@Hemi:

I guess you haven't been paying attention. There's plenty of complaints of Facebook deceiving consumers especially related to privacy issues. Facebook had to settle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding multiple counts.

They say "from AVAILABLE active grille shutters" so that means the shutters are optional, too. You need to pay extra for the active grille shutters. The longer side steps are optional - adds more aero but is another cost. The air suspension is optional - yet another added cost.

So what have they really done for aero? Not much. A lower air dam is all you get as standard equipment. At least on the 2009 F-150 they did some panel panel changes that helped aero much more than just a lower air dam. For Ram, you gotta pay extra for all the changes.

I would also love to know how Ram is calculating their their truck as the most aerodynamic. Is it the lower air dam? Because that is all you get on a standard Ram.

Also, they are calculating 8.7" of ground clearance from the doors. Is that where manufactuerers normally calculate ground clearance? I thought it was from minium ground clearance, ie the lowest hanging part. If they lowered the front air dam, would that not decrease ground clearance? The air suspenion could raise up but the lowere air dam would diminish any gains.

@Lou & Dave, Jealous much? LOL.

Anyone know what day the chat is?

The final major addition to the 2013 Ram 1500 lineup is the new air suspension system that offers modes for a variety of situations. The modes of the Ram’s air suspension are NRH (normal ride height), Aero Mode, Off-Road 1, Off-Road 2 and Park mode. When set to NRH, the 2013 Ram 1500 has a ground clearance of 8.7 inches but when Aero Mode is selected, the truck lowers itself 1.1 inches to help it cut through the air more easily. Off-Road 1 raises the truck 1.2 inches compared to NRH while Off-Road 2 raises the truck a full 2 inches for almost 11 inches of ground clearance in stock, factory issued form. Finally, Park Mode lowers the vehicle by 2 inches so that it is easier to load cargo in and out of the bed or cab, while also making it easier for passengers to access the vehicle.
The adjustable air suspension package is controlled by either the buttons on the center console or via the key fob. This system is also equipped with a self-leveling system so when you load heavy cargo into the bed, the truck’s suspension system can meter the posture of the truck and make adjustments to get it back to the chosen ride height all around.

http://www.torquenews.com/106/refreshed-2013-ram-1500-gets-8-speed-trans-more-hemi-hp-new-york

MPG?

@Lou, Chrysler will BEAT FORD IN MPG WITH ITS NEW 1500!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdvTk5XNl5c

FROM JERRY REYNOLDS THE CAR PRO!

Ram fans and Lou, The chat is over, Sorry if you miss out! But you can get a transcript here or over on blogs.ramtrucks.com!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/RamTrucks/app_371844379541329?ism=JPJul0912Facebook3

guts glory ram

Quote: "General (Government) Motors and that Italian company Chrysler are walking dead corporations, they just don’t know it yet. Give them a couple of years."

That's a bet I take. I guess a few hundred thousand people out of work and huge burdens on social security are a good idea, for you. Not for me, saving these companies was the right move, that is why GW set it up so Obama really had no option.

That's a bet you take if you are ignorant of bankruptcy law and who was really saved. What was saved was the UAW. GM did not need an outright bailout. They could have gone through bankruptcy court like any other failing business, been better off and kept business running without any of the taxpayers losing a dime.

Amy Payne observes at the Heritage Foundation:

The Treasury Department estimates that taxpayers will lose $23 billion on the auto bailout. Sherk and co-author Todd Zywicki find that none of these losses came from saving jobs, but instead went to prop up the compensation of some of the most highly paid workers in America. They write:

We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW.

The Obama campaign is touting the bailout in Michigan this week, crowing about saved-or-created jobs. What the bailout actually saved was the UAW’s heavily padded compensation packages; what it created was a massive taxpayer loss.

The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour. Added to mistakes by management, these labor costs were a major reason the automakers went bankrupt.

However, through the bailout, the Obama Administration insulated the UAW from most of the sacrifices unions usually make in a bankruptcy—at taxpayer expense.

GM and Chrysler owed billions to a trust fund they had created to provide UAW members with gold-plated retiree health benefits. In bankruptcy, these funds should have been paid proportional to other unsecured creditors. Instead, while the Administration paid other creditors only a fraction of what they were owed, it gave the UAW trust fund assets worth tens of billions—including partial ownership of both companies. The U.S. Treasury should have received these assets.

Bankruptcy law also enables reorganizing companies to improve their post-bankruptcy situation by renegotiating union contracts to competitive rates.

If the UAW had been treated normally under bankruptcy law, the automakers’ average labor costs would have fallen to the same levels as the foreign-based carmakers, approximately $47 an hour. While this is still 40 percent higher compensation than the average manufacturing worker, it would have reduced UAW members’ standard of living. And the Administration wouldn’t allow that. So while the UAW accepted huge pay cuts for new hires, the Administration kept the pay structure of existing UAW members at GM intact.

Even Stephen Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar,” has admitted that “We should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.”

As a result, even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.

The average American worker—whose taxes paid for the bailout—earns $30.15 an hour in wages and benefits. Few Americans have the ability, as UAW workers do, to retire in their mid-50s before they can collect Social Security. Fewer still receive retirement health benefits in addition to Medicare, as UAW workers do. Yet their tax dollars went to subsidize UAW pay and benefits.

Had the government treated the UAW in the manner required by bankruptcy law, taxpayers would have broken even. The program would have amounted to bankruptcy financing instead of an outright bailout. The Administration could have kept the automakers running without losing a dime.

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2012/06/obamas-bailout-of-auto-workers-union-cost-taxpayers-23-billion-violated-bankruptcy-laws/