Chrysler at NAIAS

[jriosa]

Register to stop seeing this ad!

Some interesting comments from Chrysler Exec at NAIAS

Chrysler CEO: Light-Duty Diesel Ram Pickup Feasible, but is There Demand? - PickupTrucks.com News

Maybe someone should direct him over here.

And

Chrysler CEO: Jeep Pickup Coming, but Don't Call it a Pickup - PickupTrucks.com News

Make of it what you will.

Jim

[howam00]

sounds like a Hummer H3 SUT (tiny bed that is unusable beyond holding some tools) is in the Wrangler's future.

the 4.2 and 5.0 have been talked about for years. Personally speaking the 5.0 is too big for a 1/2 ton vehicle. Yeah it would be marketed as a premium offering with the highest of everything but that much power for "towing" isn't needed. Anyone who needs to regularlly pull the 10k pounds or 11k pounds is buying nothing less than a 3/4 ton and likely a 1 ton. face it.

a 4.2 runnign around 300hp and 500 lbs of torque would still be a premium offering but it is still overpowered and the mpg benefits won't really be there. toss in a bored out 3 liter to a 3.3 and get 265 hp and 410-425 lbs of torque and that would be more than enough to tow the capabilities of the 1/2 ton chassis and get the improved fuel economy people are seeking.

I think Ford missed the boat on the ECO boost. It should have been more like 2.8-3.0 liters producing a little less torque but with the same strong curve and this would still tow anything needed in a 1/2 ton and the MPG's would have been better

It is all too much to be practical in today's world.

[jriosa]

Well it all depends on if they keep the bed as in the concept vehicle. It had a midgate passthrough into the cab - a la avalanche, so with the tailgate down you got 8' length. That would be perfect for my uses. If they make it fixed to 5'8" then less utility, but the TR40 seemed to be pretty popular here with that small a bed.

I agree with you on the Ecoboost - very disappointed with the mileage figures.

Jim

[howam00]

I distinctly think that the "jeep truck" would be a Wrangler X platform without the back two doors and a bed in its place. I bet it would amount to about 4-5 feet of bed which is small but not dissimmilar from the H3 SUT that GM had. It's the wrong kind of design for real work use and payload but good for the moto X types that want to get their dirt bikes into some rough area to use and right now they have to have a trailor

I have not basis for my reasoning other than just intuition so take it at face value but I am not so sure they have the time and money to completely design a single small volume vehicle.

on the ECO-boost side of things Ford needs to drop about 10-12% of the mass out of the trucks and improve the aerodynamics. That alone will improve the mpg's across the board and especially with the eco-boost. All truck makers are goign to have to do this but Ford is likely in last place in terms of sheer weight and aerodynamics.

[pee wee]

I totally agree about weight and aerodynamics being the enemy of mpg ratings, it's a tough road for the manufacturers; do you go light and get better fuel economy, or do you go sturdy and get better payload and tow ratings? We consumers want it all, but only need half of it. How do you justify selling a light duty truck in a full size? Why should the manufacturers make a truck for people who don't need trucks, but will buy one anyway? If the Mahindra pickups were made lighter, the diesel engines would probably get better fuel economy, but if you want reasonably heavy duty ability and decent economy, they seem to me to be a good compromise.
If you haven't seen it, Ford has a test track they run on and against their competitors to evaluate frame stiffness and ride over bumps. Here is a link to one of them: YouTube - 2009 Truck Durability Test FORD CHEVY DODGE TOYOTA By Ford Motor Company
Of course, since Ford made the track and ran the trucks and released the video, they look better than the competition. My point is, maybe the reason they do so well here is related to the fact they do so poorly in the sheer weight department. I can't come up with an excuse for the poor aerodynamics, someone else can try.

[howam00]

a rediculusly strong chassis can be made from something much lighter than what is underpinning the current F150. Ford has said themselves the magnesium will be widely used becuase it is both stronger and lighter than steel.

We bot have hit on the topic of wants and needs. truck buyers brag abotu the 11,300 lbs their Ford can tow but none would dare do it. heck if they pulled more than 5000 on a regular basis they step up and get and F250. I would be my life savings that this is the case about 80% of the time.

My wife's boss is a prime example. He sold a perfectly fine Ram 1500 for an F250 to tow his 4000 lb fishing boat. No other reason than the boat. the Ram was way more than capable and got him at least as good as mileage but felt that he needed something "heavy duty" since he was pulling such a "large load" all the time (all the time meaning twice a month about 6 months of the year)

How many of those people then jack the truck up 4-8 inches and drop the payload and and towing capability in the process?

Give the market a 3800-4200 lb true mid size truck (can haul a ton and tow three tons), modestly powered with good effciency and mpg's and that auto maker will have 250,000 in sales for life. that's good for a top ten seller in the US market.

[Mikeo]

Give the market a 3800-4200 lb true mid size truck (can haul a ton and tow three tons), modestly powered with good effciency and mpg's

Sounds like the TR20 or tr40, but I would buy within weeks, any manufacturer's offering that seems solid and priced in the lower 20K range with these specs and a 4x4 configuration.
Mike

[MahindraPlanet]

You guys are all making way too much sense. Corporate bean counters and marketing geniuses at the Big Three are now bleeding from their eyes and ears.

[hsfbfan]

Doubt that is the case. Did you see last year's sales figures? Sales are WAY up in a poor economy. Maybe the marketing folks did their work.

Can't believe people are disappointed in the Ecoboost MPG figures. 2WD MPG up 27% over the 5.4 it replaces with more power.

[howam00]

Originally Posted by Mikeo

Sounds like the TR20 or tr40, but I would buy within weeks, any manufacturer's offering that seems solid and priced in the lower 20K range with these specs and a 4x4 configuration.
Mike

the Mahindra is about 400 lbs heavier but still pretty close in line and th truck is aparantly built to withstand for 30+ years.