Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Max towing number released

I heard that driving one of these in California could cause cancer.

N-Trouble wrote:
Rant on: Would all the big three manufacturers PLEASE stop using the term "Eco" in naming your motors. FIrst it was Ford with the EcoBoost, then GM with their new EcoTech line of motors and now Dodge with their EcoDiesel.

THere is nothing "Eco" about driving a 6K lb+ brick down the road so please stop trying to polish a turd by calling it Eco... IF you want somethign "Eco" friendly then go by a Prius... Rant off

I agree, but it's all marketing. Diesels have a bad rep for being dirty. Turbos have a bad rep for having bad mileage and bad reliability. As far as GM, larger displacement engines have a bad rep for bad mileage so they are just trying to separate their fuel efficient designs from the standard thirsty designs.

But I agree, there's still nothing ECO about any of these engines. At best they are only bettering similar engines, with similar power output, by only 2 mpg "REAL WORLD" (not EPA).

ib516 wrote:
9200#

LINK

Now if they could only get a higher payload so that you could actually tow something other than a boat, that has a higher hitch weight like a Travel trailer, without overloading the GVWR.

I couldn't even consider Ram after looking on their lot and seeing such low payloads.

They are changing the wrong component of their truck, they need to look at brakes, chassis, and suspension components to raise their payload.

I drove diesel trucks in the past that had very high torque ratings but very low horsepower as this 3.0L. It will be very annoying driving in hills or high wind, and not being able to keep speed up. Having a displacement large enough to provide 300 horsepower would make all the difference in the world.

But at least they are actually trying new things.

Here's the $64,000 question:

Is it NY State emissions compliant?

Along those lines of 'half ton' so important...as the vast majority
of pickups and SUVs sold are 'half ton'...why not toss these
higher class marketing names 3/4 ton, 1 ton and just call them all 'half ton' ?

Then modify or fine print it with their GVWR's along with the

" Oh MY God...it has that option:"

• Max Tow
• Heavy Duty
• HD
• Super Duty
• Max Cargo
• Max Payload
• Fiver package
• Extreme trailer package
• Dually
• Crew or extended or mega cab
• Echo package

N-Trouble wrote:
Still trying to understand the logic behind a 1/2 ton diesel...

It's not so much about what engine as it is about MPG ratings and the light trucks' contribution to corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE),since light trucks are now mandated by the EPA to be included in CAFE figures for the manufacturers. Ford is approaching this problem with the Ecoboost engine, 6 speed tranny, and rear gearing. Chrysler is utilizing a small displacement diesel, 8 speed tranny, and higher rear gearing. All the manufacturers are trying to strike a balance between being able to offer a truck that will be useful and capable of towing, but still pleasing to the bureaucrats. Half ton trucks are an important component of the Big 3's sales figures. They want to be able to continue offering them in the marketplace.

Yup, RV'ing aside...there are lots of work towing applications for this vehicle. I see lots of 1/2 ton trucks towing a wide arrangement of (non-RV) trailers every day.

People still need to work and I bet this configuration will be attractive for those work truck types.

This is an entertaining thread. People have been asking for several years why 1/2 ton pickups for light duty towing/hauling do not have a small diesel option. Now they do, with expected fuel economy numbers that will exceed even the Pentastar 3.6 liter V6 with the 8 speed automatic. I think some people just like to complain. I have a feeling if this exact same powertrain was offered in the Tundra, many would be tripping over themselves to say that Toyota is so innovative and so far ahead of the Big 3 to offer it. Now that fuel efficient small truck offerings are few and far between, this is a great choice.

IMHO this truck won't be for towing. The majority will be sold to posers that will put an 8" lift, 40" tires, loud exhaust and pass you going 75-80 MPH to get to the next fuel station so they can pull in and show everybody that they use the green nozzle now!

On edit: I will give Ram credit for giving them that option. More choices is always good for consumers.

ib516 wrote:

This Ram 1500 diesel has an 8 speed auto, the same 3.55 gears (with smaller tires?), and has 240hp and 420tq.

On the mpg, it has been stated that it (the 3.0L Deisel) will exceed the 3.6L Pentastar V6/8 speed combo which is rated at 25 mpg highway. The same engine/transmission in a Jeep Grand Cherokee is rated at 30 US mpg highway. I'm thinking 28 or 29 mpg when used in a larger Ram 1500 would be a close guess.

Probably won't do much. The 8speed behind the Hemi still:
1. Gets worse fuel economy than the Ecoboost and GM while towing and not towing.
2. Is beaten by the Ecoboost in performance both in towing and not towing.

It will be interesting but I'm not expecting much from Chrysler. A leader they are not....