First Look: 2015 Ram ProMaster City
Commercial vehicle offerings are experiencing a bit of a renaissance lately. First, the full-size van segment has reinvented itself with the Ford Transit, Ram ProMaster and Nissan NV making big news lately, and now the compact van segment is exploding. In the last several years, we've seen new versions of the Ford Transit Connect, Nissan NV200, Chevrolet Express City and now Ram's ProMaster City.
Based off the well-established Fiat Doblo from the Fiat Commercial side of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, the ProMaster City is a front-wheel-drive, unibody-constructed small van that Ram says has best-in-class payload, cargo volume, powertrain efficiency and more.
Ram is hoping to benefit from the shift away from bulky body-on-frame vans with V-8s in favor of smaller, nimbler platforms like the new ProMaster City. The little van uses a 2.4-liter inline-four-cylinder that FCA calls the Tigershark. It has a unique valve actuation setup that allows for precise control of engine intake and exhaust events. Called MultiAir2 technology, the result is a base engine in the small van segment with best-in-class horsepower and torque: 178 hp at 6,250 rpm and 174 pounds-feet at 3,900 rpm. The engine is mated to a segment-exclusive nine-speed automatic transmission (948TE) using a 3.73:1 axle ratio.
The maximum payload of the 122.4-inch-wheelbase van is listed as 1,883 pounds, which leads all competitors in the class. Like its sibling, the Ram Cargo Van, the ProMaster City uses a front independent suspension and rear coil springs for better ride quality (versus traditional leaf springs) when empty and loaded.
Exterior styling is not much to brag about, especially if you think European designs odd looking. There's not much Ram can do about that since the shape and platform come from an existing vehicle. Inside, the dash and instrument layout is actually quite nice looking, with a large windshield and dashboard that is typical of other players in this segment. Whether passenger or Tradesman model, there are plenty of small and large storage cubbies for the driver and passengers to use.
Cargo room is impressive, with more than 130 cubic feet of capacity behind the front seats. Six chassis-connected tie-down rings in the floor have a combined rating of 1,000 pounds with more than 48 inches of space between the fenderwells and 60 inches of width between the walls.
Whether the driving experience is similar to other vehicles of the segment, where there can often be significant "booming" due to the Spartan insulation and cavernous volume, we'll have to wait for our first drive opportunity that will happen later this year.
This new Class 1 van offers almost 35 passive and active safety features, including a backup camera and park assist.
The ProMaster City offers three base Tradesman trims (a cargo van without windows, a van with rear windows and a van with rear and side windows), three Tradesman SLTs (a cargo van without windows, a van with rear windows and a van with rear and side windows) and the passenger Wagon and Wagon SLT (both standard with rear and side windows).
Pricing will be announced later this fall, and all ProMaster City vans are built in Bursa, Turkey. Awarded the World Class Manufacturing Gold Medal, this 3.6-million-square-foot (83.7 acres) state-of-the-art plant also assembles the Fiat Doblo. The optional cargo van configuration is upfitted at the Chrysler Group Transformation Center in Baltimore.
To read the ProMaster City press release, click here.
To see the most up-to-date specifications for the ProMaster City, click here.
Manufacturer images
Comments
I'm assuming this is the "Thursday Announcement" Ram was going to make, since technically it's not Thursday on the west coast yet.
Anyways, the it should be interesting to see how the 2.4l and 9 speed combo work together. It seems like the "Euro vans" work well with smaller displacement engines.
Here we have FCA selling a minivan that can carry more than a Ram Ecodiesel...........
Kudo's to Mike from Denver actually SoCal for the SUV with a balcony moniker.
I think Fiat has been reading the comments on this site. They have learned how low the Ram goat boys IQ's are and how easy it will be to make the Ram Goats change to Fiat cars so they can drop Ram all together. These commercials are the proof and its the scary truth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAlfH332iw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruppbx0Mlbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3o22tlBaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHI3xpA5Xs
The Euro vans are designed for level roads driving short distance.
Here in the U.S. we drive long distance cause our country is bigger, we have different climate conditions and steep mountains.
The small 2.4 L engine might be great for a few miles of bumper to bumper inner city traffic but terrible driving across the state of Montana.
In all Euro and Japanese vehicles the glass is tempered paper thin glass that frosts up on the slightest temp change, no sound insulation.
Tom#3
They have very high mountains in Europe as well. You have a 82 mph limit on British Motorways similar ones in Continental Europe
These smaller Vans are designed for Urban use primarily.
If it doesn't have a 6.7 Cummins option, I'm not interested.
New Fiat van?
All of the guys on this site who need a delivery vehicle to run their florist shops and interior decorating services will be delighted.
Big Al and Jeff, are you listening?
The cars and pickups of the early 1980s were a profound over-reaction to the oil shocks of the mid seventies. Those engines didn’t have the power to pull the hat off your head, they ran like crap on a cold morning and they were ready for the scrap heap in less than 10 years.
That lousy customer experience put a lot of car dealers out of business and paved the way for Asian manufacturers to gain a beachhead in the marketplace for cars and trucks.
So many of the young buyers of cars and trucks today are folks who are a bit too young to remember that period of time. As a result, we are re-living it.
These flimsy tin-can vans, cars and trucks that the world’s automakers are currently building for the American market are arriving just in time for the next economic recession. The steep downturn in economic activity will drive fuel prices down sufficiently to kill any interest in these green-friendly & disposable cars and trucks.
It gives me no pleasure to report this, only the satisfaction of feeling vindicated.
A pickup?
http://www.businessvans.co.uk/the-versatile-fiat-doblo-work-up-in-a-class-of-its-own/
Looks like Scion XB.
At what point in the design process did they decide NOT to paint the bumpers?
In what world does miles of grey plastic look good? 1st Gen Avalanche anyone?
It is funky looking, but like it's bigger brother it will look better in person, I'm sure.
The interior looks pretty good. That center dash looks Silveradoish a bit.
It will do its job. It's not meant for heavy hauling.
So it looks like the Ram PMC will only be offered in the LWB, std roof configuration. The 2.4 Tigershark with the 9speed auto should move this thing plenty fine, while actually returning good fuel economy. Good on RAM for making a decent powertrain standard.
The 1800# payload is a little less than the vehicle has in Europe, but we might have a slight GVW reduction because of stopping distance requirements. But even at that, it can fill the role for light service vehicles that currently/recently went to compact, midsize and half-ton pickups. Most residential services can be well served by this class vehicle.
I'm not real clear on how "climate conditions" affect a small vehicle so differently than a somewhat bigger one. Europe isn't really all that flat, either. As for driving across Montana, rest assured that this thing has plenty of snort to get up and down ANY highway grade in America just fine.
I don't believe for a second that any amount of recession is going to drive oil prices back down far enough to where fuel economy won't matter to fleet operators any more.
@DenverMike
Are you spinning and trolling again?
A Colorado can carry 3 080lbs.
What does a 2013 Ford F-250SRW 4x4 172.4"wb carry? 3 020lbs.
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2013_SuperDuty_Specs.pdf
So Mr UAW, I gave a link.
Also, DenverDunce, interpret what I have written, don't put spin on it and troll like a loser.
Before you answer research and read what a person writes and don't try and take this out of context again.
Remember, this issue is what started your Denverdumbass multi posts.
You are one full of $hit individual.
@Big Al- did you respond to a different thread or was Denver Mike's comment deleted?
Link is no good, but this one should work....
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/asset.download.document.pdf.html/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2014_Specs/2014_SuperDuty_Specs.pdf
And yes, in its heaviest configuration, the F250 only has 3000# payload. I'm assuming, that since numbers for the US Colorado aren't out yet, you're referencing an OZ spec Holden Colorado. Best I can tell from the website, the GVW is 3150kg no matter how you slice it. That means the only way to get to that payload is in a 2wd reg cab. In such a case, the F250 will carry over 4000#.
So much retard in the pickuptrucks.com comment threads!
Let's not forget that the Holden Colorado that can carry ~3000lb is a 4x2 single cab chassis cab, not a pickup. With no "tray" installed.
A regular cab 4x2 F250 pickup (which includes a bed!) has a minimum cargo of 4130lb.
For what it is... Not bad. Function over looks. I don't expect them to be too stylish. Quirky is probably the overall definition on it's style. Compared to the others of its kind, it fits in well.
I had hoped for a little more Ram DNA in it. Especially after they had to redesign the front end to adapt the Tigershark.
Again, For what it is, its fine.
Here why have Johnny Doe talking about IQs, lol, like his stubborn Chevy arse would fare too well in that department.
Glad to see it's 2.4 4 cylinder out powers Fords 2.5, and at a slightly lower rpm. But the Ford fanatics are hooked on turbos, which don't have a good dependability record. 1.6? Lol, recalled how many times? While Ford constantly fiddles with inter coolers and spark plug gaps, and timing chains.
Why are Fiat-Ram vans so ugly? Need new designers.
Tires are too small, 215/55 16 versus the 'real' van 225/75 16 ProMaster.
Gearing is too tall, you will never use 8th or 9th with any kind of load.
Engine only makes 175hp, no direct injection, no variable exhaust valve timing.
@Tom Lemon/DenverMike/TRX-4 Tom and all the other detractors,
The more you push the more I will become resolute.
What I find intriguing is that you have labelled me a midsize zealot, when in fact I don't support anything.
I give midsize feedback because you guys don't have what we have.
You seem to talk about midsizers much more than I do, you must very interested in them.
Give it up, between all of you I don't think you are convincing.
It's all well and good to be loyal. But loyalty can only go so far.
When there is a plethora of facts and data supporting an argument it becomes rather boring. Sort of like re-inventing the wheel, if you have heard of that phrase.
Most of the time the impression I'm gaining is that I'm debating the same person, but with different names.
Post what you want, I have proven all of you are just ignorant and fearful of what you deem the unknown.
Our country went more or less what you are going through now. You have nothing to worry about. No matter what happens in your vehicle market there will always be some form of light commercial vehicle.
Here we have FCA selling a minivan that has more payload then a crew cab 4x4 F-150 with it's all aluminum V-6 turbo'd, and that being a MAX PAYLOAD F-150! Good thing that's for an XLT, and not a Lariat or a Queen Ranch which would add more weight!
Of course, if you walk a dealership lot you will notice that the typical F 150 four-wheel-drive crew cab has a payload of just about 1325 pounds or so. And, most of what Ford is selling is not the max payload suspension.
Anybody want a Harley Davidson F – 150 four-wheel-drive truck? Complete with 1150 pounds of payload! Let's guess here, two couples total weight inside that F-150, might be around 700 pounds? So when they're pulling a trailer with a couple of Harleys in it, and their luggage because most people don't want want to ride that far to their biker events, I would say it would be a little bit overloaded! And Ford will tell you it will hold that weight, but it won't squat too much less than a Ram with coil springs, or actually it will squat a lot more than RAM with the air suspension system. Which has no squat whatsoever!
@detriot and @Mr knowitall The Colorado even as a Cab Chassis, would still be a "Pickup" or more commonly a "ute". No it does not have the overall payload of a F250 (amazing if it did)a "ute" as well , even then the European Cab Chassis variants of Vans have vastly better riding capabilities and payloads than a 3/4 or 1 Ton Pickup. Their payloads range from roughly 6000-9000lb.
They are the coming thing in Australia, replacing some Japanese light trucks and in one case the NSW State Railways F350 cab chassis utility vehicles. NSW had a small number of F350's but the rest of their Utility fleet was heavier Japanese/European Trucks.
That van would be real worker if it were available with the VMM 2.8L crd and the 9 spd.Hey FCA,ya'll listening?
HAHA I found TRX-4 Tom in his new Fiat 1500 acting like he won a race or maybe he racing himself? Who knows with the wacko Fiat goats, they are like trying to figure out a high crack head LMAO!
http://fiatusa.tumblr.com/post/89759745720/were-used-to-running-circles-around-the
@TRX-4 Tom - dude, that is funny how you mention Ford's cargo capacity when Ram's 1/2 ton cargo capacity is the lowest in the industry.
1,635 lb is the highest you can get in a Ram reg cab. 1,830 is highest in a quad cab and 1,737 in a crew BUT those peak numbers are for the V6 and 4x2.
Ford - max is 2,300 (and change) for 4x4 crewcab 6.5 box and you can get that with any V6 or V8.
Towing - over 9K.
Even Chevy beats Ram's hauling capacity with 2k with their heaviest truck - 4x4 crew long box.
This debate does get old, but I feel like it's time to reiterate why payloads are what they are.
First and foremost, it is something driven by market demand. In other words, truck makers wouldn't make something that wouldn't sell.
Since Ram has the lowest payload out of the bunch, I will use then as an example. Some people here like ALL1 make it sound like no one in their right mind would want a payload that low. Since Ram has boasted continual improvement in sales in recent years, I believe the general market isn't as concerned about payload as people here are.
Is Ram's payload optimal? Of course not. Should they offer more? Yes they should. That does not mean for a minute that it is hurting Ram in any way. Like I said, the market determines what Ram produces.
Finally, throwing numbers out make no sense without qualifying what you intend to do with your truck. For example, even with a Ram Ecodiesel, someone could tow a decent sized travel trailer, have 4 adults + dog + gear and not overload the truck.
What a sexy van. The 3 cyl HEMI monster will be very nice in this Fiat-RAM van!
All it needs is a nice pair of Elton John sunglasses! I ASSume they'll be an option?
@HEMI MONSTER - The average weight of an American male is 196 and female is 156 lb. If you are saying 4 adults i.e. 2 couples that would be 704 lb. A dog? The top 3 most popular breeds are labs, German Sheppard's and Golden Retrievers. They average around 75lbs.
Total = 779 lb. people without gear.
Ecodiesel cargo:
- 4x2 quad 1,243 - 1,439 lb.
- 4x4 quad 1,140 - 1,327 lb.
- 4x2 crew 1,115 - 1,480 lb.
- 4x4 crew 881 - 1,233 lb.
Crew cab 4x4's tend to be the most popular.
If we pick the highest rated ecodiesel 4x4 crew (plain no frills model) you'd have 454 lb left over for gear and cargo.
If one assumes zero cargo and a 10% tongue weight all you got left for towing is a 4,540 lb trailer.
That does put you into a trailer around 25 ft. long.
I'd be willing to bet that most 1/2 ton buyers regardless of brand pay attention to any of that.
Case in point, I say a guy with a Harley F150 towing a 29 ft trailer, the box was full of gear and family on board.
Correction meant to say - I'd be willing to bet that most 1/2 ton buyers regardless of brand DO NOT pay attention to any of that.
The 2.4 should make this a zippy little van and It will move 1 800lbs with ease.
I don't really know what to expect for FE, but I would expect it to be averaging around 25mpg.
Tradesman and technicians will find this van easy to drive and handy with a large body.
The 2.4 would make it more than acceptable on the open road and it should be able to cruise on 75mph-80mph for hours on end.
I hope this van works out for FCA.
The 2.4 provides plenty of power for American conditions. I've hauled 2,000 pounds in my Caravans (I know, ridiculously overloaded) with the old 2.4, which doesn't have the power of the new engine, without any problems. I recently took a trip through North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming with my 2.4 PT Cruiser (a small but heavy car), where speed limits on two-lane roads are 65 mph (70 in Montana), over the mountains, on gravel roads, no problem, no shortage of power. If you want slow, drive an International step van with the DT466. There are plenty of them around, but they do their job. Delivery vans are not about hot rodding. It's all about internal space, door access, low step up height, maneuverability. The Promaster City hits the sweet spot.
As for tire size, I think FCA should have gone with a 65 aspect ratio rather than 55 in order to provide more compliance room for hitting deep potholes. American roads are notoriously bad compared to European and this automotive style obsession with rubber band tires doesn't work so well here. I have a friend who is a tire engineer who has told me there are no advantages to going under a 65 aspect ratio.
@Fred Schumacher - you are correct in stating that appearance or style plays a huge role in design right down to tire size.
@Fred
I would humbly disagree with your engineer friend. A higher sidewall flexes more under braking. The more aggressive profiles found on sporty cars favors better braking and handling.
Completely agree with your notions about potholes and aspect ratios. Rough roads need a taller profile, especially for trucks and vans.
@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy, mark49, Tom#3 or whoever you want to call yourself.
Quit the crap, really.
It's getting long in the tooth.
You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.
Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.
Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.
Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.
If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.
It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.
I like it!!!
I own a '97 Oasis minivan that this could replace someday (it still runs good, "only" 178,000 miles on it !)
However, I don't think people will want to buy the passenger model without rear windows in the sides!!!! The thing looks like a miniature armored car!!!! Any rear-seat passengers will think they're being punished because it will be dark as a dungeon back there!!!! (the Transit Connect has windows there!!!).
The Ram Promaster City website has wallpaper photos of FIAT Doblo "donor" vans that have windows all around on the "Euro" models; they even have a photo of a long wheelbase passenger model with windows all around AND small windows in a raised roof that remind me of an OLDSMOBILE Vista-Cruiser Station Wagon from the 1960's ( any bloggers old enough to remember those?).
So I hope that Ram does some test-clinic research with vans that have the windows both ways so they can determine if its worth putting them in.
I also hope that if they sell enough, they will make a Turbo Tiger Shark with shift-paddles on the steering wheel model optional as a "sport" or R/T model!!!
The comments to this entry are closed.