I don't know if he tried the tow haul mode or not. He used to be a big Jeep enthusiast until this happened. I looked on a Jeep forum a months ago and saw people were still having the problem. His inlaws have on that also does it.
Ram HEMI 8 speed 4x4 rated same as Ecoboost 4x4 EPA fuel mileage.
- Thread starter Dmace
- Start date
- Views: 22518
I don't know if he tried the tow haul mode or not. He used to be a big Jeep enthusiast until this happened. I looked on a Jeep forum a months ago and saw people were still having the problem. His inlaws have on that also does it.
dodge man
Super Star Member
I've owned 4 late model hemis. I've never had a problem with the Mds. On the truck I owned, at times it would have a problem holding MDS on hills or strong head winds. MDS works better on cars in my opinion, but that's aerodynamics.
I've done a lot of Internet reading on late model hemis, what ever that's worth. The only problem I've really read about is timing chain failures. It appears to be most common on the Challengers and only 2010 and 2009 model years. It seems when they switched to variable valve timing, the chains got smaller due to space limitations. There is speculation MDS contributes to the problem but no one knows. It appears the gearing and programming is unique on the Challengers and the failure occurs at 70 mph. It seems the failure is rare but Chrysler isn't talking.
Consumers report came out with an article recently about the ecoboost. Not just the trucks but all the Ecoboost engines. They were basically saying what Dmace says. You can get a regular engine that does just as well. I don't put a lot of stock in what they say, we would all be driving Accords or Camarys if we listened to them. Yawn.
I've done a lot of Internet reading on late model hemis, what ever that's worth. The only problem I've really read about is timing chain failures. It appears to be most common on the Challengers and only 2010 and 2009 model years. It seems when they switched to variable valve timing, the chains got smaller due to space limitations. There is speculation MDS contributes to the problem but no one knows. It appears the gearing and programming is unique on the Challengers and the failure occurs at 70 mph. It seems the failure is rare but Chrysler isn't talking.
Consumers report came out with an article recently about the ecoboost. Not just the trucks but all the Ecoboost engines. They were basically saying what Dmace says. You can get a regular engine that does just as well. I don't put a lot of stock in what they say, we would all be driving Accords or Camarys if we listened to them. Yawn.
Good luck pulling an 8k lb trailer with a Ram. They have neutered the payload even more on the 2013's since they changed the suspensions. Since you linked that rv site, you've no doubt seen threads on there like this RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Can this be right? Laramie longhorn crew 4x4 1500 where they are finding the Ram is overloaded with passengers alone, and have no 'available payload' left for anything in the bed let alone a trailer. It's a shame Fiat turned the 1500 Ram into an SUV that looks like a truck, forcing real truck owners to buy a 2500 for truck capabilities.
Diamondpilot
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 16,316
- Location
- Daleville, IN
- Tractor
- Jinma 254/284 Ford 861 Powermaster at work
Or just get a brand with some payload. My last F150 had 7,700# GVWR and weighed about 5,700# leaving me plenty of payload of about a ton.
My current Nissan Titan has 7,200# GVWR and weighs 5,840# leaving about 1,400#. The early Titans suffered the same problem with a 6,500#ish GVWR.
Chris
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
Yes this article was discussed heavily on a f150forum.com. They compared the ecoboost to the 5.O liter with only one criteria, fuel economy. My thought is apples to oranges with the 5.0. to ecoboost. Ecoboost makes more torque than the 6.2 liter it replaces up to about 4000 rpms yet uses much less fuel for normal driving. Even in their comparison, it got the same mileage as the 5.0 and they didn't care about the improved performance.
Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
Here is the door sticker in my ecoboost and I don't even have the heavy payload option. That would add another 500 lbs. I would have ordered that package but didn't want the 6.5 foot bed. There have been a couple times I have been a little over the 1835 lb payload.
Attachments
crazyal
Super Member
I threw out 150k for a turbo on the ecoboost because Ford has a memo out saying it has a life cycle is 150k or 10 years.
Egon
Epic Contributor
Mine, 1996 Dodge, sounds like it should be an antique too! She still gets done whatever is required with pretty nice fuel mileage! Got no complaint on the interior layout either. it's even got a cupholder where it's supposed to be. :thumbsup:
Course some may think it rusted out about 12 years ago or shoulda shed a bunch of transmissions but them things ain't happened yet.
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
AH, thanks for the clarification. I just pulled my number from the air and luckily it was the same number.
jejeosborne
Veteran Member
Here are the towing specs from Ram directly. Looks like the maximum GVWR is 6800 lbs. You are correct, that doesn't allow for much payload. If you had a foursome and clubs, might have to drive two vehicles.
They are though similar to the 2012 model which is also low with the exception of the tradesman HD model. They dropped that model for 2013.
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/towing_guide/pdf/2013-RAM.1500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Last edited:
