Proper sized camper for Ram 1500 Ecodiesel
- Thread starter STANG302
- Start date
Clutch
<---Pass
Ha ha...not sure if I would have this picture on the product page....kinda says, "Our shells are top-heavy".
Clutch
<---Pass
Maybe they are try to show how Tuf their shells are? Not coming across that way to me...says if you take it off-road it is going to end up on its' side
Mundo4x4Casa
West slope, N. Ser. Nev.
With my window-into-time cap on:
I've lived long enough to see the evolution of diesel power for RV's and SUV's come of age. Sometime in the 1970's, probably after the first Arab Oil Embargo, people pulling trailers were looking around for a more econonomical alternative to the Ford 460, Chevy 454 and Chrysler 383 big block V-8 as a towing and weight dragging power plant.
We saw the ill-fated Olds 350 V-8 diesel in Chevy pickups for a while. I had that engine in a 1979 Cadillac Seville. That didn't work out. Then later came the not-so-good 6.2L Detroit Chevy diesel which has a bit more power and not much else. International Harvester was producing Scout II's, Travellers, Travel-alls, and series I, II, and III pickups. By 1978, International procured a batch of Nissan normally aspirated 3.3L, 6 cyl diesel engines (aka:"The 900 pound boat anchor") which put out a whopping 80 HP to go in their Scouts. By 1980, the last year of the Scouts, the ante was upped to 101, neck snapping, turbo charged HP, all from that 900 pound block. I owned one of these; a 1980 Scout Traveller (118" w.b.). It had a lot of torque and coupled to the Borg Warner T-19, all-synchro, 4 speed, close ratio trans, and a Dana 300 T-case, Texas pattern, worked exceptionally well. We averaged, fully loaded with our family out for a month, a respectable 20-21 mpg. The compression ratio was an astronomical 23:1. And it could tow. We did the Rubicon a couple times with this one with a S.O.A. lift and lockers.
The reason I post this little ditty is because in my memory bank I'm seeing a 1978 Scout diesel pulling a 35 foot bumper pull RV trailer down the 5 freeway past San Onofre, struggling in the slow lane, obviously foot on the floor with a lot of black smoke, his 80 HP Nissan trying to be a big boy and failing. Sooner or later one comes to enlightenment about making the truck and power plant match or better yet exceed the load requirements. Chrysler knew exactly what they were doing by offering a turbo diesel in a pickup to boost sales. It looked great on paper. They were after the king-of-the-hill moniker of "the best mpg in a pickup". That's all. Their engineers knew they had to match the oil burner to a tinky little frame, lightweight trans, suspension and running gear, with almost no load carrying capacity.
jefe
I've lived long enough to see the evolution of diesel power for RV's and SUV's come of age. Sometime in the 1970's, probably after the first Arab Oil Embargo, people pulling trailers were looking around for a more econonomical alternative to the Ford 460, Chevy 454 and Chrysler 383 big block V-8 as a towing and weight dragging power plant.
We saw the ill-fated Olds 350 V-8 diesel in Chevy pickups for a while. I had that engine in a 1979 Cadillac Seville. That didn't work out. Then later came the not-so-good 6.2L Detroit Chevy diesel which has a bit more power and not much else. International Harvester was producing Scout II's, Travellers, Travel-alls, and series I, II, and III pickups. By 1978, International procured a batch of Nissan normally aspirated 3.3L, 6 cyl diesel engines (aka:"The 900 pound boat anchor") which put out a whopping 80 HP to go in their Scouts. By 1980, the last year of the Scouts, the ante was upped to 101, neck snapping, turbo charged HP, all from that 900 pound block. I owned one of these; a 1980 Scout Traveller (118" w.b.). It had a lot of torque and coupled to the Borg Warner T-19, all-synchro, 4 speed, close ratio trans, and a Dana 300 T-case, Texas pattern, worked exceptionally well. We averaged, fully loaded with our family out for a month, a respectable 20-21 mpg. The compression ratio was an astronomical 23:1. And it could tow. We did the Rubicon a couple times with this one with a S.O.A. lift and lockers.
The reason I post this little ditty is because in my memory bank I'm seeing a 1978 Scout diesel pulling a 35 foot bumper pull RV trailer down the 5 freeway past San Onofre, struggling in the slow lane, obviously foot on the floor with a lot of black smoke, his 80 HP Nissan trying to be a big boy and failing. Sooner or later one comes to enlightenment about making the truck and power plant match or better yet exceed the load requirements. Chrysler knew exactly what they were doing by offering a turbo diesel in a pickup to boost sales. It looked great on paper. They were after the king-of-the-hill moniker of "the best mpg in a pickup". That's all. Their engineers knew they had to match the oil burner to a tinky little frame, lightweight trans, suspension and running gear, with almost no load carrying capacity.
jefe
Last edited:
Clutch
<---Pass
Odd they they did that, have a engine that puts out a decent amount of torque, but you really can't haul anything because of the low payload, doesn't make sense.
I see some of the magazines getting 30 mpg out them, but according to fuelly...they aren't that much better than gas.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ram/1500/2015?engineconfig_id=238&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
thethePete
Explorer
Not to mention the EcoDiesels are getting a bit of a reputation for their insides wanting to become outsides.
OP, IIRC there are other springs available for the rear to bump your payload up a bit without having to resort to air bags, but especially once you factor in the idea of pulling a trailer, I would suggest doing what my dad does when he heads out with the enclosed trailer. Sleep in it.
Set up a few drop down bunks on the side walls and just sleep inside the trailer you haul your toy in with. Otherwise, you may be best served by a RTT, or quality floor tent.
OP, IIRC there are other springs available for the rear to bump your payload up a bit without having to resort to air bags, but especially once you factor in the idea of pulling a trailer, I would suggest doing what my dad does when he heads out with the enclosed trailer. Sleep in it.
Set up a few drop down bunks on the side walls and just sleep inside the trailer you haul your toy in with. Otherwise, you may be best served by a RTT, or quality floor tent.
boxcar1
boxcar1
For the cost of a Dodge 1500 Eco diesel. One could buy a nice economical car and an older truck capable of hauling what you truly want to haul.
Dodge saw every one coming.
At $50 large in 2014 for a 1/2 ton truck you'd have thought it would have been a looser.
But with the new mentality everyone has of using a pick up as a family car, the masses are like lemmings to the cliff.
Look, even at 20mpg you will never see a cost advantage (diesel over gas) unless you are hauling commercially. Not something you are going to do with any pickup.
Payloads are to low, cost is to high and service cost is way up there. It just doesn't pencil out.
It's got to be embarrassing when an 85 Nissan king cab with a NZ 2400 4 cylinder get's the same mileage and has a larger load carrying capacity ( in bed ) than a $50,000 Dodge.
Sure the Dodge will out run the old Nissan , but for 50 large I could fix that.
I'm by no means advocating the Nissan as a camper hauler here. Just using it as an extreme example.
I would advocate an early to late 90's quad cab gasser to do what you need. It will match your in bed and or towing needs and, if not used as a family car, be just as economical ( or more so ) over the long haul.
Dodge saw every one coming.
At $50 large in 2014 for a 1/2 ton truck you'd have thought it would have been a looser.
But with the new mentality everyone has of using a pick up as a family car, the masses are like lemmings to the cliff.
Look, even at 20mpg you will never see a cost advantage (diesel over gas) unless you are hauling commercially. Not something you are going to do with any pickup.
Payloads are to low, cost is to high and service cost is way up there. It just doesn't pencil out.
It's got to be embarrassing when an 85 Nissan king cab with a NZ 2400 4 cylinder get's the same mileage and has a larger load carrying capacity ( in bed ) than a $50,000 Dodge.
Sure the Dodge will out run the old Nissan , but for 50 large I could fix that.
I'm by no means advocating the Nissan as a camper hauler here. Just using it as an extreme example.
I would advocate an early to late 90's quad cab gasser to do what you need. It will match your in bed and or towing needs and, if not used as a family car, be just as economical ( or more so ) over the long haul.
Last edited:
Mundo4x4Casa
West slope, N. Ser. Nev.
Clutch,
We live in snow country so Jeanie drives a 2011 Grand Chero Limited with the 6 cyl engine. 291 HP at blow-the-head-off rpms. As a comparo, her 4000 pound SUV gets up to 28 mpg going 60-62 mph. Average going 70 is 25 mpg. With the 26 gallon tank, it will go a long way. We even considered a G.C. with the Italian oil burner. Running the numbers: no deal. Not worth it on the front end or the back end, even though I've owned many and am partial to diesel power. The only reason we bought a Dodge 2001.5, 2 series pickup was for the Cummins and the just then upgraded drive train. Oh, and with the 5.9L oil burner, there was every clue that it would outlive me.
Now, what about the Nissan with the V-8 Cummins? 555 TQ? Is that real?
jefe
We live in snow country so Jeanie drives a 2011 Grand Chero Limited with the 6 cyl engine. 291 HP at blow-the-head-off rpms. As a comparo, her 4000 pound SUV gets up to 28 mpg going 60-62 mph. Average going 70 is 25 mpg. With the 26 gallon tank, it will go a long way. We even considered a G.C. with the Italian oil burner. Running the numbers: no deal. Not worth it on the front end or the back end, even though I've owned many and am partial to diesel power. The only reason we bought a Dodge 2001.5, 2 series pickup was for the Cummins and the just then upgraded drive train. Oh, and with the 5.9L oil burner, there was every clue that it would outlive me.
Now, what about the Nissan with the V-8 Cummins? 555 TQ? Is that real?
jefe
Last edited:
wanderer-rrorc
Explorer
Ive had my 2015 tradesman for 22000 trouble free miles... last 14,000 miles my economy has been 23.4mpg
I get 16-17 towing a big 7x14 enclosed trailer loaded down.
Ive gotten 32mpg on 150 mile trips to cincinatti and if im not in a rush can get 28mpg all day long..
it pulls better than my 460 crew f350 did.
we sold our suv because its just as cheap to haul 5 kids in my truck and wifes vw rabbit vs the 2wd expedition....
what was your opinion again?
oh...and after having fords for 20 years...their eco motors dont get whats advertized...and they keep putting off diesels....so Ram got my money and my support.
I get 16-17 towing a big 7x14 enclosed trailer loaded down.
Ive gotten 32mpg on 150 mile trips to cincinatti and if im not in a rush can get 28mpg all day long..
it pulls better than my 460 crew f350 did.
we sold our suv because its just as cheap to haul 5 kids in my truck and wifes vw rabbit vs the 2wd expedition....
what was your opinion again?
oh...and after having fords for 20 years...their eco motors dont get whats advertized...and they keep putting off diesels....so Ram got my money and my support.
Clutch
<---Pass
Isn't all all how you spec them? I have seen the WT model here for under $30K. Seems like a good deal to me. Found a couple "barely used" for around $25K.
Similar threads
