Ram 1500 EcoDiesel

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: ms21043
Apparently Chrysler knows a little bit about the 1/2 ton diesel pickup market. The entire 1st production run, 8000 units, sold out in 3 days.. If that's a swing and a miss by them, I wonder what a home run would look like?

http://jalopnik.com/everyone-wants-a-2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-1526381545



The 8000 units may just be the pent-up demand from diesel enthusiasts. Let's see how well it's selling it 6 months.

 

[Stewart Fan]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Stewart Fan
Light truck, as in up to 3500 series. An F450 is a class 4 truck and is medium duty.


Figured you'd say that, grasping at straws and completely disregarding that Ford towing capacity is correlated to available axle ratio. I'll play your game:

http://www.trailerlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Trailer-Life-Towing-Guide-2002.pdf

2002 Silverado/Sierra 6.6L Duramax - 235hp, 500 lbs.-ft.
Tow Capacity - 16,200lbs.

You'll find that's for a 2500.


The LB7 Duramax in the 2500HD made 300HP. The 235HP LB7 was in the GM vans.

 

[Stewart Fan]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman


My 235 HP Dodge Ram 2500 came from the factory with a 17,000 pound tow rating.


My '07 Ram 3500 with the 325/610 5.9 CTD was only rated for 15,500.

An '01 2500 wasn't rated for 17,000

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Forget the Hemi...the Pentastar V6 will beat it when towing!



Those pentastar 6's are pretty impressive. Dodge has their engine line-up tied pretty tight.
Fords got the most interesting big engines and I feel they've got the most potential based on having dohc and boost but them dodges definitely have the basic pushrod N/A market cornered.
And the hemi is just incredible as far as durability and their ability to absorb miles.
I was never a dodge fan. Ever. I had them over the years because of cost and availability.
I was a chev guy through and through until I saw what could be done with a mustang for pennies,then I switched over to the ford camp where I remain however dodge has me interested now that I've seen what they're capable of.


The V6s in all of the trucks are quite impressive! They do need to wind up a bit more than a V8, but towing capacity is there.

Seems that on the "Ram" truck, the Hemi is cheaper than the Pentastar because Hemi comes with 6 speed instead of Pentastar's 8 speed?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Forget the Hemi...the Pentastar V6 will beat it when towing!



Those pentastar 6's are pretty impressive. Dodge has their engine line-up tied pretty tight.
Fords got the most interesting big engines and I feel they've got the most potential based on having dohc and boost but them dodges definitely have the basic pushrod N/A market cornered.
And the hemi is just incredible as far as durability and their ability to absorb miles.
I was never a dodge fan. Ever. I had them over the years because of cost and availability.
I was a chev guy through and through until I saw what could be done with a mustang for pennies,then I switched over to the ford camp where I remain however dodge has me interested now that I've seen what they're capable of.


The V6s in all of the trucks are quite impressive! They do need to wind up a bit more than a V8, but towing capacity is there.

Seems that on the "Ram" truck, the Hemi is cheaper than the Pentastar because Hemi comes with 6 speed instead of Pentastar's 8 speed?


Well isn't that interesting. Paying more for better mileage but less capability.
And the 6 speed mated to a newer generation mds system would be a gas miser for sure.
I'd bet in real life the hemi and pentastar would be much closer when it comes to mileage,although I'm sure I read somewhere that the pentastar mated to the 8 speed turns the engine at 1400rpm at 70mph.
I'm impressed that the pentastar has enough torque at that rpm to maintain speed.
I will admit liking the 5 speed slap shift,although I'd love to be able to adjust the launch.
I would certainly love a dohc 5.0 in this car but I'm not complaining about my hemi.

 

[IndyIan]

The RAM price structure is a bit odd, as the cost to get the 8 spd with the Hemi is $1700 more than the 6 spd? Probably in a year they will drop the 6 spd altogether, so the extra charge for the 8 spd will disappear?

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Stewart Fan
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


My 235 HP Dodge Ram 2500 came from the factory with a 17,000 pound tow rating.


My '07 Ram 3500 with the 325/610 5.9 CTD was only rated for 15,500.

An '01 2500 wasn't rated for 17,000


The 2500's are rated to tow more than the 3500's because of the inherently lower truck weight. GTW remains the same.

 

[supton]

How much would those trucks drop in tow if they were tested to the new J2807 standard? Did they do 0-60 tests 10 years ago, like I see on youtube now?

Err, come to think of it: was this EcoDiesel tested to this standar? A quick look seems to indicate not.

Not that I think the standard is the end all, be all standard for towing: but it would indicate uniformity in rating at least.

*

I plan on doing a big 'ole wait and see. Indications are that Dodge has pulled it together, and is making stuff that can last decades. That said, used to be one did not like buying used diesels, as they didn't take to poor maintance nor misfueling. Will this truck be a good deal on the used market?

 

[supton]

http://www.fourwheeler.com/vehicle-revie...g-fuel-economy/

13.8mpg while towing an unspecified weight, so probably not a great source.

Motortrend:
http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2014_ram_1500_ecodiesel_gets_28_mpg_highway_in_real_mpg_testing.html

Originally Posted By: Motortrend

Then we put a rear-drive Ram 1500 EcoDiesel with the longer 3.55:1 ratio on the Real MPG loop. It finished the cycle at 18/28/22 mpg. Once again, according to the EPA, the rear-drive Ram 1500 with the Pentastar V-6 is rated 17/25/20 mpg. Having the burlier Hemi onboard drops fuel economy to 15/22/17 mpg with the eight-speed auto and to 14/20/16 mpg with the six-speed.


I thought there was another towing&mpg review, but can't find it right now.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: supton
How much would those trucks drop in tow if they were tested to the new J2807 standard? Did they do 0-60 tests 10 years ago, like I see on youtube now?

Err, come to think of it: was this EcoDiesel tested to this standar? A quick look seems to indicate not.

Not that I think the standard is the end all, be all standard for towing: but it would indicate uniformity in rating at least.


The Big 3 have said it will be 2015, so I'll say no:
2015 Tow Ratings


Quote:
I plan on doing a big 'ole wait and see. Indications are that Dodge has pulled it together, and is making stuff that can last decades.


JD Power and Consumer Reports tends to disagree with Dodge/Ram/Chrysler being at the bottom of the dependability ratings.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: supton
How much would those trucks drop in tow if they were tested to the new J2807 standard? Did they do 0-60 tests 10 years ago, like I see on youtube now?

Err, come to think of it: was this EcoDiesel tested to this standar? A quick look seems to indicate not.

Not that I think the standard is the end all, be all standard for towing: but it would indicate uniformity in rating at least.


The Big 3 have said it will be 2015, so I'll say no:
2015 Tow Ratings


Quote:
I plan on doing a big 'ole wait and see. Indications are that Dodge has pulled it together, and is making stuff that can last decades.


JD Power and Consumer Reports tends to disagree with Dodge/Ram/Chrysler being at the bottom of the dependability ratings.


Is it still that bad? I remember for a few years the bottom 4 were Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, "RAM". Chrysler made some pretty unreliable vehicles for a while. Seems like they try to do more than GM or Ford for thinking outside of the box ... but just don't have the quality control (or engineering?) to make things work well.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Stewart Fan
Originally Posted By: A_Harman


My 235 HP Dodge Ram 2500 came from the factory with a 17,000 pound tow rating.


My '07 Ram 3500 with the 325/610 5.9 CTD was only rated for 15,500.

An '01 2500 wasn't rated for 17,000


No "only" 14,150lbs of trailer weight with GCWR of 20,00lbs.

But your view on horsepower and towing was refreshing for about the first 24 hours. But torque is more important when hauling a load vs horsepower. Torque is the capability, horsepower is the ability to get the job done faster. Without sufficient torque you will never get your load moving. That is why even some semi engines that have a 450HP will have 4 or 5 times of this amount in torque output.

Also the max towing rating is not totally dependent on engine output rather than the chassis, braking, differentials, and transmission.

 

[kkreit01]

I have not driven one in the Ram nor Grand Cherokee. I know many rave about the ecodiesel. I'm not sold on it based on numbers. I know it probably feels torquey around town, but the diesel is by far slower than the Pentastar in the Ram. In the Grand Cherokee, the V6 and diesel are pretty much equal. I guess it's nice to have options, but I too am disappointed to see Nissan getting Cummins (and possibly Tundra), and Ram stuck with this tiny diesel.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
But torque is more important when hauling a load vs horsepower. Torque is the capability, horsepower is the ability to get the job done faster. Without sufficient torque you will never get your load moving. That is why even some semi engines that have a 450HP will have 4 or 5 times of this amount in torque output.

Also the max towing rating is not totally dependent on engine output rather than the chassis, braking, differentials, and transmission.


If you have a vehicle of a given GCWR and are trying to figure out how to get it up a 7% grade at 60 mph, you need to know how much horsepower the engine must produce to get the job done. Say you calculate 400 HP. It doesn't matter if it's a diesel grunting it out at 1600 rpm, a twin-turbo gasoline V6 singing at 6000 rpm, a race engine shreiking at 16,000 rpm, or a gas turbine whistling at 50,000 rpm, they can all do the job even though they put out vastly different amounts of torque. The key difference is gearing, which is responsible for matching engine output to road speed. With the proper gearing, you can move something as heavy as the Space Shuttle with 120 HP, as Toyota showed in that publicity stunt last year. But they didn't do it very fast, and they didn't have to climb any hills.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
But torque is more important when hauling a load vs horsepower. Torque is the capability, horsepower is the ability to get the job done faster. Without sufficient torque you will never get your load moving. That is why even some semi engines that have a 450HP will have 4 or 5 times of this amount in torque output.


Torque is a measure of twisting force, it doesn't imply work being performed. You can have torque without movement. However, horsepower is work being performed. The higher the horsepower, the greater the amount of work being performed.

Now, horsepower is derived from torque and RPM. RPM is the rate at which torque is being applied, resulting in work.

Here's the equation for horsepower:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Torque is in pound-foot units, rotational speed (f) is in rpm and power is required in horsepower


So for example you can have two engines with vastly different amounts of torque, but as long as they make the same horsepower, they are able to perform the same amount of work:

So, say we have a diesel engine with the following specifications:

1,800RPM limit
1,500 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the diesel engine produces 514.1HP

Say we have a gasoline engine with the following specifications:

8,000RPM limit
337 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the gasoline engine produces 514.1HP


Both engines are able to perform the same amount of work. The difference is that the gasoline engine does it in "smaller chunks" by applying less torque, but at a greater rate. What this is relevant to is gearing. Since the diesel engine has a maximum RPM of 1,800, it must be geared accordingly. Since the gasoline engine has a 8,000RPM maximum, it can be geared steeper to be able to provide the same amount of force to the wheels to move the load.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think Fiat/Chrysler really messed up not staying with the Cummins V8 diesel. A 5L V8 with 300+HP and 550 ft*lbs of torque would have made a very capable truck. Now Nissan is going to use that engine in the Titan. Maybe the Cummins V8 will resuscitate Nissan's pickup truck in the North American market the way Cummins I6 did for Dodge.

I have to wonder if they fear that adding the 5L Cummins V8 to the 1500 will reduce sales of the Cummins 6.7 2500 and 3500 models.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: dave1251
But torque is more important when hauling a load vs horsepower. Torque is the capability, horsepower is the ability to get the job done faster. Without sufficient torque you will never get your load moving. That is why even some semi engines that have a 450HP will have 4 or 5 times of this amount in torque output.


Torque is a measure of twisting force, it doesn't imply work being performed. You can have torque without movement. However, horsepower is work being performed. The higher the horsepower, the greater the amount of work being performed.

Now, horsepower is derived from torque and RPM. RPM is the rate at which torque is being applied, resulting in work.

Here's the equation for horsepower:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Torque is in pound-foot units, rotational speed (f) is in rpm and power is required in horsepower


So for example you can have two engines with vastly different amounts of torque, but as long as they make the same horsepower, they are able to perform the same amount of work:

So, say we have a diesel engine with the following specifications:

1,800RPM limit
1,500 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the diesel engine produces 514.1HP

Say we have a gasoline engine with the following specifications:

8,000RPM limit
337 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the gasoline engine produces 514.1HP


Both engines are able to perform the same amount of work. The difference is that the gasoline engine does it in "smaller chunks" by applying less torque, but at a greater rate. What this is relevant to is gearing. Since the diesel engine has a maximum RPM of 1,800, it must be geared accordingly. Since the gasoline engine has a 8,000RPM maximum, it can be geared steeper to be able to provide the same amount of force to the wheels to move the load.



Thank you for the physics lesson.

 

[ms21043]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think Fiat/Chrysler really messed up not staying with the Cummins V8 diesel. A 5L V8 with 300+HP and 550 ft*lbs of torque would have made a very capable truck. Now Nissan is going to use that engine in the Titan. Maybe the Cummins V8 will resuscitate Nissan's pickup truck in the North American market the way Cummins I6 did for Dodge.

I have to wonder if they fear that adding the 5L Cummins V8 to the 1500 will reduce sales of the Cummins 6.7 2500 and 3500 models.


By the time you beef up a 1/2 ton truck to take advantage of an engine with that kind of torque available, you end up with a truck like one you already sell, not to mention you won't be advertising 28 mpg. Why bother? Lets see what Nissan does to the Titan.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Torque is a measure of twisting force, it doesn't imply work being performed. You can have torque without movement. However, horsepower is work being performed. The higher the horsepower, the greater the amount of work being performed IN A GIVEN AMOUNT OF TIME.

Now, horsepower is derived from torque and RPM. RPM is the rate at which torque is being applied, resulting in work.

Here's the equation for horsepower:

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Torque is in pound-foot units, rotational speed (f) is in rpm and power is required in horsepower


So for example you can have two engines with vastly different amounts of torque, but as long as they make the same horsepower, they are able to perform the same amount of work IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME:

So, say we have a diesel engine with the following specifications:

1,800RPM limit
1,500 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the diesel engine produces 514.1HP

Say we have a gasoline engine with the following specifications:

8,000RPM limit
337 lb-ft of torque

Using those two values, the gasoline engine produces 514.1HP


Both engines are able to perform the same amount of work IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. The difference is that the gasoline engine does it in "smaller chunks" by applying less torque, but at a greater rate. What this is relevant to is gearing. Since the diesel engine has a maximum RPM of 1,800, it must be geared accordingly. Since the gasoline engine has a 8,000RPM maximum, it can be geared steeper to be able to provide the same amount of force to the wheels to move the load.



I added a few little qualifiers in your post to clarify the issue.

Word problem:
An engine is producing 400 Horsepower. How much work does it do in 10 seconds?

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: ms21043
By the time you beef up a 1/2 ton truck to take advantage of an engine with that kind of torque available, you end up with a truck like one you already sell, not to mention you won't be advertising 28 mpg.


Don't be too sure of that.