Multiple sources are reporting that Chrysler’s recent (and voluntary) SEC filing revealed something not normally found in those rather boring financial documents: EXCITING TRUCK NEWS!
According to Chrysler’s filing, the RAM pickup will be updated with the same Pentastar V-6 and eight-speed automatic transmission currently winning hearts and minds in the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300. A set of lightweight axles will also appear, enabling the RAM 1500 to take a run at the F-150’s class-leading mileage numbers.
Assuming the Pentastar is up for traditional light-truck duties such as:
- Rolling in slow-motion through a bumpy construction site
- Staggering under the weight of a machine which, for no apparent reason, dumps a ton of rocks and dirt into it from an entirely unnecessary height
- Receiving approving looks from male models dressed as construction workers and streaked with the appropriate amount of charcoal to represent some sort of sweaty work
- Serving as an ad hoc location for unprotected sex between high-school dropouts
- Permanently occupying dealer lots in an era of five-dollar gasoline
the majority of RAM buyers are likely to find it a perfectly satisfactory choice. Ford’s Duratec 3.7 has been reasonably popular in the F-150. The GM light pickups offer a rather non-compelling choice between the 4.3 “Vortec”, which more or less is the same engine which used to make for a reasonably rapid S-10 back in the Reagan era, and a 4.8-liter V-8 which barely beats the Duratec and Pentastar for outright power and certainly won’t match them for mileage. On the positive side, there’s always something to be said for an SBC descendant of any stripe.
TTAC will make an effort to be among the first to use the new vehicle as an excuse to tow a race car somewhere comprehensively test the new RAM truck. If the current trend in gas prices continues, don’t be surprised to hear that the catchphrase for the don’t-call-it-a-Dodge truck has become
“You got a Pentastar in there?”
There have been rumors of the 8 speed transmission and a V6 diesel for the 2013 Grand Cherokee; any word of this coming to the 1/2 ton Ram? This would give even better fuel economy numbers.
The if the EcoBoost V6 in the F150 is any indication, the Pentastar V6 should sell well in the Ram pickup.
Cummins has the ~5 ltr V8 diesel ready to go for the Ram 1500.
The pentastar would be great in a truck 75% the size of the ram… My penis is normal sized, I just want an original dakota sized truck that doesn’t get horrible gas mileage (not tacoma) and has ok power (not ranger)…
Same here. My current Dakota is fine size-wise, but 13 mpg out of the 4.7 V8 is downright painful. Call me when Dodge decides the US might enjoy a small diesel like the rest of the world does.
How do you only get 13 mpg from your dakota 4.7? My Ram with a 4.7 gets between 20-21 on the highway running empty. I got 15 towing a 60 Desoto home from Carlisle 2 years ago.
JIMI, this is not directed at you in particular.
This business about not having a diesel in a small truck “like the rest of the world” is either a diabolical conspiracy to keep us from having such vehicles, or a reflection of automaker’s best assessment of real world demand. I suspect the later.
Simply put, the number of people who want a small(ish) truck with an oil burner is about the same as the number who want a sport wagon with an oil burner and a manual transmission. It’s a “demand” that exists only on enthusiast forums and has no counterpart in the actual market.
That is about what I was getting in real world driving with my ’06 Dakota Quad Cab with the H.O. 4.7 and the automatic. On long highway trip I might 18 MPG. that and the motor boat like ride were the two bigger reasons why I traded the thing in less than a year after purchase. The only upside is that I got what I paid for the truck when I traded it in.
I think the Pentastar with the 8-speed trans would do a good job. The 3.6 has more outright power than the 4.7L V8 did before 2008. Torque I’m not certain about, but with all those gears in the trans they should be able to get some better multiplication on the low end and still come out with a couple good highway ratios.
My 4.7 V8 2wd truck with a 5-speed stick has been getting 17.5-19mpg for a few years now; a truck with more power and better mileage would be welcome, but I’ve become rather attached to driving with three pedals.
Dude the ranger doesn’t do either.
15/20 for a 4.0 V6/Auto 2WD Ranger with the automatic and 207 horsepower/238lb-ft. Tows 5,800lbs
17/23 for a 3.7 24v Duratec F-150 with 302bhp/278lb-ft 6A. tows 6100lbs depending on configuration.
I’ll miss the ranger, but man is it ancient.
You forgot the most iconic truck image of all: climbing a pile of boulders with another pickup truck placed crossways over the bed (and in later years towing another truck at the same time).
That was a great commercial and ripe for a remake.
What about the one towing a locomotive? Oh, wait – that was Jack LaLanne.
Well, this is exciting, all things considered.
The only way it could be more exciting is if they would offer a factory six-speed manual option. I mean, come ON! No half-ton full-size trucks with a manual transmission anymore?
Call me when they offer that option. And 25+ mpg highway with a limited slip rear diff. I don’t need a beefy 4.10 or lower rear axle ratio, but I do like to have a limited slip to avoid the dreaded one-wheel peel in the occasional snow we see in Tennessee.
Not a chance.
1. Most buyers can’t even drive stick and even those that can don’t buy them.
2. All-important sticker mileage will go down due to the ridiculous shift schedule the EPA uses to test them.
An light duty pickup truck with an automatic is simply a better tool for the job of hauling stuff. It’s super easy to make a truck with an automatic creep backwards to a trailer hitch, loading dock, boat ramp, etc. Much harder to do the same task with three pedals.
Agreed. All my vehicles have always been manuals except for my truck because I’d be sweating bullets trying to pull my boat up a slippery ramp with a stick. I’d like to see someone throw paddle shifters in a truck, this way I could downshift myself without waiting what seems like forever as the automatic “thinks” about changing gears.
FTP test procedure does not define the “shift schedule”.
You misunderstand the test.
The test is a speed vs distance vehicle level test.
The goal of the manufacturer is to use the least amount of energy over the test and maintain the speed profile.
I learned to drive in a truck that had no synchros, and quickly had enough of it. Slushbox all the way.
“FTP test procedure does not define the “shift schedule”.”
When did that change? It used to require the following shift schedule:
1-2 at 17 mph
2-3 at 25 mph
3-4 at 40 mph
4-5 at 45 mph
5-6 at 50 mph
Thus, the existence of skip-shift, which I believe still exists. It wouldn’t need to if GM could just shift however it wanted for the test.
While searching for related info, I stumbled across an interesting 1977 document where a Chevette was able to do 10% better on the fuel economy test with lower non-CO2 emissions by following a different shift schedule than that mandated by the EPA.
http://tinyurl.com/7yqajf4
There is a small chance. Dodge was the last to offer a a full-size truck with a stick and I think they’d be the most likely of big 3 to bring it back. With options like the Tradesman package Dodge is the best value in a full size truck right now, I could see a stick being offered again in an attempt to drop the price even further. A regular cab, Pentastar, 4×4, 6 speed Ram stickered in the low 20’s would be a no-brainer for me…just as long as those axles aren’t TOO lightweight.
My thoughts exactly. There’s a lot to like about Dodge’s truck value right now when compared to Chevy and especially to Ford. Ford’s got the best highway fuel efficiency (just barely) with the 3.7-liter Duratec V6, but unless you’re buying a bare-bones regular cab that your dealer has been trying to get rid of for a couple of months without success, you’re paying well into the mid-$20k price range for that Eff-One-Fiddy.
The last Dodge with a stick was (is?) the 2500 series 3/4-ton truck. I refuse to drive an automatic. If they bring back the stick shift option and the next Ram hits 25 mpg highway, I know I’ll be giving the Ram 1500 a long, hard look.
My Ranger (29 mpg) is now six years old and nearing 90,000 miles. Within the next five years, I’ll probably be wanting to park it in the driveway (keeping it around for occasional weekend hauling) and buy a daily driver, or (more likely) I’ll be looking to trade it for a pickup truck that has more passenger/interior space for our growing son and the delivery duties I sometimes take on at work. If I had to make a three- or four-mpg sacrifice for the sake of a larger cab in that situation, I’d seriously consider it. But only if I can row my own gears.
Dodge (RAM) 2500/3500 with the Cummins diesel still comes with a 6-speed manual. It’s the only full size pickup truck that does.
Stick shifts trucks when they’re not being used as trucks. Daily driver or a replacement for a Mustang, fine. And even then the fragile AX-15 in my one old Dakota has me cursing it out when 1st gear winds out at 20MPH.
I’m liking the idea of a limited slip in said Dakota though, I’ll keep the 3.55’s and my 23MPG highway though!
Anyone has the link to the filing? I’m not having any luck finding it.
http://www.chryslergroupllc.com/Investor/sec/Pages/default.aspx
Why does the SEC need to know? Aren’t they too busy *not* ensuring that Wall Street types obey the law?
SEC filing is to show potential investors what they’ve done to build trust if they decide to IPO. First they would need be spun off from Fiat, which looks like a remote possibility since Chrysler Group LLC has a larger market cap than Fiat and the corporate culture of wanting to be an “American” company.
Prepare to see a lot more smaller engines and lighter weight pickup trucks in the next few years materialize. A 305 horse Pentastar combined with the new 8 speed automatic should have no trouble achieving 25 highway MPG in a 2WD reg cab Ram, especially if it uses a taller rear gear and some weight loss.
Funny how my 2 uncles were able to farm (as in tobacco, cotton and soy beans) with puny little pick-ups. Oh, don’t you remember how trucks use to look like back in the 70’s. Back before you just HAD to have 4 doors, 4×4, and Sat Nav. They were Ford F100’s with 3 on the tree and no AC, a bench seat that would be at home in any school bus and enough room behind the seat to fit a plug of chewing tobacco. They had 390’s and drank gas at the rate of 9 mpg too.
Yep! All the trucks I ever owned up until 1988 were normally aspirated in-line 6-cyl pickups with a manual three-on-the-tree, and they worked fine for me. I built a house and did lots of hauling with them. Didn’t know any better.
In 1988 I took the big plunge and bought my first ever brand new truck, a 1988 Silverado with the 350 and the automatic with cruise control, air conditioning, PB, PS, PW, PL – IOW, the works! Even Captain’s seats up front. A real work of art. Too bad it had so many problems.
That was followed by a 2006 F150 XLT 5.4, also with the works, and about the same amount of problems.
These days I drive a 2011 Tundra DC 5.7 SR5. In all honesty I have to tell you guys that after having owned a V8 truck, especially the trouble-free 5.7 Tundra, I’m never going back to a 6 again, not even an EB 6.
It is true that 6 cylinder trucks built much of America in their day, but having that slow turning, stump pulling V8 grunt under the hood only gives credence to that old saying that there is no replacement for displacement.
These days we also own a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the new Pentastar all-aluminum, DOHC, 24-valve VVT 3.6 V6, and it puts out an honest 290 horses (but only on Shell Premium gas).
Use regular or midgrade gas and the anti-knock sensors dumb down and retard the timing to where you need twice as much pedal to make it go, and use a whole lot more gasoline.
From that aspect, it will be a cold day in hell before I buy any pickup truck with a V6, even if it has an 8-speed automatic behind it. It’s just a matter of time before Tundra puts the Lexus 8-speed behind the 5.7. When that happens I may just trade up.
I’m interested in the future pricing on the RAM trucks.
Right now, you can get the mid and low trim V8 versions for very cheap. Plus, I’m not sure how much it costs Chrysler to build a 3.6L/8A combo over the 5.7L/6A combo. So, RAM must be planning to raise the V8 prices or be expecting gas prices to totally kill V8 sales.
I really like the small-diesel idea though. Honestly, that could allow ChryslerCo to kill off the 5.7L althogether. The new diesel would become the premium option on the RAM1500, JGC, and Durango. Then the Charger, 300, and Challenger go 3.6L and 6.4L only.
The Hemi is one of their lowest cost engines to produce and far cheaper than the pentastar, it’s even lower cost than the old LA engine it replaced. Cast iron block, Cam in block 16 valve, it’s a proven, durable, low cost design.
Yeah if gas pushrod motors are good for one thing it’s being cheap to build- no OHC, diesel etc motor will top that factor.
Very funny, you think the V8 will fade away in fullsize trucks eventually? That won’t happen in this lifetime.
I’m sure there’s plenty of…(pause, puts on sunglasses)…PENT-up demand for this.
YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH
This wins the thread.
Back when they were still making the 4.0L AMC six, I always thought it would have made an excellent base engine for the Ram instead of the wheezy, agricultural 3.7L V-6. It would have allowed them to increase the volume of the engine and perhaps even given it a stay of execution after the TJ series Wrangler (1997-2006) rode off into the sunset.
Allowing the AMC I6 to die was one of the many missteps of the Daimler era. To add insult to injury they gave the new Wrangler the 3.8L Turd Minivan motor.
For most of its run I think the Toledo plant was maxed out up until 2004 the I6 also went into the base WJ Grand Cherokee. Until 2001 it also went into the XJ Cherokee.
The tooling for the 4.0 I6 was so worn out it was a miracle they were able to produce anything for the last 2 years of it’s life.
The reason I heard was that it was just too problematic to be worth it to get the AMC I6 to meet upcoming emissions regulations, is there any truth to that? Is there just something about the inline-six configuration that makes it more difficult to make a clean car cheeply and is why that design is going away?
Or is it more just that it makes it easier to have an engine do double-duty as an OEM’s go-to for bottom-end big cars and top-end small cars with V-6s and the OEMs are just that cheep?
The emissions thing is a myth propagated by Allpar (and Wikipedia) and it’s flat wrong. The issues were multifold:
By the end of the run the AMC Six was only in one vehicle with well under 80,000 units being made – hard for a company to justify the cost/effort. Back when the XJ Cherokee and WJ Grand Cherokee were in production, the volume was much higher and justified the expenses of a unique engine such as the plant and personnel.
The inline six configuration (especially a really tall engine like the AMC Six) makes meeting crash regulations more difficult, thus driving up costs. BMW can justify it because their engine is slanted to the side a bit (making crash somewhat easier) and because their cars sell at a premium. Note that GM didn’t keep their inline six that was in the Trailblazer after that vehicle died, even though it would have made an excellent base engine for the Silverado trucks.
Lastly, and as noted earlier, the tooling was quite old and probably in need of refurbishment or outright replacement. Had the volumes been higher, they probably could have justified replacing/repairing the tools, but with sub-80,000 units being made it would be hard to justify the costs when you have other higher volume engines available.
“An light duty pickup truck with an automatic is simply a better tool for the job of hauling stuff. It’s super easy to make a truck with an automatic creep backwards to a trailer hitch, loading dock, boat ramp, etc. Much harder to do the same task with three pedals.”
I hear you there. I towed boats and snowmobile trailers for 11 years with a compact Toyota PU that had a stick. My current full size GMC PU has an auto and there’s simply no way I’d ever consider a stick for all the reasons you list and then some.
And I’ll say it again, GM stick an Isuzu I4 turbo diesel in a 1/2 ton chassis, designed mainly for fuel economy and you won’t be able to build them fast enough.
“And I’ll say it again, GM stick an Isuzu I4 turbo diesel in a 1/2 ton chassis, designed mainly for fuel economy and you won’t be able to build them fast enough.”
THIS. I know a lot of contractors and independent businessmen who know and love the Isuzu diesel from their box trucks they use in their line of work. They’re a tough engine. Not a barn-burner, performance-wise, but efficient and hard to kill.
I disagree about the automatic trans issue, though. A lot of the issues folks who tow boats tell me about are related to taking off on a boat ramp with a stick. In that case, a dash-mounted handbrake like the old Japanese pickups used to have will cure a lot of ills. But for most of us, 99% of the driving we do is not that clutch pedal-intensive. I enjoy rowing the gears enough that I’ll make the trade-off for the few times I have to back a trailer or what-have-you.
I have a Pentastar V6. It’s light, compact, well engineered and solid… Yup, it’s the best damn coffee table I’ve ever had.
“EXCITING TRUCK NEWS!”
No, but at least you didn’t call it a game changer.
This, in the US, as a Ram, would be exciting truck news:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/02/will-the-new-fiat-strada-play-a-role-in-rams-future.html
A manual transmission Pentastar Ram wouldn’t seem to be as difficult or costly as one might think, given that there’s already a manual available behind the Pentastar in the Wrangler.
OTOH, there’s also a manual available with the Ford 3.7L V6 in the Mustang, but none available with the same engine in the F150. I’m sure that the Chrysler/Fiat execs figure that if Ford’s not doing it, there’s a good reason, and they shouldn’t be doing it, either.
There are so many potential variables in trucks already that adding a manual to the mix, especially when so few people want a manual, doesn’t make good business sense.
You can already get three cab styles, three different bed lengths, six trim levels (with five other sub trims), four different engines, five different rear axle ratios (more if you count limited slip vs non-limited slip), 2wd or 4wd, and dozens of specialty packages ranging from extra chrome decoration to uprated springs for extra payload. It’s a delicate balancing act to order the right combination of everything to meet the demand of as many people as possible on the lot while at the same time not having much left over when the model year changeover happens.
Both the wrangler and the mustang are much lighter than a fullsized pickup, secondly, the mustang and the wrangler aren’t designed to tow a very large load. The transmissons in those vehicles are not stout enough for a heavier truck. They wouldn’t last very long in a truck, especially if you added any type of load the trans would be shot in short order.
Not sure if that’s completely true – a variation of the transmission used in the Wrangler is used in the MB Sprinter van in other markets.
And the Mustang manual is used for the Land Rover Defender in the markets where it is still sold.
It may be a similar design to the wrangler trans, but if so I guarantee you it’s a beefier version.
The transmission from one of the high performance mustangs would hold up in a half ton, but the gear ratios would have to be reworked to make it work right in a truck. The 6 cylinder mustang trans would certainly not be beefy enough, except for the people who never haul anything.
As others have said on here the reason they are offering less trucks with manuals is because the typical truck buyers simply don’t want them. Automatics are especially better for towing and make things much easier. Almost no one who owns a boat has a manual equipped truck anymore. Back in the day I saw more than one person with a stick shift truck almost lose it on a boat ramp. It’s almost impossible to get a boat out of the water with a stick. You have the boat pulling back on the truck, the driver has to let the clutch out quickly enough to keep the truck from rolling back, yet not stall the engine, he has to give it enough gas so that it does not stall, yet try not to break the tires loose on the slippery ramp. Ask anyone who ever tried to get a boat out of the water with a stick what a nightmare it was.
And like someone else pointed out, it’s much easier to let your automatic equipped truck idle back toward a trailer hitch, you can then concentrate on lining the ball up with the tongue intstead of messing with letting the clutch in and out.
Then you have hills, it’s not pleasant sitting at a redlight on a hill in a stickshift with a several thousand pound trailer behind you and all of a sudden have someone pull up behind you and stop almost right against it.I have noticed that people in small cars are the biggest offenders when it comes to this.
And then you have hilly roads, have you ever hauled a heavy load through hilly terrain? You’re shifting about as much as the driver of an 18 wheeler, it gets tiring and you’re putting alot of wear and tear on the clutch and transmission. The diesel powered pickups don’t need to shift as much because they have so much more torque, but with a gas powered truck it’s different. And an automatic serves as a cushion for the engine and entire driveline via the torque converter.
“I saw more than one person with a stick shift truck almost lose it on a boat ramp. It’s almost impossible to get a boat out of the water with a stick. You have the boat pulling back on the truck, the driver has to let the clutch out quickly enough to keep the truck from rolling back, yet not stall the engine, he has to give it enough gas so that it does not stall, yet try not to break the tires loose on the slippery ramp. Ask anyone who ever tried to get a boat out of the water with a stick what a nightmare it was.”
There was a reason that everytime that Toy was sitting at the bottom of a boat ramp it was locked into 4LO. If it had been a 2WD forget about it. It didn’t have much for low end grunt(Which is why I don’t think OHC engines belong in a truck) so the low range necessary. Luckily the parking brake was hand operated.