2012 Dodge Challenger on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Towing with the 2016 Ram lineup [w/video]

I do not tow things. Ever. Yet I recently found myself at the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles proving grounds in Chelsea, MI, where I'd be testing the hauling capabilities of Ram's current product range. This experience was not only a perfect education for a towing novice like me, but allowed me to tow far more weight than I'd ever consider hauling the real world, and all within the safe confines of the Chelsea Proving Grounds. There was an extremely diverse array of vehicles at my disposal, including Ram's gasoline- and diesel-powered offerings with trucks ranging from the 1500 on up through the 5500 Chassis Cab, as well ProMaster vans. Beyond that, FCA brought out a number of vintage Dodge pickups for me to play with, while also working with Case IH to provide a track-loader I could test. I put together a range of videos covering everything from the classics to the production trucks to the construction equipment. And despite some technical difficulties – you'll notice a distinct lack of in-car videos, with blame going to a corrupted micro SD card – I've assembled ten videos that give an up-close look at Ram's offerings. 2015 Ram ProMaster City Let's start small. The ProMaster City only has a towing capacity of 2,000 pounds. That's a reasonably impressive figure for a van that uses the same powertrain as a Chrysler 200. The 2.4-liter four-cylinder and nine-speed automatic weren't really bothered with the extra weight added by the trailer. Even when accelerating at freeway speeds, the ProMaster City didn't feel out of breath or hampered by its load. That said, the rear of the van was unloaded, which probably wouldn't be the case for most consumers. It's unclear how the City would feel if its driver were taking advantage of the max payload (1,883 pounds) and towing. 2015 Ram ProMaster 1500 To be polite, the Ram ProMaster is a difficult vehicle to like. Its awkward seating position is bus-like and lacks the visibility enjoyed by the Ford Transit or the utter driving comfort of the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter. Its 3.0-liter, four-cylinder turbodiesel engine, meanwhile, is something of an anomaly. While it's potent for a four-cylinder diesel, producing 295 pound-feet of torque and 174 horsepower, those numbers don't feel all that impressive when loaded down. The model I tested was barely using half of its 5,100-pound maximum towing weight and was loaded down with just 500 of its 3,620-pound payload. Yet it lacked the pluckiness of the smaller City.

Dodge Durango SRT vs. Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT | Which should you buy?

Choice is a good thing. And when it comes to high-performance sport utility vehicles, there are more choices today than ever before to tantalize buyers into showrooms. And why not? Americans love SUVs, and, while there's a stronger push to go green now than ever before in the history of internal combustion, there's still a large contingent of buyers who firmly believe in choosing the biggest, baddest, most powerful powerplant. For those buyers, the Dodge Durango SRT and Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT are two of the most potent options. But which one should you buy? They both deliver 475 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque to all four wheels through an eight-speed automatic transmission. They both do 0-60 in around 4.4 seconds, and both boast top speed numbers that will handily land you in jail if written on a speeding ticket. Choosing between the two, then, is a bit more nuanced than which is faster. That said, the Jeep is probably a bit quicker at the track than the Dodge. We'd wager than the Grand Cherokee SRT's 5,104-pound curb weight (versus 5,510 for the Durango SRT) and 114.8-inch wheelbase (versus 119.8) will pay small dividends in acceleration, cornering, and braking performance. So, if that's the only category by which you believe these SRT-fettled SUVs should be judged, choose the Jeep. View 17 Photos But let's get real here for a moment. As much fun as it is to wrangle a brutish ute 'round a racetrack – and trust us when we tell you it's a blast – the number of hi-po SUV owners who will ever show up at Bondurant in an SRT-badged 4x4 is probably in the single digits. So, when evaluating which of the two Hemi-powered vehicles is right for you, ultimate lap times are probably of little concern. If you're choosing between these two overpowered players, practicality is probably just as important as performance. And in that category, the Durango SRT comes out on top. For starters, the Dodge is a three-row SUV with six seats, whereas the Jeep is a two-row, five-passenger platform. Fold down the rear bench and there's 84.5 cubic feet of cargo area in the Durango, versus 68.7 in the Grand Cherokee. And if you tow, the Durango SRT's 8,600-pound max rating handily bests that of the Grand Cherokee SRT's 7,200-pound capacity. Ask yourself what's most important: performance or practicality. And then consider the price. The Dodge is nearly $4,000 less expensive than the Jeep.

Chrysler patents smarter minivan folding seats

It's frightening to think of how quickly the mice would have overtaken us if we hadn't stayed one step ahead of them with better mousetraps. We'll never have to worry about that in our relentlessly re-engineered world, though. Case in point: Chrysler has been granted a patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office for an improved design of the already wondrous Stow 'n' Go seating found in the automaker's Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans.
Introduced in 2005, the Stow 'n' Go was improved in 2008, and based on the drawings of this third-generation improvement, the new design appears to allow stowage of the second row of seats without having to move the front-row seats forward as much. It look like it also involves fewer operations and moving parts, with a portion of the seatback being incorporated into the flat floor when the seats are stowed, as opposed to having a completely separate cover.
It's possible that the innovation may appear on the next-generation minivans expected in 2015, but Chrysler isn't commenting on the patent.