Fiat Fully Acquires VM Motori

2 ET014_035EP

By Brian Wong

According to Automotive News, Fiat Group has finalized its acquisition of diesel engine maker VM Motori, purchasing the remaining half from General Motors for $47.1 million. Fiat originally purchased half of the company in 2010; this purchase gives the Italian auto giant full control of the diesel engine maker and the potential to produce even more 3.0-liter V-6 turbo-diesels (dubbed EcoDiesel) that are now powertrain options for both the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee (currently on sale) and Ram 1500 pickup truck (due in showrooms in early 2014).

VM Motori specializes in the production of advanced diesel engines, annually producing approximately 90,000 engines that are used in automotive, marine, industrial and other applications.

Fiat's U.S. partner, Chrysler, is waiting to see if the turbo-diesel engine options catch on with U.S. buyers to determine if it will offer diesel power options in more vehicles across its brands. We fully expect the take rates for the first year to be significant (maybe as much as 15 percent), but whether or not U.S. fleet or personal truck buyers will continue to think the diesel option makes sense will largely depend on option pricing the cost of gasoline per gallon.

1 RM014_021FN

Ram EcoDiesel 5 II



The future of 1/2 ton engines. They may be a little slower off the line than a large displacement gas, but they provide more torque, the same towing and way more MPG's.

Kudo's to Ram. I really appreciate Nissan's effort, but afraid a 5.0 will not get the MPG's needed to make it a success

I think there's a place for both a 3.0 and 5.0 diesel in the half-ton segment. I think Ram should have offered both and made the 5.0 optional in the 2500. There's a lot of RVs that are on the high side of that 9,000 lb towing limit, where a 6.7 is overkill. But the 3.0 should be a winner against EcoBoost and all the V8 gassers.


No, not the same towing as the the bigger V8s. Do some more research. This is what I was talking about in the last blog were it was misleading readers. People mistakenly think that it will have the same pulling power and ability to hold speeds like the bigger V8s but it won't. This is a great engine for fuel economy with better towing ability than the small V6s, but it doesn't have equal or better towing ability of the Ecoboost, 6.2Ls, or 5.7Ls.

Wonder if this could lead to Ram dropping Cummins far down the road? Will Ram have its own diesel?

If Fiat drops Cummins, it'll drop around 75% of it's HD sales right along with it.

Kudos to RAM. The only one with diesel engine in the full size half ton.


The Ecodiesel will only struggle to maintain speed (in comparison to the V8 gas engines or ecoboost) while pulling a heavy trailer up a very steep grade. Otherwise it will only only accelerate more slowly than the others, if you are attempting to accelerate at WOT.

On paper I think that the ecodiesel looks great, but since Chrsyler can't even get them into the Grand Cherokees I am holding out judgment on how good the motor actually is until some real world users have put some miles on it. It wouldn't surprise me if this thing turned into a major bust or a major success.

And there went GM's chance to have a 3.0 Ecodiesel.

Ram is making a lot of great moves these days. The placement of the diesel in the 1500 is another one. Now the aquisition of VM. This probably opens many doors for Ram. This will allow Ram to tailor this motor for the 1500 series over the next few years (If the first year sales are solid).




Don't hold your breath waiting for one. Production has been delayed until next year.
Some say May 2014.

If the delay is due to emissions - why are there some of these engines in test fleets? or in the Grand Cherokee?

Ram seems to be having a lot of premature advertising.

Lou, are you accusin' Ram of cheating in those shootouts and test with a ringer ecodiesel? Well that's how we roll! Just like back in the day everybody claiming that the Lil' Red Truck was the fastest production vehicle available at the time. Dirty little secret, that engine in those tests wasn't stock! It was a prototype with W2 heads and probably a hot purple shaft! If you ain't cheatin' you aint' tryin son! I'm just proud to have another great American diesel in a Ram! My D50 was the first real American Dodge diesel! OG!

@Lou BC

Sounds like you just can't accept the fact that RAM has outdone both Ford an GM time and time again in recent years.

Think about this: RAM offers the 3.6l Pentastar for entry level buyers and those who need reasonable fuel economy. There is the 5.7 hemi for those who do a lot of towing and it is perhaps the most performance oriented V8 in the current truck market. Now there is the ecodiesel which makes great hp/torque number while besting the fuel economy of ANY full size pickup.

Furthermore, RAM interiors are absolutely stunning compared to GMs weird new interior and Ford's decade old hard plastic interior. I don't understand how you can not see that RAM is class leading. This is not about truck wars, it's about WHO IS MAKING THE BETTER TRUCK.

@ ken

Maybe GM can go with 4.5 Duramax (w/ est.310hp, 520lb-ft) if they decide to put diesels in their 1/2 tons again, and GM is probably waiting to see how the fiat ram does with the ecodiesel.


GM ain't know jack about how to stay competitive in the half ton segment. They are lucky that they have the HD duramax, because that's the only reason I would buy a GM truck and I would really have to be talked out of a Ford or RAM for that to even happen. Just look at how boxy the new '14 trucks look, I don't care what's under the hood, I don't want to be seen in a truck where half of the average population can't tell the difference between model years, because they look so similar.

At least Ford and RAM have sleek looking trucks, RAM in particularity, the design is just about the best looking pickup in my opinion.


Take your Fiat RAM go find somewhere else to troll. Nobody cares about RAM, it is a completely irrelevant brand. Hardly anyone is buying them and it will continue to be that way.

@ Ecoboost man

Don't come back whining when you have a $10k turbo repair on your ecopoop engine. By all accounts, they are as unreliably most other recent Ford engines. You know what Ford stands for, right?

Found On Road Dead

@Lou NC,
I wonder if VM Motori will make a bigger capacity diesel then these will outpull the gas engines currently available.

You got it, will be some initial teething troubles , but the engine will I predict sell more than the 15% predicted in it's first year.


Yeah I think GM should get better decision makers to be more competitive. What's wrong with a boxy looking truck? When it comes to my personal car/truck, I don't care what "half of the average population" thinks, I like the way the new GMs look and looking at the sales #s a lot of other people do to, despite GM being conservative, and I agree with you on the Ram looking sleek, what I don't like about them is that they seem to be plagued with recalls.

ps. Keep in mind that over half of the electorate voted in the phony we have in the White House, that doesn't mean he's not the worst president in U.S. history, I use the word President loosely.


I just think that GM took too big of a chance with its as far as being evolutionary in its design. I don't know it it's just me, but I have to look really hard at a Silverado to tell if its the new one or not. The Sierra is a bit easier to tell the difference.

Anyhow, besides just the exterior design, I love the RAM interiors, especially on the higher end models. The issue I have with GM is it took so long for them to catch up on interiors, and even now I hear people poking fun at their interiors. Ford is getting better, but there are still a lot of early 2000's hard plastic type parts for the interior.

It seems to me, RAM has been doing a lot right as far as exterior/interior styling and engine choices. The other automakers need to learn from what RAM is doing right. True that GM has a better top end V8 than RAM, but I think that in all reality, the 5.7l hemi is sufficient for most towing need, now people have the ecodiesel to choose from and if people need anything more than that they will move up to the 2500 trucks anyways. I just don't see the powertrain variety in any of the other automakers.

My only problem with the ecodiesel is that a laramie (not even fully loaded) reaches the 50k easily and for that kind of money a 2500 cummins is a better option.

At least now that they own the company they can make enough of them if they really want to start selling them in january 2014.

The first batch of Jeep Grand Cherokee Ecodiesels have been released from full hand inspection and are getting on rail cars for shipment this week. I'm supposed to receive mine around Nov 11th.

The way I see it, the EcoDiesel is a much better engine for what half-ton owners would use their pickup for. Because, let's be honest, chances are that if you own a half-ton pickup, you're not towing its maximum weight 100% of the time. It's safe to say that a majority of half-ton owners don't even tow a majority of the time. So in all that time when you're not towing, you're gonna want the best mileage you can get.

I bet Ram/Fiat had enough recalls and wants the ecodiesel to be a smooth roll out.

I will concede that RAM builds a fantastic looking truck and that fantastic look convinced me to buy one ... once the "new truck" feeling wore off I was able to see what I had really bought. If RAM could only build a quality product that didn't have you going back and forth to the dealership for recalls or repair, they might actually have something.

Good luck to anyone who jumps on the Ecodiesel bandwagon first. You KNOW it will be a very bumpy ride !

Lipstick on a pig ....


Take your Fiat RAM go find somewhere else to troll. Nobody cares about RAM, it is a completely irrelevant brand. Hardly anyone is buying them and it will continue to be that way.

Posted by: Ecoboost man | Oct 30, 2013 10:46:25 PM


High Mileage,

The Ecodiesel will only struggle to maintain speed (in comparison to the V8 gas engines or ecoboost) while pulling a heavy trailer up a very steep grade. Otherwise it will only only accelerate more slowly than the others, if you are attempting to accelerate at WOT.

This is from the Canadian Truck Challenge.

All the trucks hauled well, but the torque of the 2014 Ram 3.0-liter V-6 diesel with an eight-speed transmission stood out from the rest; also, its air suspension held the load level and firm on the road

Ram is probably my 2nd favorite brand running. Yes they have a lot to prove but I feel they are on a roll as of late. I would have loved to see a slightly bigger motor in the range of a 3.5 to 4.5 but the 3.0 will still get the job done. If anything though maybe this will finally get both GM and Ford on the bandwagon and only better trucks no matter who makes them.

@Snapdragon McFisticuff - I have to agree. Most don't need the 400 hp 16 mpg average trucks they got now except for the Rambo types that are compensating for what ever they seem to need to be compensating for.

@PURPLE SHAFT 4 LIFE - is that some sort of "man" problem?We don't need to know.

@Robert Ryan - I suspect that Ram will eventually up its capabilities. I'd like to see an engine that splits the difference between the 3.0 and the I6 Cummins. A 4-4.5 litre engine would be good for guys wanting a bit more capacity but not 800 lbft worth at a 10K premium. The Power Wagon begs for such an engine.

Lou, you need 400HP to get up and go in these trucks, all vehicles have more power these days, even a Camry can go 0-60 in six seconds, you don't want to be the slow poke holding up traffic.

People say they don't need 400 hp but if the truck comes in last in testing because they don't keep up, they say the maker is not doing enough and the truck needs work. What people say in one story is not what they say another time.

Dale Milner,

If you put enough load onto the ecodiesel it will struggle to maintain speed before a Hemi or an Ecoboost or a Coyote V8 etc, simply due to its lack of peak horsepower compared to those other motors. In real life though you would have to have a very heavy trailer, going up a very steep hill, going probably too fast, before you would ever have a problem "maintaining speed" with the ecodiesel. I think what the poster I was replying to meant to say was that the ecodiesel will accelerate more slowly at max acceleration (WOT for those other motors). That is true, whether or not that matters to people will be determined by consumer uptake of the engine.

I really like the ecodiesel on paper and hope that it is everything it promises and more. I am very disappointed that Chrysler has managed to botch the release so badly to the point that the Grand Cherokees with the ecodiesel still have not made it to the dealerships yet.

@ James - please point out where I have contradicted myself but you are correct in that general assumption. The ones that make the comments that you are mentioning tend to be fanboys that wouldn't buy any other brand anyway. A shootout should be used to provide a buyer information that they normally cannot get. Personally, I don't really care if one truck has way more power if that turns out to be its ownly redeeming feature.
The Ecoboost won the PUTC light truck challenge and I'm not running to Ford to buy one. The Ram came in a close 2nd and I'm not really interested in that one either.

If I had to replace my current truck for any unforseen reason, I'd probably get a 5.0 Ford supercrew or a GM/Chev with 5.3. Borh of those trucks are down on power compared to what is currently available. Once the VM 3.0 diesel finally shows up, I might consider it. Chrysler has been plagued by gremlins as of late so that makes me nervous, but then again, Ford has seen a drop in reliability too so that might leave the GM siblings and the 5.3. The new Tundra is too f-in' ugly.

@Ron - if you happen to live next to an 85 mph interstate, then more power to you but how many people do?
One can get by just fine if they actually look beyond the hood and consider how to drive smoothly and quickly (most don't). The best way to learn that is to drive on icy roads or any road with crappy traction. With my current truck, I've never thought to myself - geeze, I wish I had more Hp.
There are times in the 80's when i wished my 2.8 litre Ranger had more power or my 195 hp 3/4 ton had more power but like I said - you think ahead and that eliminates all but true "accidents" or close calls.
Foot meets floor driving works well for those who aren't using their truck as a truck.

@High Mileage - Chrysler has been guilty of bothced releases for quite some time now. I wonder if there is some sort of internal power struggle going on? Marchionne and Fiat must be calling the shots and Chrysler isn't living up to the new owner's expectations.

There has been one unsubstantiated rumour going around that Fiat is deliberately allowing things to run amok so to devalue stock with the upcoming VEBA share purchase.

Makes you wonder, but it is more likely a case of a tough new boss not getting the production out of its new employees.

Lou_BC is trolling again. You would think that he would have learned a lesson after he got schooled by Michigan Bob earlier.

@michigan bob is my idol - your blog name says it all.

johnny doe and michigan bob for president!

20 years ago people said they didn't need crewcabs. Now that's all most people buy. It's not all about need, it is also want, and desire. Most don't need a brand new truck but they will buy one anyway. It's not about need. Bashing someone because you say most don't need it is wrong in my opinion. 20 years from now 400 hp is going to be a joke.

I dislike when someone says what I need. It is just like what the car guys do on the car sites when they say we do not need trucks. Or its like the small truck guys who say we do not need full-sizes and shouldn't off-road in them. This is annoying.

@James: Part of the reason for more crew cabs is the fact that there are no "traditional" RWD, V8-powered, body-on-frame sedans, like the Crown Vic or even the Caprice, available anymore. Remember, the Crown Vic had the same 4.6L V8 as the F-150 and could tow 5000 pounds. Of course, it got the same gas mileage, too...

What a bunch of babies...... Why don't you look up the definition of "want" and "need".

I know the diffference and a 400 hp truck for most truck buyers is a "want" not a need.

Post your addresses and I'll mail you some of these:

johnny doe and michigan bob for president!
Posted by: greg | Oct 31, 2013 1:21:19 PM


Michigan bob, Why don't you start your own site and then we will compare the two?

For he who says that the 3.0 liter diesel will not tow with the big weights of the gas engines I challenge you to this.

I have a 1984 Ford F8000 with a V8 10.4L Cat 3208 diesel. It's rated at 200HP, but I've had a gross vehicle weight of over 30,000 pounds with it. Snails may be able to pass me in a race, but it handles the weight the same empty as fully loaded. It's torque that determines the weight something will pull, it's the horsepower that determines how fast it will pull it. Although the hp of the EcoDiesel is less, the torque is much greater, therefore it will haul those same weights with the same stress on the engine and truck, just at a lesser acceleration.

@Michigan Bob - you DO know that Fiat is NOT Ford?

Lets look at the two words closely..........



You must be confused by the words "Ecoboost" and "Ecodiesel" not to be confused with "Ecotec". Lets spell those out for you.




Now, please put the key board down and try to relax. I wouldn't want you to over exert yourself any more.
Spelling and comprehension is really hard on some people.


Nope you are wrong..The 78 version ran low 14's as it had no emissions the 79 ran high 14's low 15's..

They had a hot rod prototype that would run mid 13's..with that said engine you said.


By the way the fastest car in 78 was the Dodge Monaco top speed would run mid-high 14's with a smogged out detuned 440 4bbl, low compression,crap crank,crap heads,softer shifting 727.I bought one years ago,it was stock,quick and ran 14.80's with a smogger detuned 440 and K-Mart bias ply tires ,yep the previous owner had K-mart bias ply tires.A 70 Version with the 440 Magnum would run 13.0 -13.40's with good rubber,still squealing past 60 foot mark ,and a 150 mph top speed.

The LIL Red performance wise was lower compression 360 engines,minus some smog junk (cats,first computer lean burn ,minus smog carb) The 78 (14 second truck)got away with less smog stuff but the 79 had more,easily in 2 hours to make it run 14's though.The 79 easily ran 15's,and still could lay down rubber..not like a 60's-early 70's car that took 3-4 seconds off the clock because of no traction.

Did you know the 60's-70's cars recorded times are slow on paper because they spun upon excelleration,meaning they burnt rubber from a roll and stand still slowing recorded times down.Yes stand on it from 20 mph thee car goes sideways and tires smoking.

And tracks back then were not as sticky then,less traction,tires did not have as much grip as they do today,even slicks back then dont hook like a new modern tire.And some roads tests were done on DIRT ROADS !!!! slowing times down,even some top speed runs were on dirt roads back then.

Furthermore,did you know Chrysler Corporation owned part of VM along with Detroit Diesel !!

That is how Dailmer-Chrysler (Mercedes) got to won a part of VM Motori...So this Diesel is the right one for RAM trucks as it powered Dakota's,Durango's,Jeeps,Minivans in Europe,South America for decades.

Also ,you are joking abouth the Mitsubishi built D-50 as it even said Imported by Dodge on the tail gate so no b.s there,full disclosure my friend..Also,they late 70's Dodge full size truck had a Mitshubishi Diesel option..

I don't need 400 hp. LOL.

GM sales are hurting, their sales have been good so they can get rid of the old, at highly discounted dumping rates. They are about out of them here.

Just got something in the mail from the local Chevy dealer, saying I can buy a 2014 1500 Crew Cab, $40,265 MSRP for 33,992, that's 3,273 from dealer, 1,000 CONSUMER CASH, 1,000 BONUS cash, 1,000 Bonus Cash for GM supplier program.

Meanwhile, the story a few days ago was talking about GM incentives being less then Ram and Ford, well gee, they have a new for 2014 truck that their lots are full of, one that just came out maybe 3-4 months ago, vs incentives Ram and Ford have on OUTGOING 2013 models. So they can compare 2014 models to 2013 all they want. No Duh! So these same 2014 GMs will really have big rebates, come OCTOBER 2015!

But then again, GM folks like comparing apples to oranges! "My 5.3 gets better mileage!" And less torque..."Our new 6.2s make so much more power then a 6.4 Hemi!" Yup, too bad it can't pull as heavy of a load, it is not rated to work as much, where Ram and Ford make their bigger engine last in a HD ENVIREMENT, not a sport lose power on a chassis dyno with a longer wheelbase and the tune they put on HD trucks.

@LOU in BC: Seems the Bow Tie Boys are all so happy on here bragging about the new Chevy 6.2, which I will predict is REQUIRED to run on 91 octane. "Bla bla bla, look at our power..."

As for the gas prediction, well, it's an 11.5 to 1 compression, where is the 5.3 is 11 to 1.

Anyway, they seem to be all wrapped about about power, (for an engine that wont be used in a 2500 cause they would need to detune it, as Ram did with the 6.4, and Ford with the 6.2, for HD use.

Come to think of it, there are some Ford boys out there making up for something with power as well, you COULD say, but you won't.

@TRX-4 Tom - I'd didn't specify any brand in my comments about really needing 400 hp but since you brought it up, the Rambo clan has been the one's most pre-occupied with horsepower...... unless they start talking about the ecodiesel, then strangely enough, that horsepower argument no longer matters.

TRX-4 Tom 91 octane is not REQUIRED for the 6.2L. Incentives are lower then both Ford and Ram. You're just mad a 6.2 4wd has more hp tq and matches a 2wd hemi mpg. Don't worry 8 speed and 10 speed are coming to wipe you're Rams off the map.

The comments to this entry are closed.