Ecodiesel 2500?

[kltk1]

A search didn't turn up a thread on this. If there is one, can someone please direct me to it? Thank you

I'm curious, is there a legitimate reason -other than it would eat into 6.4 sales- why RAM doesn't put the 3.0 V6 Ecodiesel in a 2500? It certainly has enough torque at 480lb ft and would be a great compromise between a 6.4 gas and a Cummins. You wouldn't get the towing capacity of the Cummins but you'd get fuel economy for those who don't need 19,000lbs of towing capacity at half the cost of the Cummins and a $5k premium over the Hemi. Even with a set of 4.10 gears, an ED would get good fuel mileage.

 

[chri5k]

Probably because it not really great compromise between the 6.4 Hemi and the Cummins for the added cost. The 2020 6.4 Hemi is spec'd at 410HP & 429 Ft/Lb torque. The EcoD is 260HP & 480 Ft/Lb torque. I would think most HD truck buyers are not going to pay ~$5,0000 more to gain 51 Ft/Lb of torque and loose 150 HP.

 

[Travelin Ram]

Designing and testing each variant of a vehicle costs $$$.

Corporations employ squads of accountants to calculate the impact on the bottom line from product proposals.

I have no doubt the marketing and accounting teams have fought over that battleground a few times.

 

[chri5k]

The marketing and accounting teams probably agreed. The cost to add the variant was too high and the marketing team didn't want to try to figure out how to spin 12% more torque and 37% less horsepower for +$5,000 as a good thing.

 

[Neil E]

I guess the follow up question to this, would it be $5000 more to upgrade from the 6.4. Sure, it is for the 5.7, but I'm guessing the 6.4 costs more than the 5.7.

 

[392DevilDog]

The 5.7l HEMI is gone from the HeavyDuty lineup.

The 6.4l HEMI is now the Base Engine, the 6.7l Cummins the option.

The 5.7l HEMI is gone for the same reason the 3.0l is not there. The HEMI did fine when the GVWR of a 2500 was 8800lbs. When the Cummins 2500 went to the 10K rating...the 5.7l could only muster to 9k in 2500.

The 3.0l ecoDiesel is limited to the 1500 GVWR ratings...gonna guess it rates out at 8500 GVWR.

This would be my guess.

I could be completely wrong.

The 6.4l is a BGE...a Big Gas Engine. It is duty cycled for HeavyDuty use.

The 5.7l is gone because it is not a BGE

 

[Neil E]

I'm waiting for Ford to put an ecoboost 4 cylinder in their 250. LOL.

 

[RedneckHippy]

Would that just be a stroke

 

[LouM]

I myself would like to see an Eco-diesel in a 2500 with a 9000 GVW it would be a decent riding 3/4 tonwith enogh beans to do trailer work when needed and still get good mileage.
I can recall when a great many 3/4 ton pickups had straight 6's in them, torque not horespower is what gets the work down steady and constantly, I have no need for high winding high horsepower engines my racing days are behind me.

 

[14hemiexpress]

Nissan is trying there hand at this market and it's not going well. It's probably the fact its nissan. They have the 5.0 cummins gvw is under 9k on those trucks but they are still yielding ram 2500 cummins fuel mileage. I get that the cummins has a outrageous price tag and the hemi sucks fuel but at the end of the day you are just pushing a 7000+ truck down the road.i bet the eco diesel would be lucky to get 20mpg in one of these big trucks.

 

[crash68]

Nissan is trying there hand at this market and it's not going well. It's probably the fact its nissan. They have the 5.0 cummins gvw is under 9k on those trucks but they are still yielding ram 2500 cummins fuel mileage.

They tried the 5.0 Cummins, and it flopped. The fact the truck was a deemed a 5/8 ton, it cost practically as much as a 2500 w/ CTD and it was barely on par fuel economy wise.
As much as I like the EcoDiesel, I don't think it would do enough fuel efficiency wise to make the loss of HP worth it. A 2500 adds practically a ton of weight over a 1500. That's a bunch of extra weight and the GVWR would probably be reduced.
If Ram wanted to offer a more fuel efficient version of a 2500, have Cummins make a 4.5L I-4 (the 6.7 minus 2 cylinders) and offer that.
Another idea would be to modernize the Detroit Diesel 4.0L DELTA engine. If Chrysler would have put that engine in the 1500 back around the time the CTD first came out in the HD trucks, they would have owned the truck market. There were Dakota test mules built with the DELTA engine.

 

[Sandevino]

If they did offer the 3.0 EcoDiesel, Ford fanboys would call it the Blue-Balls edition. Not ‘strokin nor ‘******...

 

[kltk1]

I myself would like to see an Eco-diesel in a 2500 with a 9000 GVW it would be a decent riding 3/4 tonwith enogh beans to do trailer work when needed and still get good mileage.
I can recall when a great many 3/4 ton pickups had straight 6's in them, torque not horespower is what gets the work down steady and constantly, I have no need for high winding high horsepower engines my racing days are behind me.

Agreed. I guess that was kinda my point with the question. I don’t need 10k GVW or 14k towing capacity but would love the comfort of the extra weight and capacity of a 2500 with the fuel mileage of a Cummins at half the cost. You could probably run a set of 4.10 or even 4.30 and still get very similar fuel mileage as the Cummins with an ED. For those of us towing travel trailers in the 6-7k range, a 2500 makes for a very comfortable, and safe towing experience. The choice of 10mpg towing or $10k to get 15k towing is a giant gap. I’d give up some capability and pay a little more to ultimately get a little more of both.

Thank you for all the responses. This is a great discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner665]

The Eco isn't enough motor for a 2500...
torque is OK, but its HP sorta sucks.

It takes both to get work done with heavy loads... doing it with torque alone is REALLY slow without sufficient HP.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Sandevino]

Torque gets you moving.

HP keeps it rolling.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Torque can do it with very little HP.... but it won't get anywhere fast.

Steam engines are a great example... TREMENDOUS amounts of torque, very little HP.

The one in this video is probably about 18-25 HP....but roughly 2000 ft lbs of torque.

Extreme example using steam engines...but it is a good example for answering the OP's question.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[LouM]

The Eco isn't enough motor for a 2500...
torque is OK, but its HP sorta sucks.

It takes both to get work done with heavy loads... doing it with torque alone is REALLY slow without sufficient HP.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Well I guess I'll just have to repeat myself,
I can recall numerous 3/4 tons with inline 6's that pulled trailers.
Heck there used to be a lot of 2 and 3 ton trucks with 6 cylinder gas engines that worked every day.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Yep.... and they were slow.

I had an F250 with a 300 in line 6 in it.... good truck, but slow all the time, geared very low.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[LouM]

Yep, but who really needs to climb hills at 65-70 mph,
slow down enjoy the scenery.

 

[chri5k]

Torque can do it with very little HP.... but it won't get anywhere fast.

Steam engines are a great example... TREMENDOUS amounts of torque, very little HP.

The one in this video is probably about 18-25 HP....but roughly 2000 ft lbs of torque.

Extreme example using steam engines...but it is a good example for answering the OP's question.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yep. Don't think anyone would buy a 2500 that takes 2 minutes to go up a highway on-ramp and reach 1 MPH. Then try to merge into traffic doing 70 MPH. With the EcoD you might get a 2500+ LB payload (lighter engine) but can only tow 5000 Lbs. Whats the point? Might as well get a 1500.