Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Max towing number released
9200# LINK
Forum Discussion
Were I in the market for a new TV then I'd be all over media and company-provided information on this truck.
When I put together the rig I have (third TT of the same brand) there was no question that the TV would be a DODGE Cummins Turbodiesel as those in commercial service had proved them out long before that. Manual transmission. 2WD for simplicity and better road performance (IFS, plus rack & pinion steering).
What maybe some of you are misssing is the the TTs you choose are the weak link. Junk, from a design and longevity standpoint. An aero TT of lightweight construction and low center-of-gravity is hands down better in all respects of money paid and value received. A heavy, boxy TT just takes more power to move down the road at any speed, and crappy handling is its own penalty. I needn't say much about a TT that won't last as long as the finance note.
Start with a clean sheet in thinking. My current TT is 35-feet in length and has a GVWR of 9000-lbs. I don't have a "good" TW yet, but the payload capacity of that new diesel 1/2T will probably handlie it just fine.
If, indeed, the MPG numbers are reasonable, then the truck will work for many folks . . and even more for those who understand that the money ought to be in the TT more so than in the TV (when buying brand new). The TT matters more than the TV it is pulled by.
I've averaged 21-mpg FOR ALL MILES in my (now 200k mile) 2004 DODGE CTD. CIty and country, solo, and am just above 15-mpg towing. At $4/gl diesel, that's 15 cents per mile, solo, and 25-cpm, towing. I don't fall below 24-mpg highway solo (loaded or empty, traffic or no traffic, rain, major metro areas, etc. Have seen 27-mpg numerous times) and am closer to 16-mpg with a TT that has yet to have all bugs worked out in re alignment, etc. I bring this up as it may be a similar set of numbers for the new truck.
Spec the TT and TV to work well together. A half ton that is spec'd right for solo duty might be just the ticket for a family that tries to vacation as often as possible. Or, for fulltimers trying to keep the cost of LONG TERM operation as low as possible.
The "average" 4WD, auto trans CTD owners tend to report an average of 15-mpg. At that $4/gl fuel cost they used an additional 3,800-gls. Or, spent an additional $15,000 on fuel to cover the same distance. At $1,500/yr that's a lot of vacation money annually. (And even more to be found in judicious use. . but few takers on that approach).
I agree that the latest DI and TC gasoline engines make this more difficult than before. But that diesel high compression is sure hard to beat on a day-in, day-out basis.
Local diesel is now at $3.60/gl. At 16-mpg on the flats I could see 22.5/cents-per-mile. $225 in fuel to travel 1,000-miles.
That's the number to look at: Fuel cost per mile of operation. But do it with a better TT.
What is your towing cost per mile?
The big piece is the TT. Not the TV.
Change that and look at these modern TV's the "right" way. Emissions and mileage increases necessary make RV'ng a new/old game again (as the 1950's cars didn't have too much power either . . so an aero TT of light construction meant a "larger" TT could be had).
.
When I put together the rig I have (third TT of the same brand) there was no question that the TV would be a DODGE Cummins Turbodiesel as those in commercial service had proved them out long before that. Manual transmission. 2WD for simplicity and better road performance (IFS, plus rack & pinion steering).
What maybe some of you are misssing is the the TTs you choose are the weak link. Junk, from a design and longevity standpoint. An aero TT of lightweight construction and low center-of-gravity is hands down better in all respects of money paid and value received. A heavy, boxy TT just takes more power to move down the road at any speed, and crappy handling is its own penalty. I needn't say much about a TT that won't last as long as the finance note.
Start with a clean sheet in thinking. My current TT is 35-feet in length and has a GVWR of 9000-lbs. I don't have a "good" TW yet, but the payload capacity of that new diesel 1/2T will probably handlie it just fine.
If, indeed, the MPG numbers are reasonable, then the truck will work for many folks . . and even more for those who understand that the money ought to be in the TT more so than in the TV (when buying brand new). The TT matters more than the TV it is pulled by.
I've averaged 21-mpg FOR ALL MILES in my (now 200k mile) 2004 DODGE CTD. CIty and country, solo, and am just above 15-mpg towing. At $4/gl diesel, that's 15 cents per mile, solo, and 25-cpm, towing. I don't fall below 24-mpg highway solo (loaded or empty, traffic or no traffic, rain, major metro areas, etc. Have seen 27-mpg numerous times) and am closer to 16-mpg with a TT that has yet to have all bugs worked out in re alignment, etc. I bring this up as it may be a similar set of numbers for the new truck.
Spec the TT and TV to work well together. A half ton that is spec'd right for solo duty might be just the ticket for a family that tries to vacation as often as possible. Or, for fulltimers trying to keep the cost of LONG TERM operation as low as possible.
The "average" 4WD, auto trans CTD owners tend to report an average of 15-mpg. At that $4/gl fuel cost they used an additional 3,800-gls. Or, spent an additional $15,000 on fuel to cover the same distance. At $1,500/yr that's a lot of vacation money annually. (And even more to be found in judicious use. . but few takers on that approach).
I agree that the latest DI and TC gasoline engines make this more difficult than before. But that diesel high compression is sure hard to beat on a day-in, day-out basis.
Local diesel is now at $3.60/gl. At 16-mpg on the flats I could see 22.5/cents-per-mile. $225 in fuel to travel 1,000-miles.
That's the number to look at: Fuel cost per mile of operation. But do it with a better TT.
What is your towing cost per mile?
The big piece is the TT. Not the TV.
Change that and look at these modern TV's the "right" way. Emissions and mileage increases necessary make RV'ng a new/old game again (as the 1950's cars didn't have too much power either . . so an aero TT of light construction meant a "larger" TT could be had).
.
