2014 RAM 1500 EcoDIESEL has arrived!

[xrvr]

I guess I missed the thread on the hitch failures on a Dodge. Thought that was older GM trucks.

[switz]

Receiver weld issue was in a specific Dodge forum in 2012/2013 which impacted my model year. Better to take choice and than chance and thus I made the change that was more than adquate for the new trailer where the tongue weight is 1,345 pounds camping ready from the bigger batteries for the solar conversion.

[xrvr]

Okay, so the failure? were for a specific model year and you keep repeating it asif it were for all Rams. By the way my factory hitch is not round and it is bolted to the frame. Clarification is nice. I own a 2006 3500. Jim

[dkottum]

This is a 2014 Ram 1500 Ecodiesel thread, does the frequent hitch failure apply here?

[xrvr]

Correction, my hitch us a round one. The figures you are reading is for the bumper mount hitch hole, if it is like mine. The receiver is rated at 1200 pounds if I remember correctly, wit WD. The forum you are quoting was listing incorrect info by a troll. Turbo diesel registry. Jim

[xrvr]

I can find no record of hitch failures for Rams. This us I believe someone misinterpreting info from another forum. If someone can show me proof of ram hitch failures I would appreciate it. Jim

[Aerowood]

Top, Whats the torque output of the 3.0 diesel? With the great equalizers just to the west of me, its all about the torque.

By the way envy,envy,envy.

[Lance M]

Hey Kip! Thanks.
It is 420 lb/ft @ 1,800 rpm.
With an eight speed XMSN, it keeps the engine in the right spot.
I'm sure you'd find it a wonderful TV for your GT.


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[BoldAdventure]

Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi

I can find no record of hitch failures for Rams. This us I believe someone misinterpreting info from another forum. If someone can show me proof of ram hitch failures I would appreciate it. Jim

I've seen a hitch failure on a GM.

[xrvr]

GM had documented problems with hitch failures on older models. I've seen none on dodge other than from misuse. Thanks jim

[Lance M]

So, the first trip is in the books. Thanks to all of you for your kind words.
Overall, I am very, very happy with this truck. It did take me a long time reading and researching to make the decision to buy this truck. Hopefully all goes well with durability and longevity.
Trip stats-
610.2 miles
42.114 gallons
14.5 MPG (hand calculated)
The roads traveled were two lane US and state highways. I travelled at 65 MPH most of the time. I did pass someone on the way down and had plenty of passing power. I was going 85 when I let off. I wouldn't think of attempting a pass on a two lane highway with the Sequoia. The terrain was mostly flat coastal plains with a few hills between Cameron and Sealy on TX 36.
Steady state towing showed-
Water temp 215-220F
Trans temp 195-200F
Oil temp 230-235
I was in tow/Haul mode.
Most of the time it would stay in 7th gear, but occasionally it would shift to 8th.
I tried the cruise control on the way home and didn't like how it seemed to stay in 6th gear, so I shut it off. I never use cruise control, I just wanted to see how it worked on this truck.
On the way out, we went by the CAT scales to check loading and hitch rigging. These weights are fully loaded for a week of camping, three adults and one old furry feline, full 50 gallons of fresh water and two full 30# propane tanks.
Weighing one-WD applied

Weighing two-No WD

Weighing three-no trailer

I have good weight transfer with the old Reese Dual Cam and 750lb bars.
This combo tows so wonderfully I don't think I'll mess with it.
I was surprised to see that the calculated tongue (or is it reciever ) weight at 1,100lbs.


In summary, I don't think I could be happier with any other new truck.
It's working for me!

[JimGolden]

Top,

I'm happy for you buddy! You've got yourself a beautiful truck and a nice trailer. Makes a great rig! And you're getting darn good mileage!

Best wishes on the road, Amigo!

[DKB_SATX]

You neglected to point out that you were towing in Genuine Texas Summer conditions.


Sent from my iPad using Airstream Forums

[Lance M]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

You neglected to point out that you were towing in Genuine Texas Summer conditions.


Sent from my iPad using Airstream Forums

Yes, I did. The lowest ambient temp while towing was 84F.
Most of the towing was 90-95F.

[JFScheck]

Again - that EcoDiesel is a great engine, luving mine in my Grand Cherokee!

[rostam]

Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[Lara Me]

My pal picked up a new ecodiesel in Laramie trim with the air bags. Sure rides nice, nicer than my 2013 RAM 2500HD. He's on a trip to Alaska now and averaging 27 mpg unloaded. I averaged 18-20mpg on a trip to CA unloaded, but avg of 75mph. Mileage would have been better if I slowed down.

I'm still glad I bought the 3/4 ton. Payload is never a concern, nor is tongue weight, and I also haul dirt bikes. If I had the 23 or 25, I'd look real hard at the ecodiesel.

[slowmover]

The ever-handy Ron Gratz chart:

Woodalls Open Roads Forum: Towing: Heading to the CAT scales tomorrow

Weighing #1 -- TT attached and Weight Distribution Activated

Let Front Axle Load be "FA1" 3,700

Let Rear Axle Load be "RA1" 3,520

Let TT Axles Load be "TT1" 5,700

Then, while in same position on scales, take
Weighing #2 -- TT attached and Weight Distribution Not Activated

Let Front Axle Load be "FA2" 3,400

Let Rear Axle Load be "RA2" 3,980

Let TT Axles Load be "TT2" 5560

Then, drive off scales and drop TT. Return to scales and take
Weighing #3 -- TV only -- TT Not Attached

Let Front Axle Load be "FA3" 3,720

Let Rear Axle Load be "RA3" 2,560

From the above values, you can calculate:

TV weight = FA3 + RA3 6,280

Gross Combined Weight = (FA1 + RA1 + TT1)
- should also be equal to (FA2 + RA2 + TT2) if scale weights are correct

12,920 12,940

TT Weight = Gross Combined Weight - TV Weight

6,650 = 12,930 - 6280

Tongue Weight = (FA2 + RA2) - (FA3 + RA3), or

7380 - 6280 = 1,100 (16%; higher than the target of 12-13%; generally a higher TW [15%+] does add some stability, but usually at the expense of WD difficulties)

Load Transferred to TT Axles
when WD System in Activated = TT1 - TT2

140 (with 300# to FA; or, roughly 2:1 as is to be expected).

The GCW of this rig is the same as my parents '76 Cadillac pulling their '75 28' Silver Streak where the TT outweighed the TV by around 1k and with all five of us aboard . . . and at an usual 7-8 mpg at 55. My grandparents '67 Dodge pulling a '66 Streamline weighed less, but saw 10-mpg due mainly to the higher compression and better tuning for power in that pre-emissions-control era.

Boy, that TW sure is high, what's the story? More batteries and bigger propane tanks a start?

The WD numbers look nice in the main sense. No surprise, here. The other step is to have look at the tire loads individually. TV tire pressure is to the heaviest tire on an axle, not to the axle average (TT tire pressure is always to sidewall maximum).

BRIDGESTONE TIRE "How to Weigh an RV"

I look to moving my toolboxes to get the best read in the above. Then comes the need to secure gear in the event of a rollover. I was waiting for it a few years back and then found the story . . young man survives crash but is killed by flying IPod (years before it was a flying cellphone and for decades previous the contents of a womans purse). In other words whatever we can do to keep gear in place and doors, etc, closed in the TT is worth the trouble and I needn't go further in re with the truck cab or bed.

Brake drag on both vehicles as well as alignment ought to be verified (a vehicle being new is only a coincidence to this need) and trailer bearing pre-set also verified for FE [fuel economy] purposes. The best TT brake controller is also indicated for highest FE (and a VPP hitch to round things off).

And, by the way, you are choosing to give up mpg by not using cruise control. The days of outsmarting it are prettty well gone outside of the hilliest terrain. The usual safety caveats apply, but one has to work tremendously hard to outguess the software. This mental effort outweighs being alert to road, load, traffic and weather and is thus counterproductive. Change the travel set speed IOW. This is a given for CUMMINS or KENWORTH (white papers on fuel economy online).

The cc programming for your little truck deserves a chance. Use the dash mpg read over a 100-mile distance and compare to the cc for another hundred whle on the Interstate. MPG is all about the tenths and hundredths adding up over thousands of miles . . and they do.

Smarter use of onboard diagnostics also indicates use of engine run time as well as average trip speed. Percentage of idle time for a trip. These can all be used quite well to further fine-tune a trip plan where the first day or three is about making distances versus sight-seeing. The conditions under which I work are different, but we are both running the roads. Understanding through experimentation is all about best fit to conditions and not forcing wants on what is encountered.

Thanks for the report, Lance!

.

[Lance M]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Tongue Weight = (FA2 + RA2) - (FA3 + RA3), or

7380 - 6280 = 1,100 (16%; higher than the target of 12-13%; generally a higher TW [15%+] does add some stability, but usually at the expense of WD difficulties)


Boy, that TW sure is high, what's the story? More batteries and bigger propane tanks a start?

I always knew the TW was a lot, I didn't think it would be over 1,000.

On this trailer the fresh water tank is forward of the axles and it holds 50 gallons, so having the fresh tank full adds a good bit to the tongue weight. I had just filled both 30lb propane bottles. The pantry and refer (packed with food for a week) are both forward of the axles along with the galley with a good amount of pots and pans. I don't carry anything under the gaucho up front. I guess a few things need to be moved to the under bed storage bins.
It has just the one rear mounted battery.

I'll give the CC another try, maybe.

Thanks Ross

[slowmover]

Well, reducing the TW by a couple of hundred pounds seems like a good idea more I'd guess from A-frame integrity versus pure WDH numbers as the TV is fine for the given loading of same. I'm not up on that issue as I would be if I owned an A/S.

I wouldn't ever choose to travel without full fresh water. I'd rather move some kitchen gear to the area just aft of the rear axles -- close as possible -- but not until I saw the individual tire weight readings. There may indeed be room given a heavier load on the front TT tires at present than the rear, so the move of gear seems obvious if the numbers prove out. This might be one time where carrying cast iron dutch ovens, etc, is the better part of the permanent loading.

As a 16% TW is no big deal past TV payload capacity my concern would be in making TT tire load numbers fore & aft as well side-to-side as equal as is reasonable. If that results in a lower TW, then, nice.

Now, for the record,

Keeping the load centered on the TT axles is the genuine concern; directly over and within about two feet feet fore & aft otherwise, with preference to the front as a general rule. The problem of I/S TT's is their need to not only ride level, but to also have nearly-equal tire loadings for best performance. The shortcomings of a conventionally-suspended trailer don't overcome their inherent instability vis-a-vis a suspension design whch is more forgiving of improper loading.

So far as FE is concerned best loading is conducive to fewer steering inputs to remain lane-centered and upright. Lane-centeredness is the key. The best mechancial baseline -- numbers to which I can refer -- is the start of a mpg quest. As I see diesel prices of $3.60/gl lately, 14.5-mpg is close enough to my 25-cpm while towing. My son is the Marine, so what is "Army Strong" in this case where the USMC rig is far longer and heavier and older, eh?

So, I'd say that if tire loading can be improved it may be that both TW and steering corrections per 100-miles come down. And, for a truck not yet broken in and outstanding MPG numbers for a back road, this rig is on it's way up even before the driver is fully used to it. We gotta spot Army something.

.