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

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.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki