Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›2055 »

Thwomp: Apr 10, 2003; BA-DUHHH; Grimey Drawer

DropShadow posted:

Maybe we can finally stop dreaming about all the sweet cars that Europe gets that we don't get here in 'Merica.

Is there a flipside to this? Are there cars in America that Europe doesn't get that Europeans wish they could?

# ? May 23, 2013 21:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:03

davebo: Nov 15, 2006; Parallel lines do meet, but they do it incognito; College Slice

Thwomp posted:

Is there a flipside to this? Are there cars in America that Europe doesn't get that Europeans wish they could?

The good cars that America gets but Europe doesn't wouldn't actually be good cars in Europe because you couldn't afford to put gas in them.

# ? May 23, 2013 22:20

Seat Safety Switch: May 27, 2008; MY RELIGION IS THE SMALL BLOCK V8 AND COMMANDMENTS ONE THROUGH TEN ARE NEVER LIFT.; Pillbug

Not Europe, but Toyota brought the Chevy Cavalier to Japan in what was presumably the downside of the NUMMI deal. From what I've heard there were fan clubs around the car as I imagine a lightweight American economy car that's powered by a 2.2L pushrod four is pretty interesting in the land of the rising sun.

Here it is with the TRD bodykit. I don't know if Toyota adding the headlight covers is racist or not but I'm edging towards "yes." Also check out the rear brake vents for a car that never had rear discs.

Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 23, 2013

# ? May 23, 2013 22:21

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

davebo posted:

The good cars that America gets but Europe doesn't wouldn't actually be good cars in Europe because you couldn't afford to put gas in them.

That's not quite fair.

# ? May 23, 2013 23:04

Crustashio: Jul 27, 2000; ruh roh

Can't europe get all those cars anyway, albiet at an inflated price? I thought the market was much more relaxed with grey-market imports.

I wish there was someone on the east coast of canada doing european importing. I couldn't give two shits about another beat up RHD FD or skyline, but I'd love to see some of the cool euro cars. You could probably make bank on rustfree e30s and older eurospec VWs. But it seems like all the euro stuff was brought over individually.

# ? May 23, 2013 23:13

davebo: Nov 15, 2006; Parallel lines do meet, but they do it incognito; College Slice

Powershift posted:

That's not quite fair.

I think it's pretty fair. 19mpg combined would still be pretty darn awful for European gas prices. It's not like an M3 is something most people can afford in Europe, and the kind of people who can probably wouldn't consider the kind of vehicles we have access to but aren't brought overseas.

Edit: I mean aside from Richard Hammond.

# ? May 23, 2013 23:15

dissss: Nov 10, 2007; I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Seat Safety Switch posted:

Not Europe, but Toyota brought the Chevy Cavalier to Japan in what was presumably the downside of the NUMMI deal. From what I've heard there were fan clubs around the car as I imagine a lightweight American economy car that's powered by a 2.2L pushrod four is pretty interesting in the land of the rising sun.

Here it is with the TRD bodykit. I don't know if Toyota adding the headlight covers is racist or not but I'm edging towards "yes." Also check out the rear brake vents for a car that never had rear discs.

They were all 2.4s in Japan and relatively high spec. Awful, awful cars though.

# ? May 23, 2013 23:33

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

davebo posted:

I think it's pretty fair. 19mpg combined would still be pretty darn awful for European gas prices. It's not like an M3 is something most people can afford in Europe, and the kind of people who can probably wouldn't consider the kind of vehicles we have access to but aren't brought overseas.

Edit: I mean aside from Richard Hammond.

The WRX is 21 combined, the sti is 19 combined, and those seem to be somewhat popular over there.

A $30,000 mustang GT at $2.00 a liter could still travel 121k kms, or 75,600 miles before the vehicle cost + fuel would be equal to the M3. Granted that's poverty spec GT vs luxury, badge, etc, but still. There are obviously a ton of other factors such as import costs, and taxes, but i would think european enthusiasts would jump at the idea of near M3 performance for half the price, or the same price with 15,000 liters in free fuel.

Crustashio posted:

Can't europe get all those cars anyway, albiet at an inflated price? I thought the market was much more relaxed with grey-market imports.

I wish there was someone on the east coast of canada doing european importing. I couldn't give two shits about another beat up RHD FD or skyline, but I'd love to see some of the cool euro cars. You could probably make bank on rustfree e30s and older eurospec VWs. But it seems like all the euro stuff was brought over individually.

They can, but the grey market stuff is considerably more expensive than a free trade agreement official import would be.

The problem with the euro spec stuff is that most of it up until the early 00s was legal to bring over strait away, and it's not different enough from the canadian cars to make it worth it. The only real use for the 15 year old exemption would be RHD stuff that was never brought here like TVRs and such, or stuff that wasn't legal here even though it was made in LHD like the S1 elise. Some people are bringing cars in under the exemption such as mini's, but for the most part, there just aren't enough interesting vehicles to support the same level of activity the JDM stuff does.

I kinda wanted to bring over a TVR cerbera, but after watching the wheeler dealers episode on it, i would fear the yearly chassis replacement that would come with canadian rust.

# ? May 24, 2013 00:00

Nidhg00670000: Mar 26, 2010; We're in the pipe, five by five.; Grimey Drawer

A brand new Ford Mustang GT Premium 5,0L in Sweden costs right around sixty thousand USD eqv right now.

# ? May 24, 2013 00:17

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

Nidhg00670000 posted:

A brand new Ford Mustang GT Premium 5,0L in Sweden costs right around sixty thousand USD eqv right now.

What's a poverty-spec Ford Focus cost there? A GT Premium in the US costs two of those.

# ? May 24, 2013 05:25

Shin-chan: Aug 1, 2008; To be a man you must have honor...
...honor and a penis!

DropShadow posted:

Maybe we can finally stop dreaming about all the sweet cars that Europe gets that we don't get here in 'Merica.

I know, I want my RS6 so bad:

# ? May 24, 2013 06:00

INCHI DICKARI: Aug 23, 2006; by FactsAreUseless

5.8 liter Mustang?

# ? May 24, 2013 06:14

Snowdens Secret: Dec 29, 2008; Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.

Wondering if this finally kills the chicken tax and if any Euro compact pickups are frugal enough to squeeze past CAFE.

# ? May 24, 2013 06:17

Fender Anarchist: May 20, 2009; Fender Anarchist

14 INCH DETECTIVE posted:

5.8 liter Mustang?

GT500.

# ? May 24, 2013 06:21

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

The M6 does weigh 500lbs more than the GT500. That dual zone climate control doesn't weigh nothing.

# ? May 24, 2013 06:59

dissss: Nov 10, 2007; I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

Powershift posted:

That's not quite fair.

You gotta wonder what the Mustang would do in a European test though - bet it wouldn't be close to the US ratings

# ? May 24, 2013 07:34

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

dissss posted:

You gotta wonder what the Mustang would do in a European test though - bet it wouldn't be close to the US ratings

What no one has mentioned in this particular comparison is the excellent new V6 they've been putting in the Mustang since MY2011, which gets much better mileage (I see 6-7 L/100km on the highway and 9 L/100km in the city and I don't drive for optimal fuel economy). That's the Mustang that would be most likely to show up in Europe, at least to start. There's also rumours that the next generation of Mustang will have an available Ecoboost 4cyl, and that Mustangs will finally be easily available in Europe.

# ? May 24, 2013 15:59

coolskillrex remix: Jan 1, 2007; gorsh

dissss posted:

You gotta wonder what the Mustang would do in a European test though - bet it wouldn't be close to the US ratings

I thought us epa ratings were much more realistic than European ones?

# ? May 25, 2013 01:48

dissss: Nov 10, 2007; I'm a terrible forums poster with terrible opinions.

Here's a cat fucking a squid.

The split between larger and smaller engines works out differently.

For example ratings for a Golf GTI
US: 25 MPG
UK: 39 MPG (converted to US gallons)

BMW 550i
US: 20 MPG
UK: 22.5 MPG

As for which split works out as more realistic, that is going to depend on where you drive.

# ? May 25, 2013 02:20

Nidhg00670000: Mar 26, 2010; We're in the pipe, five by five.; Grimey Drawer

Cocoa Crispies posted:

What's a poverty-spec Ford Focus cost there? A GT Premium in the US costs two of those.

A GT Premium cost about 3,7 Ford Focus here.

# ? May 25, 2013 06:20

DEUCE SLUICE: Feb 6, 2004; I dreamt I was an old dog, stuck in a honeypot. It was horrifying.

Shin-chan posted:

I know, I want my RS6 so bad:

the exhaust on this thing is sexually depraved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8UYMvLgKeU

# ? May 25, 2013 07:11

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

Shin-chan posted:

I know, I want my RS6 so bad:

Bring it over as a sedan and I'll be happy.

Supposedly, that's why Audi didn't make a RS4 and RS6 sedan. It was too expensive to certify them them for the North American market based on the small number of sales they were forecasting. They didn't being over the RS4 and RS6 as wagons because they don't sell here.

# ? May 25, 2013 20:16

Militant Lesbian: Oct 3, 2002

Would kill someone for more high performance RWD/AWD wagons over here. :mad:

The closest you can come over here would be a 550i touring or one of the soft floppy Volvo wagons :smith:

# ? May 25, 2013 20:39

in_absentia: Feb 6, 2008; LYNCHINGS ARE WHAT GIVE THE SOUTH ITS CHARM!

(not a bigot)

HotCanadianChick posted:

Would kill someone for more high performance RWD/AWD wagons over here.

The closest you can come over here would be a 550i touring or one of the soft floppy Volvo wagons

What about the Cadillac CTS-V Wagon? Or are you keeping it strictly European? I only ask because I lust daily for a performance luxury wagon and a blue CTS-V is about the only care I can think of in the US that fits the bill.

# ? May 25, 2013 20:47

MODS CURE JOKES: Nov 11, 2009; OFFICIAL SAS 90s REMEMBERER

All I want is some bizarre French cars, is that too much to ask? :cry:

# ? May 25, 2013 20:49

OXBALLS DOT COM: Sep 11, 2005; by FactsAreUseless; Young Orc

HotCanadianChick posted:

Would kill someone for more high performance RWD/AWD wagons over here.

The closest you can come over here would be a 550i touring or one of the soft floppy Volvo wagons

You're lucky they even sell the 5 series wagon there. In the US, they only sell the sedan and the hideous GT because they're afraid of the wagon cutting into 7 series sales.

# ? May 25, 2013 21:14

Militant Lesbian: Oct 3, 2002

Cream_Filling posted:

You're lucky they even sell the 5 series wagon there. In the US, they only sell the sedan and the hideous GT because they're afraid of the wagon cutting into 7 series sales.

But they do sell the 5 series wagon here in the US?

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=569536

# ? May 25, 2013 23:48

OXBALLS DOT COM: Sep 11, 2005; by FactsAreUseless; Young Orc

HotCanadianChick posted:

But they do sell the 5 series wagon here in the US?

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=569536

They used to sell it. They don't sell the current model - only the sedan and GT.

# ? May 26, 2013 00:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Are they never going to bring it over? The current 5 series is pretty new and it usually takes a bit of time to bring all body styles to all markets, in order of importance. They might bring over the wagon as a mid-cycle refresh.

One of the Australian/NZ posters on the forums(disss?) made a pretty good point a while back. The US might actually be positioned better than most countries to accept grey imports in certain respects - in most countries, the main force behind trade restrictions are car dealers - can't really let people go buy cars from other countries on their own for cheap when you can become the monopoly dealer in the area and charge people 2x as much as cars cost in the US.

In the US dealers don't actually make much money on new car sales and mostly make it on service and parts. You would think an influx of wierdo moon cars would be great for dealers because now they can overcharge for weirdo moon car parts too.

# ? May 26, 2013 00:29

OXBALLS DOT COM: Sep 11, 2005; by FactsAreUseless; Young Orc

I remember reading an interview where they imply that it's probably too late to bring it in this generation.

Here's a random one from 2011 I googled:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110523/RETAIL07/305239978/1246

quote:

Now, BMW of North America CEO Jim O'Donnell says he wishes the company hadn't stopped selling the 5-series wagon in the United States last year. BMW had expected the 5-series GT to attract those wagon buyers, but the GT is luring owners of the more-expensive 7-series sedan instead.

"The disappointment I have is that I thought a lot of our 5-series station wagon customers would go with the GT," O'Donnell says. "In point of fact, that is not happening. We have lost those customers to the competition -- mainly to Mercedes-Benz.
...
O'Donnell says he doesn't want to lose wagon sales to Mercedes-Benz so BMW will keep the 3-series wagon in its lineup.

"We are not giving up the 3-series wagon because if you give it up, they will go straight to the competition," he says.

As for bringing back the 5-series wagon, O'Donnell says it may be too late for this generation.

"It's in the back of my mind," he says. "When we do the next generation, maybe we should."

# ? May 26, 2013 01:06

Rhyno: Mar 22, 2003; Can't post for 10 years!

HotCanadianChick posted:

Would kill someone for more high performance RWD/AWD wagons over here.

The closest you can come over here would be a 550i touring or one of the soft floppy Volvo wagons

Dodge had the SRT8 Magnum for like two years.

# ? May 26, 2013 01:34

Nidhg00670000: Mar 26, 2010; We're in the pipe, five by five.; Grimey Drawer

SWITCH HITLER posted:

All I want is some bizarre French cars, is that too much to ask?

The french cars aren't bizarre anymore. Some see this as a good thing, I don't.

# ? May 26, 2013 02:24

Militant Lesbian: Oct 3, 2002

Rhyno posted:

Dodge had the SRT8 Magnum for like two years.

Two words: Dodge. Automatic.

I said high performance, not ugly, heavy and boring. :colbert:

edit: to be clear, we're discussing things like the RS6 Avant (twin-turbo V10 with 579 HP, AWD) and M5 touring (500hp V10, RWD), both with very well tuned, track ready suspension setups and world-class handling, on top of very plush, luxurious interiors with high build quality and refinement. Compared to them, a Magnum SRT-8 is kinda a limp noodle and not really comparable - both in terms of performance and in terms of luxury and comfort.

Militant Lesbian fucked around with this message at 03:25 on May 26, 2013

# ? May 26, 2013 03:19

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

HotCanadianChick posted:

Two words: Dodge. Automatic.

I said high performance, not ugly, heavy and boring.

edit: to be clear, we're discussing things like the RS6 Avant (twin-turbo V10 with 579 HP, AWD) and M5 touring (500hp V10, RWD), both with very well tuned, track ready suspension setups and world-class handling, on top of very plush, luxurious interiors with high build quality and refinement. Compared to them, a Magnum SRT-8 is kinda a limp noodle and not really comparable - both in terms of performance and in terms of luxury and comfort.

What about the CTS-V wagon then? 560hp, RWD, 6 speed stick, and all those things you said the other cars have.

Edit: the new RS6 avant is a v8tt and auto only(zf 8 speed, likely the same transmission used in the jeep grand cherokee SRT-8), the new m5 is a v8tt and sedan only, the e63 amg is auto only. and the CTS-V wagon is dead this year. nobody wins anywhere, really.

Powershift fucked around with this message at 03:38 on May 26, 2013

# ? May 26, 2013 03:27

DJ Commie: Feb 29, 2004; Stupid drivers always breaking car, Gronk fix car...

HotCanadianChick posted:

Two words: Dodge. Automatic.

I said high performance, not ugly, heavy and boring.

edit: to be clear, we're discussing things like the RS6 Avant (twin-turbo V10 with 579 HP, AWD) and M5 touring (500hp V10, RWD), both with very well tuned, track ready suspension setups and world-class handling, on top of very plush, luxurious interiors with high build quality and refinement. Compared to them, a Magnum SRT-8 is kinda a limp noodle and not really comparable - both in terms of performance and in terms of luxury and comfort.

Pretty sure there is a bit of a price differential between those.

# ? May 26, 2013 03:38

Nidhg00670000: Mar 26, 2010; We're in the pipe, five by five.; Grimey Drawer

The RS6 has always been auto only.

# ? May 26, 2013 05:40

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Let's talk about cars that people are actually going to buy.

http://www.edmunds.com/ram/3500/2013/road-test.html

quote:

Comparing the Base V6 Engines of Two Popular Pickups
Published: 05/20/2013 - by Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing

Comparison Test 2013 Ram 1500 Specs and Performance 2013 Ford F-150 Specs and Performance
Let's face it. The V6 truck motor has never been taken seriously, and for good reason. A few years back, the measly 215 horsepower put out by the Dodge Ram 1500's 3.7-liter example was the strongest of the big three V6 offerings. Any theoretical fuel economy benefits these engines offered was wasted as they struggled to keep their trucks moving.

As recently as last year, the Ram's 3.7-liter V6, 4.7-liter V8 and 5.7-liter Hemi V8 shared identical EPA ratings. What, then, was the point of the V6 engine?

It came down to economics mostly. The V6 models appealed to frugal fleet buyers who were more concerned with the bottom line than bottom-end torque. But now that fuel economy has become a higher priority, V6s are making a comeback.

New Thinking
Ford may have dropped its V6 in 2009, but it came right back with an all-new six-cylinder in 2011. It was largely overshadowed by the revolutionary 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V6 and fan-favorite 5.0-liter V8, but the V6's impressive 302 horsepower and 278 pound-feet of torque made it a solid option.

A modern six-speed automatic was standard, and rated fuel economy was 17 city/23 highway and 19 mpg combined. And for the first time the base V6 was available with the SuperCab (4x2, 4x4) or Super Crew (4x2).

Ram recently followed suit and brought the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 with 305 hp and 269 lb-ft to the heart of the 2013 Ram 1500 lineup. Then it went Ford one better by backing the new truck with an all-new eight-speed automatic that helps the V6 deliver 17 city/25 highway and 20 mpg combined. Wrapped in volume-selling SLT trim, it comes standard across the board, up to and including the Crew Cab 4x4.

GM has upgraded its Silverado and Sierra pickups with a new V6 for 2014, but neither truck was available in time for this test.

Meet the Contestants
Our 2013 Ram 1500 and 2013 Ford F-150 V6 test trucks are eerily similar. Both are two-wheel drive with the cab-and-a-half configuration and a 6-foot-something midsize bed.

The Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab 4x2 starts at $31,775, onto which was added $1,495 for the Big Horn Equipment Group. That typically includes 20-inch wheels and tires, but our truck stuck with 17-inch wheels and tires so $500 was credited back.

Other options include the Luxury Group ($560), spray-in bedliner ($475) and chrome side steps ($600). For maximum towing performance, it also had a 3.55 limited-slip rear end ($375) and an integrated trailer brake controller ($230). Total damage: $36,005.

Ford charges $31,930 for an F-150 SuperCab 4x2. The XLT Convenience package adds another $1,310 while the XLT Chrome package and its 18-inch wheels is $1,595. Package discounts reduced their bottom line impact by $1,295.

Other options included $400 for a 3.73 limited-slip axle, $230 for a trailer brake controller, $475 for a spray-in bedliner and $300 for bucket seats and a front console. Add in $395 for Ruby Red Metallic paint and it comes to $36,380. Ignore the pretty paint and our Ford would be $20 cheaper than the Ram.

Making the Grade
But there is one more participant, at least for a portion of this test: a 23-foot two-axle Airstream travel trailer. Specifically, it's the International Signature 23 FB floor plan, and with bedding, cookware, hitch hardware and full water tanks it weighs 5,765 pounds. Makes for a stylish chunk of ballast for our tow test up the Jacumba grade at the southwestern tip of California.

Speaking of towing, in 2011 Ford initially claimed the 3.7-liter V6 SuperCab 4x2 could tow up to 5,800 pounds and assigned it a GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating) of 11,100 pounds. Then the 2013 Ram 1500 V6 Quad Cab 4x2 came out with a 6,100-pound maximum tow rating and 11,200-pound GCWR.

After that, something odd happened. Ford reexamined its internal test results and decided the 3.7-liter V6 SuperCab 4x2 could tow up to 6,400 pounds at a GCWR of 11,700 pounds: a 600-pound increase despite zero physical changes. According to a source, the introduction of the 2013 Ram V6 had nothing to do with this.

With those ratings in mind we ballasted our Airstream to 5,765 pounds, a number that brought the Ram precisely to 100 percent of its 11,200-pound GCWR. Why not 6,100 pounds, the Quad Cab's max rating?

Options pushed the Ram's measured curb weight to 5,050 pounds, some 122 more than the official figure. And there were two occupants aboard that weighed a combined 385 pounds instead of the solo 150-pound flyweight assumed by max tow rating calculus. The story is similar with the 5,165-pound Ford, and with the same trailer weight it climbed the hill at 96.7 percent of its 11,700-pound GCWR.

2013 Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab
2013 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCab
*Advertised Max Towing Capacity:
6,100
6,400
*GCWR:
11,200
11,700
Advertised Curb Weight:
4,928
5,043
(a) Measured Curb Weight:
5,050
5,165
(b) Occupant and Luggage Weight:
385
385
Available Towing Capacity (GCWR - a - b):
5,765
6,150
Trailer weight:
5,765
5,765 (run 1)
6,065 (run 2)
As-Tested GCWR Percentage:
100%
96.7% (run 1)
99.3% (run 2)
Note: *Ram requires optional 3.55 rear axle, Ford requires optional 3.73 rear axle
2nd Place: 2013 Ford F-150 SuperCab V6 4x2
We'd like to say this was close. In some respects it was, but the decision was unanimous.

In regular driving, the 2013 F-150 SuperCab could use some polish. The 3.7-liter engine is strong enough, and it scoots the F-150 to 60 mph in a respectable 8.2 seconds (7.8 seconds with a 1-foot rollout as on a drag strip). But the cabin doesn't keep enough of the sound outside, even at part throttle with no significant load. Idle vibration at rest is fairly noticeable.

And then there's the tendency toward gear hunting, which occurs on moderate grades at light load and on curvy uphill roads that involve some throttle work. This transmission loves to upshift, but even with six gears there are gaps that this V6's torque curve can't always bridge.

It's more of an issue with a trailer latched behind. The Ford charges up Jacumba Grade in 11 minutes and 57 seconds at an average speed of 58.7 mph, never once needing the prodding of full throttle to do so in Tow/Haul mode. But the process is painful, as the transmission dithers between 2nd and 3rd gears well over a dozen times in the dozen minutes.

Each 3-2 downshift comes with an rpm jump of 2,000 rpm to something approaching 5,700 revs, which makes us wish for earplugs. The subsequent upshift and the relative calm that follows doesn't last. There's insufficient 3rd-gear oomph to maintain pace, so the cycle repeats...and repeats.

And then we made a second run with 300 extra pounds to account for its claimed towing advantage over the Ram, landing just 85 pounds shy of its revised GCWR. This time the transmission temperature gauge nudged toward the yellow mark. At mile 9 an over-temp warning dominated the driver information screen, accompanied by an automatic power cut. The F-150 slowed itself to 55 mph in 2nd gear for the remainder of the pull.

Jacumba is no cakewalk downhill, either. Speed builds too easily and the desert crosswinds don't mix with the twisting descent. The first is no problem for the Ford, with its excellent grade logic in Tow/Haul mode. It seems to quickly learn the speed we want from the first couple brake applications and maintains the appropriate gear to hold it steady.

But the curves and crosswinds are another matter. The gently wagging Airstream sets the Ford's hindquarters into a subtle but nonetheless unsettling swimming motion. This is utterly absent in the Ram, doubtless because its coil-spring rear suspension enjoys the lateral control of a Panhard bar. The Ford's relative lack of on-center steering feel doesn't help much here either.

Unloaded and away from Jacumba, the F-150's ride is not overly stiff. But the asphalt roads on our Edmunds test loop (and elsewhere) set off a persistent low-level shake and jiggle that originates behind the cab, a feeling we rarely sense in the Ram. It seems tied to the unsprung mass or the "stiction" of the leaf spring rear suspension. The lack of a B-pillar that results from the SuperCab's archaic reverse-hinged rear doors probably isn't helping.

Inside, the XLT trim is handsome enough, but it's looking a bit tired. The plastics look like, well, plastic, while the buttons and controls appear a decade old. And there are way too many look-alike buttons on its overly busy center stack. We dug the data screens on the instrument panel when they appeared 4 years ago, but now they pale in comparison to what the 2013 Ram 1500 is packing.

None of this makes the Ford a bad truck. The V6 engine gets the job done well enough, but after the challenging at-the-limit tow test portion of this contest we're not buying into Ford's uprated tow rating and GCWR. What is clear is the venerable Ford F-150 is perhaps a bit too venerable. If Ford owners objectively cross-shopped the 2013 Ram right now they might switch brands.

1st Place: 2013 Ram 1500 Quad Cab V6 4x2
Fire up the engine and there's much less idle vibration from the Ram's Pentastar V6. Primary gear selections are made with a rotary knob on the dash, which is odd at first and takes getting used to. Once underway the Pentastar and its eight-speed transmission are buttery-smooth.

Gearchanges are nearly imperceptible, owing to more closely spaced gears and smaller rpm jumps. Hunting is pretty much absent for the same reasons. And the Ram's cabin isolation is substantially more effective. The Pentastar's engine sounds are refined yet remote, more outside than inside.

At the track, the Ram 1500 gets to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds (7.4 seconds with rollout), some 0.4 second quicker than the F-150. It stops in 128 feet from the same speed, which puts it in the same company as many midsize cars. Is should be said that the Ford's 130-foot stop isn't bad for a truck, either.

On Jacumba, the Ram took 12 seconds longer to reach the summit at an average speed of 57.8 mph. But that mostly boiled down to speedometer calibration. We used the big digital speedo to gauge our target speed but the data later showed we'd unknowingly been running 1 mph slower.

A third of the way up, the Ram's eight-speed dropped from 4th into 3rd and seemed happy to stay there. Eventually, at the steepest point near the top, the Ram's speed began to sag to 57 mph, then 56 mph, then 55 mph. It couldn't downshift because 2nd gear is quite short in this eight-speed gearbox. The engine would have redlined.

So we waited a few more seconds until the speed ebbed to 51 mph, which triggered the first and only kickdown a half-mile shy of the summit. The speed came storming back, but the engine sound was nowhere near as raucous as the Ford had been while doing the 2-3-2 tango. Overall, the Ram's uphill run was far less frenetic, far more pleasant.

Downhill, the wagging movement of the trailer barely registered. But we did have to work the brake pedal a bit more. Even in Tow/Haul mode, the Ram slowly gained speed whenever our foot was off the brake, leading to more frequent dabs of the pedal.

Unladen, the Ram's ride is calmer. It's not so much a question of stiffness as it is one of poise and control. In places where the Ford made us think the asphalt was laid down by the lowest bidder, the steadier Ram hardly noticed. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The competition should follow Ram's lead and adopt a multilink, coil spring rear suspension.

When all was said and done the Ram averaged 17.9 mpg when the Airstream was absent, versus 16.8 for the F-150. On our 116-mile evaluation loop the Ram averaged 22.4 mpg to the Ford's 19.9 mpg.

The Ram's eight-speed transmission looms large here, too. The extra gears make it more efficient in more situations. And it only takes a 3.55 rear axle ratio to achieve the same level of towing performance the Ford produces with its 3.73 rear end. That fact pays off every single non-towing mile.

Even when it comes to features, the Ram impresses. Its locking tailgate is tied into the central locking remote, which means the tailgate is locked whenever the doors are. A key is needed to lock the Ford's tailgate by hand each time, which means we'll never remember. A small point, perhaps, but as easy as tailgates are to steal, it's huge.

The cab features a power sliding rear window. The rear doors are, well, doors with normal forward hinges and a cab-stiffening B-pillar. There's a 115-volt outlet on the dash. And the center stack controls are handsome and simple to master, especially the 5-inch Uconnect touchscreen, which quietly out-synchs Sync.

And even though we didn't opt for buckets and a console, they're unnecessary in the Ram. The outboard seats are sculpted like buckets and the fold-down center seatback opens like a console, with a USB socket and aux jack waiting inside. Our Ford's optional dedicated console contains no such hookups.

2013 Ram 1500 SLT Quad Cab
2013 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCab
Price as tested:
$36,005
$36,380
0-60 (sec.):
7.8
8.2
Quarter-mile:
15.7 @ 87.0
16.1 @ 86.7
60-0 braking (ft.):
128
130
Slalom (mph):
55.6
57.1
Skid pad (g):
0.71
0.72
Observed fuel economy, no tow:
18.5
16.8
Observed fuel economy, test loop:
22.4
19.9

0-60 with trailer (sec.):
20.0
19.9
Quarter-mile with trailer:
22.1 @ 64.2
22.6 @ 65.2
Time to climb (sec.):
*729
717
Average speed (mph):
*57.8
58.7
Minimum speed:
50.6
54.5
*Speedometer off by 1 mph, so driver drove more slowly than intended
A Clear Choice
In the end both the 2013 Ford F-150 XLT and 2013 Ram 1500 SLT proved that the modern interpretation of the base V6 truck engine is for real, even when towing a decent-size trailer. There's no longer any reason to assume a V6 is only good for white trucks with black bumpers and some kind of logo on the door.

And it shouldn't be too surprising that the Ford F-150 V6 trailed in this test. It's clearly an older product, and Ram has made many aggressive and positive moves in recent years. Its new eight-speed transmission with closely spaced gears is particularly well-suited to the torque characteristics of this sort of small-displacement engine.

It's also clear that tow ratings are a mess. On the Jacumba Grade the F-150's original tow capacity and GCWR seems more believable. It was never 300 pounds better. It's worth noting that neither company uses the new standardized SAE tow rating procedure to back up its claims for these trucks. Our tow test results are a good reminder why they should.

They're not the only ones, of course, as GM refuses to do the same with its brand-new 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. Both will offer a new 4.3-liter direct-injected base V6 engine that makes a little less power (285 hp) and a little more torque (305 lb-ft) than the engines tested here.

GM says its new trucks can tow more than the Ford or Ram, but the key words are "GM says." Sounds like yet another head-to-head test is in order. Ram versus Silverado, anyone?

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

http://www.edmunds.com/ram/3500/2013/road-test.html

quote:

Catching the Pack, and Possibly Surging Ahead
Published: 05/23/2013 - by Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing

Just over two years ago a 2010 Dodge Ram 3500 finished last in a comparison test with more powerful V8 diesel pickups from Ford and General Motors. Today, with the introduction of the new 2013 Ram 2500 and 3500, this truck may have catapulted itself from worst to first on the strength of two new variants of the venerable 6.7-liter Cummins turbodiesel engine and a host of complementary skeletal upgrades.

We're currently piloting a 2013 Ram 3500 Regular Cab dually, and the gooseneck trailer we're towing weighs some 30,010 pounds. You read that right. That astounding number demolishes the Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra 3500 twins (23,100 pounds) and the Ford F-350 (22,800 pounds). Even the class-apart F-450 pales in comparison with 24,700 pounds of maximum towing capacity.

At the fifth-wheel end of the spectrum, the 2013 Ram 3500 dually is literally tons ahead.

But the truck in our 2011 comparison wasn't a dually rigged for the marquee number. It was a Ram 3500 4x4 with single rear wheels decked out the way most people buy them. Has the needle moved appreciably there? Would our test have turned out differently with the 2013 equivalent?

Quite Possibly
The reason for the 2010 3500's weak showing and the source of the 2013 Ram's newfound prowess is one in the same: a 6.7-liter Cummins turbodiesel straight-6. Then it made 350 horsepower and 700 pound-feet of torque. Now there are three versions.

Cummins version number one has a similar peak output of 350/700 that is compatible with the class-exclusive six-speed manual transmission. Next in line is version two with 370 horses, 800 lb-ft of torque and last year's six-speed automatic. Version three makes 385 hp and a class-leading 850 lb-ft of torque. A new high-capacity Aisin six-speed automatic transmission with optimized ratios and beefy internals is mated to this engine to accommodate the sky-high torque.

The massive increase in grunt comes from the switch to a diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) strategy to reel in NOx emissions. Earlier versions had to run high levels of EGR and backpressure, which choked output. The presence of DEF fluid and a new SCR catalyst allow the uncorked beast to breathe deeply and exhale even more cleanly.

Ram diesels now have "Ram Active Air," a dual-path intake system. Air typically enters the air cleaner from a protected underhood spot where snow and rainwater can't get sucked in. In hot, dry conditions and high load Ram Active Air switches to a direct ram air intake directly behind the grille. Trucks without such a system are subject to power loss on hot, dry grades where underhood temperatures skyrocket.

All three diesel engines and transmissions are available in 2013 Ram 2500 and 3500 series trucks. But the 5.7-liter Hemi, previously standard and available in the Ram 2500 alone, is now standard in the 3500, too. And it now comes with a six-speed automatic instead of last year's five-speed.

New Chassis
Torque alone does not a hauler make. To reach the loftiest towing and hauling heights, the 2013 Ram Heavy-Duty trucks were given a new frame and a new front suspension as well.

Higher-grade steel is used in the main frame rails, and the front frame horns are 2 inches farther apart. There are eight crossmembers, one of which is an optimized attachment point for fifth-wheel and gooseneck hitch mounting hardware, which can be factory-installed for $400.

A new integrated Class-V 2.5-inch receiver hitch makes up the rearmost crossmember. It's now structurally able to tow 17,000 pounds in deadweight fashion, a far cry from last year's 2-inch receiver that was good for only 12,000 pounds. With the right engine, that's a cool 5,000-pound increase in tow rating for those who tow with a conventional hitch.

Much higher roll stiffness is needed to handle the 3500's extreme load potential, so the four-link front suspension has been jettisoned. Instead, massive dual radius arms now locate the solid front axle. The four-link front end remains on the Ram 2500, however, because it's rated to tow and haul less. It's also more likely to need the off-road articulation, the Power Wagon 4x4 being a prime example.

Comparison Reprise
Looking back at our comparison test, we'd need a 2013 Ram Crew Cab 4x4 with single rear wheels to see if the pecking order has changed. And we'd have to choose between the 800 lb-ft Cummins and the six-speed we had last time or the 850 lb-ft version with the new Aisin. It all depends on whether we're willing to spend an extra $2,150, the difference between the two.

The resulting tow rating in Laramie Longhorn trim is 17,160 pounds with the 800 lb-ft engine and 17,000 for the 850 lb-ft one. Why does the torquier variant tow a smidge less?

Both share a GCWR (gross combined weight rating) of 25,000 pounds because that's the single-rear-wheel limit. Since the Aisin-equipped truck weighs 160 pounds more, its tow rating will drop a like amount. All we can expect from the extra 50 lb-ft is a more relaxed pull up a steep grade. This is not the case in the dually world, where the Ram 3500's GCWR can range to 37,600 pounds with the more powerful engine.

Here's the impressive bit for our single-wheel scenario: Both engines achieve their higher 2013 ratings with 3.42 final-drive gears. Our 2010 test truck was rated 700 pounds lower despite the gearing advantage of shorter 4.10 axles and smaller-diameter tires.

And so the new 3.42s allow the new engines to rev 340 rpm slower at 60 mph in top gear, which makes the claimed 10-percent improvement in fuel consumption easy to buy into. Ram engineers say the 4x4 versions gain another 1 mpg from a new electronic front differential disconnect system that greatly reduces rotational losses in two-wheel-drive mode.

On Flat Ground
In the end, the performance of the new engines is hard to gauge on these flat Michigan roads. There's plenty of punch off the line, but there are no long grades to make them earn their keep.

We can say the Cummins diesel is not ashamed to make diesel engine noises, and the new intelligent diesel exhaust brake works well to prevent a loaded rig from picking up speed on gently rolling terrain. The engineers say the system will even improve brake pad and rotor life, and we can instantly see why.

Far and away the most tangible improvement is the upgraded interior. In a nutshell, the Ram 2500 and 3500 benefit from everything that was introduced on the Ram 1500 last year. The interior materials have been upgraded, the seats are more comfortable and even the volume SLT trim is a pleasant place to spend time.

And the same truck-wide electrical system upgrade has been applied to the 2500 and 3500 models as well. They now benefit from the outstanding 7-inch TFT dash display with multiple information screens that include diesel-specific information in addition to everything else. The well-executed Uconnect touchscreen infotainment systems are top-notch, whether you opt for the 8.4-inch high-end model with navigation or stick with the 5-inch one without.

Like the 1500, the HD trucks now have their tailgate lock and optional RamBox locks tied into the central locking system. Unlike the Ram 1500, the 2500 and 3500 offer a second camera in the high-mount third brake light housing so those towing fifth-wheel and gooseneck trailers can see the hitch as they hook up.

Up and Down Pricing
At first glance, pricing for the Ram 3500 has plummeted. That's because the 5.7-liter Hemi and its six-speed automatic is now standard and a diesel engine is optional. Oddly, the Cummins diesel engine seems to cost $7,795 regardless of output. But that's not the real deal because each version is tied to a particular transmission, and each of those carries a different price.

And so the 700 lb-ft diesel with the six-speed manual costs $7,795 because that transmission is "free." Pay $500 for the basic six-speed automatic and the real cost of the 800 lb-ft Cummins is $8,295. (Ford currently charges $8,095 for its 800 lb-ft diesel engine option.) Finally, the Ram's high-torque 850 lb-ft setup effectively costs $10,445 because the Aisin six-speed that can handle the torque costs $2,650 on its own.

The Laramie Longhorn trim didn't exist when we conducted our heavy-duty truck comparison test, but our test truck had a suite of options that effectively made it one. A quick pricing comparison suggests we'd pay $62,080 for a 2013 Ram Crew Cab 4x4 with a short box, the 800 lb-ft Cummins and Laramie Longhorn trim versus $64,010 for a 2013 King Ranch Ford F-350 Crew Cab 4x4 with a couple options to match equipment.

The 2013 Ram 2500 and 3500 have really upped their game, on paper and behind the wheel. But we need a steep grade and a stout trailer to quantify how well these engines have bridged the gap to the competition.

We wouldn't be surprised to discover that the 2013 Ram has pulled ahead. And even if it has merely pulled alongside, the 2013 Ram 3500 is a much stronger contender on other fronts. It's certainly no longer in any danger of getting its butt kicked. And it's hard to argue with 30,000 pounds no matter how you slice it.

Edmunds attended a manufacturer-sponsored event, to which selected members of the press were invited, to facilitate this report.

# ? May 26, 2013 07:22

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

You first

The N/A v6 trucks are for fleets, the v6 in the ram is currently a $1000 option over the 4.7l v8, and it's rumored for the 2014 model year they're dropping the 4.7, making the 5.7 cheaper, and putting the 6.4 in as both the high end half ton, and base 3/4 ton+ engine.

A 470hp/470ftlb ram vs a 455/460ftlb silverado would be worth the comparison. I guess you could throw the f-150's 411/434 6.2 in there, but really what's the point. The current f-150 is a 10 year old platform at this point, and while it's great it's still well behind the newer trucks. What really amazes me is the nissan titan, still being built, still being bought with it's 317hp, 15mpg v8.

The beefed up aisin behind the diesels is good news though, maybe dodge finally found a transmission that will stay in their truck.

The horsepower/torque wars with the trucks are all around fantastic. Apart from the titan, i don't think you could make a bad choice with any truck. You can get a 5 liter F-150 out the door right now for 20 grand flat, which is just awesome. I'm still waiting to see what the 2015 brings though. they're saying aluminum everywhere and a 700lb diet which could put the reg cab/short box/v8 truck right around 4000lbs again.

# ? May 26, 2013 08:47

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Well they shut down the 4.7l line last month so yeah it's probably gone.

I didn't know you could even get the 6.2l in a non-Raptor F150. :effort:

# ? May 26, 2013 09:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:03

Powershift: Nov 23, 2009

Throatwarbler posted:

Well they shut down the 4.7l line last month so yeah it's probably gone.

I didn't know you could even get the 6.2l in a non-Raptor F150.

It used to be only raptor/harley/premium, but now you can get it as low as the XLT as a $4500 option over the 5 liter.

# ? May 26, 2013 10:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›2055 »