backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by coburn_c.. on Feb 7 at 12:12 AM

2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is rated at 23 mpg combined

When it comes to full-size pickups, Ford has been grabbing the lion’s share of the attention in recent month. Leading up its official unveil at the Detroit Auto Show, everyone was abuzz about the use of aluminum in the 2015 Ford F-150. And when the sheets were finally lifted, we were greeted with a truck whose body contained 95 percent aluminum.
 
The 700-pound weight reduction -- thanks to the use of high-strength aluminum -- was used to show that the F-150 would once again feature class-leading fuel economy (although the official EPA numbers are not yet available).
 
Chrysler is obviously tired of hearing about the F-150 and wants to put some of the spotlight back on its own hot-selling pickup: the Ram 1500. In this case, the company is proud to announce that its Ram 1500 EcoDiesel V6 (240hp, 420 lb-ft torque, 9,200-pound towing capacity) is rated for 28 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg combined (the company neglected to provide city numbers).


Ram 1500 EcoDiesel
 
Naturally, Chrysler tried to dig the knife into Ford a little deeper by calling out the F-150. “To put the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel in context, it gets 6 mpg better fuel economy than the best F150 EcoBoost,” said Reid Bigland, President and CEO Ram Truck Brand. “Overall, the Ram 1500 Eco-Diesel has outstanding pick-up truck capability with compact-car-like fuel economy.”
 
The company even used its press release to bring attention to Ford’s extensive use of aluminum in the 2015 Ford F-150, clearly reaching out to a segment of the population that is not too keen on the use of the lightweight material. The press release talks about the “Thoughtful material-use strategies that leverage lightweight aluminum for components – such as hoods – that do not compromise capability.”

 
However, for those looking to “get their diesel on” with the Ram 1500, the price of entry definitely isn’t cheap. The 2014 Ram 1500 with a 3.6-liter V6 gasoline engine has a starting price of $24,400 (plus $1,195 destination fee) and the EcoDiesel engine option represents a $2,850 premium over the already optional 5.7-liter HEMI V8.
 
And that also doesn’t take into account the 10 to 15 percent (or higher) price premium for diesel over regular unleaded gasoline throughout much of the United States.

Source: Chrysler



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By coburn_c on 2/4/2014 7:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
Now they just need to slip that diesel into the Town & Country and Durango. Also need a turbo charged Pentastar.




RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/4/2014 7:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
It makes perfect sense in the Durango. I mean, its platform mate (the Grand Cherokee) already has it.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By Lord 666 on 2/4/2014 7:59:12 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget the Wrangler!


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/4/2014 8:00:49 PM , Rating: 2


quote:
C/D: The Wrangler community is bracing itself for some big changes with the next one, including an independent suspension and a diesel engine. Would you agree that their expectations are legitimate?

MM : What I would say to them is that Wrangler and what it stands for is very important to the brand. Obviously what we need to do with next-generation Wrangler is drive its fuel economy in the right direction, some of which will include weight, some of that will include new technology, but it has to be a Wrangler, which means it has to be capable. To some extent, a Wrangler is a canvas, and many of our customers like to customize their Wrangler, and we recognize that in the next generation that still has to be a very simple thing for them to do. In terms of diesel, that’s something we’re looking at, because I think diesel is, potentially, a powertrain solution for Wrangler .


http://blog.caranddriver.com/jeep-ceo-talks-wrangl...


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By JediJeb on 2/5/2014 5:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel yes, independent suspension no.

Independent suspension in an offroad vehicle is not a good idea, it really reduces the flex of the suspension to keep all four wheels on the ground over large obstacles. Just look at all the talk comparing the original XJ Cherokee to the new Cherokee, the new one is no where near as capable offroad as the old ones are.


By coburn_c on 2/4/2014 8:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Town & Country weighs as much as a 1500 and currently only musters 20mpg combined.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By FITCamaro on 2/5/2014 7:41:56 AM , Rating: 3
Why would you need a diesel van with that big an engine? A diesel 4 banger with 150 or so hp and 250ish lb ft of torque sure.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By coburn_c on 2/5/2014 8:36:39 AM , Rating: 3
4700lbs and 150hp? I don't want to merge onto the freeway in that.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By clarkn0va on 2/5/2014 11:43:35 AM , Rating: 3
My V230TD has 98 hp and 170 lb-ft of torque, weighs over 5000 lbs loaded and merges just fine, thanks.

When I'm feeling sporty I jump in the Impreza, but for practical driving a little bit of skill goes a long way in making up for a lack of grunt. I'm quite happy not paying the extra 50% for fuel 100% of the time just for the luxury of being lazy during the odd moment of challenging driving.


By coburn_c on 2/5/2014 4:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
We wouldn't tolerate that in America, where I'm sure that vehicle never sold.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By JediJeb on 2/5/2014 5:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
The quickness of the torque will make up for any lack of HP.

Just think of a semi with 400HP and 80,000 pounds. If acceleration is proportional to HP then those things should never be able to merge into traffic, yet some come off the onramps faster than most cars.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2014 6:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If acceleration is proportional to HP then those things should never be able to merge into traffic,


Gearing. Lots and LOTS of gears.

Semi trucks have lots of torque though, yes. A 98 horsepower passenger van? Not so much.


By flatrock on 2/6/2014 10:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well Chrysler has introduced an 8 and 9 speed transmission which makes better use of their engines capabilities. I don't know if they are pairing those with the diesels yet.


RE: Spread the Fiat Diesel around
By Alexvrb on 2/6/2014 12:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it would have lots of torque but... I still agree. I think that's a bit low for this kind of vehicle. For example, the 2.0L diesel in the Cruze generates 151HP and 264 ft-lbs, which is fine for the weight, but something like that wouldn't cut it for the heavy minivans.

But there's no reason you couldn't use a larger displacement 4-cylinder diesel, and generate ~170-180HP and 330-350 ft-lbs of torque. That would be adequate, and a lot cheaper (and more efficient) than it's V6 diesel big brother.


By flatrock on 2/6/2014 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
A family that wants to pull a camper comes to mind.

Minivans are great, if ugly, people haulers, but they fill up quickly for families with kids, especially if there is an infant among them.


Lets compare apples to apples
By inperfectdarkness on 2/5/2014 6:18:01 AM , Rating: 5
Ram 1500 EcoDiesel V6 - 3.6L - 240hp, 420 lb-ft torque, 9,200-pound towing capacity) is rated for 28 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg combined

Ford F150 Ecoboost V6 - 3.5L - 365 hp, 420 lb·ft torque, 11,300-pound towing capacity. Economy numbers vary, but combined is listed as at or above 23mpg.

So for less money (~2,000 less, as configured) and with 125hp more, the 12th Gen F150 with ecoboost 3.5L V6 is still a clear winner. Chrysler can go pound sand.




RE: Lets compare apples to apples
By marvdmartian on 2/5/2014 7:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
Plus, that's just the initial cost comparison. Let's see a 5 year or 10 year cost of ownership, with higher diesel fuel costs and maintenance included. Anyone can say, "My vehicle has better numbers" (out of the factory), but how long, or how many miles will it take to recoup the higher costs of a diesel?

Shoot, all Ford really has to do is say, "Let's not forget about Dodge Ram long-term quality!", with a smirk on their face.


RE: Lets compare apples to apples
By JediJeb on 2/5/2014 5:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
I have never figured why everyone talks about higher cost of maintenance for diesels. At least as far at most truck diesels go there is less overall. Of course there were those first GM 6.2L ones where they just stuck diesel injectors in a 350CID gas engine, but with any real diesel engine like the Cummins or even the later Navistar ones it really wasn't an issue. Ford did have a few problems with the first Navistar engines they used which were V8, though the I6 ones used in larger trucks never had problems.

The only headache now for diesels is the EPA requiring the urea for emissions.


By superstition on 2/5/2014 7:04:34 PM , Rating: 3
I know this will be rated down, because of the virulent urea hate, but urea really hardly qualifies as a headache. It's a minor inconvenience at best.


RE: Lets compare apples to apples
By FITCamaro on 2/5/2014 7:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
The 2014 Ford 150 Ecoboost V6 is rated at 17/23. Not a combined 23.


By FITCamaro on 2/5/2014 7:48:05 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I'm sorry its rated at 16/22, 18 combined in 4x2 configuration. 1 mpg less all around in 4x4.

It's the standard V6 that's rated at 17/23.


By FITCamaro on 2/5/2014 7:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
And for pricing. The cheapest MSRP on a F150 with the Ecoboost engine is $26840. Going off 2014 pricing on the Dodge, it'd be $28080 for the diesel. Assuming you can get the diesel on the base model truck.

A roughly $1200 difference wouldn't be that bad considering the 6 mpg better fuel economy on the highway.


By coburn_c on 2/5/2014 8:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
That Fiat diesel is 3.0L, the Pentastar gasoline engine is 3.6L. I didn't read the rest of what you typed, but I can only imagine how incorrect it is.


Doesn't pay...
By bah12 on 2/5/2014 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 3
Ok so it is a $2800 option for 3 MPG best case. Hemi is 15/22 diesel is 18/25. So that is $2800 for the privilege of getting 3 MPG more and paying ~$.60/gallon more.

So for every 100,000 miles you rive at current rates $3.30 for gas, $3.90 for diesel. You'll end up paying $14,999.98 for gas and $15,600 for diesel. So not only will you never recoup your initial $2800 you will lose an extra $600 or so every 100K.

In no way would this payoff on economy alone. And please don't throw out the tired old rant about how you are going to get 50MPG just because it is diesel. Apples to Apples only please EPA vs EPA, real world vs EPA isn't in anyway valid.




RE: Doesn't pay...
By bah12 on 2/5/2014 11:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure where Dodge or this article is getting 28MPG btw, according to Ram's site it is 18/25.

http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/performance/2013/


RE: Doesn't pay...
By flatrock on 2/6/2014 10:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
The link points to 2013 model year. The article is comparing 2015 year models that aren't available yet.

With the EPA requirements as they have been set I would expect slight jumps in economy every couple years, likely with corresponding jumps in sticker price that negate most if not all of the cost advantages and may cost more than they save in fuel.

The EPA requirements are speeding up fuel economy advances, but such advances won't come cheap and we have already seen some costly stumbles such as Ford's Ecoboost recall and Chrysler's delay of the Cherokee with the 9 speed transmission.


RE: Doesn't pay...
By bah12 on 2/5/2014 11:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure where Dodge or this article is getting 28MPG btw, according to Ram's site it is 18/25.

http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/performance/2013/


RE: Doesn't pay...
By Spuke on 2/5/2014 12:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
The diesel isn't a 2013 model.


RE: Doesn't pay...
By acer905 on 2/5/2014 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing against the wrong engine. Those are the 3.6L Pentastar V6 gas engine numbers listed on their site, not the 3L diesel.

Run your numbers again with the 28mpg


RE: Doesn't pay...
By bah12 on 2/5/2014 12:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
Aww thanks, that does make it a winner. $15,000 gas vs $13,930 diesel per 100K. So I stand corrected it does pay back at about 260K miles. Still a tough pill to swallow.


RE: Doesn't pay...
By Spuke on 2/5/2014 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I stand corrected it does pay back at about 260K miles.
Given how many miles we driver per year and how long people keep their new car, your average person will not see a payback on this truck.

71.4 months for new cars (49.9 months for used cars...57 months total)
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/average...

13,476 miles driven per year
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm


RE: Doesn't pay...
By JediJeb on 2/5/2014 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow I am so not average lol.

Owned my current truck since 1996

But one thing to consider, most truck owners hang on to their trucks longer than car owners hold on to their cars.


When I look around job sites
By SAN-Man on 2/4/2014 6:43:18 PM , Rating: 1
I see Ford blue, and have for 100 years. I typically don't see Dodge. Take that for what it's worth.

28 MPG (highway) is very good for a large vehicle, and I applaud Dodge for it's efforts - I hope Ford will follow suit as the F150 is a vastly better truck, and always has been.




RE: When I look around job sites
By Reflex on 2/4/2014 6:58:19 PM , Rating: 6
Wow, we don't get many people who are over a century old on this site. Welcome to DT old friend!


RE: When I look around job sites
By spamreader1 on 2/5/2014 9:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
And he's still out on job sites too. Oh my.


RE: When I look around job sites
By Dorkyman on 2/5/2014 3:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
...and he saw only Ford trucks in 1914. The start of WWI was just around the corner.

Wonder what kind of Eco engine was in that 1914 Ford truck?


Stupid apples to oranges comparison
By Philippine Mango on 2/5/2014 3:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
All dodge does is compare the current iteration of F150s with the NON aluminum body and not with the future Aluminum body F150. The article basically is just bragging about the Dodge truck when there is no comparison to be had since we don't know the F150 fuel economy numbers.




RE: Stupid apples to oranges comparison
By flyingpants1 on 2/5/2014 9:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
So they're comparing two currently-available steel models, and you think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison? Are you serious?

An aluminium-body Dodge EcoDiesel would get even better numbers.


RE: Stupid apples to oranges comparison
By Creig on 2/5/2014 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So they're comparing two currently-available steel models, and you think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison? Are you serious?


Of course it's apples-to-oranges. Dodge will have just ONE year to compare their EcoDiesel Ram 1500 to a steel bodied EcoBoost F150. After that, it's nothing but aluminum-bodied F150s.

quote:
An aluminium-body Dodge EcoDiesel would get even better numbers.

I'm sure it would. Except that none exist or are even planned to exist.


By flatrock on 2/6/2014 11:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the cost will be for the aluminum frame F150, not to mention the repair costs and the repair issues. Aluminum isn't quite as easy to work with as steel, so there will be costs but I don't know how significant they will be.


...
By CBRworm on 2/5/2014 7:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is great that these trucks are heading this direction - all the manufacturers. I would pay a price premium to have my truck loose 700 pounds of weight above the frame. I would also pay extra to have a diesel that can get high 20's on the highway. My truck can't tow 10,000 pounds, has less than 300HP and less than 400lb/ft of torque and gets 16mpg on the highway with a tailwind.

So now you can buy a faster, lighter truck that can still tow my trailer and gets better gas mileage.




RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 2/5/2014 7:58:26 AM , Rating: 3
I'd like to see "small" trucks like the Colorado with a diesel (coming in 2016 apparently) that get low 20s in the city and 30+ on the highway.


Some kind of numbers inflation going on?
By ssj3gohan on 2/6/2014 5:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not really familiar with car metrics and I am from Europe, but there seems to be some kind of ridiculous number inflation going on here. You seem to have extremely high horsepower numbers, incredibly low MPG numbers and very high weight for cars that don't really perform well at all. E.g. a middle-of-the-road european car would be 2200lbs, have about 100-120hp, have great acceleration, climbing ability and be able to tow 5000lbs. That would typically have about 45-50mpg. My parents' second car, a compact eco model, gets about 70mpg and weighs just over 1800lbs, but can still tow 2500lbs and climbs just fine with 68hp.

Why is anybody stoked or even mildly interested in a car like this? It's either a difference in metrics (like 2 american HP = 1 BHP and 2 american Nm = 1 metric Nm?) or something very retarded is going on here.

Is anyone actually buying these cars?




By coburn_c on 2/7/2014 12:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
America has different emissions rules, different horsepower testing standards, different mpg testing methods, different crash test standards, and a different sized gallon.


Typical Marketing BS
By B-Unit on 2/5/2014 10:48:25 AM , Rating: 3
Please, Dodge, enlighten me. Just which compact car gets ONLY 28 MPG highway? My v6 Mustang can get 31.




By chunkymonster on 2/5/2014 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
Currently have 263K mixed highway city miles on my 2005 VW Jetta TDI. I love the mileage and the torque of its little 90hp 4 banger diesel engine but lament the lack of towing capacity or even enough space to haul reasonably sized items. However, I expect to get another 3 years out of my Jetta and anticipate and easy 400K miles before I get a new vehicle.

The RAM 1500 V6 diesel is the niche I have been wanting in a pick up for YEARS! The naysayers about cost of ownership and the higher price of diesel sound like broken records. Over the total life of the RAM 1500 compared to any other gas pick ups, the RAM 1500 diesel will beat it out. I would love to see anyone put 30K mixed highway and city miles a year on an F-150 and have it last past 250K miles without dumping serious money into to keep it running. I would expect the RAM 1500 to hit 400K-500K with routine/factory maintenance and still run as strong as the day it was new.

Anecdote - My brother used to have an F-350 Super Duty with the Triton V-10. He bought it solely for the towing capacity, hauling a 35ft 5th wheel camper, and because it was gas, he did not want a diesel. However, after three years and 60K miles of hauling the camper, he was lucky if he got 10mpg and it was starting to cost him in maintenance and repairs; valve/connecting rods and injectors . And, this was with routine/required factory maintenance! He swapped it out for an F-350 with the Powerstroke diesel got an average of 13mpg hauling the same 5th wheel camper. He still own that Powestroke but got rid of the 5th wheel, it still runs great and gets 17mpg mixed mileage.

You can spin it however you want, but no one will ever convince me that a gas engine is better than a diesel when driving 30K miles per year or hauling heavy loads.




a bit of math, please
By superstition on 2/5/2014 7:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it gets 6 mpg better fuel economy than the best F150 EcoBoost

the EcoDiesel engine option represents a $2,850 premium over the already optional 5.7-liter HEMI V8

the 10 to 15 percent (or higher) price premium for diesel

Diesel averages around 15% higher in summer and up to 20% higher in winter in my area.

RUG: $3.05
D: $3.79

Last winter the spread was $1 at one point, although rather briefly. The lowest I saw was a very brief blip this summer where the price was the same. Apparently that was caused by refinery problems that caused a RUG shortage.

Given the price difference and the extra cost of the engine and emissions tech, what usage models make it viable -- other than driving an eco diesel car or a semi on long highway trips most of the time?




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki