By its very nature, this crew cab Ram isn’t for everyone. Even for those attracted to half-ton pickups, the Ecodiesel may still be a niche player – or maybe not.
Pickups are king in many parts of the United States. While a status symbol for some, there are equal numbers that are worked everyday. They are able to haul loads, pull trailers, and the crew cab versions can ferry passengers in accommodations of a size no longer available in any sedan. For sheer versatility, pickups – especially the crew cab versions – have a lot of positive attributes. For fuel efficiency…well, that’s a different story.
image source: www.motortrend.com
In a nod to the lackluster fuel economy of pickups, Ram has made available for their half-ton 1500 series pickups a 3.0 liter diesel V6 produced by VM Motori, a diesel engine manufacturer based in Centro, Italy, and owned by Fiat. This engine came online in the midst of the 2014 model year and I drove this example back in July or August.
The basic design for this Ram dates back a few years to when it was still called a Dodge. The driving comfort of this Ram is identical to the gas powered models, which I find to be superior to the contemporary Ford F-150 and prior generation Chevrolet Silverado. Overall driving dynamics are a smidgeon different given the diesel engine but the differences would likely escape the unobservant.
Throttle response off the line is solid and assured. It provides off-idle throttle response similar to the 4.7 liter gasoline examples I have driven. Once moving, all comparisons are out the window as the Ecodiesel’s 420 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 rpm nullifies any small displacement diesel engine phobias. The auditory output of the engine during acceleration reminds you it is an oil burner, but it is still well behaved and sounds as if the engine is quite far away. There is no scream of diesel fury that can often be found in heavier duty Dodge and Ram pickups sporting a modified Cummins piloted by an enthusiastic owner.
The sticker price for this example was $44,000 dollars; it was fairly restrained in the option department. The upcharge for the diesel engine is $4,500, just over 10% of the overall vehicle price. Therein lies my speculation about it being a niche within the Ram lineup. Diesel in this area is currently just over $1.00 per gallon more than gasoline with pump prices being $2.50 per gallon for regular unleaded at around $3.50 for diesel – yes, prices have dropped considerably since August. Estimating 25 mpg for the Ecodiesel and 16 mpg for a gasoline powered version, I’m calculating only a $0.016 per mile advantage for the diesel so it will take considerable time for the fuel savings to pay for itself. However, given the dynamics of fuel prices, this is only a snapshot in time. I will speculate there are those who will only look at the EPA rating of 28 miles per gallon and think no further. (Ed: the gasoline V6 has a 25 mpg highway rating. EPA Combined ratings, which tend to most closely reflect real world driving, rates the gas V6 with 20 mpg, 21 for the HFE version. The diesel is rated at 23mpg combined (all 2WD versions))
Your mileage and needs may vary.
image source: www.autoguide.com
For generations, gear selectors have been on a shaft erupting from the steering column, console, or even the dash board. The gear selector in this Ram is a rotating dial on the dash below a vent. Other than an annoyance, this poses a sanitary issue. Suppose one is doing something that has dirtied their hands – not an unusual thing. Upon entering, dirty hands will smear grime over the dial and it will likely arc in the entire area and embed itself in the texture grooves of the dial. With a gear selector on the steering column, all grime will be in an isolated area able to be cleaned from 360 degrees. Dials are for the radio and heater controls, not the gear selector. As a traditional gear selector is available on heavier duty models, it should be available here.
While I have likely harped about various automotive quirks in reviews past, I don’t want to let these quirks overshadow everything else. Well, at least not this time. One of the things that might likely overshadow this pickup is the recall record of the Dodge / Ram 1500 series. For 2007 to 2013, the Ram 1500 was the fourth most recalled vehicle sold in the United States, behind the Toyota RAV-4 and Jeep Grand Cherokee. Interestingly, my series of rental car reviews has two of my former steeds occupying the offenders list, which can be found here.
Ram is making this engine available across all trim levels of its 1500 series. At the time I drove this example, it was the only one to be found in the 200-odd miles between St. Louis and Kansas City. Since then I have been keeping a watchful eye out for others and have seen exactly two – another crew cab pulling an RV camper and a regular cab that was a service truck for a local electrical supply company.
My situation of driving a pickup 8,000 miles annually simply does not justify the added cost of the diesel. Yet as the needs of any given buyer are unique, there will be cases where a buyer is looking for a pickup to do a lot of work or one that will be racking up miles quickly. This Ram may very well be a terrific choice for them. How big that market is remains to be seen, but kudos to Chrysler for serving it.
Like I said at the beginning, these aren’t for everyone but that is the nature of a pickup, especially a crew cab. For those who have the need or desire, these would be a fantastic option to explore.
The 1/2 ton crew cab pickup is the Impala, LTD, Newport of our time.
Therefore the idea of a diesel model is the Olds 350 diesel of our time. POWER! ECONOMY! TOWING!
May this chapter in America’s Diesel History go better than the last time automakers tried to make that part of their mainstream product mix.
A very interesting powertrain. I believe that this is the same supplier that provided the diesel for the Jeep Liberty around 2005 or so. My sister had one until recently, and it drove nicely. She did, however, have an eye-poppingly expensive repair of some sort where the part was ungodly expensive. However, if more of these get out in the pipeline, then that might not be as big of an issue.
I have wondered about the “gear dial”. I read that Chrysler wanted something that would work with bulky gloves, so buttons were out. The older I get, the more the concept of a big bulky lever to operate an electrical relay offends me. I am on board with the buttons in the Lincoln MKZ and kind of like the idea of the Ram dial. Can’t the dial pull off and get washed in a sink?
That’s a good question and I wish I knew the answer. I’m just thinking of the instances of someone that has been fishing or the RV owner who just had to disconnect the brown water hose. Sure some will wear gloves but some don’t.
Although not for everyone, I believe that people should be allowed choose whatever engine they need for what work.needed. If you need a diesel engine to tow a small trailer, you should be allowed such an engine. You shouldn’t have to buy a D2500 or a D3500 in order to buy a diesel engine.
I don’t think there was ever a time when Dodge used the designations “D2500” or “D3500”. They went from D-100/150/200/300 and W of the same for 4×4, to D-100/150/250/350, to “Ram 150/250/350”, then to 4-digit monikers for the ’94 models.
Your projection of this averaging 25 mpg is rather unrealistic. What are you basing it on? The EPA Combined rating is 22 mpg. A 20k mile long-term test by Edmunds averaged 22.4 mpg. That 25 mpg you’re projecting would be a 56% improvement over the gas engine. That’s just not feasible. Diesels typically improve economy by about 20-30%, all things being equal; maybe a bit more in a larger vehicle like this. But never 56%.
That being the case, the economics at a time when diesel is running $1.00 more than regular really don’t add up. Especially when one considers the typically higher maintenance costs.
Nice engine in a nice truck, though.
Not only do the economics not make sense, but the payload and towing ability are rather paltry by today’s standards. Diesel or not, it’s the least capable half-ton on the market.
This truck only makes sense for a small portion of people who use their trucks to tow moderate trailers often, perhaps multiple times a week.
People have been clamoring for a 1/2 ton diesel for some time. But not this one at that price. They seem to be selling OK, but I’m thinking once people start doing the math that will slow.
Even the Japanese pickups with diesel engines will pull 3.5 tonnes these days if you are being paid to do that here you require a light commercial trailer licence but for towing these pickups really should be equipped with exhaust brakes as the service brakes really arent up to being worked hard.
These are also rated at 7000 pounds, a bit less depending on trim. Which may be good for a small truck but is pretty weak for a full size 1/2 ton.
Exhaust brakes are unheard of here on a light truck.
The 25 mpg is what was found in another review; I also used 25 as the window sticker for this rig stated 28 mpg. I found the 28 mpg rating to be optimistic.
Using the 22.4 of Edmunds, and the fuel costs I used above, the fuel cost per mile of this diesel is equal to the 16 mpg figure used for gasoline, so there is a cost penalty for going with the diesel. This is based upon today’s fuel costs; this time next year could be a completely different story.
Using the highway EPA rating tends to overstate actual real-world average mileage. Keep in mind that the 3.6 gas V6 has 25 mpg EPA highway numbers, which makes the relative difference much less.
If you’re going to use 25 for the diesel, you’d have to use a higher comparison for the gas engine, as 16 is way below the gas V6′ s average.
The EPA rates the gas V6 at 17/25/20, and 18/25/21 for the HFE version. The comparable numbers for the diesel 2WD are 20/28/23. That’s a 15% improvement (or less) on the combined ratings, which tend to reflect real-world driving most closely.
Our 2012 Touareg TDI with a 3.0l V6 averaged around 22 mpg with mainly in-town driving. On the highway (say to Denver and back) running at 75-80, a 30mpg average was readily achievable. That’s almost a 50% increase over the gasser. I’d guess the weight is similar to the reviewed RAM and ours had an 8speed gearbox.
However, at the price level that we were/are talking, an extra $4500 (similar in the Touareg) was palatable, especially as we easily got all of that back (plus more in my opinion) at resale /trade-in time. Financing was at 0% so it was free money.
The real bonus in my wife’s eyes was that she spent much less time going to the gas station which is hard to put a value on but she sure did. Usually at least 600 miles would pass between visits.
The bonus in my eyes was the 406 torque figure and the way it picked up speed on the highway either going up a mountain or pulling out to pass. In that regard it was simply magnificent.
If it had three rows or restraint devices designed to stop three kids from arguing with each other when side by side we’d still have it.
That’s almost a 50% increase over the gasser.
What’s your source of the gasser mileage?
Jim, I hold your opinions in high regard, but when it comes to making comparisons between diesels, hybrids, and conventional cars, I’ve had to make myself become very suspicious, because the claims tend to be inconsistent, or not really apples-to-apples.
I’ve been following this issue for decades, and anytime I see a claim for a 50% efficiency increase from gas to diesel, with all other things being equal, I simply can’t accept it.
The actual efficiency advantage of a diesel vs a gas engine once was considered to be 30%, but is now (by general industry consensus) to be 20-25%, and by 2020, projected to be less than 20%.
This is due to gas engines being in an extended period of increasing efficiency, whereas the diesel has actually lost some due to recent emission regs. Note, these are not my numbers, but ones used in the industry as generally accepted averages. There may be slight differences in individual engines, but the state of the art is getting pretty similar by most manufacturers.
All of this is leading to a reduction in the percentage of diesels in Europe, which will only accelerate as tax advantages for diesels may soon drop (France just announced that it would eliminate the preferred tax status of diesel fuel).
Comparing two same cars with gas and diesel under identical conditions is not always easy to do perfectly. I accept that there will be variations, but since I keep quite interested in this topic, I simply can’t accept that a diesel anything will be 50% more efficient than a comparable gas version.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not a diesel hater. I just see the tide swinging away from diesels, and more to hybrids, which ultimately have greater potential. Just in the last few days, BMW announced it was going to build hybrid 3 Series, and Mercedes is investing in a major increase in battery production facilities.
Diesel has its place in the mix, but I’m 100% convinced that its global share of the passenger car market is in long-term decline. It simply doesn’t offer the efficiency gains that can be achieved with other methods that involve electricity to one extent or another.
Paul, I suppose I will need to admit it is somewhat anecdotal. Looking at FuelEconomy.gov it shows the diesel at 19/28 and the gas version at 16/23. I tend to find that real world the diesels do better than rated and gassers do worse than rated. We got 22 driven MAINLY City, much less than 50/50 and 30 on highway (sometimes more). So adjust a bit either way and there is the 50% increase. But going strictly by the rated numbers it is not 50%, true.
My experience with my two TDI VWs was that they both got (sometimes substantially) higher actual mileage than the EPA numbers, and folks on tdiclub.org report similar. My NB averaged around 45, where the gas model (EPA numbers, not actual, as I never owned one) show 24/31. Not quite a 50% difference, but definitely more than 30%.
My ’13 Beetle was averaging around 42, which worked out to $0.10/mile. My new Fit is averaging around 38, but with the price difference in fuel, it’s working out to about $0.07/mile.
YMMV, of course. (c:
FWIW, the writer of TTAC’s “Coast to Coast” feature has been getting 28 mpg highway in a 4×4 Tradesman crew cab/6.5′ bed model.
YMMV. I’ve learned that different driving techniques make a substantial difference.
I’ve also learned that folks who buy hybrids and diesels tend to justify their decision by inflating their mileage claims. Not necessarily all of them, but the discrepancy between many anecdotal claims compared to credible reviews and other sources has made me suspicious. YMMV, inevitably. Or your mileage claim may vary, more likely.
Oh, I’m not doubting that either. The highest he’s shown of his gauge’s actual readout was something like 24.8, IIRC. Still amazing mileage for a full-size truck.
The correct way of evaluating operating costs vs purchase costs is to use the discounted cash flow method. This method utilizes the current value of cash and a discount factor to evaluate the costs over the expected life of the item. In this case, the $4K premium to acquire the diesel would put it at a significant disadvantage to the gas version, as the $4K cost is in 2014 dollars (more value than 2020 dollars). Without running the numbers, this big of a cost differential would never pay for itself over the life of the vehicle (let’s say 10 years). The only thing that would flip this analysis on its ear is the AVAILABILITY of fuel. In other words, if you can’t get fuel like in 1973, then the diesel is the way to go.
Build it RHD and sell it here if it aint diesel it wont sell, This is the same engine we get in Jeeps and for some weird reason those are selling its from the same motor maker who supplies diesels for Chrysler 300s and those actually drive ok, I’d buy one if they came in manual.
Interesting that FCA decided to fill this niche market. Enthusiasts are constantly agitating for small diesels and manual transmissions, yet actual buyers want gas engines with automatics. Ford and GM have rightly assumed that the enthusiast market is far too small to be profitable.
–I am guessing the only reason this power train is available is because the VM Motori factory is likely running under capacity. With labor laws what they are in Europe, Fiat would rather break even, or even lose a little, selling these engines in a few thousand Rams…than losing big money with idle workers at the plant.
The US market is unique in its love of gasoline engines and automatics for work purposes nobody else has nearly free gas and you might find Fiatsler has an eye on exporting these trucks.
Another unique factor in the US market is how many of these “trucks” see very little actual “work”. The crew cab half ton series is often what could be called a Family Car—used for delivering children to school, and Dad to his office. Many such trucks are most heavily burdened when towing a small boat to the lake for a summer fishing trip. This is not to say however that towing ratings are not an important marketing tool. Every boat owner wants a bigger boat!
Buyers seeking actual “work” trucks will often purchase the heavier duty 3/4 and 1 ton chassis.
What I’ve never understood is why large diesel engines are allowed, 12+ litres or bigger in displacement, but anything under 7 litres is not allowed to be sold in the USA. You have full-sized trucks with engines ranging from 6.0 litres to 7.5 litres. But when someone introduces something as small as 1.5 litres to 4.0 litres, alarm bells start ringing, and people from the US EPA start to panic. Why the hell is that?
Hello! Big truck diesel engine very much have to meet EPA regs for them. Why do you think they all have giant DEF (urea) tanks now? Meeting the regs for the big diesels has been very challenging, and caused some major upheaval in the market.
+1, Paul – upheaval is an understatement! Inability to meet the NOX standards is what caused Caterpillar to exit the on-road heavy-duty diesel engine market (and they were considered the motor to have by most truckers).
Where do you get that 7liter cutoff? Plenty of VW 1.9liter diesels currently, and VW, Audi, Porsche, Jeep, M-B, and BMW each have a 3liter diesel. (VW, Audi and Porsche use the same unit, but the others are all distinct designs). VW has had small diesels here forever, and M-B has been on and off over the years. Chevy Cruze has a small diesel as well now. I’m sure I’m forgetting several others, but most diesels are well under 7liters.
Amen, Paul. The requirements for emissions on heavy duty diesels has caused a lot of growing pains for the industry and some real angst on the part of end-users.
Right. Nobody should be buying a 1/2 ton for serious towing duty. Just because this is diesel does not mean it’s ideal for towing on a regular basis.
1/2 tons are designed as “weekend warrior” type setups and light-duty commercial hauling. I think it’s really the popularity of campers more so than boats that is responsible for the ever-increasing capacities. Most people don’t want to buy a 3/4 ton just to haul an 8,000 pound camper around a handful of times each year.
The dealer that I went to to inquire about a test drive was selling every VM Motori powered RAM1500 that came in. Most of them were pre-ordered so they were gone as soon as they arrived. I was waiting 2 months before one came in on the lot that I could test drive.
The coworker of a friend of mine bought one off the lot. He asked the guy about his test drive experience. He said he wasn’t allowed to test drive it. The dealer told him they weren’t allowing test drives because every one was selling with zero miles on the odometer.
This same engine is also being put into the Jeep Grand Cherokee and also into Chrysler 300s sold in Europe. if anything, there is a supply shortage of these engines.
That should tell the car makers that there is, in fact, a market for diesel powered light trucks. That not everyone needs a D2500 or a D3500, but they do need a diesel engine.
Strictly speaking, no one needs a diesel engine, especially not the great majority of pickup buyers, who often buy them more for the status or ability to “coal”, than because of actual need.
There’s a good reason big fleets are moving away from diesel, like UPS, which is buying gas vans again. The economics don’t pan out. And gas engines are plenty powerful enough for any job on hand, including towing anything a pickup is rated for.
Diesels are a choice, not a need.
That’s true. Not everyone needs to have a diesel engine. But I believe that those who do need it, should be allowed to buy one.
You didn’t even read my comment properly. I said Strictly speaking, no one needs a diesel engine
Just who exactly needs a diesel engine? “Want” is not the same as “need”.
I think diesel was a given back 10 years ago when the engines were more reliable dependable and efficient than gas engines. Gas engines have become better in that time diesel reliability has gone down thanks to emissions (thou they seem to be starting to improve now). Also the price gap was not as large either. It seems to change from day to day here how big the gap is it was 50 cents a gallon for a while now its back up to about 70 cents.
That’s something I’ll never understand. We all want clean emissions, but the pollution control devices that are *required* seem to sacrifice everything diesel stands for.
When you compare this to the 2015 F-150 with the new 2.7, the Ford outperforms it handily in everything but perhaps fuel cost while towing. And it costs less. Unless the costs of the engine or diesel fuel come down, I don’t think this truck makes a whole lot of sense for most truck buyers. People just see the MPG and don’t think about the true costs or abilities of the truck.
Still, it’s nice to have options.
I test drove one of these two weeks ago and I was impressed. It was a Laramie crew cab, short box which made it about 1 foot longer than my truck (1994 RAM2500 Cummins standard cab, long box). It rode a bit higher, but hasn’t grown to the same degree as the 3/4 ton trucks have in the past 20 years!
As other online reviews have stated, the 8-speed always seemed to be in the right gear, unlike the awful GM 6-speed that was in a Yukon rental that I drove for almost a month last the spring. I would’ve liked to try the RAM1500 on a hilly road, but there were none nearby.
I felt that the RAM1500 had adequate power as well. Not surprising, when you look at the numbers. In addition to having twice as many gears available, the VM Motori engine is half the displacement, but puts out comparable or more power versus my truck:
1994 RAM2500 Cummins: (HP,tq) 160@2500, 400@1500
2014 RAM1500 VMMotori: (HP,tq) 240@3600, 420@2000
Comparable peak torque and 50% higher peak horsepower, albeit at higher RPM. That higher RPM operation may actually be a good thing for reducing NVH. I would be keen on comparing actual graphs of the specs versus RPM to see what the power bands look like, but haven’t seen one for the VM Motori yet.
I personally like the gear selector dial, as it harkens back to the pre-1965 Mopar push-button gear selector. I never thought much about it getting dirty and need cleaning, but that’s not an issue for me anyhow. As Principaldan said above, pickup trucks are the new fullsize car, and that’s how mine gets treated most of the time. On that note….
I love my Cummins 12-valve, but I’ve read that the new heavy duty diesels (and their complex emissions systems) aren’t as forgiving if driven lightly, i.e. they are prone to have problems from frequent short trips and driving unloaded. (I presume this is the same reason that GM never put the 6.6L Duramax in the Suburban or Yukon.) If I was shopping for a new truck, I don’t think that the new Cummins 6.7 would be suitable for me, even if I could get over the sticker shock of the thing. I think I would be a prime candidate for this truck though (again, other than sticker shock).
One disappointment is that they abandoned the 5.0L Cummins that was developed for the RAM1500 before the Chrysler bankruptcy. Marchionne opted to go with the smaller VM Motori diesel instead, even though Cummins has been synonymous with Dodge diesels exclusively for so many years. Nissan picked up the 5.0L V8 Cummins for their next generation Titan, which is set to debut on the auto show circuit shortly. That will be another interesting truck to check out, as well as the small inline-4 Duramax diesels going into the GM Canyon/Colorado.
About that 2.8 liter 4 cylinder Duramax diesel: is that a VM Motori diesel (as in the Jeep Wrangler) or an Isuzu diesel ?
About diesels in general. The Fiat Group doesn’t need Cummins. As a matter a fact, they don’t need to ask anyone anything about building diesels, regardless displacement or the number of cylinders. Go to the website of FPT (Fiat Powertrain Technologies) and you’ll know enough.
Duramax is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu.
The Fiat Group may not need Cummins, as you say, but it’s well known that pickup truck buyers are the most brand conscious vehicle buyers out there. This split will definitely cause some to ponder whether their brand loyalties lie with Dodge (now RAM) or Cummins.
There are a lot of Dodge/RAM pickup owners who are proud to fly the “Cummins” banner. Not having a Cummins under the hood of this truck will alienate those potential customers. Potentially a bad marketing decision. Fiat does not have a good history in North America, and if you followed the forums, there are definitely those saying, “I don’t want one of those Italian diesels!”
I’m curious about Case-New Holland (Fiat Group). FPT or Cummins in the US ? They only come with FPT here. Iveco (Fiat Group; vans, trucks and buses), ditto. Sold worldwide.
…”one of those Italian diesels”…Are the forum members aware of the fact that the Fiat Group is one of the world’s most renowned and leading diesel engine manufacturers ?
Sadly, the persistent hate for all things French or Italian among conservative Americans is going to take a long time to erase. Please note the inevitable negative comment from Carmine every time I post a French or Italian car here. Stereotypes are hard to kill, especially when they’re fed by chauvinism.
I wasn’t aware that Fiat owned Case-New Holland. I know that they were installing Cummins 5.9s in some of their tractors. In fact, I even bought some parts for my Cummins from my local Case-New Holland dealer. 🙂
Fiat Group / FPT / VM Motori diesels are basically unheard of in North America. You basically have to be an automotive news junkie to even follow this stuff.
@ BOC, FPT diesels were formerly known as Iveco diesels. Iveco is the van-/bus-/truck-division of the Fiat Group. Since a few years all these diesels are called FPT engines.
So a New Holland farm tractor has an FPT diesel engine. Just like a big Iveco truck. Or a Ram ProMaster.
Basically the global big diesel truck market is in the hands of the Fiat Group, Volvo (the trucks from Sweden, not the Chinese owned car maker) and Mercedes-Benz. And then you have the Volkswagen Group with their MAN and Scania shares.
Personally, Im skeptical of this motor myself. As was stated, its basically a luxury car/suv motor. I don’t that its ‘Eye-talian’….I care that its not really designed for a truck. Why not something that’s already proven in Iveco medium duty trucks, if you MUST move from Cummins? A big bore I-4 turbo diesel would likely have even more bottom end torque than a V6. The configuration is just more suitable.
I worry more about the stuff that’s bolted to the engine not lasting. I wouldn’t worry about the suitability of the engine itself. It is up to the task. Banks has chosen this engine as the basis for high output military and racing applications. They invited one of the diesel magazines to see one of these engines torn down. Check the link and read the captions under each picture.
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/1208dp_banks_vm_motori_630t_v6_diesel_engine/
Fiat doesn’t make anywhere near all of their own diesels, in fact the Ducato, Fiat’s most popular commercial van and the most popular base vehicle for european motorhome manufacturers, is not offered with any Fiat engines. Iveco and to a lesser extent Ford make them.
VM Motori = Fiat
Iveco = Fiat
FPT = Fiat
Case-New Holland = Fiat
Ford entered into a joint venture with PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) to get modern fuel injection technology HDI high pressure common rail injection systems Ford uses are from Peugeot and Ford passenger cars invariably use Peugeot powertrains as do outfits like BMW for their Mini.
Once upon a time I worked at Chrysler when they were looking at the 5.0L Cummins for the Light duty. The issue was that engine was too big and heavy to deliver the fuel economy they were looking for in a “fuel economy diesel” half ton. It was evident that 5.0L was too big for that type of application.
That engine was originally developed by Cummins for a ford application, and Cummins got $$ when ford cancelled it. Then Chrysler looked at it, and walked away. Now Nissan. I’ll bet Cummins made more on that engine in cancellation charges then they’ll make on actual sales.
You want to tow big, buy the big diesel in the 3/4 and 1 ton versions. This is a fuel economy application only. No comment regarding the business case vs fuel economy of the gas version. The inability of the dealers to keep it in stock should indicate what customers thought of the option.
I think Nissan is looking for a different angle. They want to make a heavy 1/2 ton almost a 3/4 ton (maybe even labeling it as such) So the 5.0L makes more sense in their case.
Why not? Not everyone who buys diesel buys for fuel economy. Some buy because they have a heavy load to carry, and they need something strong enough to withstand the heavy load. They also need an engine strong enough to withstand that heavy load. If it gets good fuel economy, better than 20 mpgs, when unloaded, great! 🙂
Some diesel mag interviewing one of the Nissan guys asked whether they were going to make a “heavy half-ton” around this engine, seeing as the Titan is only available as a half-ton truck. They didn’t comment.
We’ll find out soon. The next Titan is supposed to be unveiled at the Detroit auto show.
I look forward to seeing it when it debuts. I’ve always liked pickup trucks. But the last pickup truck I had was all rusty, with holes showing through the floor of the cab and the bed. I’d buy another one like it if the condition were nicer. 🙂
As the owner of a 2012 F-150 Crew Cab 5.0 V-8, I find the mileage potential of this interesting, but the the issue of diesel pollution, diesel fuel cost, and the cost of entry are three sufficient strikes against it. Add mechanical complexity from a model already known to be trouble prone, and this won’t appear in my garage anytime soon.
If the cost penalty at the point-of-purchase and for fuel were not so extreme, I’d consider this over the new Ford 2.7 liter twin turbo V-6. The small displacement combined with the loads likely to be put on it are just too frightening. But, I had the same reservations about the 3.5 twin turbo V-6 and so far I’m not hearing anything about self destruction. But, the 3.5 is known to do little better in real world MPG than the 5.0, and early tests of the 2.7 seem to indicate the same thing.
I just hate re-living the early ’80s where vehicles were built to perform well in government MPG tests, but don’t deliver in the real world, while adding cost and mechanical complexity. CAFE has been riddled with failure and unintended consequences since day one.
Pollution and (most) safety mandates have made sense, but leaving MPG to market forces would easily be the best decision.
Dave—I bet your 5.0 sounds a whole lot better than the wheezy tones of spinning turbines!
On ramps in lonely areas are a lot of fun, and sound wonderful!
Modern diesel does not have the same pollution issues that older (or modifed) ones do. i.e. you will not see billowing clouds of smoke from a modern diesel if used as designed.
My belief is that the cost of entry is cancelled out by the gain of exit assuming the car or truck is not kept literally forever.
The fuel cost issue is very real, depending on location. There is a much greater or lesser difference in different areas of the country or world.
You raise valid points.
I debated the pollution point. Yes, they are cleaner than they were. I don’t know if they are better than gas engines. So, they may still be worse, I just don’t know. Properly maintained may be a key issue, I don’t know the complexity of the emission controls as a whole, but I do understand the urea refills are not a big deal. And, I don’t know what the heck the issue is with lunkheads that install semi truck like stacks through their beds that spew smoke in incredible quantities. Disabled emission controls?
Currently, my oldest vehicle (bought new) will turn 13 in February. So, resale values don’t mean much to me. I last sold a car in 2005. I have kids coming of driving age, we sort of absorb cars. I’ve sent two to the salvage yard.
Resale value is speculation about future conditions, and even if you get the entire value back (unlikely), you’ve still lost the time value of money. For example, put $4,500 in an indexed mutual fund for 5 years and you may get an average 8% return per year – long term market historical average – and you have $6,612 at the end of 5 years compounded annually. In the long term, cars are far riskier than the market. You could lose it in an accident and perhaps get gipped by your insurance. Inherently, it is a depreciating asset. You’ll buy several cars over a life time, so the automotive savings window is truly long term. If you save an average of $5,000 X 7 over a lifetime, you have $35,000 to invest in appreciating assets over 50 years!
If you finance that $4,500, it will likely cost you another $500 in interest just to buy it. That’s at about 3%. Sales taxes in my State are 7%, that’s another $315.00. I’ll pay about another $90 in annual taxes over 5 years. Probably about that much more in insured value cost. I’m at $5,495 for this option.
Resale is a valid consideration, but not a guarantee, for the guy that trades every two to three years – and generally a driver of decisions like Toyota vs. Ford or Chevy where the key is depreciation vs. resale.
Put the finance charges, sales taxes, tag taxes, and insurance money into that mutual fund, and you have…………
okay, I’m getting carried away, but the laws of money and compounding are immutable.
I’m not sure either if a “Clean Diesel” is better than gas or not, I just know it’s better than it used to be and I tell myself that if I can’t see visible emissions and if it gets better gas mileage than a gas version then it uses less resources and possibly pollutes less. I could be wrong.
Resale certainly does depend on when you resell it. Done in the first half-decade as many/most do, then I figure you may very well recoup all or at least most of the extra expense (sometimes even more) at this point in time in general (key word) I think demand exceeds supply which helps. If you keep it forever, then obviously not and all of the cost has to go into the equation. A further point though has to be if the lifespan of a diesel is longer than that of a regular vehicle. I don’t have the data, just plenty of anecdotes re: huge mileages on some diesel vehicles as compared to gas equivalents. However it may well be that that is one reason for purchase, so it self-fulfills.
Re: interest, in my case, it was a 0% interest rate, so no biggie. Also, having been bit by the stock market (but still invested), I have little faith in seeing 8% year over year. I totally understand about “long-term” trends and gains but I think the “long-term” that is discussed may be longer term than my remaining lifespan. It is not guaranteed and could turn into a loss as well, certainly there are ups and downs, now if it was a guaranteed 8% savings account rate, that’d be a different story.
And I guess the last (maybe the main?) thing is to consider how much the diesel engine floats your boat in general. I like the way they drive. I get much more joy out of the feel of a diesel engine than I do out of a sunroof or a larger set of rims or whatever. So I guess some of it can be budgeted as “entertainment dollars”. That’s the hardest part to explain or put an actual value on but the easiest way to explain is that there are certain cars that I would have zero interest in normally but if they had a diesel engine option I would be much more interested.
At the end of the day, it’s just another option. Similar points could be made as to why pay more for the HEMI over the standard V6 etc. Or Crew vs Quadcab. Or New vs. Used. All other things being equal, more choice is a good thing, I think we can all agree on that.
but you do see the smoke. Every day. And when stationary behind one the stink comes in the air vents. You have to close your windows and shut down the fan.
At 320,000km, my RD28 diesel Nissan doesn’t smoke. The only time it smells is when it’s cold. It’s old technology, but has been serviced religiously every 10,000km since 170,000km, so maybe that helps. My last RD28 smoked like a chimney, but only because the injector pump was over-fuelling.
On accelerating even the new ones seem to blast out a cloud of soot. not every time maybe.
That’s true. You do see smoke when it first starts up. But I would think that once it warms up it’s no more polluting than a gasoline engine.
Follow one on a motorcycle… trust me, they all stink. Smoke or no smoke, it’s all the same.
The “remarkable” part is that this engine is essentially for midsize and big sedans. Or luxurious SUVs. Exactly the same engine is in both the Maserati Ghibli and Quattroporte, tuned to 275 hp; quite the opposite of a pickup truck.
Light trucks & tractors, big vans and off-roaders typically have a circa 200 hp 4 cylinder 3.0 liter diesel. And that’s enough to tow a standard twin (mid) axle 7,700 lbs trailer, or more than twice that weight when air brakes are installed.
Well, the “same engine” (Chevy small block V8) is in both the Corvette and millions of Chevy trucks, as it has been since 1955. Including quite big trucks, at one time.
+1
The engine block does not know nor care what type of vehicle it is installed in. As long as it’s capable for its intended mission, that is all that matters. The SBC is an excellent example, is it has found its way into so many different applications.
The vehicle DOES care though. If you take a SBC that’s tuned for high end hp and stick it in truck, and then do truck duty with it, you WILL notice a difference. Different engines are suited to different tasks. Yes, you can absolutely tune them different, but some inherent qualities will remain. Case in point: 258 AMC six. Highly regarded in Jeep CJs where gobs of bottom end torque are important and high end hp is much less relevant. However in economy cars like the Pacer/Gremlin its too much engine and a mismatch for what theyre trying to do…especially in those days. A V6 would work out much better for a car. In general, a V6 absolutely sucks in a 4×4.
> If you take a SBC that’s tuned for high end hp and stick it in truck, and then do truck duty with it, you WILL notice a difference.
Naturally, I wasn’t suggesting that the exact same engine could be used in all applications; that would be silly. Of course tuning matters, including different cam profiles, possibly intake port lengths, transmission shift patterns, etc. to adjust the powerband for the application.
However, there is no reason to suggest that this engine is unsuitable for use in a pickup truck just because earlier applications included SUVs and sedans.
I don’t need to remind you that the 426 Hemi was equally at home in NASCAR competition as it was the NHRA. 🙂
That’s what I’m talking about. The 3.0 V6 VM Motori is for dressage horses. The FPT (Fiat Powertrain Technologies) 3.0 inline-4 is for workhorses.
That’s why the Ram ProMaster has the FPT engine. And Maseratis have the VM Motori engine. They all belong to the same happy Fiat family.
Dang! That cockpit (4Th photo) looks like a luxury car on a pick-up!
Welcome to the New Age of Broughams! King Ranch, Platinum, and Limited F-150s and High Country and Denali GMs are right up there too.
The featured truck isn’t even one of the higher trim levels. The top level “Laramie Long Horn” has real wood trim using reclaimed wood from fence posts or something like that, and the seat leather has laser-etched designs in it. Crazy!
Pickup trucks are pretty much the last vehicles available new where you can still get a chromed steel bumper, chrome grille and two-tone paint, at least on some models.
The interior picture, as noted, was pulled from online as I did not take a picture of the interior of the one I drove. There was a big difference between the two.
Do these need exhaust fluid to meet EPA?
Yes. All the new diesels do.
Yes, and I will expand a bit – On our V6 TDI Touareg it had a 5 gallon tank for it. With 1500 miles to go you got a warning light. Within that 1500 miles you have to fill it and the light goes out. Our talk did not get low until about around 10K mark when the dealer refilled it as part of the included maintenance. You can either buy it from the dealer (at normal dealer inflated cost) OR buy the exact same thing (it’s a standard generic formula, nothing specific to any vehicle marque) from any gas station or truckstop or even WalMart around here for around $3/ gallon. So $15 per 10,000 miles. A total non-issue.
My ’13 Beetle TDi did *not* use urea. However, I believe the next-gen TDi used in the smaller VWs will require it.
Ed S – Uhh, that’s because, as we learned a year or so after this post ran, VW cheated on their certification and emission control dignostic tests…..
Isn’t the extra torque of the diesel worth something?
The question is how much? $4500, and a dollar per gallon of fuel?
With an eight-speed transmission, torque is not as important as it once might have been. The more gears there are, the less of an output hole there is between them, even if it’s not a turbocharged engine. Ultimately, horsepower determines performance and towing ability.
I would counter (and am not arguing) that I believe the extra $4500 will be recouped at trade-in or resale time and the extra money per gallon is recouped by the extra mileage (which I realize is inexact but so is the dollar difference, in the last year it has ranged from a 15 cent difference to the current 85 cent difference in my neck of the woods).
The torque is always there and so is the extra range if one assumes that the tank size stays the same.
As an aside that’s one of my biggest beefs with regular cars that get huge mpg’s – often the tanks are so small that you are still stuck gassing up after less than 400 miles.
Again with my TDI experience… it was about a $1,000 price delta to get the TDI in my NB. When I bought it, I calculated the payback at five years based on the difference in fuel price at the time (SE USA). When I sold the car with 219,000 miles on it, I got $3,500. A comparable gasser NB showed a TMV price on Edmunds of about $1,500, so I figure I did pretty good with resale.
As for small tank sizes, my Fit has a 10 gallon tank. I’ve put 5,000 miles on it so far, which is enough to tell me it’s a “300 mile car” between fillups. That’s a hard adjustment after being used to ~600 miles between fillups in the NB and ~500 in the Beetle convertible.
If you look close its less than $4500 if compared to a Ford or Chevy. Ford and Gm raised their prices Ram stayed the same leaving almost all models about $1500.00 less for the Ram. And the way the options are priced model for model a Eco diesel ram a F150 Ecoboost and a Silverado 5.3 would all run within about 2K of each other similarly equipped. Of course this leads to the argument that you should just buy a hemi ram to tow or a penta star if you don’t and just pocket the 2-4 k.
the gear dial thing sounds a but crap, even if it had a proper gear selector I would not buy a pickup I couldn’t get a manual transmission in….or a car either for that matter…….why in the name of god is diesel $1 a gallon more than regular gasoline?
Largely due to taxes. In the US, taxes on diesel are higher than they are on gasoline.
Ummm, see my comment below. The 6 cents higher Federal tax doesn’t exactly have much impact on the $1.00 higher price of diesel, obviously. It’s market forces.
Where diesel is in high demand it has to be ‘cracked’ out of regular gas or whatever is available. the proportions of different fuels available from refined oil are pretty fixed. I believe thats the case anyhow.
I’d be happy enough with that engine but no manual transmission would be a deal killer for me…..why is diesel $1 more a gallon than regular gas?…I know the answer, taxes…..I’ll rephrase the question, why is the government discouraging clean economical diesel vehicles?………yes they do exist, european roads are full of them.
The 6 cents higher Fed tax on diesel is obviously not the reason it’s $1.00 higher, right?
Gasoline and diesel are global commodities, and global trading sets the price (pre taxes). Differences in global demand for the respective fuel is what makes the difference. Since diesel inherently has a higher energy content than gas, it makes some sense that it would be priced proportionately higher.
Refineries can’t readily change the ratio of gas to diesel they refine. So the imbalances are reflected in global prices. There’s too much gasoline in the world right now, especially in the US.
And it really does cost more to get nearly all of that smelly sulphur out during the refining process.
I was refilling my TDI from some Jerry cans last week (I use my grocery-store discount to get up to $1 off per gallon so any extra fuel up to their limit goes into Jerry cans). First I double-and triple-checked the cans first to make sure that it wasn’t gasoline as I use my cans interchangeably for both.
The new low-sulphur fuel makes it much harder to do the sniff test on it – I could barely tell from the odor that it was diesel. The second Jerry can was marked ‘diesel’ and had previously had high-sulphur fuel in it – that can still smelled strong of sulphur, even though the fuel in it was from the same fillup as in the first can that I checked.
I think your comment is disingenuous Paul, or you generally don’t follow diesel prices. The glut of gasoline on the market is surely part of the reason though.
Historically, diesel in the US has been close in price to that of premium gas, but diesel tends to not fluctuate (up or down) as quickly as gas. Based on what I saw at the eia.gov website, if you go back as recently as September that relationship was still true. Since September there has been about a 50c/gal drop in gas price, while diesel has fallen about 15c/gal, thus making the current disparity an anomaly. Diesel prices are just falling much more slowly than gas. The present difference isn’t as high as you are stating either. According to them, diesel is closer to 70-80 cents higher than regular gas presently, not a dollar.
Last time my dad filled his truck on a day trip to the US, he said the diesel was $1.05/L after conversion to Canadian. (If his math was correct, and my reverse math is correct, he filled up at $3.50/gal US.) At about the same time, I filled my truck at the discount station near me for $1.11/L, which is as close to parity as I’ve ever seen the price of diesel between Ontario and NY. Most of the stations in my area were charging $1.18/L. They’re now up around $1.20/L. At current exchange rates, $1.20/L Canadian is almost exactly $4/gal US. So you can complain about the price of diesel all you want, it still sounds cheap from up here. I’m sure the Europeans would chime-in that we both have it easy though. 🙂
What’s disingenuous? I’ve repeatedly said that fuel prices are global commodities, and the price reflects supply and demand. And currently, there’s a rather major difference in those factors for gas as there is for diesel. And of course, that’s subject to change, as it has many times before.
Just don’t bring up taxes (in the US) as a real factor. It’s not.
OK I concede the point on fuel taxes. The tax difference used to be a larger factor when prices were lower, but it’s only a minor piece of the pie now.
It’s fair to complain that diesel is priced the same as premium gasoline, recently about 30c/gal more than regular gas. It’s not fair to say that diesel is $1 more than regular gasoline. The current disparity is an anomaly. That’s what I felt was disingenuous. Diesel prices are trending downwards, following gas prices. The price difference will correct itself.
I thought part of the recent jump in diesel prices was the extra treatment necessary to become low sulfur fuel? At least that’s what I heard when it was being introduced to the trucking community…
As much as I hate to be pessimistic, I don’t see diesel prices falling to below gasoline prices anytime soon.
Geozinger: Yes, diesel prices increased when refiners had to remove the sulphur, but that transition happened back around 2006-07. The cost is now factored into the price of diesel and should not contribute to price fluctuations.
Jason: I don’t see where anybody here said that US diesel prices would fall below gasoline prices. Where did you get that from?
To throw a little fuel on the fire, there do seem to be some changes going on in the world markets as the U.S. has managed to become almost independent as far as oil is concerned. There are laws on the books that prohibit the export of American oil that I believe have been around since the 1970s.
The roller coaster ride we’ve experienced with world markets has seemingly slowed, despite the fever pitch of unrest in the Middle East. From a fuel cost standpoint, it has been unheard of for the U.S. to see the Middle East in high crisis mode and fuel prices DROPPING for the last 50 years.
Unfortunately, some folks want us to start exporting oil again when we can.
The threat of the US exporting oil is one of the reasons that the Saudis are waging a war of attrition on oil prices. They’re keeping the price low to maintain their market share while bleeding the fracking and oilsands companies cash reserves dry.
The reality is that gas and diesel prices are both have seasonal price swings and gas tends to follow the price of crude quicker than diesel does, at least when prices are falling.
The peak seasons are essentially 180 degrees from each other. Gas prices peak in the summer when people are taking road trips, using their boats, power equipment ect. Diesel on the other had has its price peak in the winter when truck shipments rise and people buy home heating oil which is essentially the same thing.
So you really need to take a look at the overall average price difference over an entire year if you want to get a more realistic picture.
A friend of mine who had a TDI Jetta and his wife has a gas powered Suburban tracked the price he pays for both fuels religiously. He found that over the course of the year diesel in our area runs about 14% more. Of course that will vary depending on your particular area since demand, and taxes do vary from locality to locality. The $1 per gallon difference quoted here is an anomaly that will likely be short lived.
On the other hand since the price of both are based on supply and demand and currently demand for diesel vehicles is rising so chances are that the average price spread will increase rather than decrease.
If that engine is as reliable as the Fiat supplied diesel in the Jeep Liberty then I would run away. Far far away. The Liberty diesel seems to be a monumental failure in that department.
I thought that the big problem with the Liberty diesel wasn’t the engines themselves but the transmissions. The torque converter lockup wasn’t beefy enough to handle the torque pulses from the engine and would slip and fail. The response from Chrysler was to replace the torque converter with an identical under-rated one, but reprogram the ECU to change the shift points so the engine revved higher before locking up the torque converter. The result was that everyone that went in for the recall complained that their fuel mileage dropped substantially afterwards.
Yeah I looked hard at the liberty diesel. They had EGR and torque converter issues other than that they seemed to be pretty reliable. They bring a good 2-4k more than a gasser on the used market so they can’t be that bad.
Agreed. I had a brand new Liberty Diesel (CRD) for about a year. I was actually pretty impressed with the VM Motori engine. The transmission always felt like it could not deal with the torque output of the engine and was just not going to last. It contributed to my getting of the vehicle after only a year. My suspicions were apparently justified by these torque converter issues.
Leave it to American car makers to offer good diesel engines, but crappy transmissions that weren’t made to withstand the power and torque that came from that engine. What’s next?
My neighbor is the plant manager at an oil refinery. He said diesel and jet fuel are special products, to a large extent the market doesn’t apply to them.
When gas was up at $3.50, the diesels made sense, even with the initial purchase price hit. It’s the absolutely killer resale on most diesels that make it a winner. Now with the gas a dollar cheaper, it’s a lot harder to justify the extra money up front as well as the higher maintenance costs…
Regardless of MPG or other considerations – it’s still a Dodge, now owned by Fiat, and as such would not be considered for purchase by me. Ever.
I had my Ram almost five years, and it had one single issue in the entire time I owned it, and it was fixed under warranty at 7K. The factory that made the rear differential, NOT Dodge, left a clip out of the rear end, and it ate itself. I traded it in after I became disabled in 2008, with about 65K miles on it. I loved it, and had no intention of getting rid of it. One of the employees at the dealership bought it, and I pass by it almost daily. I know a lot of people with Rams ranging from 2004 to brand new, and they are all very happy with them. I would take a Ram over a GM pickup, anytime. Probably over an F150 too, but it would be a more difficult choice.
Is there even one pickup left on the US market with an available manual transmission?
–Ram HD, only with non-HO Cummins.
–Nissan Frontier, only with certain powertrain/config combos.
–Toyota Tacoma, also only with certain powertrain/config combos, and also bound to be less available next year with the dropping of the regular cab.
–Colorado/Canyon twins will see a 5-speed next year, along with a diesel.
But even as one who prefers manuals in trucks, the newest automatics are just as good as the manuals they replace with tow-haul mode and select-shift. Automatics can also cram in more gears for better fuel economy (Ram’s 8-speed and GM/Ford’s upcoming 10-speed). And I don’t think anyone’s complaining about automatics when it comes to starting on a 5% grade with a 24,000+ lb. trailer behind…
If Jeep ever grows a pair and gives us the Wrangler based pickup that we’ve been demanding for like 15+ years, Id expect it to have one.
I feel your pain, man. I love my RumbleBee but its the first slushbox Ive ever owned. If money were no object, Id swap a manual into it in a hot second. Ive been driving manuals so long, I can always outdrive a slusher without a thought. I hear the new TF-8 is an amazing piece but I just like the feel of a clutch and a stick.
Guys who know diesels know that the EPA mileage ratings are understated for oil burners. Heavy-footed automotive journalists are averaging 24 MPG combined for the 1500 Eco Diesel. A more normal driver would get say 25 beating the EPA combined by about 2 MPG.
I think you have to compare that mileage to the Hemi which would be, what, maybe 18 combined? Isn’t the V6 21 combined from the article?
You have to do your payback calculations on 18 vs. 25 MPG. Obviously if you don’t drive much there won’t be a financial payback. if you drive a lot it will be there as you are doing mostly highway mileage where the diesel kills the gas for MPG and passing power. And don’t forget that Eco Diesel is going to fetch a significant portion ($2,000?) of its initial price premium when you go to sell it on after a few years.
Truck buyers value all of that torque on top of the fuel savings. Add it all up and it’s no wonder Chrysler has taken the mix up from the planned 10% to 20% on this the third best selling vehicle in America. Those are the really huge numbers for the VM Motori diesel.
If you ever want to silence a diesel hater point out the RAM 1500. A huge success even when fuel is relatively cheap. Mazda will be the first to show that diesels beat HEVs as green powerplants for cars. If they do the 1.5 Turbo Diesel on the Mazda 2 and CX-3 get ready for a green champion young buyers can call their own.
Let me fix that first line to make it accurate: Guys who love diesels know that the EPA mileage ratings are understated for oil burners.
Here’s the reality: guys who love diesels (and hybrids) always seem to get better real world mileage than the EPA or long-term objective tests. Like the 22 mpg the 20,000 mile Edmunds tester got with his Diesel 1500 Ram. Forget about 25 mpg; sure it’s possible, but it’s not a realistic normal-driving average.
I didn’t have time to check (long day) but recall that Alex Dykes got 24 combined when he had the truck. He was one of the first to test it and go out on a limb liking it. I think he is a great reviewer.
Here is the relevant quote. You were close on the overall:
“The small diesel and tall final gear allowed the 5,800lb pickup truck to average an impressive 24.2 MPG during my week with the truck which included out towing, hauling and 0-60 tests. On the open highway it had no trouble averaging 29 MPG at 70 MPH.”
It was a 2014 Ram EcoDiesel CrewCab 4×4.
Thanks for that Jim. A normal RAM 1500 buyer probably wouldn’t be doing 0-60 runs and as much towing which would kick Alex’s 24.2 combined up to 25 like I said, maybe even 25.5.
On the Edmunds vehicle if the combined MPG is from one driver (or their regular test team) that’s one thing but if it’s from several different people, many in it for the first time, I would expect harder driving overall than what Alex did.
If you look at Fuelly.com the eco diesel are running just under 24MPG average which is over the combined EPA mileage by a bit. Compared to all the other half tons which seem to run quite a bit under the EPA on the same site. The Eco boost engines in particular seem to be built to only have good efficiency on the EPA test and no where else. Still with the cost difference in the fuel it still doesn’t make much sense, if that were to go away or change to say 20 cents a gallon the payoff would be there.
I don’t think the diesel will kill gassers in power or mileage. Here are the specs:
Ford EcoBoost 2.7: 325 HP, 375 ft-lbs
Ford EcoBoost 3.5: 365 HP, 425 ft-lbs
Ram EcoDiesel 3.0: 240 HP, 420 ft-lbs
Mileage:
EcoBoost 2.7: 19/26/22
EcoDiesel 3.0: 20/28/23
The diesel’s biggest advantages appear to be mileage while towing and resale. Resale is something I had not considered until it was mentioned here. Power does not appear to be an advantage, and cost per mile is certainly not one, at least not at today’s gas/diesel prices.
Those are good figures. That’s what I’ve always liked about diesel engines, relative fuel economy, low end torque, and durability. Those look like good reasons to buy a diesel powered car or truck. I believe that whether people need diesel engines or want diesel engines, they should be allowed to buy it. 🙂
I’m curious how the little ECOboost plays out. The performance is amazing given the displacement but early reports in the media show real world mileage may be more like 18mpg combined. If thats the case I think it looses some if not all of it’s appeal (that mileage is very close to what a 5.0L coyote F150 can pull)
Minor, nitpicky observation, Jason: This Ram is a Quadcab, not a Crewcab. You don’t have a straight on side view but it appears the front doors are noticeably longer than the rears and it has a full 6.5 ft bed. Its the equivalent of a ford supercab or the chevMC equivalent. The Crew would have rear doors roughly equal in size and a 5’7″ shortie bed. It can be tough to tell at first though. And if you look at all Dodge quadcabs from ’02 to I believe ’08, the cab proportion falls right between the two that are offered now. FWIW, I cant stand the proportions of an extended cab with a full length 6.5 or longer bed. It looks like a limosine. The crewcabs tend to balance that out a bit.
You’re right in your observations, but I would add that 1. As of 2014, Ram 1500 crew cabs are available with a 6.5′ bed, just like Chevy/GMCs since ’14 and Ford since ’06 (although this one is definitely a Quad like you said), and 2. the ’02-’08 Quad Cabs are a little closer to the current Quads in proportions rather than falling “right between” the current Quads and Crews. (The overall dimensions are very similar between the previous- and current-gen Rams.)
3. I dislike that Dodge has called theirs Quad Cabs, since it only adds another level of confusion for misinformed consumers and dealers alike.
4. A crew cab/6.5′ box looks best because it’s got a “square” bed (roughly the same distance in front and behind the wheel well) and a “square” cab (front and rear doors are roughly the same size). But I always prefer an extended cab/8′ bed because of its increased utility (1.5′ more bed space and usually only 1′ less legroom that’s rarely used anyway) and because of its rarity (Ford and Toyota are the only ones left who make an extended cab/8′ bed half-ton, and I could see Toyota discontinuing the model in the next few years).
Good observation on the crew vs quad cab. Having an ’07 F-150 with four doors could have tainted my verbiage.
On that topic, have you seen that the ’09+ SuperCrews are not only six inches longer, but have a completely flat floor? It’s like sitting in the back seat of a stretched Toronado!
I have ridden in a few of them and, yes, the floor is delightfully flat. My ’07 is quite blessed with room, but nothing like the ’09 and up models.
My cup of tea? No and yes.
No – because sizewise I just couldn’t justify something that big unless I was regularly using the tray or towing large loads. Or compensating for deficiencies in the manhood department haha 😉 I mean, I like the exterior styling, and the interior is the best of the full-size Chev/Ford/Ram pickups, but seriously what a huge waste of resources it is. (Says the single guy who has two cars and just sold his third car lol).
Yes – because of the drivetrain. I’ve been driving diesel trucks/vans/cars for 20 years. In New Zealand at least, diesel is considerably cheaper than petrol. Yes diesel vehicles here get slapped with a per-kilometre RUC (Road User Charge), but even taking that into account a diesel is generally far cheaper to run than a petrol. The diesel Nissan Laurels I’ve had have been hugely more economical than the petrol Laurels (although down on power, obviously). And that’s talking about the old-tech diesels; the latest direct-injection models compare even better with equivalent-size petrols. So if I did need a large pickup for any reason, petrol wouldn’t even be on my radar, so for that reason this Ram is definitely my cup of tea.
Fun fact – I suspect this is the same engine that’s been available in our New Zealand-new Chrysler 300 and Jeep Cherokee for several years. If it is, it’s got a great reputation.
VM makes the engines for the current LTI TX4 (London taxi) and they were initially a disaster in terms of durability. Not sure if that’s been solved or not.
FCA has claimed they were expecting 10% take rate but so far its been much higher a number quoted by Allpar recently was 20% of 1/2 ton rams have been eco diesel since the intro. I have just started seeing them here in the northeast but were not really truck country.
I’ll be curious to see how they perform when the temperature drops into the -20 or lower range. I know today’s diesels are a lot better than they used to be, but they still seem to be prone to starting and gelling issues when it gets really cold.