Ram 1500 Diesel Towing Capacity?

[cekkk]

5000, 7660, 4300. Those are tow ratings I've seen for this vehicle. What is the correct number? I'm in the market for a light pickup and prefer a diesel. Nissan hasn't released much info on their about-to-be-unvailed version. I'm not a GM fan. So if someone has one of these things and knows the correct number, I'd appreciate it. I won't be pulling much over 4 or 5k, but want lots of cushion for an occasional heavier haul when the 350 isn't available.

[FishOnOne]

Here's a CR report a poor guy posted on the cumminsforum and is taking a beating. Including from some members here. :R

Here's his quote: "Consumer Reports just named the Ram 3rd worst of all. Before you try to bash Consumer Reports, first remember, these ratings are based on what owners have to say about the product. I get queried about my vehicles every year by Consumer Reports.
Shame on Ram, but it sure doesn't surprise me."

CR Report

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

cekkk wrote:
Hey, guys, I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in abstract math. If you like I'll ask him to study these posts and declare a winner.:B

That would be cool. Maybe it's like the Montie Hall puzzle? I for one would like to hear what He has to say. Post it up.

[IdaD]

itguy08 wrote:
It has nothing to do with that. Nobody should be weighted on the amount of vehicles they sell. Nobody.

I'm honestly floored that you are missing this. The data is already an average of problems with that car line so weighting an average is pointless.

Yes, the data is showing an average for each nameplate. However, if you want to combine those nameplates from a specific manufacturer to determine an average figure overall, you cannot do so without considering the relative volume of each brand.

[cekkk]

Hey, guys, I have a friend who has a Ph.D. in abstract math. If you like I'll ask him to study these posts and declare a winner.:B

[itguy08]

It has nothing to do with that. Nobody should be weighted on the amount of vehicles they sell. Nobody.

I'm honestly floored that you are missing this. The data is already an average of problems with that car line so weighting an average is pointless.

[IdaD]

itguy08 wrote:

IdaD wrote:


So, because I evidently have too much time on my hands, using 2014 sales numbers the "corporate dependability" figure for Ford/Lincoln is 185.324. That's because there were slightly more than 25 Ford branded vehicles sold for each Lincoln branded vehicle sold. The figure for Ram/Chrysler/Dodge/Fiat/Jeep works out to 179.6207.

Adjusting for volume is pointless as it has no bearing on the actual quality of the vehicles since it is expressed in problems per 100 vehicles. So if I sell 100 vehicles and have 188 problems per 100 that means that in that sample of 100, I will have to fix 188 issues. No matter if that is 1 vehicle with 188 issues and 99 with 0 or any combination inbetween. IOW it's already normalized.

Quality is not related to volume in any way. Look at Toyota. Sells about the same total #'s as Ford with much better quality...

I'm honestly floored that you aren't able to wrap your head around this - the data is not already normalized.

In 2014 there were slightly more than 25 times as many Ford branded vehicles sold as compared to Lincoln branded vehicles. That means the Ford rating of 188 weighs much more heavily than the Lincoln rating of 118 when you compute an average corporate rating. One brand sold well over two million units and the other sold under 100,000 units.

If you'd like to look at Toyota, the same thing applies. Toyota sold a little over 2 million units, Lexus sold a little over 300,000 units, and Scion sold 58,000 units. If you're going to calculate out an overall rating, the Toyota rating is going to matter a lot more than the Scion rating.

This is not complicated at all. Maybe you're struggling with it because you are unwilling to admit that your own data shows that Ford is less dependable than FCA per this JD Power study.

[itguy08]

IdaD wrote:


So, because I evidently have too much time on my hands, using 2014 sales numbers the "corporate dependability" figure for Ford/Lincoln is 185.324. That's because there were slightly more than 25 Ford branded vehicles sold for each Lincoln branded vehicle sold. The figure for Ram/Chrysler/Dodge/Fiat/Jeep works out to 179.6207.

Adjusting for volume is pointless as it has no bearing on the actual quality of the vehicles since it is expressed in problems per 100 vehicles. So if I sell 100 vehicles and have 188 problems per 100 that means that in that sample of 100, I will have to fix 188 issues. No matter if that is 1 vehicle with 188 issues and 99 with 0 or any combination inbetween. IOW it's already normalized.

Quality is not related to volume in any way. Look at Toyota. Sells about the same total #'s as Ford with much better quality...

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Hay Ittroll I understand your are the athority on the chicken tax? LOL

[IdaD]

itguy08 wrote:

IdaD wrote:

Failed statistics in college, huh? Ford probably sells 50 times as many vehicles a year as Lincoln, but you just did a straight average between the two to figure your "corporate" dependability? Ditto Ram vs Fiat. Good grief man, that's a pathetic attempt at "analyzing data."

Thanks for the graphic you posted, though - nice to see Ram up that high on the list.

Moving the goalposts because you don't like the data? The entire world knows a Lincoln is a Ford with more sound deadening. The drivetrain and other bits are the same as a Ford. Similar story with GMC vs Chevrolet. The one interesting thing is to see the "premium" brands like GMC, Lincoln, Lexus, do better than their standard counterparts.

You can see who sold what here:September 2015 Sales

How should we do it? Weighted average? That would also look bad for Chrysler as they sold a lot of those abysmal Jeeps, lots of bad Dodges, and a few mediocre Chryslers and some decent Rams...

So how should one analyst the data? Straight line average seems to be the best to me for all makers....

Please explain how I moved the goalposts.

FWIW, I could care less what looks good or bad for Chrysler or FCA. I don't own a Jeep or a Fiat, I own a Ram and a Honda, and both of them are above average on your graphic and that's a positive thing.

But to answer your question, yes of course you have to weight the numbers to account for the vehicles actually sold. Use your head for a minute. If you sell 25 Fords with 188 problems per 100 vehicles and 1 Lincoln with 118 problems per 100 vehicles, doing a straight 50/50 average of the two numbers is nonsensical.

So, because I evidently have too much time on my hands, using 2014 sales numbers the "corporate dependability" figure for Ford/Lincoln is 185.324. That's because there were slightly more than 25 Ford branded vehicles sold for each Lincoln branded vehicle sold. The figure for Ram/Chrysler/Dodge/Fiat/Jeep works out to 179.6207.

Sorry that didn't work out better for you.

[Samsonsworld]

Forget CR, how about real safety issues?

"General Motors accounted for almost 27 million of the recalled vehicles, the automaker said.

According to the automakers, Honda recalled about 8.9 million vehicles last year, Fiat Chrysler recalled about 8.8 million, Toyota recalled about six million and Ford recalled almost 4.9 million."

recalls

Vehicles Sold 2014:
GM - 2.2 mil
Ford - 1.8 mil
Toyota - 1.8 mil
FCA - 1.5 mil
Honda 1.1 mil

[itguy08]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Keep posting you uninformed troll. First the Government loaned Chrysler and GM money only because the banks refused to refinanced their lines of credit. Chrysler paid it's loans back well ahead of time GM and Ford not yet!

You are the uninformed troll, ShillBoy....

GM paid theirs back. Ford got no bailout - the family would have lost control. They did mortgage everything and get some $$ from an alternative energy program. So did Nissan and a few others.

But it's a pattern for Chrysler begging for $$ from you and I to prop up a company that has historically produced garbage. Hopefully this time we are rid of them for good.

As for as the Eco-diesel all the 2014 issues have been addressed and the 2015 trucks have none so nice try. How did the F-150 EB launch go when it came to market? Not near as well as the Ram ED..

You are right - the F150 Ecoboost launch went better than the Ecodiesel. The trucks didn't leave people stranded. There was one issue, the condensation in the intercooler and that has been fixed for years. They didn't asphyxiate people with exhaust gasses. But that's par for the course for junk FCA vehicles.

Sorry but FCA does have an electric car and what do you think the ED is addressing....the CAFE rating. There are other diesels coming down the pipeline for the US market also.

Yeah, the Fiat 500 that looses FCA money and that Sergio hopes you don't buy. Good business strategy there, ShillBoy. Then you have the VW diesel issue that will have Americans rethinking Diesels from all makes.

sync vs u connect
linkII

I already conceded MFT is junk. Sync3 is awesome. We own a vehicle with it. Easy to use, fast, and works awesome.

But I would expect no less than that from the FCA Shill. Face it they are in a world of hurt and even Sergio realizes it and is starting to sell off the company bit by bit.

[Samsonsworld]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
FCA vehicles have the best system with the u-connect hands down unlike Fords sync's system.

Don

Uconnect is certainly easier to connect to.


http://autoweek.com/article/recalls/fca-issues-recall-fix-jeep-cherokee-software-hack

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Keep posting you uninformed troll. First the Government loaned Chrysler and GM money only because the banks refused to refinanced their lines of credit. Chrysler paid it's loans back well ahead of time GM and Ford not yet!

Second the so called "Government bailout" of the 80's was to guarantee the loan from the employee's retirement fund. Again Chrysler repaid that loan 100% and years ahead of time.

As for as the Eco-diesel all the 2014 issues have been addressed and the 2015 trucks have none so nice try. How did the F-150 EB launch go when it came to market? Not near as well as the Ram ED..

Sorry but FCA does have an electric car and what do you think the ED is addressing....the CAFE rating. There are other diesels coming down the pipeline for the US market also.

sync vs u connect
linkII

[BenK]

Wasn't dissing you, but folks who reference CR as gospel and basis
for their decisions

Sister is one who always references CR as the basis for her decisions

Noticed back when still new to CR and had a subscription...that only
stuff smaller than a stove or refrigerator was worth...even then...more
and more bought against their advice.

This thread is closing soon with the trolling over personal loyality
I'm not blindly loyal...even to stuff I own. GM has screwed me as
has all the other OEMs.

Heck, some of my designs over the years were absolutely lousy...but
did fix them...

cekkk wrote:
BenK said "One of my filters...anyone recommending and/or referencing CR is not worth my time to discuss anything with them on..."

Well, my time isn't as valuable any more, but I don't think much of their opinions on many things because the staff is so biased towards more government being the solution for every problem, real or imagined. And they don't mind at all if clothes and dishes don't get clean or toilets don't do the flush job, so long as they save a cup of water.

However, if I have to buy something I know nothing about, they can prove useful as one of a number of sources.