Nice but yikes $57k

[45Ricochet]

LINK

[Frostbitte]

fly-boy wrote:
57k sounds way to high to me- this is just way more than my perceived value of a 1/2 ton truck.

I would expect to see a highly optioned 1/2 ton truck MSRP at 40k. Any higher than 40k and I would just buy a big truck and purchase a small vehicle for a daily driver.

A 1/2 ton truck (diesel or not) is just not worth anywhere near 57k to me.

Chris

When the new Tundra first came out here in Canada, I saw one on display at the fair for a sticker price of that much and that was back in 2007. I also heard that Toyota dealers didn't discount much at that time if at all. So, I can only assume lots of folks bought them at that insane price. I can't back that up with paperwork though. Only what I've heard and recall reading at the time. Anyways, I laughed and walked away but I wouldn't be surprised to see a fully decked out half-ton of any make here in Canada stickered at that price today. Now paying that price would be another matter. No way.

Frostbitte

[travelnutz]

thomasmnile,

True, not directly to the Fiat Division but it can and will/does funnel to the Corporate Holding Division as it's the overall businees holding source and financial controller of all of "Fiat's" entities everywhere even though they each have P&L statements and financial reports. Wall Street's WSJ has mentioned it many times already in their articles. Just where do you think the corporate glomerate profits go anyway? Enjoy your happy bliss! Do you believe what the Detroit Free Press prints to appease the Detroit area readers over the actual Wall Street publication which reports on actual investing and business ventures? European and Italian business laws and regulations are very different from those in North America! You'd best research the facts before you make statement like that. Just maybe all that glitters is NOT gold!

[itguy08]

Or are they thinking of walking away from Chrysler?

Reuters Article

Chrysler, based in suburban Detroit, had cash and cash equivalents of $12.2 billion as of June 30. Its net profit in the first half of the year fell 21 percent to $764 million from $966 million in the previous year.

Chrysler remains heavily reliant on North America, which accounted for 90 percent of vehicle sales in the first half of 2013. It added that its lineup of smaller, less expensive cars are not as competitive as its larger, more profitable vehicles.

"Despite our recent financial results, we have not yet reached a level of sustained profitability for our U.S. operations," Chrysler said in the S-1 filing.

Interesting times indeed and will be interesting to watch this one shake out...

[thomasmnile]

dodge guy wrote:

travelnutz wrote:
Be nice! The italians who own Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, and Ram etc are in deep trouble with their European economic problems and severe lack of Fiat sales and are needing to raise the price of the Ram 1500 by so much to offset their losses across the pond. Therefore, please dig a lot deeper into your pockets and help Ole Sergio out or the Fiat/Chrysler future may be in jepordy! All he's asking for is just a $10 to $15 thousand higher markup for each Ram 1500 truck because everyone knows that North Americans just have money running out of their ears and that's merely chump change to them!

Maybe Sergio will thank you for your generous contribution!

OR

Maybe he won't!


Disclaimer: The contribution will not be tax deductible...

Nice try for trolling! Funny though!

Read an article in yesterday's Detroit Free Press regarding Fiat's consideration of an IPO for the remaining Chrysler shares it does not control. The column mentioned Fiat's current sales doldrums across the pond. It also mentioned that contrary to what Travelnutz posted, Fiat cannot shift any of Chrysler's profits to Fiat to prop up it's balance sheet. You're right Dodge Guy, nice try..........

[ib516]

Taco wrote:
Can't wait till pickuptrucks.com hooks a 9000 lb trailer to the ecodiesel and the ecoboost and run them up a hill.

the gasser will eat that rams lunch.

Yes very likely it will - or for sure it will, it has 100+ more hp, so it darn well better. BUT the diesel will get 30% better mpg running empty, and better mpg towing that 9000# trailer.

It depends what's important to the buyer. Most 1500 series truck buyers aren't concerned with towing 11,000# -- that's why they make 2500 & 3500 series trucks. Most 1500 series truck buyers want to be able to tow a small trailer here and there, but 90% of the time it's the family car. That's where the RAM 1500 with the coil spring or air suspension and great interior appointments is class leading.

I don't get the hang up on towing power/ratings for 1500 series trucks. Most people shopping for one don't care. They care and about ride, interior comfort and space, features, and mpg.

[dodge_guy]

travelnutz wrote:
Be nice! The italians who own Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, and Ram etc are in deep trouble with their European economic problems and severe lack of Fiat sales and are needing to raise the price of the Ram 1500 by so much to offset their losses across the pond. Therefore, please dig a lot deeper into your pockets and help Ole Sergio out or the Fiat/Chrysler future may be in jepordy! All he's asking for is just a $10 to $15 thousand higher markup for each Ram 1500 truck because everyone knows that North Americans just have money running out of their ears and that's merely chump change to them!

Maybe Sergio will thank you for your generous contribution!

OR

Maybe he won't!


Disclaimer: The contribution will not be tax deductible...

Nice try for trolling! Funny though!

[Bionic_Man]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I agree with the authors, Ram will easily surpass a 15% take rate on the engine.

[jerem0621]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:
I agree Troy, that knob is hideous as in the GM DEF tank location. WTF where they thinking. After what 3 years GM still puts that DEF tank in the same location?????? Now Ram has that stupid shift knob. Maybe think out of the box guys :H Oh wait it is a 1500 Diesel :B

I don't see the DEF on the RAM which is a good thing. :B

Every time I see a GM truck with the freakin DEF tank hanging behind the front passenger tire I just shake my head in disbelief. I could live with the fill port under the hood, even though it would be a PIA, but that DEF was a show stopper for me.

I also agree. When I first saw a DEF tank on a duramax I was like WTH? What is that??????????? Are you kidding me??????? Looks like a drunk 3 year old designed it!

I have no problem with the fill port under the hood. In fact it is a proven fact that Ford is having problems with the fill port next the fuel tank. :B

Funny story... my local GM HD truck dealer orders every Duramax with the factory running boards unless the buyer specifically requests them not to be ordered. When I asked why he said because it helps hide that DEF tank!

LOL

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:
I agree Troy, that knob is hideous as in the GM DEF tank location. WTF where they thinking. After what 3 years GM still puts that DEF tank in the same location?????? Now Ram has that stupid shift knob. Maybe think out of the box guys :H Oh wait it is a 1500 Diesel :B

I don't see the DEF on the RAM which is a good thing. :B

Every time I see a GM truck with the freakin DEF tank hanging behind the front passenger tire I just shake my head in disbelief. I could live with the fill port under the hood, even though it would be a PIA, but that DEF was a show stopper for me.

I also agree. When I first saw a DEF tank on a duramax I was like WTH? What is that??????????? Are you kidding me??????? Looks like a drunk 3 year old designed it!

I have no problem with the fill port under the hood. In fact it is a proven fact that Ford is having problems with the fill port next the fuel tank. :B

[jerem0621]

In 10 years it will be a 10k or less truck.

same as always.

I'll just keep driving my $5500.00 gas hog. LOL.. Y'all can pay all those big payments on these new fangled trucks. When mine wears out I'll buy a formerly 56k truck for.. about 10k.

That new Ram sure is pretty though.

[FishOnOne]

45Ricochet wrote:
I agree Troy, that knob is hideous as in the GM DEF tank location. WTF where they thinking. After what 3 years GM still puts that DEF tank in the same location?????? Now Ram has that stupid shift knob. Maybe think out of the box guys :H Oh wait it is a 1500 Diesel :B

I don't see the DEF on the RAM which is a good thing. :B

Every time I see a GM truck with the freakin DEF tank hanging behind the front passenger tire I just shake my head in disbelief. I could live with the fill port under the hood, even though it would be a PIA, but that DEF was a show stopper for me.

[45Ricochet]

I agree Troy, that knob is hideous as in the GM DEF tank location. WTF where they thinking. After what 3 years GM still puts that DEF tank in the same location?????? Now Ram has that stupid shift knob. Maybe think out of the box guys :H Oh wait it is a 1500 Diesel :B

[FishOnOne]

At 29 - 30 mpg I would consider a 3.0 VM motori :B option as this could prove to be a very economical vehicle provided it doesn't have reliability issues.

I would not purchase a loaded half ton with a sticker price of 57k or anywhere near that price.

Summary: I think I would set this one out for 1-2 model years to see how this engine pans out in a truck application, (including to ensure Chrysler continues to produce this engine/truck combo for the long haul) and hope like hell they get rid of that hideous rotating shift knob. I would also suggest Chrysler give a training overview during the sale process on how to handle the DPF and the regen process.

[Taco]

Can't wait till pickuptrucks.com hooks a 9000 lb trailer to the ecodiesel and the ecoboost and run them up a hill.

the gasser will eat that rams lunch.