2014 Ram 1500 Laramie on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toy, hauler | 2017 Ram Power Wagon Video Review

When you're bouncing along in a 2017 Ram 2500 Power wagon over the washboard silt roads of the Valley of Fire, just outside of Las Vegas, it's a bit of a shock to realize how comfortable you are. We'd driven a convoy of brand new Ram Power Wagons out from a city improbably emerging from the scrub into a land of red rocks and sand. Inhospitable territory full of thrill-seekers in Jeeps and four-seat ATVs, flinging sand and bouncing their tall signal flags about. The varied terrain, transitioning from hard-packed silt to rocky paths to deep sand at any point, provided the perfect environment to see if the Power Wagon can live up to its billing – check out the video above to see how it handled the gnarly stuff. Back in 1945, the Power Wagon and comfort were not really thought of together. Like the Jeep, these thoroughly mil-spec trucks were heading home from overseas, where they'd served as weapon carriers and utility rigs. The all-business truck was a bit like a heavy-duty Willys Jeep with a bed, and instead of the convertible military cab, Dodge bolted on a pre-war civilian cab. They had more amenities than a tractor (windows! A roof!), but no one would call 'em coddling. The advertising of the day shows them digging ditches, plowing fields, erecting utility poles. You could use the rear power take-off to run a portable sawmill – pure denim and dust work. The brief has clearly evolved a bit – the PTOs disappeared as the truck evolved from a dedicated platform for serious work to more of a heavy-duty trim on Ram's conventional pickups, and then disappeared for a quarter-century until reemerging in 2005. To put it succinctly, the latest 2500 Power Wagon has off-road chops that pass the laugh test, and real working payload and towing capabilities, all in one package. We didn't tow or haul with the Power Wagon on this trip, but we really didn't have to. The Power Wagon is mostly standard 2500 fare: solid axles front and rear, taking power from the familiar truck-spec 6.4-liter Hemi V8. It'll haul up to 1,510 pounds in the bed, and tow up to 10,030 pounds. We know these trucks; they do this kind of work easily and without complaint. What's surprising is how well it does the work without much compromise. As you can see in the video above, the ride's as stiff as on a normal 2500 pickup, maybe a hair stiffer, but plenty tolerable for a long haul on the interstate.

Chevy says not to look at the 2019 Silverado's fuel economy rating

The 2019 Chevy Silverado is hitting dealerships soon, and one of the most notable changes for the new full-size pickup is the addition of a 2.7-liter turbocharged inline-four. The engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in volume consumer models like the Silverado LT and promises more power, less weight and — most importantly — better fuel economy. The thing is, the gains in efficiency haven't been as dramatic as some might have hoped, especially when stacked up against competitors from Ford and Ram. As Automotive News reports, GM's response is a little murky. First, let's talk numbers. We're pulling all figures from FuelEconomy.gov, the official U.S. government source for fuel ratings. Fuel economy numbers on trucks vary greatly based on a number of factors. Bed and cab configuration play a part, but so does a four-wheel-drive system. You also have to factor in tires, transmissions, rear-axle gearing, hybrid systems and cylinder deactivation. Things like that can make the difference between best- and worst-in-class. The EPA's website doesn't give enough information a lot of the time, so there's really no easy way to compare apples-to-apples. First, take a look at the ratings for the 2019 Silverado. A 2.7-liter model with two-wheel drive is rated 20 city, 23 highway and 21 combined. That's both better and worse than a two-wheel drive 2018 Silverado with the 4.3-liter V6 (18 city, 24 highway and 20 combined). The updated 2019 Silverado with a 4.3-liter V6 has yet to be rated. With less weight and a smaller engine, many hoped Chevy would make bigger gains. It's unusual to see any decrease in a fuel economy metric these days. GM says that it's not done tuning the new 2.7-liter engine, so fuel economy could theoretically increase. Expanding further, a V8-powered 2019 Silverado (17 city, 24 highway and 19 combined) actually gets better highway fuel economy than a turbocharged four-cylinder powered truck in certain configurations, even if the latter has a better overall average. But that's only with two-wheel drive, the 8-speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. A Silverado with the 5.3-liter V8 and a 6-speed automatic is rated at 15 city, 22 highway and 17 combined. The biggest issue with the Silverado 2.7-liter doesn't come from within GM itself but from Ford and Ram. GM cites the Ford F-150 with the 3.3-liter V6 and the Ram 1500 with the 3.6-liter V6 as the closest competitors to its new 2.7-liter inline-four.

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.