EcoDiesel, Part II: Fiat Chrysler's New Light Duty Diesel Aims to Anger GM and Ford, Not the EPA

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

The domestic pickup torque wars have flared up again. Following a brief period of dormancy that came after General Motors’ 3.0-liter Duramax 3.0-liter inline-six topped Ford’s 3.0-liter Power Stroke V6 by 20 foot-pounds (460 vs. 440), Fiat Chrysler has arrived on the scene to declare itself king of the hill.

For the 2020 model year, FCA’s EcoDiesel 3.0-liter diesel V6 returns, this time without the baggage and after-the-fact modifications ordered by the federal government. It also pulls harder than its competition.

After a model-year hiatus, the EcoDiesel will reappear in the Ram 1500 fold for 2020, this time generating 260 horsepower and 480 lb-ft of torque. The previous-gen engine, which first appeared in 2014, made 240 hp and 420 lb-ft.

Despite endowing the 1500 line with fuel economy Ford and GM couldn’t match, that older version gave FCA quite a black eye. A scandal erupted in early 2017 over the automaker’s use of undeclared auxiliary emissions control devices, forcing FCA on the defensive. The EPA launched an investigation while the Department of Justice hit the automaker with a lawsuit, forcing it to settle for a sum far less than the penalty handed down to Volkswagen. While the automaker never admitted fault in the affair, it did clean up the engine’s act.

This new mill has undergone significant changes. Among them, a new water-cooled turbocharger with variable geometry turbine, redesigned cylinder head intake ports, an updated exhaust gas recirculation system, and redesigned fuel injector nozzles. FCA claims these and other changes boost the engine’s compression ratio to 16.5:1 (up from 16:1) and make for “superb fuel economy and minimal levels of noise, vibration and harshness.”

“The new Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is America’s most powerful half-ton diesel pickup, following up on Ram’s Heavy Duty torque leadership and achieving what no other manufacturer has, with up to 480 lb.-ft. of torque in a 3.0-liter engine,” said Ram boss Reid Bigland, who’s currently suing his employer, in a statement.

Fuel economy ratings for the new EcoDiesel pickup have not yet been released, though Ram hopes its efforts deliver another bragging right. Buyers will be able to pair the new EcoDiesel with Ram’s adjustable air suspension, further boosting economy of the fuel variety.

As it stands, there’s already two boasts — the aforementioned torque figure, and the engine’s ability to tow 12,560 pounds. The F-150’s max diesel tow rating is 11,400 pounds; the Silverado 1500’s is still unknown. Indeed, Ram can’t yet claim best-in-class towing with any certainty.

Interestingly, Ram plans to offer the new EcoDiesel not just on the second year of its new full-size pickups, but on 2019 versions of its older-generation 1500 Classic. All Ram 1500 trims can be had with a diesel, FCA claims, including the Rebel.

Pricing and fuel economy will land closer to the engine’s fourth-quarter on-sale date.

[Images: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
8 of 26 comments
  • JimZ JimZ on Jun 10, 2019

    1994 7.3 liter Powerstroke: 210 hp, 425 lb-ft.

    • See 5 previous
    • DenverMike DenverMike on Jun 11, 2019

      @gtem The 6.0 PS is the best of both worlds. Big power/economy and before emissions. Don't believe the hype. Even commercial users that know what they're buying are happily spending 2X what '05 to '07 PS 6.0 F-250s and up, currently "book" for, when they're cosmetically and mechanically refurbished and bulletproofed. And they're better in many ways compared to new 2019 replacements costing 2X as much (after rebates).

  • Truckducken Truckducken on Jun 11, 2019

    Can it be modified to roll enough coal to cover the rear half of the bed in soot? ‘Cuz around here, that’s why people buy diesels.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next