The new Dodge full-sized pick up truck

[kach22i]

The logo's were off, semi-flat paint job, manufacturer plates and mini louvers on the raised hood's sides.

Taken at approx 6:00 PM on M-59 (SE Michigan) in Highland Township 04/02/2009.

Looked like some camo had recently been taken off.

The sides were really flat, bucking the current styling trend.

Link:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/

[kaisen]

It's the not-yet-released Heavy Duty version

[kaisen]

Gas version, but HD 3/4

[gprsh924]

Is it just me, or do those wheels/tires look absolutely tiny?

[Zeke]

That stupid, huge, flat nose doesn't buck the design trend. I wish the truck designers would consider total frontal area and give us something along a large mini van with a bed.

Originally Posted by gprsh924

Is it just me, or do those wheels/tires look absolutely tiny?

Yeah, all the trucks have like a foot or so of wheel arch opening above the tire. More stupidity.

[kaisen]

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2009/02/first-look-2010-dodge-ram-2500-and-3500-heavy-duty-pickups.html

[futuresoptions]

Is it me or does the tail lights / tail gate look as if they are off a 1977 Dodge truck??? Yuck...

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by milt

That stupid, huge, flat nose doesn't buck the design trend. I wish the truck designers would consider total frontal area and give us something along a large mini van with a bed.


Yeah, all the trucks have like a foot or so of wheel arch opening above the tire. More stupidity.

Start thinking about how a heavy-duty truck is actually used. Form follows function. Not everyone wants a wienie-California-plug-in1/4-ton-pickupcar.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by kaisen

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2009/02/first-look-2010-dodge-ram-2500-and-3500-heavy-duty-pickups.html

Weird, those all have flares which stick out.

[maxnine11]

I can't wait until their newest model is an exact 3/4 scale replica of a cab-over Mack - then maybe the designers will start to work their way back in the opposite direction.

[kaisen]

These are 9,000 to 15,000 lb GVWR trucks with tow ratings up to 18,800 lbs. Cooling capacities, frame modulus, axle/wheel articulation, ground clearance, and all the other requirements that dictate size will have their impact on the packaging and, therefore, the styling. Ford, Dodge, and GM are all similar. Even the Toyota Tundra, which isn't heavy duty, is bull-nosed to adequately cool the 5.7 iForce when pulling 11K up a hill in 110 degree heat.

[ja78911sc]

Originally Posted by maxnine11

I can't wait until their newest model is an exact 3/4 scale replica of a cab-over Mack - then maybe the designers will start to work their way back in the opposite direction.

[Macroni]

I was expecting a pic of a fiat

[maxnine11]

umm, the smaller '06 Toyota had a 5.7 iForce. Never heard of overheating problems. The 2000ish to 2007ish Chev and GMCs seemed to have no problems cooling the DuraMax with an front end that wasn't shaped like a sheet of plywood.
Radiator size and airflow are what's needed. The trend to huge, blunt front ends is almost exclusively a styling exercise.
As for the huge wheelwell gap above the rear tires on the last few pickup designs from GM and Dodge - again, mostly a styling exercise. The axle doesn't articulate anywhere close to requiring that much room. The part about the wheelwell size/shape that sucks is that if you go to put on tires that are only a couple of inches taller, you will have clearance issues at the front/rear of the opening, especially the fronts, because of extra clearance needed for turning. So you end up having to lift the truck - and increasing the gap above the rear tires even more.

Just my two cents- coming from someone who actually owns a '08 Dodge Cummins dually 4x4, and oversees a fleet of Kenworths working in some pretty rough conditions.
My choice for my own work pickup- a Ford F150 with a two inch lift and 33" Michelins. Rides like a car and goes through anything that the Super Duty's start sinking in.

max

[maxnine11]

Thanks for that ja78911sc .
if it was in flat black with some camouflage and huge chrome wheels, it could be posted as the 2015 Big3 'Big Bastage SuperDuraRam Wagon' ( Chrysler, Ford and GM will have merged by then)
LOL

max

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by maxnine11

umm, the smaller '06 Toyota had a 5.7 iForce. Never heard of overheating problems.

Nope, the first Tundra to have the 5.7 was the 'new' 2007. The old one was saddled with the 4.7 as the biggest choice.

The 2000ish to 2007ish Chev and GMCs seemed to have no problems cooling the DuraMax with an front end that wasn't shaped like a sheet of plywood.
Radiator size and airflow are what's needed. The trend to huge, blunt front ends is almost exclusively a styling exercise.

True, but notice they have gotten big and blunt for the 'new' HD starting in mid-2007. Why? Two reasons: the diesel engines are more powerful, and outputs will continue to grow . And the regeneration / emissions push A LOT of heat into the motors, requiring bigger radiators. 20% bigger.

As for the huge wheelwell gap above the rear tires on the last few pickup designs from GM and Dodge - again, mostly a styling exercise. The axle doesn't articulate anywhere close to requiring that much room. The part about the wheelwell size/shape that sucks is that if you go to put on tires that are only a couple of inches taller, you will have clearance issues at the front/rear of the opening, especially the fronts, because of extra clearance needed for turning. So you end up having to lift the truck - and increasing the gap above the rear tires even more.

Total B.S. load it heavy and take it on a logging trail and tell me that it isn't a function of necessity.

[maxnine11]

Sorry for not checking; you are right about the 4.7 engine in the '06 Tundra. My mistake. But - a 20 percent larger engine in the '07s with a 90 percent larger grille?

As for the wheel well clearance issue - once the leaf springs 'flatten' to a certain level, the axle hits a bump stop. The rubber bumper stop has almost no compression. That is it. It is bottomed out, no more travel. Still room above the tire. Been down the odd logging road myself

Good point point about the new emission systems and more heat. Wish mine was an early '07 model that didn't have the stuff. Crossing my fingers that i won't have the trouble that some people are having.

Not wanting to start a war of words.

IMO they could make a front end design that housed the current sized rad and flowed as much air without using such a blunt front end. The gap on the rear wheel well could be reduced an inch or two. Instead, they are styling the current designs because they think they have to cater to the Mack- wanna be drivers. (And they could be very well selling more trucks because of it) ?? I don't know.
In other words- I think the marketing dept is having a more influential say in the design than the engineering dept.


Just sayin' .... I bought my Dodge in spite of its' styling, not because of its' styling.

cheers,
max

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by maxnine11

Sorry for not checking; you are right about the 4.7 engine in the '06 Tundra. My mistake. But - a 20 percent larger engine in the '07s with a 90 percent larger grille?

You won't hear me apologize for the new Tundra. It's fugly, and over-rated.

As for the wheel well clearance issue - once the leaf springs 'flatten' to a certain level, the axle hits a bump stop. The rubber bumper stop has almost no compression. That is it. It is bottomed out, no more travel. Still room above the tire. Been down the odd logging road myself

When the axle travels in a purely vertical motion, yes.

But twist it hard while also on the bump stop and the top of the tire will tuck under the opening.

Good point point about the new emission systems and more heat. Wish mine was an early '07 model that didn't have the stuff. Crossing my fingers that i won't have the trouble that some people are having.

That's why I own two '07's

IMO they could make a front end design that housed the current sized rad and flowed as much air without using such a blunt front end. The gap on the rear wheel well could be reduced an inch or two. Instead, they are styling the current designs because they think they have to cater to the Mack- wanna be drivers. (And they could be very well selling more trucks because of it) ?? I don't know.
In other words- I think the marketing dept is having a more influential say in the design than the engineering dept.

The pressure for better fuel mileage has been 'on' for a while. That's why Ford has two completely different trucks for 1/2 ton and Super Duty use. It's ridiculous to design a front cowl to accomodate a 6.7L inline six turbodiesel and its cooling needs then also sell it with a 3.7L V6 in a 6000GVWR 2wd 1/2 ton.

[maxnine11]

roger that.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by kaisen

But twist it hard while also on the bump stop and the top of the tire will tuck under the opening

This is unloaded, and still heavily tucked: