2024 Ram 1500 Classic Tradesman on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA spends $1.5 billion to retool plant for Ram production

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is planning to invest $1.48 billion to retool its Sterling Heights Assembly plant in metro Detroit to build the next generation of the Ram 1500. The investment will allow the assembly plant to go from unibody to body-on-frame construction. FCA also confirmed that production of the Chrysler 200 will end in December in order for the plant to be altered. As previously reported, FCA is looking to move production of the 1500 from its current assembly plant in Warren to the Sterling Heights Assembly plant (both are in Michigan). While FCA has not released any official plans for the Warren Truck Assembly Plant, Automotive News reports that the plant will be retooled to manufacture the Jeep Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer SUVs. Earlier this month, FCA announced plans to invest $1.05 billion to retool the Jeep Wrangler factory. FCA's current investment plans are part of the automaker's push to put competitive products on the road. Related Video: News Source: FCA, Automotive NewsImage Credit: FCA Plants/Manufacturing Chrysler Jeep RAM SUV Sedan

Diesel details: Comparing Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, Chevy Silverado Duramax, Ford F-150 Powerstroke

With specifications for the 2019 Ford F-150 Power Stroke diesel already out, and the details on the 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel and Chevy Silverado Duramax (and its GMC Sierra twin) trickling out, we felt it was a good time to start comparing the full-size trucks' light-duty diesels. Bear in mind, we've only driven one of these new diesel trucks, so we'll be sticking to numbers for now. Some numbers haven't been announced yet, either, but stay tuned, because we'll be updating this post with additional specifications as they become available. And if you want to compare any other versions of these trucks with other vehicles, be sure to check out our comparison tool. Now let's start comparing, starting with our big chart of numbers below. As we can plainly see, these trucks are quite closely matched. Each one has six cylinders, a displacement of 3.0 liters and a turbocharger to boost it. The output of each is somewhat close, too. The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is the torque king at 480 pound-feet, 20 more than the GM trucks and 40 more than the Ford. The GM trucks win on power, though, with 277 ponies, 17 more than the Ram, and 27 more than the Ford. GM does report that you get their trucks' peak 460 pound-feet of torque from 1,500 rpm to 3,000 rpm, whereas the others only report peak torque at a particular point in the rev band, but all of these trucks should have wide, flat torque curves as you would expect from modern turbodiesels. 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel View 8 Photos Engine output is only one part of the truck performance equation. We also have towing and payload capacity, as well as fuel economy. With towing, the Ram 1500 is the current leader with a maximum capacity of 12,560 pounds. That tops the Ford F-150's 11,400-pound tow rating by well over 1,000 pounds. The F-150 can carry 2,020 pounds in its bed, but we don't know yet whether that's better or worse than the Ram or the GM trucks. We also don't have numbers for the GM trucks' towing capacities. View 9 Photos As for fuel economy, the Ford F-150 manages a thoroughly impressive 22 mpg in the city and 30 on the highway with two-wheel drive. Choosing four-wheel drive drops those numbers to 20 and 25 respectively. The fuel economy numbers for the Ram, Chevy and GMC haven't been revealed yet, but for some comparison, we can look at the old Ram EcoDiesel. That truck's best fuel economy was 20 in the city and 27 on the highway with two-wheel drive.

2013 Ram 1500

Enough Is Enough. Finally.
Not long ago, the efforts of an automaker to put a six-cylinder engine into a pickup truck went something like this: take the basic bread-and-butter V8, lop two cylinders off one end of the block and call it a day. The resulting engines were generally pretty rough around the edges, and while they were able to churn out reasonable amounts of torque, they generally weren't good at anything else. Instead of being smooth running, they shook and shimmied; in place of a quiet highway jaunt, they operated well outside their low-rpm comfort zones and sent a corresponding racket throughout the cabin. And, instead of returning significantly superior fuel economy over their V8 counterparts, they guzzled gas and spat noxious vapors out their tailpipes.
In other words, the only reason to choose the base V6 engine over an optional V8 was to save money on the initial purchase, and that usually meant you'd be driving home in a stripped-out machine and would be lucky to have power windows, cruise control and air conditioning.