Hello Ram 1500 Diesel!

[sch911]

Have been driving/testing these for a while now, but couldn't say anything, until today!

And yes it'll have plenty of towing capacity...

Chrysler wrote:
Ram to Build Industry's Only Light-duty Diesel Pickup3.0-liter V-6 EcoDiesel to deliver best-in-class fuel economy, a title already owned by the 2013 Ram 1500

-Clean diesel features low CO2 emissions and impressive V-6 capability
-Diesel engines praised for outstanding range and torque
-Ram first to market with game-changing technologies

February 14, 2013 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - Beginning in third-quarter 2013, Ram will become the only brand to offer a small-displacement diesel for its half-ton line of trucks.

The 2014 Ram 1500 will offer a new, 3.0-liter EcoDiesel engine, mated with the eight-speed TorqueFlite automatic transmission. The powertrain is expected to deliver an outstanding combination of best-in-class fuel efficiency, best-in-class torque and impressive capability.

"Truck owners have been emphatically asking for it, and Ram will be the only manufacturer to offer a diesel powertrain in the half-ton segment with the 2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel," said Fred Diaz, President and CEO - Ram Truck Brand and Chrysler de Mexico, Chrysler Group LLC. "The half-ton truck market is incredibly competitive, and although we're honored the Ram 1500 has received a number of prestigious awards, we cannot rest on what we have accomplished, we must keep pushing."

The 2013 Ram 1500 won Motor Trend's Truck of the Year, The North American Truck of the Year and Truck of Texas -- a rare trifecta in the pickup segment. Building on the award-winning truck, the 2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel will further stretch its best-in-class fuel economy title lead and continue to raise the innovation bar in one of the automotive industry's most customer-loyal segments.

"The Ram 1500 with 3.0-liter V-6 turbo EcoDiesel and TorqueFlite eight-speed transmission deliver on the demands of truckers by providing best-in-class torque, fuel economy and range. There's no doubt that being the only truck manufacturer to offer this game changing technology will provide Ram with a competitive advantage."

The new 3.0-liter V-6 EcoDiesel is among today's most advanced diesel engines. Its emissions are 60 percent less than those produced by diesel powertrains 25 years ago. The impressive combination of torque and fuel economy marks new levels of performance for small V-6 engines.

Ram's newest turbo diesel engine is manufactured by VM Motori, a Chrysler Group diesel engine supplier since 1992.

Over the past 10 months, the Ram Truck brand has set an aggressive product cadence. Ram's big push began in April 2012 with the introduction of the Ram 1500 with class-leading 25 mpg fuel efficiency and innovative features such as Active Level four-corner air suspension.

The Ram Brand followed that news with the launch of the Ram 2500 and 3500 Heavy Duty pickups. Their 30,000-pound trailer-tow rating – more than three tons more than their closest competitor -- and 850 lb.-ft. of torque are at the top of their class. Most recently, Ram introduced the new 2014 Ram ProMaster van with its own list of best-in-class features, including fuel efficiency, payload, cargo capacity and lowest cost of ownership.

About Ram Truck Brand
The Ram Truck brand continues to establish its own identity and clearly define its customer since its launch as a standalone vehicle brand. Creating a distinct brand for Ram trucks has allowed the brand to concentrate on how core customers use their trucks and what new features they'd like to see. Whether focusing on a family that uses its half-ton truck day in and day out, a hard-working Ram Heavy Duty owner or a business that depends on its commercial vehicles every day, Ram has the truck market covered.

The Ram Truck brand has the most innovative lineup of full-size trucks on the market. Ram Truck has emerged as a full-size truck leader by investing substantially in new products, infusing them with great looks, refined interiors, durable engines and features that further enhance their capabilities. Truck customers, from half-ton to commercial, have a demanding range of needs and require their vehicles to provide high levels of capability. Ram trucks are designed to deliver a total package.

[RobertRyan]

itguy08 wrote:
It's got all the advantages of Diesel (flat torque, doesn't loose power at altitude, etc) with none of the drawbacks (increased fuel cost, increased maintenance cost, etc.).

Well no other manufacturer outside NA (and also in NA) has bothered to follow Fords "success" with its Ecoboost. The Facebook page suggests the problems with the engine are a lot more than you sre letting on.
You think they would be lining up to copy the "success" of this engine.

[wilber1]

mr. ed wrote:
While at an RV park in Elk City, OK a few days ago I met a fella who owns a Dodge 1500 and claims he tows a 10k fiver with no problem. I didn't believe him at first, thinking you would need at least a 3/4 ton diesel to do the job right but I guess you can't argue with success. 😉

I imagine he could pull it alright but you would think his truck must be way over its GVWR towing a 5er that heavy.

[mr__ed]

While at an RV park in Elk City, OK a few days ago I met a fella who owns a Dodge 1500 and claims he tows a 10k fiver with no problem. I didn't believe him at first, thinking you would need at least a 3/4 ton diesel to do the job right but I guess you can't argue with success. 😉

[Kevin_O_]

FishOnOne wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Troy I'm not slamming the EB, just pointing out that to have a party over 0.6 MPG and this little tidbit could explain why the Ram was near the bottom.

P-UP.COM wrote:
Our fuel economy drive loops were designed to give us a chance to see how well this current crop of competitors could do in head-to-head driving comparisons. And we mean head-to-head. All vehicles were driven with air conditioning on, in Drive or "D," and following the lead truck as a caravan.

The Ram was the lead truck and will get lower fuel mileage because of it. How do I know, because I duck in behind big trucks all the time to improve my mileage all the time. Now maybe they switched the lead trucks but no where does it say that. But if you pick a truck because it made 0.6 MPG better then you need to rethink RVing.

Don

Don,
I don't think the parade is because of a .6 mpg advantage, but it's one of several attributes that make the EcoBoost a competitive powertrain.

There was a recent tow meet some guys do once a year at FTE and the Ecoboost literally embarrassed a V10. :C

Not only did it embarrass the older V10 but it also pulled the 15,000lb trailer up the 18% grade better than a 2008 6.4 Powerstroke and a 2011 6.2L with a 5-Star tune. 😉

[wilber1]

itguy08 wrote:

Powerdude wrote:
The mpg ratings for a diesel 2.8 L Cummins powered Nissan Titan are 26 mpg combined city/highway, which imply 30 mpg highway, using the same transmission as the Ram 1500.

So, real world numbers. Granted, it's a research test mule. But Chrysler has to already know those numbers, as I'm sure Cummins has made them aware of them, since they have a longstanding contract with them.

See Here.

That's a Cummins 4 banger and not a VM Motori V6. I'd point you to the Diesel V6 Sprinters, which got worse fuel economy than the I5 Diesel they replaced.

It will be interesting to see the final #'s. My guess is Chrysler was not happy with them and are tweaking things and that's why they have not released them. They said Late 2013 or 2014 for availability so they have time.

Already available in Grand Cherokee.

[itguy08]

Powerdude wrote:
The mpg ratings for a diesel 2.8 L Cummins powered Nissan Titan are 26 mpg combined city/highway, which imply 30 mpg highway, using the same transmission as the Ram 1500.

So, real world numbers. Granted, it's a research test mule. But Chrysler has to already know those numbers, as I'm sure Cummins has made them aware of them, since they have a longstanding contract with them.

See Here.

That's a Cummins 4 banger and not a VM Motori V6. I'd point you to the Diesel V6 Sprinters, which got worse fuel economy than the I5 Diesel they replaced.

It will be interesting to see the final #'s. My guess is Chrysler was not happy with them and are tweaking things and that's why they have not released them. They said Late 2013 or 2014 for availability so they have time.

[itguy08]

Alan Maschek wrote:
@itguy08
By reading your blogs, I'm thinking you are part of some organisation delivering misinformation. It isn't Ford/GM/Chrysler, it has something to do with the guys who build them vehicles.

Nope, I actually don't work in any way shape or form for the auto industry. I just don't think Diesel is the be all and end all. It gets its power from turbocharging and now that gas engines are starting to have that, it's advantages are not that great.

Also, diesel will accelerate up hills were a gas won't. Gas engines have to be revved quite hard (lower gear) to achieve the same torque through the rear wheels. This is where the diesel gains most of its fuel economy over a gas engine towing.

In regular use neither does a turbo gas engine. It's got all the advantages of Diesel (flat torque, doesn't loose power at altitude, etc) with none of the drawbacks (increased fuel cost, increased maintenance cost, etc.).

I can tell you that my car with an Ecoboost will make me run out of B-A-L-L-S before the engine will stop accelerating up a hill. Here in the hills of PA (yes nothing like out west) on some pretty steep grades I've been able to double the speed limit (only on a clear road and a nice uphill stretch) and the car would go but I backed off.

It will also pull interstate hills without downshifting too. And if it does downshift it will take off like a rocket.

I get it, you like your Diesels. That's fine. Bot a good turbo gas engine is every bit as competitive as a Diesel.

[itguy08]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

I don't know anyone that has said the Hemi gets great fuel mileage. However if you use some of your gray matter you should be able to understand that an engine with two small quick spooling turbos will be faster and make better mileage, then an engine without them. With that said I find it funny that you side stepped the fact that the NON TURBO 3.6 Pentastar was faster and got better mileage then that Ego-Boost your so proud of. Care to address that?

Sure - where is that printed? Cause if that were te case then there would be no reason for the Hemi is the Pentastar were so fast and good as the EB beats Hemi... IIRC the Pentastar is marginally better than Ford's 3.7 but that's more because of the 8 speed.

To bad your facts are a joke. 0.6 MPG more is a joke if you look at the FACTS! Non turbo 5.7 V-8 that makes within 0.6 MPG over a twin turbo that has never made anything close to what Ford said it would! But again why let the facts get in the way right?

.6 MPG over 100,000 miles is significant.

While towing:
100k in the Ford you will use 9,175 gallons of gas @ $3.49 = $32,020.75
100k in the Ram you will use 9,616 gallons of gas @ $3.49 = $33,559.84

You'll save $1,539.09 in the Ford.

Empty it's even worse for the Ram.

Should it get much better #'s while towing than the Ecoboost or GM I'll eat my words and buy you a beer.

Your going to have to buy me a beer then,

Motor Trend wrote:
Engine note varies by model and age. The ST we drove had 37,000 miles on it, and a less gravelly top end -- all 2900 rpm of it -- than the new Laramie Longhorns did. Turbo whine is faint at best, there's none of that planetary surround sound emanating from below, and driveline vibration is well controlled, even at WOT in first gear. From what we could tell with our relatively limited mileage information (trucks this size aren't under EPA guidelines for fuel economy), we can only observe the 370/800 engine in the 2500s were showing close to 20 percent better economy than we get with similar 2012s, suggesting Ram's claimed 15-22 percent improvement is accurate. Even including DEF, fuel costs could easily be cut by more than 10 percent.

What test was that? It was a first drive and they guestimate at fuel economy rather than put out #s...

Using their #'s and PUT.com's tests:

2011 Ford Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.5 MPG
2011 GMC Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.1 MPG
2011 RAM Diesel Fuel Economy: 8.5 MPG

8.5 * .2 = 1.7 more MPG for the Ram.

That Puts it at 9.5, exactly the same as Ford.

BTW I'm a Labat's Blue drinker thank you, you supply the beer and I'll buy the Crown Royal XR

I'll still buy you a beer - I like Labat's too (perhaps the only thing we can agree on! 🙂 )

[Powerdude]

The mpg ratings for a diesel 2.8 L Cummins powered Nissan Titan are 26 mpg combined city/highway, which imply 30 mpg highway, using the same transmission as the Ram 1500.

So, real world numbers. Granted, it's a research test mule. But Chrysler has to already know those numbers, as I'm sure Cummins has made them aware of them, since they have a longstanding contract with them.

See Here.

[FishOnOne]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Troy I'm not slamming the EB, just pointing out that to have a party over 0.6 MPG and this little tidbit could explain why the Ram was near the bottom.

P-UP.COM wrote:
Our fuel economy drive loops were designed to give us a chance to see how well this current crop of competitors could do in head-to-head driving comparisons. And we mean head-to-head. All vehicles were driven with air conditioning on, in Drive or "D," and following the lead truck as a caravan.

The Ram was the lead truck and will get lower fuel mileage because of it. How do I know, because I duck in behind big trucks all the time to improve my mileage all the time. Now maybe they switched the lead trucks but no where does it say that. But if you pick a truck because it made 0.6 MPG better then you need to rethink RVing.

Don

Don,
I don't think the parade is because of a .6 mpg advantage, but it's one of several attributes that make the EcoBoost a competitive powertrain.

There was a recent tow meet some guys do once a year at FTE and the Ecoboost literally embarrassed a V10. :C

[sky_free]

Alan Maschek wrote:
@itguy08

I own a 3.2 Mazda BT50 (essentially a global Ranger). It's a diesel with 200hp and 350ftlb of torque. I live near Darwin. I do know my vehicle weighs 4 600lbs and is a 4x4 with a bullbar/driving lights/heavy tow package. These accessories will reduce mpgs by a mile or two.

Our speed limit up here is 85mph at that speed I'm getting 23mpg. At 65mph I'm getting about 32mpg.

I have only towed a trailer from Melbourne to Darwin. the trailer had a pantech on the back and was about 6' high from the bed and 6' wide. This offered some wind resistance. Towing the trailer between a steady 70-75mph I was getting 26mpg.

My VW Touareg TDI gets similar numbers with a 3.0 unloaded. 28-30 MPG at 78 MPH depending on wind. Typical tank average is 27 MPG with a mix city/highway. I would not expect 30 MPG with truck having poor aerodynamics with the same engine though. I'm thinking maybe 27-28 at 65 with the new Ram diesel.

Towing is a whole different story from yours though. I'm averaging 14.5MPG with my TT at 60MPH, which presents about 80 sq ft of wind resistance. The engine is on the turbo the whole time fighting the wind and weight. This probably about only 10% better than HD trucks are getting towing with the new diesels, and it's not as capable for that purpose.

Bottom line is that I think the smaller diesel powered trucks are great with a clear MPG advantage if you are not towing, but for towing there isn't going to be much of a penalty for going with the larger diesels.

[Alan_Maschek]

@itguy08
By reading your blogs, I'm thinking you are part of some organisation delivering misinformation. It isn't Ford/GM/Chrysler, it has something to do with the guys who build them vehicles.

I own a 3.2 Mazda BT50 (essentially a global Ranger). It's a diesel with 200hp and 350ftlb of torque. I live near Darwin. I do know my vehicle weighs 4 600lbs and is a 4x4 with a bullbar/driving lights/heavy tow package. These accessories will reduce mpgs by a mile or two.

Our speed limit up here is 85mph at that speed I'm getting 23mpg. At 65mph I'm getting about 32mpg.

I have only towed a trailer from Melbourne to Darwin. the trailer had a pantech on the back and was about 6' high from the bed and 6' wide. This offered some wind resistance. Towing the trailer between a steady 70-75mph I was getting 26mpg.

Up here we have what are called roadtrains that sit on 60mph, overtaking is a breeze in the diesel. It appears as speed rises the vehicle's performance improves markedly. By the time I pull in to my lane after overtaking the roadtrain I will be reaching 85-95mph.

Also, diesel will accelerate up hills were a gas won't. Gas engines have to be revved quite hard (lower gear) to achieve the same torque through the rear wheels. This is where the diesel gains most of its fuel economy over a gas engine towing.

Eco Boost are designed to meet CAFE targets under CAFE conditions first and foremost. They are primarily designed to run empty. Load the Eco Boost engine and it will suck fuel like any other gasoline turbo engine.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Troy I'm not slamming the EB, just pointing out that to have a party over 0.6 MPG and this little tidbit could explain why the Ram was near the bottom.

P-UP.COM wrote:
Our fuel economy drive loops were designed to give us a chance to see how well this current crop of competitors could do in head-to-head driving comparisons. And we mean head-to-head. All vehicles were driven with air conditioning on, in Drive or "D," and following the lead truck as a caravan.

The Ram was the lead truck and will get lower fuel mileage because of it. How do I know, because I duck in behind big trucks all the time to improve my mileage all the time. Now maybe they switched the lead trucks but no where does it say that. But if you pick a truck because it made 0.6 MPG better then you need to rethink RVing.

Don

[FishOnOne]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

Alan Maschek wrote:

Now take the F-150 with the 3.5 Eco Boost, a very powerful and torquey. What would the FE be for the Eco Boost F-150? Somewhere south of 10mpg?

What will the Hemi powered Ram's FE be? Slightly better than the Eco Boost F-150.

Wrong on both counts:

Pickuptrucks.com's 2013 Light Duty Shootout

Empty the EB Ford was 22.3
Empty the Ram Hemi was 21.7
8500 Lbs the EB Ford was 10.9
8500 Lbs the Hemi was 10.4

Here is an eye opener but they don't talk weights towed only it was over 2000 miles:
pickuptrucks.com 2011 Heavy Duty Shootout

Ford Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.5 MPG
GMC Diesel Fuel Economy: 9.1 MPG
RAM Diesel Fuel Economy: 8.5 MPG

OK the EB a V-6 twin turbo beat the the 5.7 V-8 by 0.6 of a gallon WOW that sure is a bad butt whopping there isn't it? As for the diesels the Ram that was tested was not running DEF. Now that they are all running the same system (Note: the Ram still uses the CP-3 pump) the 2013 Ram's are getting better mileage then the GM/Chevy and Ford HD trucks.

By the way we get it you are not a Chrysler/Ram fan, so why not drink your Blue Kool-Aid in a Ford post?

Don

Also compare that .6 mpg savings over 1 or maybe 5 years... It adds up $$$$ my friend.