It’s time for a Dodge Ram XFE … and perhaps old-fashioned granny gears.
The <a href=”/reviews/2009/ram-1500.html”>2009 Dodge Ram</a> is a really impressive truck - but some people don’t need its size or capacity. For them, I propose the more fuel-efficient Dodge Ram XFE, with judicious modifications to keep the look and utility for those who just need a great big bed to carry great big things in.
Seriously, how many people cross streams and boulder beds in their pickups? How many load up 9,000 pound trailers? Would a lighter-duty, lower-height, lighter-weight pickup be just as good, say with a mild 5,000 pound tow rating and an inch or two less ground clearance?
Would people buy this truck if it came with a standard tonneau cover (to cut wind resistance) and an extra 2 or 3 miles per gallon?
Now, let’s shift gears for a moment. Has the time also come for smaller engines? While it’s terrific to have a speedy Hemi, lots of people operate their trucks on farms and construction sites. For them, a top speed of 65 mph would probably be fine; it’s torque that matters, and you can get torque from gearing. You used to be able to buy full-sized pickups with <a href=”/slant6.html”>slant sixes</a> - that’s a whopping hundred horsepower. Indeed, the slant six was an improvement over the prior flat-head six!
I wonder whether one could get away with a heavy duty truck driven by a little 3.7 liter V6 and power-oriented gearing. Indeed, I wonder about the 2.4 liter four-cylinder used in the PT Cruiser. It gets 150 horsepower, far more than the old slant six and way more than the flatheads. Keep in mind I know it might be a crazy idea. I’m not an engineer. The old in-line sixes had way more torque than today’s four-cylinders, and they generated it right off idle. Still, I can’t help but think that in the Ram 3500, a 3.7 liter V6 with granny gears might be a great combination for people who don’t care much about acceleration or top speed, as long as they get the pulling power they need.
Just about every automaker now is playing with small-displacement, turbocharged engines for cars - 1.4 liters, for example, to replace today’s 2.4 liter engines. They’re working on all sorts of harebrained schemes to extract every last mile per gallon and spending literally hundreds of hours in wind tunnels. Perhaps it’s also time to use that flex manufacturing skill and adapt the traditional full-sized pickup truck to a new era, too.
Maybe having the 3.7L with a 6-speed automatic transmission (and some 6-speed manual as well) could help too and having additionnal body parts in aluminium, kind of remeniscent of the Feather Duster.
Another suggestion is a de-stroked version of the current 5.7L Hemi to around 4.8L-5.0L (around 290 or 304 cubic inches as a nod to the AMC 290 and 304 V8), sure it’ll enter in the territory of the current 4.7L but on the other hand it might be efficient as well.
With the coming of the Ecoboost V6 (I prefer the original term “TwimForce” or “EcoForce” but some folks might find it too politically incorrect) at Ford. Maybe a supercharged or turbocharged version of the upcoming Phoenix family V6 engines could help the Ram and Dakota as well
My thoughts were basically for the “six month or so” timeframe, at least through prototype building and start of EPA and crash testing. I agree that the 3.7 with the six speed would help. Of course axle ratios can help and hurt - gearing a small engine to handle lots of torque could kill highway mileage even as it aids city mileage. I’m thinking that certain applications of work trucks are normally used at relatively low speeds.
In short, I think it might be time, despite the manufacturing costs of more variations, to consider:
1) A Ram aimed at “vanity owners” (as in “I just need to drive a pickup though I don’t tow or haul) and relatively casual use (moving around very large but not especially heavy objects, towing lighter boats and trailers, etc.). This would be the “XFE” noted first - the lowered, capacity-constrained version.
2) A Ram owned at extensive use at job sites, featuring a relatively small engine - perhaps a four cylinder diesel like the Perkins of old? - with granny gearing. This one could be in the 2500 range; a surprising number of people, I believe, carry heavy loads but generally don’t hit the highway.
The new, smaller diesels are coming for Dodge — as well as the Phoenix which should compete well against the amusingly named Ecoboost.
Why don’t they do what they did with the Minivans?
And with in the next day or so, you should be able to build 09’s on Dodge’s site.
Okay, now you can build 09’s on Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep websites.
T
OOPS, Sorry for the short post. There will be a Hybrid Ram next summer sometime that will push up gas milage a bit and will also be on the lighter duty side. Why not call it the Ram 1000 instead if 1500 or just Ram Hybrid. Also the diesel will be here soon. I am sude they have thought about all of these things we are taling about and we may see some thing soon
Because it’s not the same thing. Making relatively minor changes to the Ram could increase gas mileage by almost the same level as the hybrid, but at far lower cost. Diesels and hybrids are both expensive. Suspension lowering is not, and some weight reduction, accompanied by capacity reduction, might not be anywhere in the same realm as powertrain mods. Likewise, smaller engines with gearing adjustments would probably be lower cost in production though engineering investments would balance that out.
Dodge already built this vehicle in the past. It was called the Dakota. All they have to do is stop trying to make the Dakota a Ram, and let it become a Dakota again.
I agree with Greg’s comments, downsize the Dakota - say to a compact size AND reduce weight and engine size for those who want it on the Ram.
I’m a small contractor. I would love a Ram 1000 (or Ram 2000) ST (or WT perhaps?) with a Perkins diesel and 6 speed tranny. It would be perfect for the job site. I don’t need a fancy truck on the jobsite, but good mileage would be great. I’ll still drive a 3500 4X4 diesel quad or crew cab, but just need a basic pickup for the hired hands. Same thing on the farm. AS for the Dakota, I liked the previous models, smaller and cheaper. I would also purchase “new” 1996 or 1999 Dakotas if they were available. Better truck than the Ranger or S10/Colorado. Cheaper than a Toyota or Nissan. The smaller Dakota would be a great parts runner vehicle. What happened to “basic trucks”? I remember when even a heater and turn signals were optional (when I was a kid). Great trucks back then.