GM Inside News Forum banner

Time For A Silverado Diesel? RAM Boosts Diesel Pickup Output; 60% Conquest Rate

12K views 90 replies 49 participants last post by  usayjim2 
#1 ·
Automotive News

September 30, 2014


Image Credit: Chrysler USA

Article Quotes:

DETROIT -- Chrysler Group, struggling to keep pace with demand for one of its newest products, plans to boost production of light-duty Ram pickups equipped with diesel engines.

The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel will account for 20 percent of the Ram 1500 pickup’s annual production volume, up from 10 percent today, Chrysler said in a statement today, without giving details.

The additional output may help Chrysler win customers from bigger rivals Ford Motor Co. and General Motors. Chrysler says nearly 60 percent of all Ram 1500 EcoDiesel deliveries have been conquest sales from competitors’ pickup brands, a notable achievement given the segment’s high owner-loyalty rates.

The optional EcoDiesel engine carries the industry’s highest EPA highway rating for pickups, at 28 mpg. It has become one of Chrysler’s fastest-selling vehicles since its launch in February.

Chrysler doesn’t break out unit sales of the light-duty Ram 1500 and heavy-duty Ram 2500 and 3500. The Automotive News Data Center estimates Chrysler’s Warren, Mich., plant will build about 335,000 Ram 1500s this year, up 17 percent from 2013 totals.

The company said the increase in EcoDiesel mix will be completed by the end of November at the Michigan and Mexico plants.

The 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V-6 engine is built in Cento, Italy, by Fiat Automobiles subsidiary VM Motori. Chrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said Ram worked with VM Motori to obtain more diesel engines specifically for the Ram 1500 and that Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel production would be unaffected.

===============================================

Automotive News

GM Considers A Countermove: Light-Duty Diesels

January 20, 2014

Article Quotes:

DETROIT -- Steve Kiefer, General Motors' vice president of global powertrain, said he is considering a diesel engine for the light-duty Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra to counter fuel economy improvements due on the Ford F-150 and Ram pickups.

He also said GM engineers are working to improve the cylinder cutoff system already on the trucks. The system turns off half an engine's cylinders when the vehicle is cruising.

The good news for GM is that it has a diesel for its pickups ready to go. GM engineers designed a 4.5-liter diesel V-8, but the project was put on ice when the company spiraled into bankruptcy in 2009.

"We are looking closely at diesel entrees in that segment," Kiefer said. "In fact, I heard the term 'dust off' that 4 1/2-liter at one point. That is certainly one of the options. Clearly, we have a portfolio of diesel engines."

The 4.5-liter V-8 was to be built in GM's Tonawanda, N.Y., engine plant. GM had gone as far as clearing factory floor space and installing the transfer lines in 2008.

Though the engine was advanced for its time, with a single turbocharger mounted between the cylinder heads and other innovations, GM would likely redesign the engine -- possibly reducing displacement -- and adopting the latest friction reduction technologies.
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel will account for 20 percent of the Ram 1500 pickup’s annual production volume, up from 10 percent today.

Chrysler says nearly 60 percent of all Ram 1500 EcoDiesel deliveries have been conquest sales from competitors’ pickup brands, a notable achievement given the segment’s high owner-loyalty rates.
While the Colorado diesel will be nice, a 60% conquest rate is alarming.

It may certainly be time to offer a diesel engine in all of GM's full-sized trucks - Suburban, Yukon, and Escalade included.

Can you imagine the profit margin on the RAM diesel option?
 
#15 ·
This... The say they want their trucks to be #1, yet they cut their legs off when given a chance to stand out. Just unbelievable they are still "considering" a diesel...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 377Z and ZR2BlaZeR2
#14 ·
I don't think putting a diesel in the GM LD trucks would be as easy as some think. First, the 4.5 is old technology and I don't think it would be competitive with the newer generation engines. I think it would suffer when compared to newer engines with a lack of power and/or poor fuel mileage.

Also, I think the Ram is selling well because their trucks have a long history of having dependable diesels. On the other hand, GM's attempt to put diesels in their LD trucks suffered greatly because their first attempt was a disaster because of a problem engine. I know many will say that the GM fiasco doesn't matter because it was so long ago but many of us lived through the disaster or our parents did when we were young. We're still buying trucks and many of us will wait a few years after GM has a diesel before we will take a chance on one. We didn't wait the first time and we were badly burned.
 
#16 ·
GM needs to come out with a diesel for the 1500 that is more competitive in pricing. $4000 premium on the Ram for a v6 diesel would make me not want to choose the option. i would rather put that money towards leather heated seats and other features. with the high cost of the motor and cost for fuel, does it really pay?
 
#17 ·
I'm not sure it would be worth it for GM to invest the resources in designing or updating and appropriate diesel to match current and future emissions regulations. Probably an easy 2 year endeavour if not longer. They should definitely go 8 speed and try to improve aerodynamics to improve fuel economy. Other than that I don't know, maybe they can try the hybrid truck route again. If done well electric motors should (in theory) be a great fit for truck applications. In practice, who knows?
 
#20 ·
I really don't see the benefit of a diesel compared to the new 5.3 and 6.2. For eco or must-be-the-best-mpg people, then I get it why the Ram diesel is selling. Great for them. But around here in the NE, diesel fuel is $1.00 more than regular per gallon. So for my crude math, it is no benefit.
Pre-low sulfer diesel, this Ram diesel would be a game changer, cause diesel was $1.00 less a gallon. Maybe that's why GM scraped it.
 
#27 ·
I really don't see the benefit of a diesel compared to the new 5.3 and 6.2. For eco or must-be-the-best-mpg people, then I get it why the Ram diesel is selling. Great for them. But around here in the NE, diesel fuel is $1.00 more than regular per gallon. So for my crude math, it is no benefit.
Pre-low sulfer diesel, this Ram diesel would be a game changer, cause diesel was $1.00 less a gallon. Maybe that's why GM scraped it.
The benefit is the giant chrome DIESEL badge they'll get to stick on the fender. Then all the coal rollers with more money than brains will eat them up. Just like Ford's EcoBoost.

Do you know how many idiots I've had to listen to blab about how badass EcoBoost was compared to GM's V8 when they debuted? Facts and numbers don't matter here.

Its a perception thing that GM is struggling with. RAM or Ford aren't giving their customers anything better or worse than GM, it just really looks that way from 30,000 feet when somebody shows some guts and try something new.
 
#21 ·
Good grief, the 4.5L Babymax is the automotive equivalent of The Walking Dead. The article only brings it up to remind readers that GM gave up on the idea even before they tested the market. Ford did the same for North America, but it's 4.4L V8 TD lives on other continents. Even Cummins, who planned to partner with Chrysler, found a new partner when the ChryCo bankruptcy allowed them to cancel the Cummins contract. Ram may be having a problem with supply, but the demand is still there. Nissan will try to get into the mix & Ford already has their 3.2L I5 engine certified for the Transit & would be able to be added to the F150 quickly. If GM wants a dog in this fight at all, the Colorado/Canyon TD can't get here soon enough.
 
#22 ·
The 4.5L turbodiesel, depending on updates, should absolutely make its way into the GM trucks. By that I'm also including the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL. Depending on the take rate, the Escalade might even benefit from it. A V-8 diesel would still provide exceptional fuel economy with fantastic performance, especially if they paired it with the 8AT as well (not sure if they will though). The thing is, you can make a good case for a diesel I-4, V-6, and V-8. GM can offer multiple diesels if the market goes that way. But GM has to go ahead and do this. GM went ahead years ago with cylinder-deactivation, and since then Ford has turned to fewer cylinders with turbocharging and Chrysler has implemented a diesel. GM needs their next move.
 
#33 ·
I was ready to jump on a half-ton before the BK when GM planned to build the 4.5L. But, the 4.5 would now have to be retuned at the very least to get every little MPG out of it. But, then they risk the perception that they don't know how to build a diesel because it would be weaker than some other diesel engines of similar size. GM should have been planning on a V6 diesel after bankruptcy. We've actually had a discussion about the ColoCanyon's 2.8L 4-cylinder TD being used in the half-tons. Based on the torque ratings of the 4-cylinder compared to the middle-'90s 6.5L V8 half-ton TDs, a 6 or 8-speed transmission could make up for the displacement difference, but there actually isn't a big difference in HP/TQ. But, GM is positioning the ColoCanyon as a response to the Ram EcoDiesel. Both are positioned for people who don't work their trucks very hard, but want decent grunt when they do need to work them. Otherwise, they are just treated as tall cars & the TD is a more FE option.

jpd80 said:
I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.
It depends on what your choice of performance is. If you want a relatively fast moving truck for commuting, the EB should be fine (325 HP/375 Lb.-ft.). If you want something that will haul a good sized boat to the lake once or twice a month, the ED might be better (240 HP/420 lb.-ft.). Ford might have a compelling package if diesel fuel remains higher than gasoline. The only thing that I still hang up on is that diesel vehicles get much closer to the upper end of the EPA mileage ratings than most gas engined vehicles, which hover more toward the lower end of the ratings. So, a realistic 25 for the Ram looks better on paper than a realistic 20 from the 2.7L F150.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Now that Ram has proven a market for smaller diesel I'm sure GM and Ford will respond with their own diesels. But GM and Ford have to build a diesel that commercial truck buyers want. Ram builds more towards personal trucks...

Ram Eco diesel has
Payload of 1620lbs
Towing of 9200lbs

Ram NA V6 has
Payload of 1910lbs
Towing of 7450lbs

This is not a truck diesel engine.......payload is way to low.....
 
#25 ·
Ram diesel sales would be lucky to be 2,000/mth, I'm not so sure about claims by Ram that
those sales will increase from the current 10% to 20% of total 1500 sales.

Sure Ford and GM could compete but let's take GM for a second:
- give the silverado 5.3 an 8-speed auto and you could see fuel economy jump to 25 mpg,
a brilliant result that would impact around 75-80% of GM's half ton truck buyers.

Similarly, Ford's new lightened '15 F150, set to go forth and do battle with 2.7 Ecoboost,
an engine guaranteed to shake up any notions of F Truck buyers considering a diesel.
I have a hunch that the new F 150 with 2.7 EB will be mighty close to Ram ED V6 in
all the right areas like fuel economy and yet worlds apart in others like performance.
 
#35 ·
I don't think you're going to see a small turbo'd gas engine come anywhere close to a small turbodiesel *at least* until low sulfur gas is standard in the United States. Lean burning can't be done very well with current gas setups and that is a major source of gain for diesels.

Even then throttle less gas engines still need a lot of improvement, and the low non boosted CR might only be able to be addressed by water or water/methanol injection. Still, people are wiling to load DEF into their diesels now as a second required fluid, I could see people also be willing to add water/methanol into turbo/gas engines as a second fluid.

I know that nobody is going to build one but I would love to see what a 3.0L-3.3L pushrod V6 single turbo water injected setup could do. Give it an 8 speed and dump the torque converter for an electric motor and make a mild hybrid out of it and you would have a (probably) epic fuel economy engine.
 
#31 ·
Once you go away from corporate engines used across the board, your scales of economy on components and calibration development and reliability testing goes out the window,
What should be possible is unique calibrations of those corporate engines to extract character and features that should become hallmarks of the respective brands. Get the basic design of the engines right and everything flows from there.
 
#30 ·
Same story as always, GM is considering doing something with their #1 selling and earning product. Are their resources stretched too thin, not sure what to do, not sure what direction to go in, plainly don't care? It's almost amusing to see what the competition is doing to good old GM in the truck segment. While Ram and Ford make trucks that people are clamoring for, GM makes half baked sticker and wheel packages.
 
#32 ·
On topic, GM recently sold its stake in VM Motori for a relative pittance... what did GM know to make such a decision, were they stupid or is there something better on offer?
Does GM need a diesel half ton or does it have its own "Ecoboost" strategy or even next generation AFM technology that makes diesel options less attractive by swinging the fuel economy balance back to gasoline?
 
#68 ·
GM actually did a pretty smart thing with Vmotori, they used it to found their own Diesel Engineering division, and took talent and experience with them. They are now no longer dependent on Isuzu or Joint ventures for their diesels. I believe their first 100% GM diesels are coming online in Europe.
Their Diesel Engineering center is based near Vmotori in Italy at Turin (Torino) LINK
 
#34 · (Edited)
The "magic" of the Diesel Ram is its stellar mpg rating and near-10,000 lb tow rating. From 3.0L. And is apparently VERY efficient in the real world.

What will the 4.5L BabyMax return for economy? Any better than the 4.3L V6-gas? And no doubt it will out-tow, theoretically, the Ram. But, as a 1500 shopper, who needs-expects more than 10,000 lb tow ratings when shopping for a fuel-conscious pick-em-up?

I was a HUGE proponent of the BabyMax, as conceived-described back in '08. But it's NOT '08 anymore...
 
#41 ·
What will the 4.5L BabyMax return for economy? Any better than the 4.3L V6-gas? And no doubt it will out-tow, theoretically, the Ram.
If someone were to drive the 4.3 & the 4.5 calmly, I would actually bet that the TD could return better economy than the V6. It may not be by a wide margin, but that's what I think.
 
#38 ·
The 2.8L diesel in a 1/2 ton could do really well even if it has lower Hp and Tq than the 3.0L in the Ram...if got better fuel economy numbers, that is. Which is very doable. Only thing that it would have going against it is that the numbers for the same engine in the Colorado/Canyon would be better, towing, efficiency, acceleration etc. It would really be up to GM advertising to spin this right though, which at the moment I'm doubtful they can do...
 
#39 · (Edited)
In a sense, there are basically three major groupings you can place all LD diesel PTs into.

One of them is currently a European specialty more or less. Let's just call it what it is "high performance".

Anyway, a 4.0 /4.5 DM in the forms most likely to be brought would not in a net sense end up suffering in comparison to any other TD Pick Up / SUV.


The only real question within is about with what transmissions......... / ATs

And that in turn would necessarily feedback and determine some things about the DM itself.


If they stuck with the lower output per cube but more cubes to work with approach ..... it might be surprising what they could come up with using even 'just' the right kind of 6sp AT -

And yes, the right kind of 8sp AT is obviously also of interest - furthermore, perhaps both could be as well.


Especially if different states of tune are provided for.


Timing in so many ways is but one of the many externals that really matters.

And yes, they have, for no good reason wasted years of it already with regard to something like this.


The other thing about a DM V8 is where else it could be of possible interest.

That space on a first pass, is much bigger and imo better, than many realize.



Anyway, two off the wall examples will follow just to stretch the thinking -

Hang on gotta' see if I can find the one -

Damn.... no great video......... well this will suffice for now.

4,134 cc V8 TD ( Much older ( but updated eh, twice as needed ) - base architecture by many years than the DM 4.5 )

Approx. 382 - 385 Hp

627 pd ft pf torque from 2,000 to 2750 rpm.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives...orsche-Cayenne-Diesel-S-facelift-2014-review/

http://www.pistonheads.com/roadtests/doc.asp?c=105&i=29686

Driven briskly plus plus, capable of about double the mpg of the Cayenne S gasser twin turbo V8.


And for those who just hafta' mess with the beast ........

From over a year and half ago...... and with regard to the earlier configuration



Keep in mind, that globally Cayenne has been accounting for approx. 51 - 55 % of Porsche sales and ..... 80 % of those have been with one diesel or the other once available .....


2. ) All changed up from 2008 / 2009 ..... and the firm is still in process basically.




Able to take advantage of many of the better forms of bio diesel.

Two or three other states of tune available.

DM 6.6 v8 TD.......

http://www.tridentsportscars.com/
 
#42 ·
What's wrong with using the new 2.8 liter diesel that's going to be in the Colorado/Canyon? I'm betting it will have similar output to the Ram 3.0, which I believe GM was involved with in a joint development. So GM is well aware of the 3.0 strengths and weaknesses.

If there isn't enough power, how about adding a small electric motor in a simple parallel hybrid arrangement to the front wheels to provide even more torque when accelerating and to increase efficiency with regen braking.

Another approach is to add two more cylinders to the 2.8 to make a smooth running 4.2 liter turbo inline 6. This would be my favorite.

I heard a GM guy say during an interview that the problem with diesels in general is they require upwards of $3k in pollution equipment in order to meet US standards. I also heard that the Ram 3.0 costs only $3k, if that's true, how are they making any money with this Ram diesel?
 
#44 ·
I heard a GM guy say during an interview that the problem with diesels in general is they require upwards of $3k in pollution equipment in order to meet US standards. I also heard that the Ram 3.0 costs only $3k, if that's true, how are they making any money with this Ram diesel?
Ram is eating costs and buying market share, how else can you sell more and more vehicles yet make less money each quarter. Careful GM, Ram is nipping at your heals and stealing your lunch.
 
#43 ·
SUVs along with the pickups are a must. Also more sedans as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 377Z
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top