Discussion in 'Chrysler' started by xcel, Aug 24, 2012.
Too bad its a Chrysler. They don't sell well in Texas.
OH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wish it had the power of the Ford, but i think i could get by with just that. but then again.... wish the Cummins would get that or more so i only have to buy one truck and not have to buy a bigger truck cause the 1500 v6 can't pull enough.
I'll take a 40 mpg 2.2 l TDI please.
Funny how many CleanMPGer's get major wood from a pickup truck.
In my world , 18/25 would make me wanna slit my wrists.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: Gee, I should trade in my Prius on a pick-up truck.
Diesel Rabbit pickup anyone?.. sexxxy!
Lotta barely reformed motorheads here
and lotta former and current 1/2 owners
Huge numbers of people started buyin pickups in the 1970's
I "blame" it on the Japanese-Datsun then Toyota- mid 70's
Importing all those inexpensive to buy-good mpg-4 cyl mini pickups
They were so practical as second cars
Cheap to buy-cheap to own-and they could haul motorcycles lawn equipment furniture etc
My 4 cyl MT 1976 1986 1994 MT 4 cyl Toyotas got 24 mpg in city driving-no particular effort- but there was city interstate not pure light to light city.
This 18/25 would probably match those 4 cyl MT Toyotas- BUT much more utility- safer- more comfortable
I would be willing to bet that Wayne-when he started this site-7 or so years ago??
NEVER would have guessed there would be a 25mpg EPA 1/2 ton
GASOLINE AT 300 hp pickup!!
These were the sort of numbers Ford and GM were hoping for with those smaller "pickup" diesels they cancelled after 2008 crash
And these numbers from a gasoline engine-are probably why they cancelled those diesels.
Why bother with an expensive finicky diesels on PRICE sensitive 1/2 tons?
Ford did it with a 3.5 twin turbo gasoline motor
Dodge has produced a slightly less capable-towing- vehicle- but one that probably is better than the 3.5 Ford for all but .1% of the miles these vehicles travel
300 hp and gearing-could tow a heck of a lot-and with 8 speed AT- it has the gearing!
No it can't effortlessly tow like the 370 hp 400 LB FT Ford- but it could tow plenty if required-just downshift!
GM is in trouble-Ford not so much since the 3.7 V-6 gets fairly close to this Dodge-and it is probably cheaper
GM has no answer to this-yet.
PS Dodges don't sell in TX- mainly Ford Chevy/GM ??
I seem to remember seeing plenty of Dodges- but yeah far more Fords-and plenty of GMs/Chevys
Suspect Dodge will sell plenty of these in TX!!
Edwin and Harry, for those the need them, the option is now much easier to tolerate. Was a truck involved in bthe framing of your house when it was nothing more than a dirt lot with a hole in the ground? Plumbing it? What kind of vehicles haul the landscape trailers and plow the local grocery store parking lots? Many sites have light off-road destinations (protected nuclear plant facilities, coal plant yards, cell phone towers, oil and gas rigs...). You cannot rely on a car to take on those duties.
All in 25 mpgUS highway from a full sized pickup is Tacoma territory as that compact Toyota PU is only rated at 21/25 at its best.
There was talk about what GM was going to do. Soup up the V8, and sell it as the most powerful truck in North America. Screw the mileage. There are enough folks that will buy it simply because its the most powerful. What's Toyota going to do? Now that Dodge is making a full size truck that can compete with their smaller offerings?
Hi 08 Escape Hybrid:
Not sure what Toyota is going to do as their Tundra is looking geriatric with the Ford and new RAM out now? Tacoma needs a major rework too...
I was looking over the individual press kit items and have put together a preliminary RPM@60 mph number of just 1,368 RPMs.
This is based off the 8-speed AT’s .67 8th gear, final of 3.21 and P265/70R17 tires at 31.7 in diameter.
By comparison, the 3.5L EcoBoost equipped F-150 with the 3.15 rear end and 18 in wheels runs just 1,266 to 1,290 RPM at 60 mph depending on which 17 or 18” wheel you have installed. The 3.7L with the 3.55 rear end and its std. P255/65R17” tires runs at a much higher 1,647 RPM.
I am thinking the 18/22 mpgUS city/highway rating for the 3.5L EcoBoost was based on a much shorter 3.55, 3.73 or 4.10 final vs. the available tall 3.15 or 3.31?
Regarding passenger volume, the RAM 1500 Quad Cab provides 116.6 cu. ft. while the monster sized Crew Cab offers a whopping 125.3 cu. ft.
I still love the looks of the Tundras but they gotta get that MPG up there. maybe they are working on something.... Tundra Hybrid? hmmm... interesting...
If you're right and the manufacturer gets to pick the configuration that EPA tests, then it sounds like Ford needs to lay off somebody.
I do not think there is a pick involved but an average or rule per the EPA for the single Monroney sticker for multiple configurations.
Then you're saying that Ford's towing transmission configurations brought down their EPA average and that a tall back end probably boosts the F150 Ecoboost FE to the vicinity of the Ram Pentastar?
I am not saying this but am thinking it.
Tonight I made some requests within Ford to see if they can provide the test cycle numbers with the 5 different finals from 3.15 to 4.10.
The EPA doesn't seem to mind letting manufacturers play loose with multiple configurations using the same sticker.
A 5-lug base 2 door 3270lb I4 auto 215/70/15 tacoma gets the same 19/24 as a prerunner double cab 3825lb I4 auto 265/65/17 that sits 4.5 inches taller and is 2.4 inches wider?
I received a call from a Ford PR guy about something unrelated and he said he believes but could not take this as fact that the EPA for various configurations of the same spec'ed vehicle (Not HFs, XFEs or some other such moniker as those are separate configurations) is based on the one that sells the most. In the case of the 3.5L EcoBoost, it would be the one with the middle final drive ratio or 3.55.
I still wonder what the 3.15 and 3.31 are worth on the EPA?
Doesn't sound right to me. Unless EPA has time travel it would be hard to be sure which one would sell the most in the future on a new model.
VANS-work vans-BIG MARKET for Ford and GM.
Ford dominates work vans I think. The typical 1/2 3/4 ton vans we see everywhere-and which are sometimes converted into RVs.
This engine trans pk will mean Dodge could steal a lot of the work van market-those buyers are sensitive to TCO (fuel is TCO nowadays).
Dodge used to sell fair numbers of work vans- but only by selling for less.
Ford better be peeing in their pants for that segment if Dodge puts this in their 1/2 3/4 ton vans
Of course this could hurt sales of Diesel Sprinters-that 6 cyl TD won't have a huge FE advantage over this motor trans combo- not with diesel being 40 cents more expensive.But those diesel Sprinters are pretty expensive-and maybe Dodge has to pay MB some sort of royalty to sell them?? But they are too expensive-so who cares-they could dump Sprinters- and build a little Transit sized van with a downsized version of this setup-maybe a 1.8 lt 3 cyl version with the 8 speed at.
Yeah this is really good for Dodge-bad for GM Toyota Nissan- not too big a deal for Ford-except maybe work vans
What does Dodge put in their minivans?? 18/25 in a halfton-should be 21/29 in a minivan?
I would bet manufacturers do know which will sell the best-especially on a core model like the Ram. Besides-they decide how many of whatever they will build many many months before they are built-and they sell all they build-just discount the dogs-so yes they do know.
My understanding is that the manufacturers can rework the numbers of transmission rear ends without much disruption of plans if one configuration's sales took off. It would be a matter of adding shifts to one transmission parts line rather than another. That said, no doubt they do have a production plan, but EPA doesn't issue fines for changing production schedules to match sales.
Separate names with a comma.