Find Reviews by Make:
Watch Dodge Ram AMCI Test Series in Car Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
45 Comments on “Ask the Best and Brightest: Is The Ram the One Thing Chrysler Does Right?...”
Read all comments
I guess relatively. I’ve never liked the Ram, though and have always thought it was second rate to the F-150 and Silverado.
When they redesigned with the bulbous/curvy fenders and hood is when I really started disliking it. And the interior was never my cup of tea.
Was naming specific competitors a great idea? (I was watching and it looks like even with the old suspension, the Silverado got higher marks for smooth road comfort and highway chop, although I could be wrong). Still, it didn’t help very much where they were better than 4 competitors in one category, but only 2 in another. Plus, isn’t that the last gen F150?
I think that the 5.7L V8, the 6.1L V8, the 6.7L I6, V8 exhaust notes, and off-road vehicles are all things Chrysler does right.
The RAM shows that Chrysler is capable of building competitive if not class leading vehicles.
Now if they had used some of that energy to update the Neon they would have the perfect car for the current economy situation.
Yet another product that was great when launched and got better. Then the competition got better in almost every aspect of why people buy a truck and Chrysler is now behing the competition as usual.
I think some argument could be made for the viper, and most of Jeep; but those are niche products. The Ram is the big, clear example of a class competitive Chrysler vehicle, in a class that is large and profitable.
Not at all. First of all, the Ram isn’t done all that well. Once Ford updates their powertrains, Ram won’t be in the same league as F150.
But the Chrysler minivans are quite competitive. Yes, the Sienna and Odyssey win most comparisons done by enthusiast magazines, but Chrysler knows their demographic, and they hit it dead on. Once you get past the hard plastics, you see that they’ve included the features families really appreciate — stow-n-go seats, cubbies and cupholders, TV for the kids. The driving dynamics aren’t great, but they are conservative and solid, even in snow. Not a bad package.
The real Jeep is a winner as well, just stay away from all the silly product extensions (Commander, Compass,…)
The RWD sedans are worthy competitors as well, although I wish they would concentrate what engineering resources they do have left on these 4 products and source everything else from alliance partners.
I’ve always liked that they kept their Diesel a simple I6 Cummins, instead of trying to make a V8 version of an oil burner ala GM & Ford.
Otherwise, pickups are fairly basic tools. I have no idea what drove them to become a substitute for a luxury car. The last Chevy pickup I was in had leather and whatnot… as if a vat of plastic had collided with a british luxo-saloon. That would be destroyed in short order the way I treat pickups! Dump runs, gravel hauling, lumber hauling, hay, manure, mud, dirt, snow.
If you can’t hose out the cab, why the hell would you buy it?
–chuck
The Caravan and Wrangler would be the other two. I can’t speak for the Jeep, but the minivan is quite well-done.
If you can overlook the powertrain and the interior (not great, but it is durable and suited to it’s purpose) the rest of the vehicle is full of well-thought-out touches that do a good job at servicing the needs of it’s buyers, and at a price that’s ten grand or more less than Toyota or Honda.
I wish they’d have put some of the effort they’ve put into the Ram and Challenger into the Caravan, since it, and not a third-string pickup or throwback sports-toy, is product most likely to carry them through bad times.
ETA: SherbornSean beat me to it.
My understanding is that it is competitive at doing full-size truck things, but is far and away the least reliable of three.
I have no idea what drove them to become a substitute for a luxury car.
The CAFE light truck boondoggle. It became much more profitable to sell trucks as cars then to make cars that were efficient and reasonably powerful.
The Viper ACR looks great and is one of the fastest production cars in the world, so I’d say that’s one other thing they’ve done right. But that’s probably the only other thing (actually, the Challenger’s [exterior] styling was done well too)
All three of the Detroit companies are so good at making pickup trucks that Nissan finally gave up and decided to sell private labeled Dodges. It took the mighty Toyota two or three swings at the ball before they had product that was competitive in that market segment.
Detroit doesn’t just do trucks well, they do trucks superbly. Detroit does trucks as well as Toyota and Honda do cars, maybe better.
If they can meet and exceed customer expectations with pickups, continuously develop them and come up with new features, why can’t they do it with sedans? Why can Ford or GM do well outside the United States, but have lost market share in their own backyard? These things are, like the King of Siam said, a puzzlement.
As for other things that Chrysler does right, the Jeep Wrangler is well done, as is the four door Wrangler. Instead of spending money developing the Commander (how many sales does it add to Grand Cherokee’s?) and Compass, Chrysler should have developed a pickup off the LWB Wrangler Unlimited platform.
Another thing Chrysler does well is have Ralph Gilles draw cars for them. The 200C concept is very well done. It doesn’t make up for some of the disasters that Trevor Creed approved, but it is an attractive sedan, better looking than the Hyundai Genesis.
One other thing, Chrysler makes competitive product in the minivan segment. Since it invented the segment that’s no surprise.
These are the only vehicles I’d keep if I was running Chrysler: minivans, Wrangler 2 & 4 dr, Grand Cherokee, LX platform cars, Dodge trucks. Maybe keep the Journey to have a CUV in the showroom. Kill everything else except perhaps for the Patriot, the only one of the Caliber/Compass/Patriot triplets that’s worthy of consideration. The dealers will need an entry level car until the Fiat platforms start coming.
Kill the Sebring, Avenger, Nitro, Compass, Caliber, and Commander. Don’t even bother starting up the lines if and when Chrysler resumes production.
Chrysler should not be selling anything that is not profitable.
No. I had high expectations for it, but I sat in one at NAIAS with a friend, and we both agreed that it didn’t live up to the hype and was just another sub-standard Chrysler product. And that the new F-150 is much better than it. It felt really cheap and not as well thought out and built as the F-150. We also both agreed that the best Ram was the 1994 model, and as that model aged, well, it was all downhill from there for the Ram.
Maybe keep the Journey to have a CUV in the showroom.
I’m of mixed feelings about the Journey. The Caravan costs about the same or less and trounces it in every way save for fuel economy, and that might simply be the result of the Caravan’s less-than-stellar powertrains.
On the other hand, there are people who would never, ever buy a minivan who might be enticed by the Journey. Of course, they’d have to walk past the likes of the RAV/4, Taurus and Outlander, all of which are much better and offer the same functionality, whereas a Caravan intender is probably not going to cough up the dollars for a Sienna, Traverse or such.
In answer to your title question, I’ll be the snarky sumbitch of the crowd and say, “in addition to extorting taxpayer money from our government.”
What about their minivans? The interior may almost be TrailBlazer bad, but it is highly versatile, and that’s what matters in vans.
The Dodge Ram is a decent truck, but in the stiff competition with Ford and GM, Dodge comes in third, as usual.
In this market, with Chryslerbus’s current financial problems, coming in third in their best segment isn’t good enough to keep them afloat.
Chrysler should have developed a pickup off the LWB Wrangler Unlimited platform.
Ronnie, I believe there is such a product that is made at Jeep/Chrysler’s facility in Egypt, primarily for the export market. Better yet, I believe it’s got a diesel engine.
And yes, I agree it would be a good vehicle for the US Market, my guess is that either they’ve crunched the numbers and figured that they couldn’t sell it at a reasonable price here (by the time they brought it up to US emissions/crash/MPG standards) or that it might cannibalize sales of the Dakota.
Personally, I’d love to see such a vehicle and if it had a fairly flexible seating/cargo arrangement (like the military soft-top hummers do) then I’d seriously consider one.
UPDATE: Here’s a line that includes a photo
http://www.ridelust.com/jeep-jt-pickup-rumors-spoiled-again/
If I were to pick a product from the Chrysler portfolio as a positive example it would be the Wrangler or 300/Charger/Challenger/Magnum, not the Ram.
The Ram, while looking cool, having a nice engine, and adding nice functionality with the new RamBox feature, still lags behind the other major players in the field when it comes to reliability and capability (namely towing and payload capacities).
The Wrangler on the other hand is an icon both in style and capability. I am surprised the four door model has been selling so well, as personally I think it is hidieous and never should have made it past the drawing board, but hell, what do I know. The 300 and Charger helped make the American large car relivant again, and when combined with the sweet hemi engine (no point even looking at any of those cars if you aren’t going for the big engine) they provide fun and functionality, perhaps at the cost of efficiency, but then again, that is what compacts are for.
If they weren’t making them out of what must be pure lead, I’d argue that Chrysler does a pretty good job with the LX cars.
Unfortunately they are all north of 4,000 lbs. on the scales, making it a more difficult argument.
A few years ago one could’ve said the Jeep Grand Cherokee, but that vehicle has also suffered from bloat.
If Chrysler had any brains right now they’d be scrambling to bring back the Cherokee and the Comanche light pickup on the same platform.
@ Nullo Modo:
The variable displacement system in the LX cars works wonders for the mileage of the 5.7L HEMI. On extended trips I can easily get 24-25 mpg out of my AWD Magnum without resorting to any hypermiling type actions.
I’ve never sat in, driven or even touched the new RAM, but I’ve seen one on the road and I really liked the way it looked. It and the Challenger are two good looking vehicles. E
The 300 is ok, everything else is really ugly. Even the previous models of everything they make are more attractive (Sebring conv., minivans, intrepid) look better than the models that replaced them. Getting back to the new RAM, I think it looks better than the Silverado (those fenders and square wheel wells kill me) and the Fords are just too boxy, but the RAM’s reputation (and Chrysler as a whole)is a deal breaker for me. I was getting a transmission cooler installed on my 03 Silverado a few years back and when I brought it into the transmission shop, the owner, unprovoked said with a laugh, if this was a RAM you would be installing a new transmission in it at 70,000 miles not adding a trans cooler. That said it all to me. My silverado 1500 trans has performed perfectly (110k mi now) regularly towing my heavy ass 1970’s era 28′ Cigarette. That’s all I keep it for and I’m happy.
and minivans…
(like others have already stated…)
Ram, Challenger, Charger, Magnum, Viper, 300, Wrangler, yeah that about covers it. I would honestly buy any of them.
Products that were good when they came out but were ultimately killed by lack of investment and continued refining or redesigning.
PT Cruiser, Pacifica, Dakota, Durango, Cherokee… Many of those were ruined by terrible redesigns too. Like the Grand Cherokee. What were they thinking?
As for the new Ram, I’ve sat in one and seen them. It’s probably the best overall vehicle they’ve put out since the LX cars bowed in late 2004. That seems like an eon ago doesn’t it?
I would take it over the vanilla-ugly Silverado and mainstream-hideous F150. Both of the sales leaders really lack standout styling like the Ram, Tundra and Titan sport. I didn’t think the interior was shabby either for it’s class.
rochskier – I didn’t mean to imply that the fuel economy of the LX cars was all bad, just that it wasn’t really a selling point. Those numbers don’t really surprise me, as I get plenty of customers saying they get mid to upper 20s on the highway in their town cars and grand marquis, so, even though the hemi is a bigger more powerful engine, the more modern nature of it helps keep it in the race for big car fuel economy. Since this past summer’s gas spike though, people are just afraid of V8s, even though for certain applications they do quite well.
The biggest issue I have with the LX cars (and the only reason I haven’t inked up on a couple great deal pre-owned ones that have passed befor me) is the interior quality. Sure, it is ergonomic and functional, and those seats are much more comfortable than they look, but it lacks pizazz and feels too cheap when it comes to the plastics. Everything else on those cars is a great value, space, power, even some style, and I suppose they had to cut corners somewhere, it is just a shame that they cut so deep.
I guess I will join the chorus and ask, Do they really do this one thing right? I have not sat in or driven any of the current generation of trucks, but past generations of Fords and Chevys have consistently been better than Dodge’s offerings in my opinion.
My daily driver is an ’04 Liberty. At about 70,000 miles it has been totally reliable. It will probably go to college in the fall with my oldest daughter. The styling of the current Liberty is awful. I may very well look for a clean ’04 to replace it.
A co-worker buys 1 ton Ram/Cummins pickups and drives them 250k with no major problems. When he’s finished with them the trucks go to his brother who drives them another 150k. They’re good trucks.
cpu
At work we have Dodge, Ford, Chevy and GMCs. We use them for haulage, towing, and snow plowing. They aren’t all the same year, but close enough to make valid comparissions.
IMO, FWIW, Ram is third rate. All the trucks have adequate power (gas engines – can’t comment on Diesels) but the Dodge just seems “tinny”. As one of the B&B famously described Chrysler’s interiors _”Carved from a solid block of cheap”. The Dodge also seems to have more problems – followed closely by the Ford.
Using all four, regularly, I really prefer the Chevy/GMCs.
One of the local Chevy dealers is selling ’09 Silverado 4x4s for $14K. That’s the way I’d go if I wanted a full sized truck.
chuckgoolsbee :
January 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
If you can’t hose out the cab, why the hell would you buy it?
–chuck
I used to frequent a classic Chevy truck site, stovebolt.com, and one of the posters said pratically the same thing in their signature line, “If you can’t hose it out, it’s not a truck.”
I’m starting to think Chrysler should just fold everything excepting the vans and Wrangler. Other than those two, there’s exactly nothing they make that’s competitive, and the vans, notably, could benefit from the dollars flushed down the toilet on Compatriotiber and Avengering.
Heck, the LX/LY and Ram are decent enough, but the competition is better. Fold’em, too.
I’d imagine that everyone would be a lot happier if Chrysler did one thing really, really well instead of eight or nine things badly. A “Ferrari of Minivans” sort of thing.
What does Chrysler do right? (Some of this will be a repeat of what others have said):
* The Viper and Viper ACR. The current, six-hundred-horsepower cars are some of the most satisfying vehicles in history. One racetrack lap would sell anybody who wasn’t a confirmed weenie.
* The minivans are the best minivans in history. They are better than the competition. The interiors are not fantastic; neither are Odyssey or Sienna interiors. If you want a minivan with a nice interior, buy an R-class.
* The LX cars. They are “real” cars, which is to say V-8 powered rear-wheel-drive vehicles built like tanks, for the price of a V-6 Camry.
* Wrangler/GC/Patriot. There’s no better choice out there for this sort of thing.
* RAM. They have the best engines in the second-best trucks. Ford has the third-best engines in the best trucks. Your pick.
* Dakota. Name a vehicle that beats it in the class. You can’t, because it only has one competitor: the Colorado.
* Challenger. Most red-blooded American men want one. Yeah, it’s heavy. So’s the Gallardo.
* Journey. It’s a four-cylinder minivan. Where else can you get one?
The list of what isn’t great is shorter, and it’s almost entirely limited to cars built from a Mitsubishi platform: Compass, Caliber, Avenger, Sebring.
Chrysler minivans: worst interiors in the minivan segment. Yes, Chrysler minivans have some great features (e.g., stow and go), but the quality, NVH, and fit and finish are simply not competitive with Honda and Toyota.
LX cars: past their sell-by date, which is why Chrysler is working very hard to replace them. The V6 engines, in particular, have very poor NVH. Given the current economy, buyers aren’t shopping for large, heavy, rear-wheel-drive cars. The interior isn’t as horrid as it once was, but it still isn’t competitive.
Wrangler: iconic truck saddled with a complete POS engine.
Grand Cherokee: Its styling was poor when it was last refreshed, which is why it didn’t sell worth a darn. The replacement is long overdue, but the midsize SUV market has tanked. Chrysler will have $3000 on the hood of each one the day after it is introduced.
Patriot: Poor interior is overshadowed only by its even worse engine. Add in a drivetrain not designed for offroad use and you have a non-Jeep Jeep. Pointless trucklet that is not competitive with RAV4 and CRV.
Dakota: Long past its sell by date. Far outsold by the Toyota Tacoma. The only saving grace for the Dakota is the fact that its domestic competitors, Ranger and Colorado, are complete junk. It is smaller than a fullsize truck, but gets just as bad fuel economy. And with all the money on the hood of a RAM, there is simply no reason to buy a Dakota. Which is why no one is buying them.
Challenger: In the current economy, there are few buyers for heavy, large, 2-door cars with horrid fuel economy. A few baby boomers who didn’t get killed in the stock market will get one as a third car and drive it on the weekend. Once all 5,000 of those guys have bought theirs, if Chrysler is not bankrupt six months from now, they will have $6000 on the hood of each one trying to move it out the door.
Journey: crap drivetrain let down by a worse interior.
* Journey. It’s a four-cylinder minivan. Where else can you get one?
Kia and Mazda, both of whom do a much better job. If you want to stretch the definition, Mitsubishi (Outlander) and Toyota (RAV).
I have owned either a Dodge Ram (either Van or P/U) since I was 16. My experience has been that until the ’90’s, they were very good vehicles. I have not owned newer than ’87.
However, my brother, based on my experience bought a this century P/U with the hemi. Though the motor was nice. The tinfoil body quickly deteriated due to the occational motorcycle being leaned against it, rocks, branches – real life. He trade up to a Toyota Tundra and has never been happier with a vehicle (likes it better than his Porsche – the sick bastard!).
It is very likely that Chrysler actually does make money on the Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Avenger, and Sebring.
Daimler had a policy that new vehicles must cost less to produce than the vehicles they replace. Since the Neon was a rehash of the 1G Neon which was a light update of a K car, they had already been making money on compacts for a good 12 years. Explains the godawful interiors
Also, there was the whole fiasco where they were forced to use Mitsubishi platforms by Daimler that screwed up the design cycle and gave them the 2 years-18 months for the Sebring and Avenger instead of the normal 3 years. Comments have been made that the Sebring originally looked a lot like, surprise!, the 200 concept. And then through bad planning they already chewed up the entire budget by the time they got to the interiors and the rest, they say, is history. Now they’ve also talked about how they have a separate interior budget.
(I’ve pulled all of this from comments Chrysler employees have made)
Regarding the comment on why the Big 2.8 can build trucks well, but not cars…simple…in the last ten years, they made their money on these cash-cows! Hence all the focus on the trucks, and nary a whiff of effort on cars. My Scout camp Ranger’s work trucks are all older F-150s and they take major abuse, but still work well. Given the amount of abuse they take, it speaks even more to how well they’re put together. Now cars…different story. I drive a 2006 Fusion that is already showing signs of wear and tear without anywhere near the hard use like the trucks.
Anyway. The question was on what Chrysler does right…who-boy, tough question. They tend to (sometimes) get initial styling right (witness the 300, Charger, Challenger…heck, even the P/T at first). But where they fall down is in follow through and execution. Though it’s a few years back, just before my father passed away, he bought a brand new 1996 Dodge Ram. Beautiful on the outside (he lived in Germany and it drew quite a crowd in his sleepy little Dorf!). When I got it just under a year later, it had 8000 miles on the clock and the interior was already squeeking like he had owned it for 15 years.
Yeah, they need to fold about 3/4 of the product line (Avenger, Compass, I’m lookin’ at you!) and focus on dialing up the details while continueing to find their way stylistically.
I rented a Caliber this past weekend and put 275 miles on it. Hey, my CTS was being butchered in the shop by the Neanderthal brothers, but that’s another story…
All in all, it seemed pretty solid. But it could have been a much better vehicle had they paid a little more attention to simple details. The biggest one was the pain I felt in both elbows because some cheap product-planning bastard decided that hard plastics are appropriate surfaces for armrests. I just couldn’t get comfortable. As for the power train, it felt like driving a power boat and not in a good way. The combination of the vague throttle response and indecisive transmission made the car feel completely disconnected.
Part of me wants a 300C just because of the power train. But I just can’t get past the rest of the Chrysler experience. As for the Challenger, it’s just plain wrong. The new one may fool most people, but from the rear, it’s too narrow and tall to be convincing. Memories of my ’71 440 clash with the modern reality.
I got a chance to drive a late-model Grand Cherokee with the hemi a month back. This was actually the nicest recent Chrysler I’ve driven. I’m not an SUV fan (the floor is too high, the seat’s to low for me to be comfortable), but I was somewhat impressed.
Hm, I have a 9 year old neon that has MOSTLY been problem free***. It has almost nothing electronic.
The drivers side mirror adjustment doesn’t work, but outside of that, it has no rips or tears in the interior, the body is not rusted out (This is a Chicago = salt in winter, car) and it is cheap to maintain, find parts for, etc.
I do the required $0.10/mile maintenace and the think just goes on without problems, even starting in sub 0 weather.
The heater is not particularly strong, but thats why we bundle up anyway. AC works ok, but isn’t that strong.
I’d buy another one if they still made them, although I’d get the 5 speed stick as opposed to the 3 speed auto that I have.
I bought it with 124.5k miles & it now has almost 170.
*** The car is on it’s second transmission which died at 75,000 miles or so on the first owner.
Don’t know about the ram but this car has been pretty solid. If chrysler wasn’t on the edge of bankruptcy, I might be interested in another.
I’m the original owner of a 1995 Dodge Ram 1500 5.2 Litre 175K miles on the clock. I maintain the hell out of it. As a result, it looks and runs great. People can’t believe it’s 14 years old. I’d purchase another Ram, but you have to be aware that the weak link with the Dodge ram, and all other manufactures (check the forums), are the damn automatic transmissions. Forget all the “built tough” hype. Americans just can’t build a decent automatic transmission. Any of them. You would think that Chrysler of all people, with their 727 Torqueflight heritage, could build a modern automatic that lasts beyond 50K. That’s right, I’m on my 3rd transmission.
The current 09 Ram is the best one yet IMO after a lengthy test drive. It’s exterior is a bit plain and lacks some of the character of previous iterations but that is the current trend- bland boring but functional. The fortified Hemi and 4.7 engines are both excellent and the new interior is much improved. In our opinion the Big 3 trucks blow away the girly fake pickup trunks like the Turdra and Ridges all over the place line Honda. There are several teachers where I work with the almighty Tundras with paint coming off the rear quarters, buckled tail gates, ultra cheap interiors with comical phantom of the opera two dashes in one treatment, engine and transmission failures and numerous driveline glitches. I also have to laugh when I see one with a good size plow on the front. Can you say sag city.
@NulloModo:
I actually really *like* the spartan simplicity of the LX interiors. No extraneous controls to fiddle with or break. The climate control arrangement is almost exactly the same as that of my first car, a 1990 Eagle Talon.
However, I do agree that the material quality of said controls could be better and that the simplicity gets me wishing for more direct steering and a somewhat tighter suspension.
“Americans just can’t build a decent automatic transmission. Any of them.”
I feel compelled to ask: Who’s building a better one? ZF? (snicker) Mercedes-Benz? (chuckle) Aisin/Toyota? (guffaw) Honda? (long, “hocking” laugh, ending with a choking sound)
wow, for all the hate that the B&B dole out to Chrysler (myself certainly included) it seems like a significant number of their products strike a chord. The Wrangler is a true standout, my friend’s gf has one (loaded rubicon 4-door) and I’m super impressed by it. Even the crappy plastic in the interior works, and belongs, in this car. The LX’s are also unique. No one else is offering this product, period.
My family had a Ram for towing purposes when I was in high school. It was brand new, looked very crisp and had a nice interior space. It also went through three transmissions almost immediately. The dealer mechanic himself referred to the auto trans. as a “boat anchor” within earshot of my dad and I. I was driving an 86 F-250 at the time and towing duties quickly became my job, leaving the Ram for use as my mother’s city commuter (!NY!). Sad.
I like the new Ram, I think that is much better looking than the Ford F-150. Ford’s move to make the 150 look like the 250+ is a mistake. The Chevy is bloated, they should have used the Tahoe front end. The GMC is better looking than the Chevy.
I don’t understand why everyone beats up the Jeep Commander. It’s looks more like a Jeep than the Grand Cherokee, has more room, and from my account here is Western PA, more sales the the GC.
The new designs for the 300 and 200 from Chrysler seem to be spot on. Maybe a bit to late, but at least there is a family resemblance. A mistake they made with the 300/Sebring.
Shotty 300C.