I too like the Ram. It seems to offer the best bang for the buck.
I too like the Ram. It seems to offer the best bang for the buck.
The only problem I have with the EcoBoost is the complexity. I don't think I'd want one when the warranty is up if it's been worked hard. But I really don't know that much about them. It seems to me that a blown 3.5 used much for towing would be more highly stressed and make more heat than a NA V8. Maybe not, that's just my gut reaction. The torque #'s on them are pretty awesome though.
In reply to Bobzilla:
I can say that once you get to bigger enclosed trailers that the larger trucks are nicer to tow with, but sub 10k with an open trailer is good with a half ton. Also, I understand z31's dislike of dodge.......I'd only considered the srt at one point because of the viper engine.
Oh, I agree. sub-7k and open? half ton all the way. Unloaded they ride soooooo much better than any 3/4 ton truck on the road. But you want to tow a 24' enclosed? Get something diesel.
I too loathe the mopars. I will NEVER own one.
mndsm wrote:Alan Cesar wrote: Yanno, the Honda Ridgeline that Tim's been wailing on for 160k miles manages to tow a Miata on a trailer, plenty of gear/supplies, etc. without trouble. It's survived many a GRM exploit, which is pretty high praise.There's only one problem- it looks like a Ridgeline.
I'll grant you that, but after that many hard miles needing only oil changes, tires and brakes, it starts looking much more attractive.
Alan Cesar wrote:mndsm wrote:I'll grant you that, but after that many hard miles needing only oil changes, tires and brakes, it starts looking much more attractive.Alan Cesar wrote: Yanno, the Honda Ridgeline that Tim's been wailing on for 160k miles manages to tow a Miata on a trailer, plenty of gear/supplies, etc. without trouble. It's survived many a GRM exploit, which is pretty high praise.There's only one problem- it looks like a Ridgeline.
Do we REALLY want to go down that road again? We already know that there's better, cheaper and more economical ways that look better. 
alfadriver wrote:doc_speeder wrote: Part of the issue is towing speed? (North) Americans seem to feel that if a truck can't pull a 10,000lb trailer up a 8% grade with a 50mpg cross wind at 70mph, it's underpowered and not heavy enough...I don't think Europeans have the same MENTALity.funny you bring that up. For virtually all truck towing ratings, the actual rating is decided via a test that runs up an incline (5% grade), normally in the summer (the location is at the Arizona-Nevada border so call it 110F), but the speed limit is only 45mph. And most of the time, the limit is the cooling system not being able to do that. Other testing includes acceration up 12% incline, and other handling issues. The standard is called SAE J2807- which makes trucks post 2013 actually comparable to each other, and not some made up manufacturer number. Still, if you compare the test with your real world requirements, you can really get an idea of capability of what you want. Like the SUV I want should be fine in level Michigan with 3200lb car + trailer.
Interesting.
I'm curious why the tow rating difference between the Platinum and Limited trim levels with the same engine......it seems the Limited even comes with 3.73 gears instead of 3.31s......yet has a lower tow rating? Maybe the larger wheels affect that?
The upcoming 3.0 diesel ram, with airbag suspension and a straight pimpin interior, getting 24-25mpg AVERAGE, is in another league.
If you were buying used fords i'd go for the ecoboost because it gives you cheaper upgrade options per hp when you get bored with stock.
I'm really confused about the Tundra vs Ram experience but not enough to ask questions. I dont think my opinion on that one is open to change anyway. Just being honest.
Has mpg been confirmed anywhere or anyone actually TESTED this ram? Also people used to bash the reliability of the same motor in the Grand Cherokee yes?
What about the new titan coming with the cummins?
My two thoughts:
I tow a neon on an open trailer with my 4.8 Silverado full of tires and tools , and I don't feel like I'm being abusive. I row the stick a bit in hilly country, but that's easy- I've got 3 pedals. It gets 20mpg unloaded, 14-18 depending on the wind and my patience level. (Real gallons, not Yankee ones.)
Gasoline engines with turbochargers on them cause me concern when used for anything more serious than, "Hey dude, look at this!" Put a heavy load behind it, and its gonna bake stuff.
I believe it's an all new 3.0 diesel in the 2014 Grand Cherokee and the New Ram. AFAIK, they are not on the lots let, just out for the media types. The reviews I read about the GC and the Diesel is that they were getting 24 mpg for a tank (IIRC).
In reply to z31maniac:
Possible, but it also could be that one doesn't have the same oil cooler. Some pacakges can be really wierd- because it also could be that the truck is heavy enough to change it's pulling capability.
Still, most ratings are about cooling. There are some others (performance up a grade), but heat rejection is genreally the limiter.
Javelin wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: Nice as in you had a Ram with vinyl followed by a leather Tundra or nice as in the Pentastar V6 Ram wasn't as capable as the V8 Tundra? I'm confused. Like-for-like the Ram (and the other domestic trucks) *demolish* the Tundra in every category (towing, payload, economy, and even luxury if that's your thing). There's a reason Toyota's sales aren't even a blip on the radar.
Both were optioned up roughly equally. Toyota rode nicer and everything seemed to be better quality. It felt like a big comfy car.
I still like my diesel F250 better though. If I buy a truck I want a TRUCK.
Streetwiseguy wrote: Gasoline engines with turbochargers on them cause me concern when used for anything more serious than, "Hey dude, look at this!" Put a heavy load behind it, and its gonna bake stuff.
I was this way, about 7 years ago. Plus I thought that most truck customers think this more than I would.
But:
1- remember, there's a brand on the line. Be it gmc or Ford or Ram- if a bad truck is built, that's very bad for business.
2- my shocker- the 3.5l GTDI engine is the highest take rate for all powertains on the F150. Why? I can't actually fathom, but it has happend. So there are a LOT of cars out there working hard.
I love truck buyers. I would never be one, but my wallet very, very much appreciates them. Especially the ones who buy a superduty for $15k more than it costs to make.
In reply to DaveEstey:
Okay, got it. The Tundra was better at being a Camry than the Dodge. That makes sense.
Javelin wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: Okay, got it. The Tundra was better at being a Camry than the Dodge. That makes sense.
What's wrong with a truck not riding like crap? Or being nice?
As I mentioned, since this will become my DD, Road Trip and Tow vehicle......I have no desire to drive a beat up and/or poorly optioned vehicle.
It cracks me up that you put it as a negative for the Tundra that it was nicer and it rides better.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Possible, but it also could be that one doesn't have the same oil cooler. Some pacakges can be really wierd- because it also could be that the truck is heavy enough to change it's pulling capability. Still, most ratings are about cooling. There are some others (performance up a grade), but heat rejection is genreally the limiter.
That's why any truck I own gets an oil cooler and a trans cooler before I bring it home.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Possible, but it also could be that one doesn't have the same oil cooler. Some pacakges can be really wierd- because it also could be that the truck is heavy enough to change it's pulling capability. Still, most ratings are about cooling. There are some others (performance up a grade), but heat rejection is genreally the limiter.
Interesting, IIRC correctly both come with the tow package standard........I was thinking it was down to the 22" on the Limited vs 20" on the Platinum........may have to go play with the configurator a bit more and see.
In reply to z31maniac:
That's why we love ours (and why we went 2wd). One of the guys that went out to NAtionals with me mentioned that the trucks seats were like his couch at home, only more comfortable. It's the only vehicle I've ever owned that the seats do not hurt even after 24+ hours in them.
In reply to Javelin:
If you're buying a half-ton truck, quality and comfort matter just as much as hauling.
I remember being quite impressed with the Ridgeline we towed the the CR-Z to/from Nationals with... though I don't remember the actual fuel economy. I want to say 18mpg... towing the CR-Z on a dolly, with a 4x4 (Honda) ATV in the bed (which fits perfectly, because Honda), two adults and all their stuff. Plus the bed box/truck/cooler is cool. I'm a fan. I want a Sport in Taffetta White.
To me the only issue is fuel economy, for a V6, I feel it should be better to compete with the V8s the big three are churning out these days. I don't think the full redesign is due until 2016 though, and I'd be shocked if they made a new power train before then.
Vigo wrote: The upcoming 3.0 diesel ram, with airbag suspension and a straight pimpin interior, getting 24-25mpg AVERAGE, is in another league.
If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat. I've owned enough trucks to know that there's a point of diminishing returns on fuel mileage, no matter what's under the hood. Aerodynamics play a huge role. And let's not forget, this is a 2014 model, so it needs to have all the modern emissions that diesels of yore didn't need, so none of them get the mileage they got 10-15 years ago.
I know the whole world has been clamoring for a diesel in a half-ton forever. It will be interesting to see how they do with it. It's going to be an expensive option, probably more than $3k over the standard Hemi. The Ecoboost is a $700 option, and it has the same torque and 120 more horsepower, and it uses cheaper 87 octane gasoline. I know what I'd pick, but diesel is like religion to some truck buyers, so I'm sure it will sell well.
Don't forget the next Nissan half-ton is getting a V6 Cummins.
Tom_Spangler wrote: If that thing AVERAGES mid-20s, I'll eat my hat.
Well it won't. It'll average low 20's. Tough to beat physics and all. But most ecoboost owners I've met (and fuelly) are reporting well below 20mpg average.
In my case, towing 20,000+ kms per year (and it gets good enough mpg to daily drive), I'd pay off the difference in only 3 odd years. And nothing else can touch 430tqs @ 2000rpm (or 8 speed auto).
z31maniac wrote:Javelin wrote: In reply to DaveEstey: Okay, got it. The Tundra was better at being a Camry than the Dodge. That makes sense.What's wrong with a truck not riding like crap? Or being nice? As I mentioned, since this will become my DD, Road Trip and Tow vehicle......I have no desire to drive a beat up and/or poorly optioned vehicle. It cracks me up that you put it as a negative for the Tundra that it was nicer and it rides better.
I have driven the Tundra and Ram. I think the Ram drives better then the Tundra and the interior on roughly the same price Tundra is not as nice IMHO. Fords seem to have the nicest interiors but they also seem to have a higher price tag at the dealership. If Dodge wasn't an option (which I still you are wrong to discount just because it is a Dodge), I would pick F-150. Although I haven't driven a Titan or Chevy.
You'll need to log in to post.
