2013 Ram 1500 HFE 4x2: First Drive
By Aaron Bragman
Behold the unicorn! And take a good long look, as this just may be the only time you're going to see one of these: the 2013 Ram 1500 HFE. This is a special animal, rare indeed, built for bragging rights and marketing purposes: The "High Fuel Efficiency" model was designed to allow the brand to point to some impressive fuel economy numbers (for a pickup truck) and try out some new technologies that might find their way into other models down the road. As a personal-use pickup truck, it's quite good; it's not a lack of sophistication that will prevent it from success, nor any kind of outrageous hybrid-style price tag. No, it's the option combination you'd need for an HFE model that is likely to keep production low, at least for now.
HFE = High Fuel Efficiency
Start with a new 2013 Ram 1500 Regular Cab 4x2, the smallest full-size Ram pickup in the stable, with a cloth-covered bench that seats three. This is the redesigned 1500, with a new interior, styling and powertrain options. The only engine and transmission combo available for the HFE is Chrysler's excellent Pentastar 3.6-liter V-6, bumping out 305 horsepower and 269 pounds-feet of torque and mated to the TorqueFlite eight-speed automatic transmission. Power heads only to the rear wheels; four-wheel drive is not available on the HFE, nor is any other cab configuration or box length. The purpose of this truck is to grab fuel-economy bragging rights, so size and weight are being kept to an absolute minimum.
Poke around and underneath the 1500 HFE and you'll notice some interesting details. The Pentastar V-6 engine sits surprisingly high and aft, leaving a great deal of space in the engine compartment, something we're not used to seeing in these days of crammed-in componentry. This is almost a mid-engine pickup, with a good deal of the engine actually located behind the front axle line. The cooling system is interesting as well. Unlike most new vehicles, the HFE seems to get most of its cooling air through the grille instead of from underneath it. A set of massive power-actuated shutters sit behind that big chromed nose, opening and closing as needed to maximize aerodynamic efficiency and fuel economy. The lower part of the HFE's bumper fascia is actually sealed, with no fog lights or cooling openings.
Driving performance is more than adequate, with more than 300 horses hauling around not very much pickup. The HFE just misses out being the lightest Ram pickup you can buy by about 50 pounds, tipping the scales at 4,572 pounds. It has one of the smallest payload ratings at 1,430 pounds and one of the lowest maximum tow ratings, just 4,750 pounds. While still very capable, this is not meant to be a heavy-duty work truck or a towing rig. But around town and on the highway, the HFE is more than sufficiently powered without cargo and sports a couple of unique fuel-sipping features.
Stop-Start: A Full-Size Conventional Pickup First
First is the active fuel management system. You'll know it's working by the Eco light illuminating in the center cluster and by a very faint change to the engine note, but that's all. Eco mode employs tricks like fuel cutoff on deceleration to eke out the best fuel economy, but it falls short of actual cylinder deactivation; that feature comes instead on Ram's Hemi V-8 engines.
The more interesting feature is also an industry first for a non-hybrid full-size pickup, and it's impossible to miss: a stop-start system that kills the engine when you stop the truck. GM's two-mode hybrid system for full-size trucks and SUVs also features a stop-start system, but it is combined with an electric drive motor that powers the vehicle from a stop. When the Ram HFE comes to a stop, it feels and sounds as if the engine has stalled. We're used to this in a hybrid sedan, but in a full-size pickup it's a bit eerie. Lift your foot off the brake when the light turns green, and the heavy-duty starter quickly cranks the engine twice and off you go. Unlike other stop-start systems I've tried in passenger cars, which seem to halt the engine in midcycle wherever it happens to be and resume its operation when it's time to go, the Ram stop-start actually sounds like it's shutting off and cranking the engine every time. It sounds like there should be a delay between your brake-lift action and forward motion as the engine catches, but there isn't — just swap pedals and go.
In fact, the stop-start system works quite well once the engine warms up and certain conditions are met, such as the steering wheel not being cranked over to one extreme or the other. The system can be defeated; just switch it off using the steering-wheel controls through a command menu in the instrument cluster gauges. I never did shut it off, though, enjoying as I was the reaction of other drivers who looked at me funny as my big pickup pulled up next to them at a stoplight and promptly appeared to switch off. Having the system reminds you just how often you typically sit idle in traffic.
No Luxo-Truck, but Still Nice
On the street, the HFE drives much as any Ram. Acceleration with the V-6 is smooth, and the ride is typical short-wheelbase empty pickup choppy. The electric power steering is pleasantly quick and direct, and an unusually quick turn-in makes the truck feel more maneuverable than its competitors. The TorqueFlite eight-speed, made by ZF and shared with much of the rest of Chrysler's lineup, is well-matched to the engine. Upshifts are quick, and the truck never hunts for the right gear to keep things moving. The gear selector is novel — a rotary affair not unlike those found in Jaguar luxury sedans. Stopping distances are also quite good, with the four-wheel disc brakes coming on strong with excellent pedal feel.
The cabin is no penalty box either. Despite not having some amenities that many shoppers see in pickups these days, such as a leather interior, touch-screen multimedia and remote power everything, the latest update of the Ram has made even base-model interiors like this one quite nice. Seats are big, firm and comfortable; the steering wheel is grippy and thick; gauges are easily legible day or night; and there are plenty of cupholders, power ports, USB hubs and storage cubbies. Wheel-to-wheel side steps are an option that weren't present on my test truck, and they are indeed a necessity or else you'll find out just how wide a stance you have when trying to climb into the cab.
By the Numbers: Is It Worth It?
At the end of the day, this truck is about one thing: maximum mileage. It is EPA-rated at 18/25/21 mpg city/highway/combined. Ram says that this is the most fuel-efficient pickup on the market today, besting the 2013 Ford F-150's 3.7-liter V-6 and its optional twin-turbo EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6. My week of driving the Ram HFE consisted of a variety of conditions, but I generally drove as a normal operator (not as a crazy lead-foot automotive journalist). I didn't baby it in the name of maximum fuel economy; I kept up with traffic and tried to simply drive it smoothly. The 250 miles I put on it consisted of mostly around-town use and limited 70-mph highway travel. The result: I regularly saw the meter hit 30 mpg on the highway, and my overall average for the week came in at 21.4 mpg (confirmed through my own fuel versus miles calculations).
I did not tow with the truck, nor did I haul anything in the bed. I used the truck in the way the HFE model is most likely to be used — as a personal transport truck that is only sometimes used for cargo or light hauling duty. And in that role it does quite well, providing respectable fuel economy and considerable utility for light duties that don't require off-road prowess or serious towing.
Compared to the current crop of competitor pickups, the HFE is the most fuel efficient. The next closest is the out-of-production 2013 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid, which is EPA-rated at 20/23/21. That bests the Ram HFE's city fuel economy and matches its overall mileage, but falls short of the highway mileage. Of course, it does so with a more powerful V-8 engine, a low-speed electric drive system and a higher tow rating but comes with a price tag fully $12,000 more than the Ram HFE's. Ford does not offer a special "fuel-economy champ" model of the F-150, but instead touts the entire line's fuel economy. The F-150 offers a base 3.7-liter V-6, but at 17/23/19 mpg it is beaten by the Ram; the difference is that the base Ford V-6 can be had in a variety of body styles and bed lengths, and also with optional four-wheel drive. Stepping up to Ford's EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 doesn't help — it gets 16/22/18 mpg, well below the Ram HFE, but offers the benefit of V-8-like power and torque with a commensurate rise in towing ability (and price).
Unlike GM's old hybrid pickups, the Ram HFE will not break the bank. We're used to seeing ever-increasing prices for pickups as more Laramie, Laramie Longhorn, King Ranch, High Country, Denali, etc. models pop up in the mix, but not so with the HFE. Price as tested was just $29,505, including a $995 destination fee, but it did not include any options. Major options include the RamBox cargo management system for $1,295, a spray-in bedliner for $475, chrome wheel-to-wheel side steps for $500 and a manual sliding rear window for $140. Even loaded up, the Ram HFE doesn't top $35,000.
Of course, the question becomes who exactly is the target audience for this truck? It certainly won't be heavy-duty truck users, as it has neither the space nor the equipment to satisfy them. Fleet buyers with lots of stop-and-go duties, such as municipalities or security firms, seem the likeliest targets as buyers who would get the most out of the HFE's urban stop-start system fuel economy benefits. What they'll be getting is a solid, decently equipped rig with genuinely good fuel economy, all for a reasonable price.
Comments
You shouldn't have to sacrifice the abilities of the truck just for fuel economy. Mind as well by a small car if you don't plan on hauling and then you get even better economy. With towing under 5,000 pounds, it would be a hard sell for anyone to reason a couple MPG's for the ability of a truck. This won't be hardly a seller at all, simply for bragging rights.
Ram has a great marketing tool here with their HFE model pickup. However, that's all it really is.
I'd like to see each major manufacturer broken down by the fuel economy of the highest volume model-engine-tranny combination. This is where the real story is...what are people really purchasing?
The HFE might appeal to a very small segment of the market, but I find it a bit disingenuous for Ram to claim best-in-class fuel economy, for surely they know and understand the HFE will be a very small portion of truck sales.
I find that most claims by truck manufacturers for "best-in-class" for anything must be taken with a large grain of salt. It does little more than feed the egos of fan-boy addicts and add to the already intense hyperbole surrounding personal use truck marketing.
Kevin
A typical full-size buyer will not be interested in this. But a typical midsize buyer, on the other hand, should look at this. Will the diesel HFE hit 40mpg on the highway?
people would rather have the quad cab at that price. should be priced 3-5k cheaper to compete with stripper trucks.
this style pickup in just a few years will makes its way in the rest of RAM possibly with their eco-diesel phasing out their v8 hemi or replacing it with turbo charged v6's. the model for the U.S. auto market is that of very similar to Europe.
Not really worth it in my opinion, I bet the Hemi Regular Cab 4x2 gets close to the same mileage with much higher towing numbers, and grin factor.
so, basically were going to see less & less of the v8 power plants in the coming years. GM is grinding out all they can do with their v8s until they unleash a better replacement. RAM & Ford are doing the same thing only their probably the first in the pickup segment to take the initial steps toward v8 phasing & moving into turbo charged v6s & lightweight diesels.
I disagree with the posters who question its value: A pickup truck bed offers far more for the casual user than any small car. (Iam assuming the bedcover comes off-I am sure it does).
I want to pick up a yard of mulch, try that in your Chevy Cruze. Or go to the compost dump with trimmings from trees/bushes. Or get as I will later today, 6 bags of white gravel and some larger landscape rocks.
I think RAM may have something here-order it with the RAMBOX and the utility factor climbs greatly.
This is a great second vehicle for the suburban homeowner. It is almost a return to the highly usable/cheap to drive trucks of the 1980's.
So I guess this is something to offer people who want good mid size FE, towing and hauling in a full size which may be why Ram says they have no intent on a mid size truck at this time. I see nothing wrong with this approach it might work.
This does bring about questions like what will Ford counter with and what will GM's 4.3L be when the new Ford-GM tranny arrives which will get those high axle ratios a better low end and overall better FE. The new GM V6 is the first NA V6 I like in a pickup it has good power in a good range
Horsepower 285 @ 5300 RPM and Torque 305 @ 3900 RPM and is begging for a 8+ speed auto to go with the high axle ratio. Until then Ram job well done as I see nothing wrong with this product.
If they would make this truck with $X$, and loose just a mile or two, THIS would be my next truck!, but I need 4x4 in my trucks! I'll have to see what the Chevy 4x4 reg cab 6.5'bed will get, with the 4.3/6spd/3:42 lmtslp, before I go sign on the .......'d line!
Here's the part the article left out...
The Ram 1500 HFE indeed has EPA ratings of 18 mpg city and 25 highway. Other Ram 1500 4x2s with the 3.6L V6 and 8 speed are rated at... surprise... 17 and 25! The start-stop system and other HFE features gain exactly 1 mpg city and make no change to the highway rating.
Wait a few months for the diesel and get a legit mpg improvement.
GUTS
GLORY
MAXIMUM FUEL ECONOMY
BESTING FORD AND GM
BEST STYLING
BEST EVERYTHING
100% WHOOP ASS
RAM
No one buys regular cabs anymore except fleets. The bed is too short. If it had a longer box for hauling that would be better. The tonneau cover adds a couple mpg's and can be added to any truck. Thus we are not getting an accurate comparison between other models and makers. At the end of the day, this is a very stupid package.
Want this package? Add a tonneau cover to other Ram 1500 4x2s with the 3.6L V6 and 8 speed, slap on stickers, and you'll have it. This is a tonneau cover and sticker package.
Excellent package for small businesses, something Furd isn't smart enough to figure out.
Excellent package for small businesses, something Furd isn't smart enough to figure out.
Posted by: FordTrucks77 | Jun 9, 2013 12:42:21 PM
Well said my fellow disgruntled Ford truck owner. Ford has rested on it's laurels for far too long! I am concerned.
I hear that, I'm very concerned. I'd love to get into a new Ram, but the horrible resale on my EcoBust is killing me.
Well whaddaya know? A full-sized truck that actually meets MY needs.
The bed is too short on these trucks.
A diesel is going to get 10 more highway MPG as the Cherokee despite being bigger and heavier?
Well even if the diesel gets outstanding fuel economy, I doubt that 1500 series truck buyers will want to pay the premium.
That's probably why Ford nixed the 4.4 V8 Lion and Chevrolet nixed the Duramax 4500 a few years ago.
The market is way more interested in volume selling gas trucks that get outstanding economy, what's happening
with F150 5.0, Ecoboost V6 engines and dropping 700 lbs weight will make a huge difference.
A much lighter F150 in 2015 that is possibly fitted to a much smaller but still very powerful Ecoboost may once again see Ford's F150 effectively benching the Silverado and Ram 1500 for another three years.
It looks like a very nice pickup. The fuel economy is great for a gas engine vehicle. But the size of the vehicle seems to large for its abilities.
I would like to see the VM diesel economy figures in the same platform.
When the diesel does come out you'll have better performance and economy with much more usable torque for towing a large load.
The only drawbacks are its low load, very short bed and tow capacity, sort of reminds me of our Japanese ute tow capacities a decade ago.
@Alex
There has been many diesel stories for your half ton pickups. I actually remember last year when PUTC did an article on a diesel Ram.
I'm not the only person who realised what is going on, there are probably 1 000s that realise this. I is a very logical progression.
I have been saying (and so has Robert Ryan) for a long time that your pickups will get these 3.0 litre classs diesels and eventually you will be using mid sizers like we have, this is the begining, you still have a couple of decades to catch up.
I have had many heated debates regarding this issue. You haven't seen the end of the changes I have been describing.
It's a real pity that the US manufacturers haven't been able to compete effectively in gaining this technology and now much diesel technology will be imported. The reality is now the US diesel manufactureres will need to step up and take on these new challenges and design truely efficient engines.
The reason why I support the European model of vehicle design over the US model, especially in the area of pollution regulation is that the European are relying on developing existing technologies and the US has to invent or create technologies to achieve the same goals.
Look at shutter, cylinder deactivation, suspension lowering etc. Exotic materials will soon come into play. But as I have stated this stuff will be costly and diesel will become more viable.
This has been caused by decades of increasing trade barriers through ridiculous regulation. Like I have stated in the past the US would be better off adopting what the rest of us do, it will force your manufacturers to build globally competitive vehicles that the world will want. And then you will find you can export more.
Ram started out looking at a diesel Ram using the 3.0 litre Mercedes engine. Ram and Nissan also looked at the 2.8 Cummins, but that engine isn't suitable as it isn't powerful enough.
What GM will do I don't know, but the 2.8 could be an option if they can develop it further.
Toyota could really surprise everyone by building a "mid size" HD. A Tundra with a 4.5 V8 diesel.
But I'm exceptionally happy you guys can have a taste of what we have, finally.
Cummins can't provide a competitive diesel. They do make a 2.8 diesel, but the only pickup I know of that it is fitted to is a Chinese pickup called a Foton Tunland.
The 2.8 Cummins is generating 120kw (155hp) and 360nm (280ftlb) of torque. This is quite uncompetitive in the current market. It is in Toyota Hilux territory, previous generation diesel output.
For a comparison the VW Amarok 2.0 litre diesel is 120kw and 420nm of torque and gets much better fuel economy.
Overall US diesel technology is behind Euro diesel technology. Hopefully these Euro diesels coming into the US will force your diesel manufacturers to become competitive.
Ford will not be able to have a field day, how can possibly near on 30mpg highway be bad?
Have a look at the figure some of these Euro diesels develop.
They are quite amazing.
Even the VM going into the Ram is quite good. If it was translated in a 6.7 you'd have 530hp and 950ftlb.
My 3.2 Duratorqe is similar to an HD engine (by capacity) and this engine is over a decade old now. Its that old it doesn't meet Euro V.
Porche make a fantastic 4.2 V8 diesel of 288kw and over 800nm of torque. That is comparable to an HD diesel.
That's why I think Toyota will drop their 4.5 into the Tundra and offer an HD alternative. The Toyota V8 will not develop the Porche power, but it could be at least 300hp and 600ftlb of torque.
This Porche V8 is giving the 5 000lb Cayenne over 30mpg on the highway.
This will be the norm in 5-10 years for "budget" economical diesel engines. Something I'm looking forward to.
BMW, VW all make some fanstastic diesels. Kia is making a German designed 2.2 diesel of 140kw and 420nm of torque and that's a cheap Kia.
Don't get me wrong the US diesels are good, but not competitive. CAFE/EPA regulations caused this.
I have the Ford 5 cylinder 3.2 Duratorqe in my Mazda BT50.
In our version of the 3.2 we are putting out slightly less than this Cummins.
I would like to see what the US version of my engine is capable of, but I don't think we'll get it here. It will not meet Euro V or VI.
I can buy a chip from Germany for a few hundred and bump my power up to 250hp and 440ftlb of torque. There is supposed to be another chip floating around to give more, but I can't find it.
Just plug the module in, but this will reduce my current fuel economy.
One day you will see even smaller diesels able to be used in your half ton pickups. I can see 2.2 diesels becoming viable within a few years.
Imagine a 2.2 4 cylinder in a full sizer? The world is an amazing place.
@BAf0 - Thanks, but this is America, mate.. If we wanted small diesels and or, small trucks with smaller diesels, we would have them.
@Big Al, I was advocating for diesels in Australia long before Australians wanted them.
http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=20404&highlight=diesel&page=2
Username: Chevypower. Location no longer reflects where I was at the time I wrote it. Notice, it wasn't just diesels I wanted, it was diesel electric hybrids (in a series configuration). I hope you're not implying I am behind the times just because I am excited about the Ram EcoDiesel 1500.
I should add that before common rail injection, most diesels were a pile of crap. A few exceptions of course, the Cummins 5.9, Power Stroke 7.3, and Land Rover's TD5. The old small Toyota diesels were horrible and gutless.
US diesel technology is behind Euro diesel technology. Hopefully these Euro diesels coming into the US will force your diesel manufacturers to become competitive.
So sad some idiots have to post under someone else's name. Shows a lot about them. These trucks are why FORD and spam need to bring back the small pickups. Why get away from them in the first place?? You buy a full size truck and you pay for the fuel. Most people like full size but a lot of people like smaller trucks too. This is just dumb on spams part. Dumb on FORDS part too for doing away with the Ranger. Oh by the way, NO GUTS, NO GLORY, SPAM!!!! TURD PLACE AND STAYING THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It makes sense, a European invented the diesel engine. A European company invented CRD. The Europeans are ahead of that game. US diesel engines are using the latest technologies though, with European input. Eg, the 6.7 Power Stroke is heavily European in design, it uses a Sintercast CGI block (same casting company for many Euro diesels), latest generation of Bosch (German) CRD, part AVL (Austrian) designed engine, with Ford engineers from Dagenham. The Japanese, on the other hand, seem to not use all the latest technology on their engines. It amazes me that Toyota can sell a 4.5L V8 diesel with only 145kw and 430Nm.
I have the Mazda equivalent with the 3.2 diesel and it is a good vehicle.
There would be a very large market in the US for a vehicle like this and the other 8 brands we have.
I think they will compliment your full size market and increase pickup ownership numbers in the US.
They are surprisingly torquey and are very good at towing large loads.
As for the guys whining about the size of the beds most of them probably won't load theirs because it will get a scratch.
The vehicles are quite versitile and have a reasonable payload.
For all of the people who fear, I'm not saying stop full size trucks, just allow these vehicles to compete fairly in your market.
As you are aware I do think there is some "funny" trolling.
The likes of DenverMike use subtle methods of trolling. That's why I refuse to alter any debate with him. That's how you tackle his style of trolling. Leave definite boundaries when you start to debate him.
His technique is to subtly distort a debate until he's makes himself correct. He tries to play mind games.
But, my view is he's a goose.
@BaFO - We don't want your diesels. We don't even want our own diesels in less than HD trucks. And although US diesels won't pass Euro V or Euro VI emissions, Euro diesels won't pass CARB emissions. So what's the difference?
The 3.2 I-5 appears to have good torque delivery down low, and seems to stay away from unnecessary complexity to keep costs down (as opposed to a more complex V6). I wouldn't go smaller than a 6.5' bed because I already have to remove the tailgate if I want to carry the ATV on the back AND pull a trailer (camper) at the same time). I cannot close the tailgate with the ATV on the back. A smaller bed, I would have to leave the tailgate on and down and not have the ability to tow.
I'm pretty disappointed that with all these features it still only manages a rating of 18/25. Only 1 mpg better city and 2 highway than the ford without an 8 speed, without grill shutters, without SEVERELY reduced ability to tow, without start/stop. I'm hoping this truck is just underrated. I would think they could squeeze more mpg out of it with all those features. Am I the only one that feels this way? I mean that is just pathetic. Just build a true compact. My ten year old ranger averages 27 mpg and is not as nice but probably almost as capable as this HFE ram. By the way, does anyone know what transmission the 2015 f-150 will have? Are they going to have a 10 speed by then? I'm guessing they put a turbo 4 cylinder in it that puts this truck to shame as far as performance and mpg. Atleast that's what I'm hoping for. Maybe I'm expecting too much but I figured they should get 30 mpg highway with all the listed features of this truck.
The EPA tests are full of crap. They don't measure the effects of stop start at all, the "highway" test averages 48 mph and enormously understates the importance of drag, and there's very little constant speed driving so it really overstates the value of a hyperactive transmission.
As such there's no room to meaningfully comment on what they've accomplished here without an apples to apples, real world test against another truck.
@Numpty aka DenverMike UAW.
It's odd you are the only one that responds to the duplicate posts under my name on this site.
What's your game? UAW?
I can see this being worth for those that want midsize milage and capability. Hell the only other truck that comes close to mileage is the 4 cylinder Tacoma, but isn't near as capable, and surely doesn't perform as well. Not to mention looks the $7000 cheaper then it is.
It won't sell well, but it will sell to somebody. I was worried about the stop/start tech not performing well at first, but it sounds like the did a good job smoothing it out.
Dan, I agree that EPA estimates are not very realistic, but considering this had an outcome of just over it's epa estimates, that stands for something.
beebe, if it where really as easy as you are making it sound, why hasn't anybody other manufacturer done it yet? As for the 2015 f150, all I have heard is that will stay with the same powertrain until the 2017 updates, like they did with the current generation.
@Dan: Up to a point, I will agree with you, but then, the EPA ratings also assume every driver is an idiot behind the wheel, driving recklessly and constantly speeding at 85mph or more. I've driven many cars that have a certain city- or highway mpg rating and immediately exceeded it by 15%-20% merely by driving reasonably. I've even managed to take a pre-Pentastar Jeep Wrangler to 25mpg on the freeway on a 750-mile trip that crosses the Appalachian mountains; and yes, I was driving at freeway speeds, though not necessarily at the posted speed limit. Don't think I was driving slowly, either; I was still passing other cars traveling slower than I was. 750 miles in 13 hours of driving including stops isn't exactly sleeping behind the wheel, you know.
Regular cab short bed, how useless is that! That just looks wrong.
@Alex
I'm really wanting to see the Ram with the VM diesel, it'll be an eye opener. It will be a work truck that can tow and carry a load.
So far, as I have stated in the past about meeting CAFE, the technologies will increase the price of pickups significantly, like the cost of this truck.
This truck is really a daily driver. And adding to DenverSpin's response on bringing midsizers back into the discussion I do think this trucks capabilities are quite low, we never had capabilites as low as this since the 70's minitrucks. Then they even had a load capacity of 2 200lbs.
I think this truck could have been made to do a little more work. Or this truck is just an exercise to offset poorer perfroming (FE) pickups like the PT Cruisers were used for.
Lies...
@bAfO - Truth is, and no matter how you try to spin it, Euro diesels are no better than US spec. Same junk, different emissions.
And it was you, "BAfo the troll", that brought up 'mid-size', as always.
I dont understand this package at all. It looks like something no one will buy to me. Honestly I would expect something like this from GM.
I think it is Hilarious and almost Fraudulous that they show the Big Horn Laramie 4x4 with the Hemi and all in the commericals (exterior and interior for that matter) LOL... wow?
I applaud the effort. Unfortunately I think a better use of one's money would be a crossover with hitch and a decent utility trailer. You will end up with better mileage, and will have a 5x8 bed with a 2k lb load capacity when you need it.
@Phillyguy
I would like to see the truck with a larger payload and a longer bed.
This would have made it more viable for business applications.
That's my only gripe, other than that I think the FE figures are good for a gas engine vehicle of this size.
The tow capacity is okay, how many would really tow more than this can tow.
@ Big Al
Most wouldn't tow more than this thing can tow, but most won't tow more than the 3500 lbs most crossovers can pull also.
I agree with you generally that the biggest limitations of the Ram pickups are their low payload numbers. I really like Ram's pickups, and had really hoped that with the introduction of the air suspension that they would have gotten a huge payload boost. Hopefully sometime in the future.
I prefer trucks myself (much like everyone on this site), but for the guys that don't tow big trailers, and who only haul occasionally, who are very preoccupied with fuel economy numbers, I think that they do themselves a disservice not considering anything with a hitch along with a decent utility trailer. The combination certainly cannot replace everything a truck does, but it can do a great job replacing quite a bit of it. Even for guys with trucks I would encourage them to pickup a decent utility trailer. They help do a lot of jobs better than just a pickup alone.
this truck has applications just no one who sits at a desk would know about them. I hope they build more things like this but with awd for places that get snow and leave 2wd trucks helpless on steep hills. or just add a transfer case and front cv's but be able to unlock everything so only the weight was the penalty. the price needs to be lower more like 22k that would make it appealing. 21+ mpg in city would be great!
The comments to this entry are closed.