and the 3.6 - And all the fanboys just think we should jump on the "Fix It Again Tony" bandwagon with this diesel.
No thanks.

And for the record, fords little diesel would likely suck just as bad. Well, except for the whole Fiat thing....

I am in the "time will tell" camp on the VM motor. I have seen some very good oil results on BITOG for that motor, so far, in the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

My biggest concern is the dipwads that buy a 1/2 ton truck with a litle 3.0 liter motor, and then abuse the cr*p out of it working it to death and overloading it, sending a boy out, day in and day out, to do a Man's size job. Something it was never meant or designed to do, then getting in line for warranty repairs, and bad mouthing the product.

So, I really hope this truck fills a niche and scoops up market share, showing the rest of the truck makers that they've been blind the past 6-10 years about this niche.

This motor will pull 4000-5000 pounds of travel trailer probably just fine, if you keep the speeds down to 55-60 mph. It won't do 70 to 75 mph towing a big sail behind it, burning fuel at a rate that it's sucking down 12 -13MPG... that's too much to ask from such a little pump motor like this 3.0L motor. Slow down, don't over work it, adjust your expectations that it's a light weight product, and it's going to do just fine... but it was never meant for industrial or construction grade work, unless you run around with a shell on the back and the bed empty 99% of the time. Start hauling heavy equipment, and IMHO, she'lll die a quick death.

It's a light duty truck... some may need a constant reminder of that, the cheap folks among us that want something done for nothing coming to mind.

Hybridhunter wrote:

wilber1 wrote:



And it's been obvious what you are about for a long time.

Well, now I'm curious. I'm not anti-Dodge, or Ford, or turbo's or anti diesel (more the mis application of the technology).
I think the 3.0 VM engine is a dud, and Dodge should have stuck with the 5.0 V8 cummins. That may just be the best light truck engine on the planet, and hopefully Nissan can pull it off.

Dodge (Ram / whatever) prolly best trans, possibly the suspension with the most potential (but poorly executed), and one of the most appealing products with the Hemi, and the 3.6 - And all the fanboys just think we should jump on the "Fix It Again Tony" bandwagon with this diesel.
No thanks.

And for the record, fords little diesel would likely suck just as bad. Well, except for the whole Fiat thing....

What's the point of putting the more powerfull fuel sucking 5.0 in the low payload rated Ram?

Hybridhunter wrote:

wilber1 wrote:



And it's been obvious what you are about for a long time.

Well, now I'm curious. I'm not anti-Dodge, or Ford, or turbo's or anti diesel (more the mis application of the technology).
I think the 3.0 VM engine is a dud, and Dodge should have stuck with the 5.0 V8 cummins. That may just be the best light truck engine on the planet, and hopefully Nissan can pull it off.

Dodge (Ram / whatever) prolly best trans, possibly the suspension with the most potential (but poorly executed), and one of the most appealing products with the Hemi, and the 3.6 - And all the fanboys just think we should jump on the "Fix It Tony" bandwagon with this diesel.
No thanks.

And for the record, fords little diesel would likely suck just as bad. Well, except for the whole Fiat thing....

I had a 79 Chev 3/4T with a 454 that was down 35 hp and 95 lb ft compared to this "dog". Had a Fiat 124 years ago. The car was a tin can but it had a sweet engine and gearbox. First twin cam engine I ever owned. Never had much trouble with it either.