Ram News: Marchionne Wants A Midsize Truck for Ram

[William Maley]

With the midsize truck market on the rebound, FCA is considering whether or not to do a midsize for Ram.

 

“We’re looking into it. I have a keen interest in getting it done. The big question is whether it should be body on frame,” said Marchionne to reporters at the Geneva Motor Show.

 

Previously, Ram was considering doing a midsize truck on a unibody platform. But this idea was tossed out due to problems with getting decent fuel economy and pricing the model at an affordable point while still making a profit.

 

Marchionne says the biggest hurdle for a Ram midsize truck is trying to make a business case for it. When Marchionne looks at GM's midsize trucks - Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon -, he assumes the profit margins are less than the full-size trucks due to pricing.

 

Still, Marchionne believes there is a place for a midsize truck.

 

“I think it’s a good place to be. Ram needs to expand its lineup.”

 

Source: Motor Trend

View full article

[Drew Dowdell]

Sure the base work-trucks have a low entry price, but the GM mid-sizers get pricey really quick and use a lot of parts shared with other vehicles.... I'm sure GM is making a healthy profit on each one or else they wouldn't be trying to squeeze as many out of Wentzville as physically possible.  Even a 4x4 LT Colorado 4-cylinder, basically the base minimum for "consumer grade" of truck, is nearly $30k.

[cp-the-nerd]

Does he realize that he just canceled a midsize sedan selling easily 100,000 more units annually than a midsize truck will?

[G. David Felt]

DOH, is he willing to delay Alfa products to allow the profits to be spent on this instead? He could probably hit a home run with high profits if he ignored the mid size and brought out a compact truck that meets the needs of city folk. Most city and suburban households do not need a 1/2 ton full or mid size truck and would be fine with a 2-3 person compact truck like the Ranger was or Luv truck of Chevy in the 70's.

 

He seems to have hit his head and is now the Emperor with no cloths.

[Suaviloquent]

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

[William Maley]

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

[ocnblu]

Just tell them to do a cutaway version of the Promaster City.

[FordCosworth]

Does he realize that he just canceled a midsize sedan selling easily 100,000 more units annually than a midsize truck will?

Considering the 200 is selling less than 7k a month for the last few months, chances are it won't hit 100k itself, let alone sell 100k MORE units than a Mid Size Ram.

Edited March 3, 2016 by FordCosworth

[Robert Hall]

I wonder what they did w/ the Dakota tooling...only been 5 years..update the interior, change the front, put it back in production..

[67impss]

Hell if he wants a mid size tell him to read the alpar wiki to find out how CryCo did it on the cheap. The formula is right there in black and white, worked once do it again. They (Dakotas) became unprofitable when Durango went full sizeish with the Aspen.Then without the economic advantage of a suv stablemate and de-contenting plus the melt down, just withered on the vine. 

[ocnblu]

I am with those that want to see a true compact truck back in the U.S.

...But every auto exec that speaks on the subject states it would not be a good idear, for various weak reasons.

[G. David Felt]

Agreed Ocn, I think the whole Mid size is a viable market but can handle only so many sellars. I think FCA would do best with a true compact.

[Carguy]

Put the RAM truck line back in the Dodge brand where it belongs! Then do a smaller truck and call it the Goat to go along with its bigger brother the Ram!

[thegriffon]

Somebody tell him FCA is already debuting not one, but two midsize pickups this year, in addition to the pickup versions of the Promaster and Promaster City Fiat already sells in other markets. For the Americas their solution was to build a fwd/awd pickup based on the Cherokee (the Fiat Toro), in half-ton flex-fuel, and 1-ton diesel crewcab versions. For Europe they're rebadging the Mitsubishi L200 Triton, which is cheap but far from class-leading (because it's really only a minor update of the old Triton with a new engine [well, some markets get the new engine, most still get the old diesel], and the old Triton was only a cosmetic update of the Triton before that).

[ccap41]

 

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

 

I wonder how bad of fuel mileage the Jeep truck will get compared to the other trucks who have at least visited wind tunnels. It'll be rated 18/19 city/highway, lol. 

[thegriffon]

Just tell them to do a cutaway version of the Promaster City.

You mean this one?

With the flatbed it's as wide as a fullsize truck (interior bed width is 2034 mm) and is a 2500 kg GVW rated truck (5500 lb) with a 1 ton capacity.

 

Then there's the true cutaway (you're supposed to keep it less than the standard 1872mm body width, but clearly Fiat exceeded that with the reefer illustrated). Body platform length can be 2115 mm (compared to the 1818 interior length of the factory tray above). Combined axle load is 2570 kg, but the GVW is only up to 2400 kg.

[thegriffon]

I am with those that want to see a true compact truck back in the U.S.

...But every auto exec that speaks on the subject states it would not be a good idear, for various weak reasons.

FCA has this one, 4.5 m long (compared to 4.9 for the Doblo and Toro), and 1/2 tonne capacity rating (685 kg).

 

 

But I doubt it would get better than 2-stars NCAP, as it's based on the now 20 year-old Fiat project 178 platform (Fiat Palio/Siena). There are Dodge versions of this platform for Mexico and Venezuela, but they just change the badges.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Does he realize that he just canceled a midsize sedan selling easily 100,000 more units annually than a midsize truck will?

Considering the 200 is selling less than 7k a month for the last few months, chances are it won't hit 100k itself, let alone sell 100k MORE units than a Mid Size Ram.

 

 

Until December, they were selling 10-15k units a month with summer months pushing 20k. If that's not an incredible success for the Chrysler brand, I don't know what is.

[Suaviloquent]

The 200 is a good car, in a field of great American cars and two great japanese cars from Mazonda...and maybe one decent Korean car and the recent fall off a cliff.

[ocnblu]

Put the RAM truck line back in the Dodge brand where it belongs! Then do a smaller truck and call it the Goat to go along with its bigger brother the Ram!

Haha, and then sell an off-road version... called the Mountain Goat, of course!

[ocnblu]

 

Just tell them to do a cutaway version of the Promaster City.

You mean this one?

With the flatbed it's as wide as a fullsize truck (interior bed width is 2034 mm) and is a 2500 kg GVW rated truck (5500 lb) with a 1 ton capacity.

 

Then there's the true cutaway (you're supposed to keep it less than the standard 1872mm body width, but clearly Fiat exceeded that with the reefer illustrated). Body platform length can be 2115 mm (compared to the 1818 interior length of the factory tray above). Combined axle load is 2570 kg, but the GVW is only up to 2400 kg.

 

Hi griffon, I always enjoy your posts.  That Doblo pickup is a very capable machine, seems like.  The amazing, borderline comical looks of it seal the deal!  With a diesel engine yet, it would be the ultimate non-conformist, awkward superstar pickup truck!

[ocnblu]

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

[ccap41]

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

Give me the 94hp/99tq version please. lol

[G. David Felt]

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

+1 that compact is what is needed here more than ever.

 

If GM brought this here now, they would corner compact, mid-size and full-size trucks and dethrone everyone including FORD as the biggest truck builder and supplier.

 

I can see many city dwellers buying this compact truck.

[Stew]

 

 

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

 

I wonder how bad of fuel mileage the Jeep truck will get compared to the other trucks who have at least visited wind tunnels. It'll be rated 18/19 city/highway, lol. 

 

Actually the current Wranglers are already rated over 20 MPG on the hwy with the old 5 speed auto.  This will be based on the new Wrangler which will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and have the 8 speed auto. m I say it will not have a problem matching Colorado FE engine for engine. 

[ccap41]

 

 

 

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

 

I wonder how bad of fuel mileage the Jeep truck will get compared to the other trucks who have at least visited wind tunnels. It'll be rated 18/19 city/highway, lol. 

 

Actually the current Wranglers are already rated over 20 MPG on the hwy with the old 5 speed auto.  This will be based on the new Wrangler which will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and have the 8 speed auto. m I say it will not have a problem matching Colorado FE engine for engine. 

 

No chance it would match the Colorado if they are working on similar drivelines. I mean even if the Wrangler truck had the newest 8 or 9spd from the FCA camp you're still talking about pushing a brick through air. I highly doubt they will be ballsy enough to change the look of the new Wrangler enough to be considered "aero efficient" by anybody's standards. 

 

I can't imagine it changing much from the current Wrangler's 16/21. I would definitely expect improvements but not a whole lot. 17/24 in its most efficient trim. Now if it has a 2WD version that would get another little bump over the Wranglers but I just don't see a way that this will match a Colorado's 18/26 in the v6 at all. 

[FordCosworth]

 

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

Give me the 94hp/99tq version please. lol

 

 

 

 

Back in the day I had an '84 Ranger 2.3L that put out a pavement scorching 82 HP...

 

Now thats laughable

[FordCosworth]

 

 

 

 

Well it says he wants one.

 

But that doesn't mean he can.

 

I know... the whole GM merger fiasco was all about a midsize truck the whole time.

 

Wait a minute - isn't the jeep truck going to be a compact/midsize truck?

 

Dafuq?!!

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

 

I wonder how bad of fuel mileage the Jeep truck will get compared to the other trucks who have at least visited wind tunnels. It'll be rated 18/19 city/highway, lol. 

 

Actually the current Wranglers are already rated over 20 MPG on the hwy with the old 5 speed auto.  This will be based on the new Wrangler which will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and have the 8 speed auto. m I say it will not have a problem matching Colorado FE engine for engine. 

 

No chance it would match the Colorado if they are working on similar drivelines. I mean even if the Wrangler truck had the newest 8 or 9spd from the FCA camp you're still talking about pushing a brick through air. I highly doubt they will be ballsy enough to change the look of the new Wrangler enough to be considered "aero efficient" by anybody's standards. 

 

I can't imagine it changing much from the current Wrangler's 16/21. I would definitely expect improvements but not a whole lot. 17/24 in its most efficient trim. Now if it has a 2WD version that would get another little bump over the Wranglers but I just don't see a way that this will match a Colorado's 18/26 in the v6 at all. 

 

 

 

Its not only " pushing a brick through the air ".

 

Under vehicle aerodynamics on a vehicle are often overlooked. And on the Wrangler, they are less than ideal and greatly affect its drag coefficient

[Robert Hall]

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

Give me the 94hp/99tq version please. lol

 

 

 

Back in the day I had an '84 Ranger 2.3L that put out a pavement scorching 82 HP...

 

Now thats laughable

My '84 Escort diesel had 52hp...and an AM radio. I could spin the front tires on gravel.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

Give me the 94hp/99tq version please. lol

 

 

 

Back in the day I had an '84 Ranger 2.3L that put out a pavement scorching 82 HP...

 

Now thats laughable

My '84 Escort diesel had 52hp...and an AM radio. I could spin the front tires on gravel.

 

Hahaha my first motorcycle was 100hp, and my second was 123hp/56tq. 

[Stew]

 

Yes, it will be based on the Wrangler so it will be printing money for FCA.

 

I wonder how bad of fuel mileage the Jeep truck will get compared to the other trucks who have at least visited wind tunnels. It'll be rated 18/19 city/highway, lol. 

 

Actually the current Wranglers are already rated over 20 MPG on the hwy with the old 5 speed auto.  This will be based on the new Wrangler which will be lighter, more aerodynamic, and have the 8 speed auto. m I say it will not have a problem matching Colorado FE engine for engine. 

 

No chance it would match the Colorado if they are working on similar drivelines. I mean even if the Wrangler truck had the newest 8 or 9spd from the FCA camp you're still talking about pushing a brick through air. I highly doubt they will be ballsy enough to change the look of the new Wrangler enough to be considered "aero efficient" by anybody's standards. 

 

I can't imagine it changing much from the current Wrangler's 16/21. I would definitely expect improvements but not a whole lot. 17/24 in its most efficient trim. Now if it has a 2WD version that would get another little bump over the Wranglers but I just don't see a way that this will match a Colorado's 18/26 in the v6 at all. 

 

 

 

Its not only " pushing a brick through the air ".

 

Under vehicle aerodynamics on a vehicle are often overlooked. And on the Wrangler, they are less than ideal and greatly affect its drag coefficient

 

 

 

The V6 Colorado is 17/24 with 4wd/V6 and I see that completely doable.  There are tricks to increasing aero such as grill shudders, a greater rake to the windshield, and grill, all of which we know the Wrangler (and as an extension the pickup) will have.  In the same way the Ram is far more aerodynamic than it looks. 

[FordCosworth]

There is much more to a vehicles cd than body work.

 

Beside things like the Raptor, Power Wagon, Wrangler etc etc, see how low, even a 4WD is to the ground - than includes the Colorado 4WD. Thats to curb under vehicle airflow.

[ccap41]

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

[ccap41]

There is much more to a vehicles cd than body work.

 

Beside things like the Raptor, Power Wagon, Wrangler etc etc, see how low, even a 4WD is to the ground - than includes the Colorado 4WD. Thats to curb under vehicle airflow.

Yeah that's why all the CUVs are only a couple inches off the ground if you look at the very bottom of the front end. Heck, just last year I waslked up to a Tahoe or Yukon in our parking garage and knelt down and the front diffuser had to be only 5 or 6 inches off of the ground, enough to maybe clear a parking block. 

[Stew]

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

 

You are taking it further than you need.   A greater rake to the windshield/grille does no have to take the Jeep look away at all.  Here is an interesting AllPar article about the 18 Wrangler.

 

http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/2017.html

[ccap41]

 

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

 

You are taking it further than you need.   A greater rake to the windshield/grille does no have to take the Jeep look away at all.  Here is an interesting AllPar article about the 18 Wrangler.

 

http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/2017.html

 

No, I think you're underestimating how much work the other manufacturers have put into achieving 18/24 for the v6 4x4 Colorado and 18/23 for the v6 4x4Tacoma. If you don't think they put an emphasis on fuel economy and aerodynamics and then Jeep will be the first? C'mon. 

 

That flat windshield(raked or not), flat roof, fender flares.. all things that go on a vehicle aiming at improved "slipperiness". 

[Stew]

 

 

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

 

You are taking it further than you need.   A greater rake to the windshield/grille does no have to take the Jeep look away at all.  Here is an interesting AllPar article about the 18 Wrangler.

 

http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/2017.html

 

No, I think you're underestimating how much work the other manufacturers have put into achieving 18/24 for the v6 4x4 Colorado and 18/23 for the v6 4x4Tacoma. If you don't think they put an emphasis on fuel economy and aerodynamics and then Jeep will be the first? C'mon. 

 

That flat windshield(raked or not), flat roof, fender flares.. all things that go on a vehicle aiming at improved "slipperiness". 

 

 

 

Riddle me this Batman.  they can already get 16/23 from the MUCH larger and MUCH heavier Ram with the same Pentastar 3.6 V6/8 speed and even 15/21 from the 4x4 1500 Ram 4x4 with the 395 HP Hemi/8 speed.  Seriously.............

[ccap41]

 

 

 

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

 

You are taking it further than you need.   A greater rake to the windshield/grille does no have to take the Jeep look away at all.  Here is an interesting AllPar article about the 18 Wrangler.

 

http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/2017.html

 

No, I think you're underestimating how much work the other manufacturers have put into achieving 18/24 for the v6 4x4 Colorado and 18/23 for the v6 4x4Tacoma. If you don't think they put an emphasis on fuel economy and aerodynamics and then Jeep will be the first? C'mon. 

 

That flat windshield(raked or not), flat roof, fender flares.. all things that go on a vehicle aiming at improved "slipperiness". 

 

 

 

Riddle me this Batman.  they can already get 16/23 from the MUCH larger and MUCH heavier Ram with the same Pentastar 3.6 V6/8 speed and even 15/21 from the 4x4 1500 Ram 4x4 with the 395 HP Hemi/8 speed.  Seriously.............

 

Do you think FCA is inventing aerodynamic air flow on the 2020 Jeep Truck for the first time ever. You honestly are either being that stubborn or you seriously think GM and Toyota have never put their trucks in a wind tunnel looking for an edge. If you don't think they have then maybe, just maybe, look at that lower front diffuser on the Colorado that make it appear only a few inches off the ground when you look at that. 

 

 

There is your riddle. 

 

And positive aero flow as less to do about how large and heavy a vehicle is as opposed to how the air is being placed and used. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by ccap41

[Stew]

 

 

 

 

Have you ever seen a Wrangler..? lol 

 

But in all seriousness, the changes that would have to be made for something like that would make it look way less Wrangler than I think the customer base would want. 

 

Those same aero tricks you speak of, are being done by everybody and if the v6 4x4 Colorado is 17/24 then a boxy version of that just doesn't make any sense to match it. To make it a Wrangler sibling it will still need an upright and squared off windshield and grille. so either way it won't be as raked as the Tacoma or Canyonado.

 

You are taking it further than you need.   A greater rake to the windshield/grille does no have to take the Jeep look away at all.  Here is an interesting AllPar article about the 18 Wrangler.

 

http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wrangler/2017.html

 

No, I think you're underestimating how much work the other manufacturers have put into achieving 18/24 for the v6 4x4 Colorado and 18/23 for the v6 4x4Tacoma. If you don't think they put an emphasis on fuel economy and aerodynamics and then Jeep will be the first? C'mon. 

 

That flat windshield(raked or not), flat roof, fender flares.. all things that go on a vehicle aiming at improved "slipperiness". 

 

 

 

Riddle me this Batman.  they can already get 16/23 from the MUCH larger and MUCH heavier Ram with the same Pentastar 3.6 V6/8 speed and even 15/21 from the 4x4 1500 Ram 4x4 with the 395 HP Hemi/8 speed.  Seriously.............

 

Do you think FCA is inventing aerodynamic air flow on the 2020 Jeep Truck for the first time ever. You honestly are either being that stubborn or you seriously think GM and Toyota have never put their trucks in a wind tunnel looking for an edge. If you don't think they have then maybe, just maybe, look at that lower front diffuser on the Colorado that make it appear only a few inches off the ground when you look at that. 

 

 

There is your riddle. 

 

 

Yes, and what is makin ou think they won't use a lot of these tricks on the Wrangler/pickup?  you don't think FCA has wind tunnels?  You can divert air around a vehicle, under and over.  The Wrangler s going to have a lower roof combined with everything else mentioned.  You are just being stubborn because it is FCA.  There is absolutely ZERO reason hey cannot achieve 24 MPG on the highway.  Just going from he same 5 speed to the 8 speed in the Charger pentastar netted 4 additional hwy MPG by itself as there was absolutely no difference between the aero  of the 2. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Stew

[FordCosworth]

" You are just being stubborn because it is FCA. "

 

Stew...

 

Ccpap is one of the most well rounded and unbiased posters here. 

[ccap41]

I'm not being stubborn because it is FCA. I made a joke because it is a brick flying through the air and the Wrangler already only gets 21mpg on the highway. 

 

What makes me think they won't do all of those tricks on a smaller cheaper truck? because it is cheaper and technology costs money. Adjustable ride height on a mid-sized Wrangler truck? Active leveling system? The cost to do that stuff. Grill shudders? Sure. We know it won't have the same curves as the Ram so that part is out as well. 

 

You chose to get defensive like you do whenever anybody says anything that isn't overly positive about FCA. 

 

It was a joke. Don't take everything 'not positive' so personally. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by ccap41

[Stew]

" You are just being stubborn because it is FCA. "

 

Stew...

 

Ccpap is one of the most well rounded and unbiased posters here. 

Maybe, but I don't understand why, with the myriad of differences coming, that a mere 24MPG hwy rating is hard to believe.

[surreal1272]

 

 

 

http://www.chevrolet.com.br/pickups/montana.html

Give me the 94hp/99tq version please. lol

 

 

 

Back in the day I had an '84 Ranger 2.3L that put out a pavement scorching 82 HP...

 

Now thats laughable

My '84 Escort diesel had 52hp...and an AM radio. I could spin the front tires on gravel.

 

I had an '81 Chevette with a crippled gerbil under the hood and it was capable of 0-60 in three days, depending on which way the wind was blowing. Somehow though, I still managed to get a speeding ticket in it.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think a good 50% of the pending Wrangler's fuel economy improvements will come from better weight. 

[Stew]

I think a good 50% of the pending Wrangler's fuel economy improvements will come from better weight. 

 

Agreed.  Apparently there is going to be a large use of high strength hydroformed steel.

[ccap41]

How'd that work for the F150..?

[Stew]

How'd that work for the F150..?

All engines picked up a few MPG in the EPA cycle without getting more gears and actually getting a considerably larger footprint......

[Drew Dowdell]

How'd that work for the F150..?

 

It brought it generally in line with the rest of the industry. 

[Suaviloquent]

I think aero is really hard to improve without changing the styling. 

 

For example... a totally unrelated thing. I read in a pretty in depth article a long time ago about the aerodynamics of a tour de france bike rider w/kit with the super aggressive road bikes compared to a normal person riding a less aggressive but similar weight CF bike with the same quality but less aero components.

 

The less energy required is crazy. 

 

Also, small single digit increases of FE are actually large percentage gains in FE when you go from 19 to like 22 mpg. Doing that in a hybrid vehicle these days is hard.

 

I think a wrangler on its own will improve to like 26 mpg hwy 18 city. Add a diesel, and I think it can reach just below 30 mpg. But remember, there's going to be a Jeep Wrangler Hybrid in 2020s...

 

And like 12-16 mpg on its usual breakfast of rocks, ruts and roots... depending on incline.

 

Also, the Jeep pickup is going to be based on the current outgoing generation. That's a bummer. And also very lucrative.

[ccap41]

How'd that work for the F150..?

All engines picked up a few MPG in the EPA cycle without getting more gears and actually getting a considerably larger footprint......

I didn't realize it was pretty much a 2mpg improvement across the board. I guess I just didn't realize how bad the pre '15s were.