2011 Ram 3500 Crew Cab Dually 4x4 Diesel Lifted Semi Wheels Dodge Low Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler 3.0L EcoDiesel V6: Autoblog Technology of the Year finalist

Offering a diesel engine in an American pickup is anything but new - Ford, General Motors and Chrysler all offer excellent and almost impossibly powerful oil-burning engines in their various fullsize trucks. What is new and novel about the 3.0L EcoDiesel, though, is its size, and the variety of vehicles that use it. It's the smallest engine, as far as displacement is concerned, currently offered in a large truck in the US, and, for 2014 and 2015, it is available in the Ram 1500 and the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Though it may be small, it's got muscle. While 240 horsepower isn't particularly impressive these days, the engine's 420 pound-feet of torque more than makes up for that. The torque rating is even greater force than even the big 5.7-liter Hemi can muster. Chrysler's well-regarded eight-speed automatic transmission makes the most of all that bull-headed pulling power in both the Ram and Grand Cherokee. Chrysler claims the Ram EcoDiesel 1500 can tow as much as 9,200 pounds when properly equipped, which makes it "90-percent of the Hemi with a night and day difference in fuel economy."
Make no mistake; it's that promise of a sizable fuel economy improvement that many long-haul truckers will be most interested in. In the Ram 1500 that we tested for our Tech of the Year competition, the diesel engine costs $2,850 more than the gas-fed V8, and Ram estimates that EcoDiesel buyers will pay off their investment when compared to the Hemi engine in less than three years, which is considerably less time than the 4.5 or so years the average buyer will keep his or her fullsize pickup. The more you drive, the more you'll save, and the math proves equally as effective in the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

This or That: 2005 Dodge Ram SRT-10 vs. 2005 Subaru WRX STI [w/poll]

Some cars, due to ultimate desirability, particular rareness, or spectacular performance/prestige eventually become collectible. It's darn near impossible to know which ones will make it into the rarefied stratosphere of collectibility – why is a late 1960s AMC AMX so affordable these days, whereas prices for late '70s Pontiac Trans Ams are soaring? – but there are some useful indicators to keep tabs on. We're not exactly experts on investing, but we do know cars. As such, we've decided to take our non-expertise on one hand, combine it in the other with our knowledge of all things automotive, wad it up, throw it out and ask for your forgiveness. Or something like that. I've challenged Senior Editor Seyth Miersma to choose a car he thinks will become a future collector's item that's not more than 10 years old, and for no more than $25,000. I've done the same, and we vigorously argued for and against each other's picks. I feel good about my choice, but I don't have the best track record in these contests (I've lost three times, won twice, but they've all been pretty close), so, while I'm not going to beg (please vote for me!), I do hope you find my argument convincing. But first, let's hear from Seyth: Miersma: Ten-years old or newer makes this challenging. At that age most vehicles feel like a plain old used car to me, few hit the "classic" button. But the Subaru WRX STI has always been a special car, and the 2005 cutoff year proves to be very attractive for the parameters of our contest. It's rare; with fewer than 5,000 STI models sold that model year. It's probably the best looking WRX STI ever sold in America; narrowly avoiding the dreadful "horse collar" front fascia. And it's got one of the more die-hard car-geek followings out there. For $25,000, you can also still find examples that have reasonable miles, are in good condition, and haven't all been molested by grown-up Initial D wannabes. With the street racers hacking up collectable examples every day, I like my odds for steep appreciation by way of conservation. I couldn't agree more. It really is difficult to predict what cars will catch the eye of collectors, and the WRX STI seems like a pretty good choice. But I think mine is even better, and I can't let him know that I'd love to park just such an STI in my very own garage. And so goes my argument: Korzeniewski: I like your choice as a driver, Seyth. I'm less convinced of its status as a sure-fire collectible.

2018 Ford F-150 Powerstroke vs. 2018 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel: comparing the specs

Now that Ford has finally released specifications for its diesel Ford F-150, we can finally see how it stacks up against its sole competition, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Naturally, since we haven't driven the new diesel F-150, we can't tell you which is better on the road, but there are interesting things we can glean from the numbers. Compare these and other potential new vehicle purchases using our tool. For one thing, the two trucks are extremely similar from a powertrain perspective. Both trucks use a turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 diesel, with the Ford using a 10-speed automatic, and the Ram using an 8-speed automatic. The Powerstroke engine is built in the U.K. but specifically tuned by Ford for American pickup truck duty. It is also is related to the diesel V6 used by Jaguar and Land Rover. The Ram 1500's engine is made by VM Motori. Only 10 horsepower and 20 pound-feet of torque separate the two, with the Ford getting the slight advantage. The Ford also produces its horsepower and torque slightly sooner than the Ram. Peak power in the Ford comes at 3,250 rpm compared to 3,600 rpm in the Ram, and peak torque arrives at 1,750 rpm in the Ford, and 2,000 rpm in the Ram. View 9 Photos More significant differences become apparent in the payload and towing area, both of which put the Ford at an advantage. The F-150 Powerstroke can carry 2,020 pounds of cargo, or tow 11,400 pounds. The Ram EcoDiesel, depending on configuration, can carry 1,100 to 1,600 pounds of cargo, and tow between 7,560 and 9,210 pounds. Fuel economy might go to the Ford if it hits the company's target of 30 mpg highway. That would beat the Ram's 27 mpg highway. We don't know what Ford's target city mpg is, but the Ram manages 20 in town with two-wheel drive. Four-wheel drive drops the city rating to 19 mpg. View 6 Photos The biggest decider between the trucks might be cost. Ford is only offering its diesel engine on higher end trims, which means that the cheapest diesel F-150 starts at $46,315. That's for a two-wheel drive Lariat extended cab with a 6.5-foot bed. Ram on the other hand, offers the diesel in everything from its ultra-bare-bones Tradesman pickup, allowing for a base price of just $28,585, up to the fancy Laramie Longhorn and Limited trims. Ram's diesel is also available with all cab variants, while Ford's is only offered in extended- and double-cab body styles.