Forum Discussion
182 Replies
spoon059 wrote:
ib516 wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
Wow, that is a HUGE bummer. I'm sure their are some people for whom this is a good truck, but I'm not impressed at all. My Tundra has more payload AND tow rating. Gas mileage won't be as good, but its not worth the upgrade price to get lower payload and lower tow rating for a couple better mpg's. Any word on a price yet? Still seems to me that a base model 3/4 ton is a better option...
That 1500# payload is right in line with every other 1500 series truck, other than the HD F150 with the 8200# GVWR package. No bummer at all.
On price, they have said the diesel will be ~$2800 over the Hemi IIRC.
Well, that was exactly my point. You don't need the power (and higher upfront and maintenance costs) of a diesel to do what a gas engine can do. From an RVers perspective (still on RV.net... right?) it doesn't make much sense to pay that higher cost when gas engines are just as powerful and have reasonable gas mileage. 25 mpg highway is only 7 mpg better than my Tundra gets now. At 12,000 miles a year, thats 480 gallons of diesel at the current price of $3.99 in my area or $1900 year in fuel. Or thats 666 gallons of gas at $3.59 for $2390 a year. It takes over 7 years before the higher cost of gas equals the upgrade price of the diesel over the already higher price of the Hemi. Thats 84,000 highway miles. Thats a lot of oil changes at double or triple the cost for oil change.
For me to consider the diesel, it would have to have a much higher payload rating which would allow me to pull a heavier trailer and justify the cost of trading in my current truck and getting a diesel.
Therefore, I stand by my original statement. Its a bummer that Ram didn't increase payload to 2000+ lbs and allow this truck to be able to legally pull a smaller 5th wheel trailer. I cannot justify the higher cost, higher cost of fuel, higher cost of maintenance, etc for a truck that doesn't offer me higher weight limits. Honestly, I can keep my truck for towing and buy a used 4 cylinder car that gets 30+ mpg for a daily driver and come out ahead a lot sooner than buying a new Ram diesel.
These are MY thoughts and my thoughts alone. I'm sure Ram did market research and I'm sure they will sell. From my perspective, I wish this engine was available with 2000 lbs payload, thus giving me more options when towing. To each their own. I'm pleased with my 5.7 Tundra in terms of power AND mileage.
I don't think they have released the highway mpg numbers yet, have you seen them? All I've seen is "class leading".itguy08 wrote:
nohurry wrote:
The ECOboost has that much torque.
And The Ecoboost, while probably getting worse fuel economy will:
Tow more
Have the same or better power characteristics.
Have less expensive maintenance
Have less expensive repairs
Have less expensive fuel (here Diesel is the same as or more expensive than premium)
Is proven now (that they have the intercoolers fixed)
Have larger payload
So tell me why this Ram Diesel is a good thing? IMHO it's a swing and a miss.
Because I am a Ram fan and I want the lower torque numbers. When it gets 29 on the highway lots of people will probably switch.- 9200 lbs with 1520 lbs payload are perfectly fine numbers in a half-ton truck.
Couple that with at predicted combined (city+highway) fuel economy of 25 mpg, and you have a unique, best in class product.
Kudos to the Dodge Ram designers for making such a compelling product.
It's the first product on the market in probably 4 years that I've deemed worthy of seriously looking at.
I'll be going for a test drive as soon as it is available. - I will be looking at buying one to use as my run around truck. Not looking at saving fuel or having big payload as i just like diesel engines. Have a dsl pickup for towing, have a dsl suv for my wife and i will get a dsl pickup for running around town in.
nohurry wrote:
The ECOboost has that much torque.
And The Ecoboost, while probably getting worse fuel economy will:
Tow more
Have the same or better power characteristics.
Have less expensive maintenance
Have less expensive repairs
Have less expensive fuel (here Diesel is the same as or more expensive than premium)
Is proven now (that they have the intercoolers fixed)
Have larger payload
So tell me why this Ram Diesel is a good thing? IMHO it's a swing and a miss.- Having been driving a MB Sprinter for the last year+, these smaller diesels frankly have some umph to them. with numbers in the 200/400 range, which 10 yrs ago were BIG POWER specs, they will do quite well in SW trucks, all the way up to 10-11K gvwr, and into the mid 15-16K gcwr range. Yeah a bit slower than the 300/600 diesel like my 05 dmax, nor as good as todays 400/800 motors, but they will not be too shabby, as noted by many that have some of todays gas rigs, that have gone from diesel back to gas and noted that they are doing better than diesels of old etc. Bring on the multiple choice of engines as we had in the past, not the one gas/one diesel option. Heck, I'd be happy with a 250-500 6.6 dmax in my truck with the current 6 sp ally, if i could get 4.10 gears, what a combo for how I drive!
marty - For several years, I've been reading comments like, "When are they going to get a small diesel out here for us? It's a no-brainer, it'll sell like hotcakes!" Now they are doing so, and suddenly I see comments like, "That will never sell, it's useless, what a dumb move, etc." Go figure.
Oil change interval on the 3L diesel is 10,000 miles, FWIW. spoon059 wrote:
ib516 wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
Wow, that is a HUGE bummer. I'm sure their are some people for whom this is a good truck, but I'm not impressed at all. My Tundra has more payload AND tow rating. Gas mileage won't be as good, but its not worth the upgrade price to get lower payload and lower tow rating for a couple better mpg's. Any word on a price yet? Still seems to me that a base model 3/4 ton is a better option...
That 1500# payload is right in line with every other 1500 series truck, other than the HD F150 with the 8200# GVWR package. No bummer at all.
On price, they have said the diesel will be ~$2800 over the Hemi IIRC.
Well, that was exactly my point. You don't need the power (and higher upfront and maintenance costs) of a diesel to do what a gas engine can do. From an RVers perspective (still on RV.net... right?) it doesn't make much sense to pay that higher cost when gas engines are just as powerful and have reasonable gas mileage. 25 mpg highway is only 7 mpg better than my Tundra gets now. At 12,000 miles a year, thats 480 gallons of diesel at the current price of $3.99 in my area or $1900 year in fuel. Or thats 666 gallons of gas at $3.59 for $2390 a year. It takes over 7 years before the higher cost of gas equals the upgrade price of the diesel over the already higher price of the Hemi. Thats 84,000 highway miles. Thats a lot of oil changes at double or triple the cost for oil change.
For me to consider the diesel, it would have to have a much higher payload rating which would allow me to pull a heavier trailer and justify the cost of trading in my current truck and getting a diesel.
Therefore, I stand by my original statement. Its a bummer that Ram didn't increase payload to 2000+ lbs and allow this truck to be able to legally pull a smaller 5th wheel trailer. I cannot justify the higher cost, higher cost of fuel, higher cost of maintenance, etc for a truck that doesn't offer me higher weight limits. Honestly, I can keep my truck for towing and buy a used 4 cylinder car that gets 30+ mpg for a daily driver and come out ahead a lot sooner than buying a new Ram diesel.
These are MY thoughts and my thoughts alone. I'm sure Ram did market research and I'm sure they will sell. From my perspective, I wish this engine was available with 2000 lbs payload, thus giving me more options when towing. To each their own. I'm pleased with my 5.7 Tundra in terms of power AND mileage.
If and when you are ready to buy another truck this little diesel will be cheaper up front than a comparable Tundra. Maintenance will be no more than the Tundra. It's not going to hold 12 quarts of oil like the HD trucks. Maybe 8 quarts. If you don't need a new truck then yes , it is not going to save you money but if you do need a new truck and the payload works then it's going to be very hard to beat that little diesel in the long run when comparing it to other 150/1500's that are comparable. Remember, when you go to trade or sale that little diesel, the current numbers show you will get most of the upfront cost back.- THe fuel cost difference and the "WHEN" one gets an ROI on it, will be the same in overall miles, as shown, 84K miles......7 yrs for THAT person. I used to drive 30K a YR! so all of 2.5 yrs before an ROI! Shows as it did yrs ago, that one needs to do the math for them selves and figure out of the ROI time frame works for them. 7yrs frankly, probably too long, 2.5 yrs, on it like flies on shi.........well any way.
I'd even take the motor in a 25/35 series truck frankly. For some of us that use them from a strickly payload standpoint, not a towing standpoint, that would also be a good little motor to move a 10-12K truck around by itself. One can not get like one used to, a basic 8 lug 25/35 series truck that will move itself and or a smaller trailer around with it. Smaller trailer being single or some of the lighter car hauler styles or RVs with dual 3500 lb axels, so at most 8K include axel and hitch wt. Or a smaller 5w with dual 3500 axels so maybe 9K total! This motor would move those things around just fine! in the proper payload truck etc. I'd bet it would move my 12K equipment trailer pretty well to, with proper tranny and axel gearing! My old 185/385 6.5td with a 5 sp manual did fine, as does my 175/335 IDI 7.3 with a spicer 7 sp manual.........
Marty ib516 wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
Wow, that is a HUGE bummer. I'm sure their are some people for whom this is a good truck, but I'm not impressed at all. My Tundra has more payload AND tow rating. Gas mileage won't be as good, but its not worth the upgrade price to get lower payload and lower tow rating for a couple better mpg's. Any word on a price yet? Still seems to me that a base model 3/4 ton is a better option...
That 1500# payload is right in line with every other 1500 series truck, other than the HD F150 with the 8200# GVWR package. No bummer at all.
On price, they have said the diesel will be ~$2800 over the Hemi IIRC.
Well, that was exactly my point. You don't need the power (and higher upfront and maintenance costs) of a diesel to do what a gas engine can do. From an RVers perspective (still on RV.net... right?) it doesn't make much sense to pay that higher cost when gas engines are just as powerful and have reasonable gas mileage. 25 mpg highway is only 7 mpg better than my Tundra gets now. At 12,000 miles a year, thats 480 gallons of diesel at the current price of $3.99 in my area or $1900 year in fuel. Or thats 666 gallons of gas at $3.59 for $2390 a year. It takes over 7 years before the higher cost of gas equals the upgrade price of the diesel over the already higher price of the Hemi. Thats 84,000 highway miles. Thats a lot of oil changes at double or triple the cost for oil change.
For me to consider the diesel, it would have to have a much higher payload rating which would allow me to pull a heavier trailer and justify the cost of trading in my current truck and getting a diesel.
Therefore, I stand by my original statement. Its a bummer that Ram didn't increase payload to 2000+ lbs and allow this truck to be able to legally pull a smaller 5th wheel trailer. I cannot justify the higher cost, higher cost of fuel, higher cost of maintenance, etc for a truck that doesn't offer me higher weight limits. Honestly, I can keep my truck for towing and buy a used 4 cylinder car that gets 30+ mpg for a daily driver and come out ahead a lot sooner than buying a new Ram diesel.
These are MY thoughts and my thoughts alone. I'm sure Ram did market research and I'm sure they will sell. From my perspective, I wish this engine was available with 2000 lbs payload, thus giving me more options when towing. To each their own. I'm pleased with my 5.7 Tundra in terms of power AND mileage.
