backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by protosv.. on Aug 28 at 5:11 AM

The Ram 1500 gets a much needed heart transplant

Ford isn't the only company that can dish out full-size pickups with relatively decent fuel economy these days. Ford made headlines two year ago (and saw sales of V6 engines skyrocket) when it introduced an all-new 3.7-liter V6 engine and 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 for its best-selling F-150.
 
Not one to let Ford sit around and bask in the media and sales spotlight, Chrysler is giving its 2013 Ram 1500 a heart transplant as well. In this case, instead of the tired old 3.7-liter V6 that has soldiered on as the base engine in the Ram 1500 for far too long, it has been replaced by Chrysler's corporate V6: the 3.6-liter Pentastar.
 
Whereas the old 3.7-liter engine produced 215hp and 235 lb-ft of torque, the Pentastar V6 blows those numbers out of the water with 305hp and 269 lb-ft of torque. For comparison, Ford's based 3.7-liter V6 engine in the F-150 generates 300hp and 275 lb-ft of torque.


3.6-liter Pentastar V6
 
Despite the massive increase in power and torque, fuel economy has also gone up significantly with the new Pentastar V6. Fuel economy numbers increase from 14/20 (city/highway) with the old 3.7 to 18/25 with the new 3.6 in 4x2 trim (these figures are also ahead of the 3.7-liter V6 in the Ford F-150 which is rated at 17/23).
 
It also helps that the '13 Ram 1500 makes use of a new 8-speed automatic transmission to help boost fuel efficiency.
 
Even though the V6 doesn't have as much "grunt" as the Hemi V8 option, Inside Line says that the Ram 1500's new base engine is enough to propel the pickup to 60 mph in just 7.5 seconds.


2013 Dodge Ram 1500
 
All of this newfangled technology doesn't come for free, however. The '13 Ram 1500 with the Pentastar V6 and 8-speed automatic transmission starts at $23,585 compared to $22,420 for the '12 Ram 1500 with the 3.7-liter V6 and 4-speed automatic transmission.
 
With both Ford and Chrysler stepping up to the plate with power and efficiency for the full-size pickups, all eyes should now be on General Motors and its Silverado 1500/Sierra 1500.

Sources: Chrysler, Inside Line



Comments     Threshold


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

By BZDTemp on 8/24/2012 11:24:51 AM , Rating: 3
Only a tiny fraction the buyers really need something like that and the ones that does would be better served with something more professional and less bling.




By ebakke on 8/24/2012 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 1
I'll let buyers decide what they "really need".


By RufusM on 8/24/2012 11:59:32 AM , Rating: 1
Buyer Guy: This new bling truck would be great!
Guy with gun: Only Gestapo knows what needs are. You not need zee bling truck.
Guy with gun: [Shoots Buyer Guy in the face.]


By Etsp on 8/24/2012 11:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
Taking what seriously? The market? Or the Environment? The two concerns aren't mutually exclusive, but they don't match up anywhere near 100%

So what if only a fraction of consumers need a pickup truck? Many want it anyway. That's their decision, and they'll buy these trucks.


By Spuke on 8/24/2012 11:58:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Only a tiny fraction the buyers really need something like that and the ones that does would be better served with something more professional and less bling.
The Ram 1500 is Chrysler's best selling vehicle and typically occupies the top ten sellers in the US. Hardly a niche vehicle and WELL deserving of their dollars and attention. Also, in case you weren't paying attention (I'm positive you haven't), the Ford F-series has been the number one seller for 30 years straight.


By BZDTemp on 8/24/2012 2:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
That trucks are selling big time to people that should drive proper cars instead isn't making it all right. Just because lots of people do something doesn't make it a good choice.


By Ringold on 8/26/2012 12:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
Most people never need anything with more oomph than a AMD E350 APU. It can do most everything anyone would want it to, albeit slowly in some cases.

Therefore, you want to rant about how people shouldn't by ridiculously over-powered, energy-sucking i5 and i7 based systems? Much less, holy cow, discrete GPUs?

I'm libertarian, so get annoyed at any sort of talk like that, because if individuals cede the right to have unlimited discretion on one product they risk yielding the power to regulate all other markets. So, you drive your Nissan Leaf, and if I want an F350 and its associated fuel costs, I'll drive that, and we both mind each others business, hm?

All the arguments for forcing smaller vehicles on people can translate to computers. Higher energy consumption contributes to more stressed energy grids, extra coaled burned, more mercury therefore being released.. etc. Maybe next to CAFE, we should cap PSU's by 2025 and 600 watts with 80+ Platinum certification? No SLI for you, energy-hog gamers!

For the record, I drive a relatively small car, but I don't begrudge other peoples ability to buy larger vehicles if it makes 'em happy. I also think regulating PSU's would be insane, but making an exact comparison case in a market we all know and like (presumably) is the only way to get the idea across.


By protosv on 8/28/2012 5:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Completely agree, but the problem is when people make the choice to buy a pickup they don't need instead of something more fuel efficient, and then whine and complain when gas goes up to $5.00/gallon. If someone makes a choice, that's fine and it's their choice to make, but they also have to deal with the consequences of that choice. I worry that many people won't take responsibility.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2012 1:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That trucks are selling big time to people that should drive proper cars instead isn't making it all right.


God, is that you?

Seriously though, who are you to decide what people "should" be buying?

Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer!


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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