2014 Ram HD Chassis Cab: First Look

Ram CC 1 II

By Andrew Mikonis

Although most of the new Ram heavy-duty chassis cab models (that includes the 3500, 4500 and 5500) remain similar to 2013 specs, there are some significant changes for 2014. The biggest difference (and most exciting from our vantage point) is the addition of a new base engine for most of the models, an all-new 6.4-liter Hemi gasoline V-8.

"It's a true truck engine," said Kevin Mets, head of Ram Truck heavy duty pickup engineering, "tested on the same durability schedule as the Cummins turbodiesel." The new Hemi produces most of its torque at 1,800 rpm versus the competitions' 2,800 rpm level. Based on many of the same design strategies as the 5.7-liter Hemi V-8, Mets said component sharing (the two engines share about 70 percent with one another) means "proven durability." Additionally, Ram engineers wanted to make sure the new engine would run best on 87-octane fuel (the 5.7-liter Hemi recommends 89 octane) in order to make the engine more fleet friendly. Mets also said a cooled exhaust-gas recirculation system helps to reduce overall fuel consumption as well.

A significant upgrade to the 6.4-liter Hemi over the 5.7-liter Hemi that used to be offered on some chassis cab models is the automatic cylinder deactivation feature, which allows the engine to run on four cylinders when off throttle or at various steady cruise situations; most buyes will match the bigger Hemi with the 66RFE automatic transmission. When paired with the Aisin A66RC automatic, it can run on four cylinders in PTO mode as well. The engine is also designed to deliver 250 pounds-feet of torque on the power takeoff, which will be available for either right- or left-side use.

From a durability standpoint, Mets said the stainless-steel exhaust system, sodium-filled exhaust valves and oversized oil cooler should also keep long-term costs down. The oil change interval for the gas engine is 10,000 miles.

Of special note to fleet buyers is a dual alternator option that can produce a total of 380 amps. The base alternator puts out 180 peak amps with a 220-amp upgrade available; the dual option adds a 160-amp unit. Dual alternator diesels are rated at 440 amps. Like other chassis cab engine options, the 6.4-liter V-8 carries a transferrable five-year/100,000-mile warranty.

Maximum available front gross axle weight rating for 4500 and 5500 diesels has increased to 7,250 pounds. The new base engine maximum front GAWR matches last year's 7,000-pound diesel rating.

If you are trying to stay below certain weight ratings with your truck, a new 3500 single-rear-wheel chassis cab model debuts for 2014. Exclusive features include the carryover 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 as an option and three new 18-inch-wheel choices (steel, chrome-clad steel or polished aluminum) depending on trim level.

In other 2014 3500 chassis cab news, four-wheel-drive models receive a new front axle disconnect system to help save fuel as well. The three-link front suspension along with all the other frame improvements introduced last year on 3500 retail pickups are now on all 3500 commercial chassis cab models. A new tire pressure monitoring system that displays all tire pressures on a dedicated gauge screen is available for both single- and dual-rear-wheel models - a first in the segment. Mets called it a "passive system" that doesn't trigger a warning light, so that operators will be able to adjust pressures based on their needs.

Finally, a new dual tank option for all models increases capacity to 74 gallons. Also, the 52-gallon standard tank can be deleted in favor of a midship-mounted 22-gallon tank.

Ram CC 5 II

Chassis cabs were not available for driving at the 2014 Ram media event; however, we did test a single-rear-wheel Ram 3500 crew cab pickup with the new 6.4-liter engine for a taste of what a sub-10,000-pound truck drive might be like. Those noncommercial rigs get the same 410-horsepower at 5,600 rpm ratings as all other pickups, while heavier models will get the down-rated 370-hp (at 4,600 rpm) 6.4-liter Hemi. Both, however, produce 429 pounds-feet of torque. To put it bluntly, we like this motor. The bigger Hemi definitely delivers a stronger pull, with a touch more smoothness at lower rpms. Over a variety of road conditions, which included choppy dirt roads, the three-link front suspension felt vastly improved and almost downright refined. Our test truck had a bed full of hay bales and carried the tall load with composure and control. We'll have a more in-depth assessment of various chassis cab models when we get the chance to sample the full line at a later date. But for now, this bodes well for the rest of the lineup.

To read the press release on the 2014 Ram 3500/4500/5500 Chassis Cabs, click here

To review the specifications for the 2014 Ram 3500 HD Chassis Cab, click here.

To review the specifications for the 2014 Ram 4500/5500 HD Chassis Cabs, click here.

Ram CC 3 II

Ram CC 4 II

Ram CC 2 II

 

Comments

anyone who is tired of the trolling can click the link below and file a complaint.

https://www.facebook.com/Ssshhh.No1.gives.a.fukk

Thank God I live in Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSDU8Laoi2U

I gotta admit Carlin is pretty spot on with most of what he says on thier Lou

Thanks Hank...I though he was as well.

6.4 Hemi sounds like it has good power albeit not quite as much as GMs 6.2... again another area where GM is behind.. not offering their most powerful v8 in their hd's maybe that will change with the 2015 models...

Nice to see them putting out a promo pic with the 6-speed manual. This sounds like a killer gasser to put a manual shifter behind.

Chrome wheels on a chassis-cab fleet model? Pull the other one...

But wow, those bales suuuure do look _heavy_. C'mon, even if they're 50 lb.+ alfalfa (and they look to me more like 30 lb. straw or reeeally dry 40 lb. grass), there can't be more than 1000 lbs in the bed. And that bed is not "full"...in a full-sized 8-foot-by-5-foot, you can easily fit about 30 bales without even putting the tailgate down

Cmon, guys. You know you've got farm guys on this site. We're not the only ones who use our trucks for truck work, but we make up a pretty good percentage.

@David
I agree with you.


From some of the new Fiat/Ram tow figures it should be able to tow this. Not.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3662096895_f47793e3b9.jpg

An previous generation sytle of vehicle with a load of hay. More of a Ram payload.

http://www.mazda.com.au/vehicles/bt-50/media-gallery#/image/bt-50-at-work/56EA5EF022414302AB888BA913CC9067

@David
As for the rims are they chrome or alloy?

We are starting to see as 'normal' alloys similar to this fitted to our LDT, most MDTs and HDTs (semi's).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Alcoa_alloy_wheel_001.jpg

@Jason: but would the Chevy 6.2 live in a heavy duty envirement? What is it's compression? Sure, 450 foot pounds torque, at 100 rpm higher then the hemi, now for HD truck use, whats important? Lets see through a dyno run, and K&N will probably dyno both, and see what both do at say 2500 rpm? The last 6.2 had bigger numbers as well, all at a higher rpm, and realistically, the 5.7 kept right up with it until 4000 rpm. Now whats imortant in a hd truck, that might pull alot more weight? The K&N dyno is done before they install their filter.

Did I see the 6.2 only rated to tow 300 pounds more then the 5.3? Yeah, just a hot rod engine. not a worker.

@Big Al: so do you have any clue how much weight that hey is? Of course, you claim to be some "engineer"....yeah, right...degree from a cracker jack box?

@Jason. I think there is a good chance the 6.2 will find it's way in the Chevy/GMC HD's (probably down-rated though). I wonder if they will use the 5.3 for people that don't tow much but still want to save a little fuel.
In any event I think it's pretty cool that Ram is using the 6.4 in the trucks. Might as well put them in the 1500's now!

I'm not an expert on the weight of hay bales, but I might be the closest thing to one on this site. 30 bales in the back of a pickup weighs, at the _absolute_ most, 1500 lbs. That's if they're 50 lbs. each, which is above average for alfalfa and pretty hefty for grass. Straw bales really can't be more than 40 lbs. max, simply because you can't compress that much volume into a small-sized bale.

To find the weight of the pulled-behind load: we have older wagon-style hay racks that weigh about 1500 lbs. empty and hold 120 bales on a "standard" load. That's 5 "tiers" of 24 bales each--4 layers of 5 with 4 on the top to "tie them in." They can hold really as many as you want to stack, but somebody's gonna have to unload it at some point. Plus there's the matter of having to move it down the road. Now, assuming that our bales still weigh 50 lbs. each, that's 6000 lbs, or 7500 with the weight of the rack. A low-load car-style trailer like what BAFO showed will weigh less (I don't know how much...we've never owned one), but you can't go bouncing down an empty field with one, nor can you pull it behind a baler. I know we've filled orders with somebody getting hay on a rack _and_ in the pickup bed, but it's always been at least a 3/4 if not a 1-ton pickup.

Round bales, which make up a minority of our hay in any year, are a different story. Most of our 4-foot-deep round bales (we use 4-foot rather than 5-foot because then a load is still only 8 feet wide) weigh around 1000 lbs., and our rack holds 8 bales (a base of 3x2 bales with 2 on top), but only 6 when we bring to the sale--don't trust anyone to be careful enough pulling it to God-knows-where without losing the top bales, plus 6 is a nice even number (half a dozen). So that's anywhere between 7500 and 9500 lbs. Half-ton territory, no problem. When we use a 30' gooseneck, which weighs about 6000 lbs. empty, we can hold 14 bales, which comes out to 20,000, which an F-350 V10 can take just fine. But we only use that to bring bales home from the field, and not to the sale.

As for the big rectangular bales that you usually see on semi-trailers, well, I can't be of any help there. Seen plenty going back and forth on I-90, but never seen anyone using them in our area.

But I don't think we've ever sold hay to anybody who picked it up in anything less than a half-ton pickup. Of course, this is the Upper Midwest--I don't think anyone even seriously thought about getting a little pickup until, like, the late 80's, and there's plenty of guys who've got an F-150 or a 1500 that could get by with a Taco, Frontier, etc., and even more who've got an F-250 or a 2500 that only really need a half-ton.

BTW,those are bales of STRAW in the back of the pickup...not hay.Hay weighs about triple what a bale of straw does.

Me and FordTrUcks77 will have one of these or a GM HD in our driveways soon. You can bank on it!

@TRX4 Tom
I'm actually a bit of a country boy and have handle hay in the past. We even used to make chaff, if you know what that is.

Now are we talking dry or wet? The bales would be between 20kg (44lb) and 23kg (a bit over 50lb). I've actually baled hay, we used alfalfa generally. Hard job, but I was a kid.

You know you think you are the most clever, but sometimes there might be someone 'cleverier'. Always trying to put someone or something down. Grow up.

Here's a bit of info.

http://www.haycountry.com/texas

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farming-management/drought-information/drought-feeding-for-cattle/appendix-1

@ TRX 4 Tom The 6.2L can tow 500 pounds more then the 5.3L
The 6.2L isn't just a hot rod engine its the limit of the rear axle which is the same has Ford offers in its max tow package a 9.75. That's lot better then the weak rear axle Ram offers 9.25 LOL! http://www.mopar.com/ram/1500/2013/shop/354602/135/3897/

@David
Good blog. I think there would be a few country guys who blog on this site.

The region of NSW I grew up in had many horses and studs, with a few dairy guys around in the hills.

Orchards (in the hills) and flatland or lowland farming (market gardening) was common around the river.

We didn't farm as my old man was into building, but all around there were farms and to make a few bucks on weekends you used go out and help and get paid. We had some sheep, I love lamb and beef.

That's how I saved up for my first vehicle, at Datsun 520 trayback ute (flatbed pickup) in the mid 70s. Trail bikes like RMs and DTs etc where the toys for the teenage kids as well.

I don't know if young teenagers and kids still do that sort of stuff. Or it they have money it's blown on their smart phones.

But there is a lot of kids like TRX4 Tom who also blog on PUTC. We have to nurture them.

This 6.4 makes the full 429lb/ft at 1800rpm? Am I the only one here to be impressed by this? This pretty well matches older diesels but with an added 410HP of passing power up top. With the stout build and 87 octane capable it seems like a pretty good alternative to the Cummins.


Sounds like the 6.4 is putting out some respectable numbers down low in the rpm range. Impressive down low torque.

I doubt that the Chevy 6.2 will find its way into a HD. Chevy never used the 6.2 in the past, why would they change now?

429 lb-ft of torque sounds like way too much for a gas engine @1800 RPM ... that's diesel territory. Must be a mistake or typo. I just double-checked Chrysler's website and it is @4,000 RPM. I'm sure it has great low-end torque still, just not over 400 at only 1800 RPM. Still a heck of a motor!
@Lou BC, good point about the 6.2 in the Chevy HD. Where they have all new Gen V small block engines now, I'd be surprised if they designed a 6.0 and 6.2 at the same time. The 6.2 came years after the old 6.0. So if they are going with the new Gen V I'm guessing they'll use the 6.2. Maybe we'll be surprised?

@Lou_BC From what I have read GM might offer a reworked 6.0L and from other places I have read they will use the 6.2L So no clue as to what gas engine they may pick for HD trucks.

There will be a gas HD. People are tired of paying $10,000 extra for a diesel.

@johnny doe - I'd be surprised if they went with the 6.2. The 6.0 was built as a work truck engine. The 6.2 was designed first as a Corvette engine and tuned for pickups. Nothing wrong with that approach since Ram has done the same thing. If one goes back far enough in time before there were specific hi-po car engines, industrial truck engines were used in performance applications.

@The Real Lou
It will be interesting to see what V8s are kept and the ones the manufacturers will make obsolete.

I read an interesting piece about a year ago, it stated that there will end up being one Hemi available and one Ford V8 (I would expect the Coyote).

If Ford are keeping the Coyote, will a small Hemi be retained by Fiatsler? What would the GM stable keep as a V8? Will a 6 litre being a viable future engine.

Or will GM and Fiatsler keep the larger V8s and Ford the 5 litre. Turbo/supercharged sixes will fill in the gap of the smaller V8s. Then with the demise of the larger V8s down the track and they are replaced with diesels.

Range Rover have already started going down the V8 replacement track. Prestige vehicles (SUVs) always precede 'normal' vehicles in trends.

I remember reading that Fiat are looking at a 2.7 Supercharged Pentastar, that could easily replace a Hemi.

New features show Ram is still the leader

"Twenty-five years ago, the first diesel-equipped Dodge Ram pickup went on sale. Then, twenty years ago, Dodge made the pickup world sit up and take notice. The 1994 Dodge Ram pickup, with its big-truck styling, transformed an also-ran vehicle line with a seven-percent market share into a major player with an 18.5% share at the end of August 2013. Significantly, from the crash in 2009 to the end of 2012, Ram achieved the highest growth of any American pickup.

For 2014, these trends converge as Ram becomes the only American full-size pickup line to offer diesel engines across its range."
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2013/09/new-features-show-ram-is-still-the-leader

I can't wait for my new Power Wagon with that Cl ass Kicking 392 cubic inch Hemi V8.

@HEMI V8 - Cummins might of went into Dodge trucks 25 years ago, but you gotta admit, Dodge trucks were crap until 1994.

That 6.4 sounds like it will have a ton of torque down low but as a few guys have pointed out, what was posted here does not jive with Ram's site.

@Hemi V8 - that's great Hemi you sound really excited about the power wagon. I bet you can't wait to buy tires for it.

Maybe if you get a life, you can get excited about other more important things....lol.

@Fake Lou - all you have to get excided about is Granny handing you the keys to her Datsun B210.

That's right Lou. At least I know my granny. Your mother was going to let you know who's mother from the football team was your granny...but she never did and she's gone now isn't see....lol.

@Lou I'm sure that you find yourself completely amusing and the very fact that I am answering one of your posts must have you firing a wad into your coloured underwear (yellow front, brown back). Ultimately, your cowardice hurts PUTC and if you do have a problem with My black mother then you should have the intestinal fortitude to debate me face to face without hiding behind your fat ass.

@Lou BC, "@HEMI V8 - Cummins might of went into Dodge trucks 25 years ago, but you gotta admit, Dodge trucks were crap until 1994."

Compared to what?...... Fords flammable line of trucks??????

Ford Recalls 3.8 Million Trucks and SUVs to Fix Cruise Control Switch that has ... and covers the 1994 thru 2002 model years, Ford F-150, F-Series Supercrew ... about Fords that caught fire even when they were parked and the engine shut off.

@David, the manual truck interior and the white chassis cab trucks are both Cummins diesels, not 6.4 gassers. The interior pic shows a redline at 3,000 rpm, and the white one has the "C" badge on it.

Info on the class leading Ram Heavy duty line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHoOVA4yA80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxX9cVnGY8s

Ram's 2500 is now more capable then the cross town rivals 3500.

More Guts

More Capability

More Cl ass Kicking

RAM!

I would like to see the ISF 3.8 4 cylinder Cummins diesel as a cheap entry option for the Ram HDs.

They would only cost the same as a V8. But they will deliver good FE with at least 270hp and 480-500ftlb of torque.

They could run the cheaper V8 gas lower torque drivetrain. Cost could be saved in a few areas.

They would make for a great work truck, even as a manual not auto.

@HemiV8 - cut the partisan BS, can you honestly say that pre 94 Dodge trucks were good looking? or were bought by anyone other than farmers and old guys wearing suspenders?
The only thing that sold them was the Cummins.

Your only experience related to Dodge is by your own admission the truck you bought in '99.

I would like to see the ISF 3.8 four cylinder Cummins diesel as a cheap entry option for the Ram HDs. These will develop more torque than the 6.4 Hemi.

They would only cost about the same as a V8. But they will deliver much better FE with at least 270hp and 480-500ftlb of torque.

They could run the cheaper V8 gas drivetrain. Cost could be saved in a few areas.

They would make for a great work truck, even as a manual not auto.

Sorry, the prior similar blog didn't post to well so I reposted it.

@HemiV8 - to quote you "Ram's 2500 is now more capable then the cross town rivals 3500.

Who else builds 3500's in Saltillo Mexico?

@The Real Lou, Mark Williams and HemiV8
I've been doing some research and found some interesting trends on this site.

It appears that whenever Lou or myself post blogs a certain person becomes more involved. I found this odd.

Why would a certain blogger's name appear at a much greater rate when we blog in particular articles?

Some article are even devoid of HemiV8 when myself or Lou doesn't post.

HemiV8 it isn't hard to work out. Whenever Lou or myself blog you come and blog in the same articles and then come on with your disruptive behaviour, your false names, etc.

Lou, as much as you try and accommodate this guy maybe you should give him a miss. Even when he starts posting using your or my names (including all of the other names). We will have to avoid responding. This might be awkward at times.

HemiV8, it's not hard to work out, I've went back through quite a few articles and noticed this. Other's feel free, I'm not lying. You generally contribute trash anyway, mate.

You goal is too prevent interaction between Lou, myself and other bloggers. Pull your head-in. That's what you meant by Guerilla Marketing. Right DlM :-)

@Big Al from Oz - I do think that DM, HemiV8, and some of the others that you lump together are not the same. There are differences in posting style and one's individual personality does eventually shine through. Those with ulterior motives eventually make mistakes.
There are many disruptive influences on this site and you should follow the advice that you are giving me. Ignore those who you feel are trolls. DM is a prime example of someone who plays you like a cheap fiddle. I tend to ignore him because I've tired of his dance but until I did, it was very amusing to poke and prod and feint and feign.
The conspiracy theories you post may or may not be true but they do undermine your credibility and that is ultimately what "they" want.
The fake Lou is a prime example of a troll who has dug himself his own hole. I just moistened the soil so the digging was easier. That was entertaining and took longer than I thought.
I would explain all of his mistakes but that would help others wishing to do the same. (Same can be said for DM).

I actually do not mind HemiV8. He is amusing to joust with. If his story is to be believed, he has had some bad things happen to him which has left him wondering where he fits in. Defending his brand gives him perceived power and takes his mind of his future or potential lack thereof. I've seen similar behavior before in my professional life.
Others have more abrasive blogging styles but even with that being said, I do not remotely consider them as trolls.

@The Real Lou
I do have trouble with DlM and I have been avoiding commenting to him. I do considered him actually the worst form of troll. He seeks pleasure from perceived power, scary I might add. I think the guy can lie with a straight face.

But, as I've stated going back and digesting what has occurred it appears that HemiV8 appears every time yourself or myself post, along with those false names. It also appears that the person using the false names isn't HemiV8 at times.

I do admit some of my responses are unsavoury, but like I've stated enough is enough.

As for the consipracy side, I have made some of those comments, not to be a troll, but it gave me information. Just like how you resolved you Fake Lou issue:) But I do respond with to sharp and edge on occasion, I'll tone that down.

I'm still here, like yourself.

I really do think there are about 5 guys who blog here that really are the problem. I think you and I do contribute to some of it by the way we respond/react. That was my point, look at how we respond (including myself I must stress).

I really do think a more secure setup is needed though, that would make it difficult for the trolls.

Even on TTAC the trolls come out, but they are more subdued.

Talking about HemiV8, how much off what he states is correct or real when it appears reality is distant at times (I'm not being rude, but serious).

As I've stated we had a guy similar at work I had to manage and it appears he had a disorder called Fragile X Syndrome. A person with this disorder will latch onto a 'favourite' product/band/vehicle and learn all the ins and outs of it. Sort of a learned idiot, a savant for a better word.

I have noticed in the past with HemiV8, I was 'talking' about when I used to go out into the sand dunes he was completely focused and manageable. You had that experience the other day I noticed when interacting with him.

At the end of the day most of the bloggers on this site are good people, I might not agree with all that they say, and they don't have to agree with what I say. But information does find it's way around.............somehow.

@HEMI V8 - By '93, Cummins was the only thing keeping the Dodge trucks alive, other than fleet sales. A new generation of Dodge trucks was badly need, a decade earlier.

Ford and GM trucks were all-new for '80 and '87 respectively, and Fords were on their 3rd (and final) update by the early '90s. Those Ford and GM trucks still look sharp today. Dodge trucks were extremely long in the tooth.

In '91, had a newer Dodge Ram company truck and hated it. You had to slam the crap out of the doors so they would close good. Annoying. And they still used the thumb-button door handle that you had to push really hard. Junk.

My personal truck was an F-250 and I had to keep reminding my Dodge buddies to not slam the hell out of my passenger door. Every time, SLAM! "IT'S NOT A DODGE - STOP SLAMMING MY DOOR!!!"

I don't know too much about the GM diesels of the time, but mine had the IHC 7.3 with the ATS turbo that made it equivalent to the Cummins.

Ram trucks have come along way, and I'll have to take the new 6.4 HEMI for a test drive when I replace my F-550s.

@Lou_BC - "Keep it up. I do not mind."

That's great to hear Lou thanks. I'm glad you agree, most people on this site are American and they get really upset with this stuff. I was kind of surprised that you are answering my posts. You've indicated many times now that you would no longer answer my posts. Especially since I use LOU as my blog name...that must piss you off. But here you are...lol.

You also said that you would leave this site because of the trolls...but here you are. I know it's hard to leave when your old and don't have a life. But I finally know why you stay, you agree and you want me to "Keep it up". Thanks buddy!

But if you have a problem with keeping it up you can try this:

http://www.sinrex.com/

You father swore by this product, maybe it will work for you.

@HEMI V8 - According to the BAF0NAT0R, we're the same person. So I can expect a scouring reply from myself as "HEMI V8" about Ford fires and recalls and an '80s Mustang V6 I'm still butt hurt about... Get over myself and all my split personalities that argue with each other!

@all
Nice how this NEW business model is working.

@Denverlllmike, BAFO is licking those AUSTRALIAN cane toads form the outback.lol He is dazed and confused. He sure as hell is no Sherlock Holmes.

No low slung frame there like the Silverado HD.


@Denverlllmike, BAFO is licking those AUSTRALIAN cane toads form the outback.lol He is dazed and confused. He sure as hell is no Sherlock Holmes.

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Sep 22, 2013 11:13:55 AM

LMAO got to admit you had me rolling on the ground laughing there

@Fake Lou - do you even own a truck?
The reason I answered your posts was simple, and since you are too "simple" to understand, I'll explain it to you.

Your strategy has been to make posts distorting and twisting comments that I have made or make dumb comments and make it appear that I have said them.

The fact that you were stupid enough to engage in a conversation with me shows the bloggers on this site that you are not me.

You should go find yourself a job with that useless degree. I'm sure Walmart has a position for you.

Each time you post, you hurt what ever pathetic agenda you are fixated upon.

I'm sure that you will crawl away and surface under another fake name.

Big Al You are right there is a trend/pattern to these trolls and has been for over a year. They are PR guys for the different auto makers and work in teams 3 or4 to the team. If you go back and look they hit you hard on every small/midsize truck post. Ford and Fiat do not want these trucks so when the GM midsize debut the debates will get heated.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com