Ram 1500 to get Ecodiesel

[akirby]

Let's say it is a $4,500 premium for the diesel, you can't use that figure because upon selling/trade in, you will get 75%+ back on that being a diesel. Go look at NADA and KBB, price a used truck with the same type/mileage etc with a gasser and with a diesel and you will see that the diesel holds it's premium very close to what it was when brand new.

 

That depends on how long you're planning to keep it. If you're planning to keep it 10+ years then it's much less important than if you're trading in 3-5 years.

[Anthony]

That depends on how long you're planning to keep it. If you're planning to keep it 10+ years then it's much less important than if you're trading in 3-5 years.

 

If you are keeping it 10+ years, it'll probably last longer then a gasser.

[fordmantpw]

If you are keeping it 10+ years, it'll probably last longer then a gasser.

 

I bolded the key word. With the longevity of gassers today, and with all of the "stuff" on diesels, this really isn't as big of a "fact" as it used to be.

[akirby]

If you are keeping it 10+ years, it'll probably last longer then a gasser.

 

This was a much bigger deal when gas engines went Tango Uniform after 100K miles. Not the case anymore.

 

The bigger payment/up front cash outlay of $4500 outweighs the long term benefits for most buyers.

[NLPRacing]

What it really comes down to is, will the consumer want a diesel in a 1/2 ton truck? Now that Ram is offering one, we'll be able to see if they will. Chrysler is already offering this engine in a Jeep, so putting it in a Ram shouldn't be costing them too much. If they can make a profit on every one they sell, it doesn't really matter how many they do sell. I see Ford doing the same with the 3.2 Powerstroke in the 2015 F150 and maybe Expedition as well.

Edited February 15, 2013 by NLPRacing

[jpvbs]

With a half-ton, you're not looking at a significant increase in payload or towing. In both instances, the frame, not the engine, is the limiting factor.

 

And in Dodge's case in particular, unless they've decided to put leafs out back again, the diesel really is a puzzler, based on this logic:

 

The greatest advantage of a diesel over a gas engine in a truck is not the fuel economy period, but the fuel economy under load.

 

Therefore, why launch a diesel engine in a truck with significant payload/trailer limitations vs. its competitors.

 

I mean, if you're going to be towing/hauling a lot, you're probably not interested in a Dodge, yet that's the truck with the diesel.

 

My assumption is that the unladen diesel would get FE within five percent of a GTDI engine with the same transmission, so the money savings comes in under load. So why combine an engine intended for work under load with a truck that is not intended to carry heavy loads?

It doesn't take a huge trailer to cause your mpg to go south fast. I had a '09 Ram that would get about 12-13 mpg in steady state highway cruising while towing my 3000lb pop-up camper. I imagine towing a 5000lb, less aero efficient trailer would be single digits.

[jpvbs]

Fiat owns half of VM Motori so it isn't completely a third party engine. Interestingly, GM owns the other half. If this provies popular, might we see a Silverado with the same engine?

[CurtisH]

If you are keeping it 10+ years, it'll probably last longer then a gasser.

My brother usually puts 250,000 - 275,000 miles on the E-150s that he buys for his company. He has never had an engine problem. He usually sells the vans at that point to insure he doesn't start having maintenance issues. He has had a few issues crop up with the vans, but never had anything related to the engines. I don't really understand why people think longevity is an issue with the gassers.

Edited February 15, 2013 by CurtisH

[Kris Kolman]

You guys are missing a big factor in overall cost to own... Resale price! My research indicates diesels will resale ~75% of the initial cost invested into diesel, this holds for both heavy-duties and VW Golfs. Go out an look at the cost of a used SuperDuty diesel or Golf diesel compared to a gasoline version. As such the $5k initially invested is returned in $3+k price advantage when you turn in or sell back your vehicle. That doesn't say diesels are quite there... Just closer. A diesel is ~20% more fuel efficient than a normally aspirated gasoline engine of similar torque. But a gasoline turbo can cut that deficit in half. So using Denver costs diesel is ~15% more extensive, and yet only 10% more efficient than an equivalent gasoline turbo.

 

What is interesting to me is that Ram is using the VW sourced 6-cylinder diesel from the GC, not the similarly sized Fiat 4-cylinder engine in the upcoming Van. Seems to be a strange decision to use the more expensive engine with less NVH in a truck market. You would think a truck market used to the relatively noisy heavy-duty diesels wouldn't be picky about NVH.

[RichardJensen]

Well, except you're looking at half-tons, and probably, buyers who weight NVH characteristics higher than 3/4-1 ton buyers.

[jpd80]

That VM Motori V6 diesel and 8-speed auto trans built under license is an expensive combination,

you can bet Ram will be forced to pass a lot of those costs onto buyers.

 

Now compare that with GM's 4500 Duramax and Ford's 3.2 I-5T, both of these engines are

going to be much cheaper for both companies to source compared to Ram's deal,

more so the Ford I5T as it's already an amortized global engine.

 

I prefer Ford's option of making F150 significantly lighter, that goes to the matter at hand

instead of trying to find expedients that may look good on paper but fail in the real world.

Edited February 15, 2013 by jpd80

[Kris Kolman]

Well, except you're looking at half-tons, and probably, buyers who weight NVH characteristics higher than 3/4-1 ton buyers.

 

Agreed that half-ton retail buyers are more NVH sensitive, but I'm not sure it matters much to commercial buyers. I would think the diesel take rate for commercial buyers would be much higher than retail if I extend heavy-duty sales trend downward. If Ford were to go down this route I would suspect they would focus on their commercial customers first and foremost as that is their sales strength.

[jpd80]

Agreed that half-ton retail buyers are more NVH sensitive, but I'm not sure it matters much to commercial buyers. I would think the diesel take rate for commercial buyers would be much higher than retail if I extend heavy-duty sales trend downward. If Ford were to go down this route I would suspect they would focus on their commercial customers first and foremost as that is their sales strength.

The NVH on the Ranger with the 3.2 Diesel is pretty darned good, the cabin is a nice place to be

and having 350 lb ft under your right foot is very rewarding when mated to the 6R80 gearbox.

 

What we're talking about is a diesel engine with the same torque as a 5.4 2V but with fuel economy unimaginable a few years ago..

At the moment, a 3.2 Ranger RWD uses around 10% more fuel than a 2.0 Ecoboost Mondeo (Fusion)

I have a hunch that the next F150 will not be that much heavier than the T6 Ranger, maybe 600 lbs more..

Edited February 15, 2013 by jpd80

[Kris Kolman]

I've heard the same on the Ranger and the 3.2L diesel... But getting back to Dodge one has to wonder why they choose two different ~3L diesels... Seems an odd play.

 

And I'm not sold at all on the talk of an amazing weight decrease on the F150 do to a recent history of over-promising and under-delivering... But time will tell.

[jpd80]

I've heard the same on the Ranger and the 3.2L diesel... But getting back to Dodge one has to wonder why they choose two different ~3L diesels... Seems an odd play.

 

And I'm not sold at all on the talk of an amazing weight decrease on the F150 do to a recent history of over-promising and under-delivering... But time will tell.

Well something interesting I just discovered is that VM Motori is owned 50/50 by Chrysler and GM.....

Maybe big American orders for the V6 can push down prices....

[CMXNRG]

My 2 cents. The price gap in upfront costs of a diesel over gas would be less or even zero if diesel engines were the norm and not the exception in trucks and cars. Higher production rate would bring down build costs and part costs. Then we would all benefit from a lowered MPG when pulling and when we are not. I just paid a premium for a C-max Energi to lower my MPG, will I get that back on lower fuels costs maybe? Hopefully! But I've lessened my carbon foot print and bought a vehicle that has some great new technology?

 

Is Asking for a F-150 Diesel/Electric PHEV that can tow a 10,000lbs 5th wheel on the weekends and get 35MPG through the week really asking too much???? Ok maybe I'm setting the bar high but you now what they say shoot for the stars and hope for the moon.

Edited February 25, 2013 by CMXNRG

[papilgee4evaeva]

Is Asking for a F-150 Diesel/Electric PHEV that can tow a 10,000lbs 5th wheel on the weekends and get 35MPG through the week really asking to much???? Ok maybe I'm setting the bar high buy you now what they say shoot for the stars and hope for the moon.

 

Who would be able to buy it? No, really, who? Such a truck would easily crest 6 figures.

 

So right now, yes, you're asking "to" much.

[fordmantpw]

Is Asking for a F-150 Diesel/Electric PHEV that can tow a 10,000lbs 5th wheel on the weekends and get 35MPG through the week really asking too much????

 

Yes. There is no NEED for a half-ton to be able to tow 10k lbs.

 

I say half-ton max tow ratings should be around 8k.

[jpd80]

My 2 cents. The price gap in upfront costs of a diesel over gas would be less or even zero if diesel engines were the norm and not the exception in trucks and cars. Higher production rate would bring down build costs and part costs. Then we would all benefit from a lowered MPG when pulling and when we are not. I just paid a premium for a C-max Energi to lower my MPG, will I get that back on lower fuels costs maybe? Hopefully! But I've lessened my carbon foot print and bought a vehicle that has some great new technology?

Anywhere else in the world, say the word "truck" and people immediately think diesel because that's what trucks have.

Even medium amd large Utilities tend to have mostly diesel too.

Edited February 26, 2013 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I will qualify that by saying that a Ram 1500 V6 diesel with 8-speed auto should be very efficient but also carry significant premium, $4,500

I would equally expect F150 to eventually front with a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost with minimal premium $1,000 (?) and slightly less fuel economy.

 

I'll leave it to your imagination to pick which one will reach the most number of buyers and why..

 

(On Autonews, Jeep have been quoted as saying V6 diesel option will be $4,500)

Edited February 26, 2013 by jpd80

[CMXNRG]

Yes. There is no NEED for a half-ton to be able to tow 10k lbs.

 

I say half-ton max tow ratings should be around 8k.

The F-150 is already rated to tow 11,300lbs and 2000lbs payload with the Eco Boost and proper options. So as far as weight ratings go the truck is already there just a matter of proper engine and gearing options.

[fordmantpw]

The F-150 is already rated to tow 11,300lbs and 2000lbs payload with the Eco Boost and proper options. So as far as weight ratings go the truck is already there just a matter of proper engine and gearing options.

 

I know what it is rated at. The point is that we don't NEED that, so to have a truck get 35 MPG AND tow 10k is asking for too much (which is what you asked).

[Anthony]

(On Autonews, Jeep have been quoted as saying V6 diesel option will be $4,500)

 

It doesn't necessarily always work out to that.

 

You also need to get at least a Limited trim for the privilege to tick the option box for the diesel.

 

Two footnotes mitigate this cost bump... somewhat. Shuffled options packages make the mid-level Limited more approachable in general; indeed, you can't even get leather on the base Laredo trim anymore. You also get a $1,000 discount on the Limited's "Luxury" package—chock-full of features such as a power adjustable steering column, HID headlights, panoramic sunroof and ventilated seats—if you buy the diesel. That makes the diesel a more palatable $1,305 upgrade over a similarly equipped Grand Cherokee with the optional Hemi V8.

 

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/first-drive-video-2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-diesel-brings-efficiency-and-rumble.html

Edited February 26, 2013 by Intrepidatious

[92merc]

"Enjoying the torque around town yielded about 22 mpg, while more restrained highway driving showed 26-27 mpg on the trip computer. Jeep claims 30 mpg highway for the rear-wheel-drive model with a 730-mile cruising range."

 

Fraud must be going on. CR is finding low fuel mileage again. Not sure if it's been EPA rated, but 27mpg is 3mpg down from supposed 30mpg. That's a 10% loss. Someone is lying. :-)

 

If the Cherokee is going to get 30mpg, I don't see the RAM getting 30mpg. It'll be down at least 2mpg due to weight. Just my opinion based in Internet farce...

[Anthony]

"Enjoying the torque around town yielded about 22 mpg, while more restrained highway driving showed 26-27 mpg on the trip computer. Jeep claims 30 mpg highway for the rear-wheel-drive model with a 730-mile cruising range."

 

Fraud must be going on. CR is finding low fuel mileage again. Not sure if it's been EPA rated, but 27mpg is 3mpg down from supposed 30mpg. That's a 10% loss. Someone is lying. :-)

 

If the Cherokee is going to get 30mpg, I don't see the RAM getting 30mpg. It'll be down at least 2mpg due to weight. Just my opinion based in Internet farce...

 

 

Gotta read a little deeper. CR was testing a 4X4 model. So the mileage they got was not the RWD model. Impressive.

 

 

 

To get a preview of these changes, we paid to drive a Grand Cherokee Limited 4x4 diesel press car.