2013 RAM 1500… Truck of the Year as Expected

Discussion in 'In the News' started by xcel, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    [​IMG]RAM’s 3.6L V6 Pentastar leapfrogs Ford’s most fuel efficient 3.7L V6 and leaves the Chevrolet’s 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 gasping for air.

    [fimg=left]http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2013_RAM_15003.jpg[/fimg]Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - Dec. 7, 2012

    2013 Ram 1500 – Starts at $24,135 with the 3.6L and 8-speed Aisin transmission while rated at an eye opening 17/25 mpgUS city/highway.

    While we continue to catch up from the West Coast trip, Motor Trend named the all-new 2013 Ram 1500 the magazine’s 2013 Truck of the Year.

    Having driven the 3.6L 4X4 with the 8-speed, it has the absolutely the best truck (and maybe even car) regular standard transmission available, very advanced, powerful yet fuel efficient modern V6, most configurable ride thanks to its air adjustable suspension, most advanced telematics thanks to the 8.4 in touch screen based Uconnect infotainment system and most fuel efficient full sized truck ever available in America.

    All of the above not only sounds great, the 2013 Ram 1500 drives great too!

    According to Motor Trend, the Truck of the Year contenders are evaluated using six criteria:
    • Design Advancement
    • Engineering Excellence
    • Efficiency
    • Safety
    • Value
    • Performance
    To be eligible, a vehicle must be all-new or have been substantially changed from the previous model which essentially left out the F-Series and Silverado but it would not have mattered. The 2013 RAM 1500 is currently the truck to own and buy if you are in fact ready to own and buy a truck ;)

    For 2013, the new Ram 1500 offers buyers best-in-class 25 MPG fuel efficiency (2 mpg more than the second most fuel efficient full sized pickup, the Ford F-150 with the 3.7L V6), most new technology and new features without sacrificing capability. While it can be equipped with a 4.7L or 5.7L Hemi V8’s (14/20 mpgUS city/highway), don’t as the 3.6L will do it all and save massive amounts of $’s at the pump.

    A Fuel Economy Case study…

    125,000 miles over the next 8-years. Average cost of fuel, $4.50/gallon. That is an average over the next 8-years, not the $3.25 to $3.75 we are paying at the pump today.

    2013 RAM 1500 with either the 4.7L or 5.7L V8: 16 mpgUS combined rating for either
    2013 RAM 1500 with the 3.6L Pentastar V6 and 8-speed AT: 20 mpgUS combined rating.

    Total Fuel cost over 8-years:

    4.7L or 5.7L V8: 7,812 gallons of fuel or $35,156 USD
    3.6L V6: 6,250 gallons of fuel or $28,125 USD.

    Savings at the pump = $7,031.

    2013 Ram 1500 HFE

    The 2013 Ram 1500 HFE ($28,695 and a 21 mpgUS combined rating) features first-in-segment fuel saving technologies including an eight-speed automatic transmission, 3.21 rear axle ratio (not new but very good ;)), stop-start system, thermal management system, pulse-width modulation, best-in-class passive and active aerodynamics, including grille shutters and an active air suspension.

    The all-new RAM includes a newly designed frame, new drivetrain, new interior and new infotainment. With the best-in-class ride and handling, best-in-class aerodynamics and the latest passive and active safety full sized truck equipment, the 2013 Ram 1500 simply delivers.

    More on the all-new 2013 RAM 1500 and what we’ll have in the drive beginning next Thursday.
    I find it extremely interesting that we have had the opportunity to look at a lot of great automobiles this year and one of the most intriguing is possibly the least fuel efficient of all. Yet this same vehicle is possibly capable of saving the most fuel by comparison to the rest of its competitors in the large pickup segment. I hope it does as well as the first drive we had just two short months ago.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  2. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    Did you have to add up all the fuel for 125,000 miles?.. party pooper :)
  3. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Well-Known Member

    This is the MOST interested I've EVER been in the
    60 mph fuel consumption
    I like that test because it is the best test to measure actual drivetrain and aero efficiency
    It dials out driver variation
    It dials out EPA gaming by manufacturers

    and I actually drive 60 mph on long trips

    Wayne-have you ever done a 60 mph consumption test
    Your foot vs cruise control? Do you think there would be a difference-assuming level hy-no overpasses ?

    Yeah-really really curious how the Ram does-hoping for 27-28mpg-if Dodge hasn't gamed the EPA hy too well. 25mpg would be great-but hoping for 27-28
    Yes- if Ford and GM match Dodge-this will save more fuel than all the Prius/Volt/Leaf/hybrids combined -
    Like Wayne says-capable of saving more than the traditional FE vehicles
    The choir buys FE vehicles- many of the rest buy 1/2 tons
    The Dodge would improve my Suburban FE by 40%-50%

  4. KirkRV8

    KirkRV8 Member

    I am really looking forward to see your results ;-)
    I need a truck for work and to go from 18.5 to 20+mpg would be really great! I test drove a Laramie 1500 today and really liked it, I just really want the V6 and 8 speed ;-)
  5. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    I agree. It's also simple enough people can understand it relatively easily, compared to the EPA's highway test or CU's highway test, among others. However, it has the drawback that it almost ignores the effects of weight on fuel consumption, so we still need to look at "city" or hill-climbing numbers too.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  6. I'm on board to see what it can do. I know how hard it is to get 25mpg out of my truck
  7. brick

    brick Answers to "that guy."

    Not to harsh the RAM buzz, but what's up with "pulse width modulation" as some magical fuel saving technology? That just reeks of the marketing team being left alone with their crayons for too long.

    (Looks like a nice truck, I just hate patronizing marketing BS.)
  8. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    I may be confused, but my impression is that it's just a more efficient (compared to resistors) electronic method of operating variable-speed accessory motors at less than full speed. That would save some electrical energy, but not a lot. Is that correct?
  9. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    Yes it is, but I suspect the reason they use it is because its cheaper than the old style solutions.. next they need to dump brushed motors in the fuel pump, radiator fan and AC fan.
  10. Fastskiguy

    Fastskiguy Member

    Sure am interested in seeing what the real world mileage is. I have a heck of a time just getting the epa estimate of 23 in my 2012 f-150 with the 3.7L engine when I'm on the highway. Not like some vehicles where you can just crush the estimates with halfway decent driving.
  11. Other vehicles and systems use pulse width modulation. Nothing new. I'm not smart enough to explain what it is.
  12. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    Ohh tells us more about your F150, transmission, final gear ratio, extended cab, tonneau cover, tire pressure, tire size etc.. How fast do you drive?
  13. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    He drives the "normal" speed, I'm sure.
  14. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    Probably so, or some similarly vague description.
    For the same reasons, the common phrase "real world mileage" is meaningless, in my opinion, unless used to mean mileage obtained by the average owner. When people use such phrases, they typically mean "the mileage I would get if I don't change my habits or circumstances."
  15. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Well-Known Member

    Which is why the 60 mph test is so useful
    Tells you right away if it is a problem with the car
    or the driver/commute/style
    as long as you have a number for a normal 60 mph vehicle
    or you can just assume at leat EPA hy(or you could )
  16. 50 mpg by 2012

    50 mpg by 2012 Well-Known Member

    I'll try a simplistic explanation.

    Start with 12VDC from the battery.

    A 50% pulse width modulation ("50% on time") results in an equivalent of 6 VDC. A 75% duty cycle would be equivalent to 9 VDC while 25% duty cycle would be equivalent of 3 VDC ... or anywhere in between based on duty cycle.

    This pulse width modulation strategy has minimum thermal loss and is fully variable compared to resistive voltage reduction for applications like motor speeds, dimming lighting, etc as well as electronic switches (on/off). Also modulating fuel injector open times.

    This technology can also be used to generate higher voltages when used with a transformer as done with a step up DC-to-AC or DC converters.

    Hope this helps.
  17. that makes sense. I use a PWM controller for meth injection and yup, check the voltage and it varies based on where knob is set.
  18. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    I'd love to do a real world test:

    My 4.6 3v F150 (6 spd auto) against the dodge at 70 mph steady state.

    (if Dodge is gaming the system and only getting 25 mpg at 65 mph ... or worse yet 60 mph, then I might come out on top)
  19. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Well-Known Member

    Gussied up stationwagons-trucks.
    Heck in the 50's 60's people actually towed with cars/stationwagons.
    Just about no one actually towed with a pickup-because almost no one had pickups
    other than farmers ranchers -even contractors usually didn't have pickups-they had panel vans more commonly-something to keep tool and building materials dry while transporting them
    Thank the Japanese for turning the USA into pickup buyers -with the cheap good mpg useful minitrucks-Datsun then Toyota-

Share This Page