2019 Ram Promaster Low Roof on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Three Ram recalls affect more than a million pickups

Millions of Ram pickups across many of its model lines in the US are in need of recall repairs due to three campaigns by the truck maker. The largest of this trio covers 1.06 million examples in the US of the 2012-2014 Ram 1500, 2500, 3500, and chassis cab versions of the 3500, 4500, and 5500 because of potential inadvertent driver-side airbag deployment. In addition to those affected here, there are 235,925 in Canada, 26,543 in Mexico, and 23,635 elsewhere. There are also two related injures from this problem, but no reports of accidents, according to the company. While the recall was mysteriously ignored in the media at the time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced details of this campaign in late July. The next largest among the three covers 188,000 examples of the 2014 and 2015 Ram 1500 Quad Cab in the US because their side-curtain airbags don't fully overlap the C-pillars when deployed, which is in violation of federal rules. Conceivably, rear passengers not wearing their seatbelt could be more likely to be ejected in a crash. Ram's repair for the issue is still being developed, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but the company advises all occupants to be buckled in. The final campaign affects 156,498 the company's heavy-duty trucks in the US, including the 2013 Ram 3500 and 2014 Ram 2500, 3500, and 3500 Chassis Cab. In addition, there are 20,603 in Canada and 3,241 elsewhere. Of the 13,236 in Mexico, a few units of the 2014 Ram 1500 exclusive to that market are also covered. The company found that the welds for some steering parts might have "insufficient fusion." If the part breaks, then vehicles are still controllable but with diminished response. There are no reported injuries but one minor accident. The fix involves installing a reinforcement bracket. Related Video: Statement: Steering-wheel Wiring Harness September 10, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US LLC is conducting a voluntary safety recall to inspect and service, as required, wiring harnesses in an estimated 1.06 million U.S.-market trucks. Investigation by FCA US discovered certain trucks may have steering-wheel wiring harnesses that wear because of contact with a spring. Such wear may cause a short-circuit that may lead to inadvertent driver-side air-bag deployment. The Company is aware of two related injuries, but no accidents.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study

Ford, Ram in heavy-duty towing spat

Every pickup truck commercial has the brand trying to convince us that its model is the biggest, brawniest vehicle on the block. But Ford and Ram appear ready to really throw down the gauntlet and scrap over the towing figures for their heavy-duty models, and it could potentially end up in court.
The issue revolves around what it means to be best in class. Ford claims that its 2015 F-450 (pictured above) has a max tow rating of 31,200 pounds, compared to 30,000 pounds for the Ram 3500 (right). However, both companies market these heavy haulers as having the top towing in their class. According to Automotive News, Ford is threatening legal action if Ram doesn't back down.
The situation isn't as simple as just comparing the numbers, though. First, the two companies calculate their towing capacities differently. Ram adheres to the SAE J2807 rating, while Ford uses its own internal system. Although, as the company introduces new models, they are certified using the SAE standard. "When an all-new F-Series Super Duty is introduced, it also will use SAE J2807," said Ford to Autoblog in an emailed statement.