What ever happen to the Hybrid engine?
When Dodge started to release info and due events on our 4th gen in 2008. In one of the you tube posting the chief desginer of the truck was talking about a hybrid engine, and it was suppose to be released in 2010.
Whatever happen to it?
Also it looks like Ram(Dodge) needs to redesgin the engines again to compete against the new Ford ones.

 

Lack of interest

Dodge has decided to cancel its Ram 1500 two-mode hybrid truck.
Autoblog Green explains, "The Ram two-mode hybrid was scheduled for release as a 2011 model. We even have shots of the truck in testing from a year ago. As recently as a few months back, Chrysler insisted that the program was still under way and on track to hit its target release date. Then, just weeks ago, news surfaced temporarily confirming that the hybrid Ram was still on track – in fact a production schedule was even laid out showing an expected production date of November of this year."
But, PickupTrucks.com reports, "Chrysler has canceled plans to sell a gas-electric hybrid version of the Ram 1500, according to a press release issued this morning by the company." The reasoning was simple: "Chrysler wasn't sure the Ram Hybrid could be successful in the market based on slow sales of GM's Two Mode hybrid pickups."

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...at-500-Coming/

 

Are they surprised? I don't think there's anything appealing about an electric truck. People who drive trucks don't buy them because of the gas milage. I know I wouldn't buy one. Just my opinion.

 

hy birds are dumb, stupid and add a lot of a coin to a allready expensive model line up and they don't give you any extra mpg for the up sized price, you can buy a lot of flue for optional cost of a hybird.

Do you have faith for ford with thier new line up engines when every othier Triton and 3valve triton engines are gas hogs and under rated in H/P and Tourqe numbers?

If Ford can prove the eco boast v/6 has life past warenty issues, than thier no need for the thought of a hybird pick up.

 

Electric cars simply do not work in the United States. In countries that are based off of nuclear energy or renewable sources such as wind and water, then it would indeed make a difference... In the U.S. however, the power grid is vastly made up of coal fuel... Coal = fossil fuel... Oil = fossil fuel... Sure, it looks better when you look at our oil consumption, but you're still relying on fossil fuel and foreign dependents.

Now, I understand that the main goal of this post was hybrid vehicles which means that you wouldn't have to plug the vehicle in, but another thing to consider is that there is a much more precious material at stake with those cars than just oil..

These hybrid vehicle's batteries are composed of Lithium cell batteries... Great power source, but Li is in demand and we can't find an abundance of it. Pop Sci actually has a nice little chart showing elemental demands, but damned if I can find it right now.


Found it. http://www.popsci.com/science/galler...-left-elements

 

Yeah I'm no expert on the matter, but from what I've read and heard, it would cost more to maintain those vehicles with the batteries that are in them. They have to be replaced after so many years and they're not cheap. Seems like a good idea, but I don't see it catching on anytime soon.

 

I wouldn't own one, I couldn't trust it to work proper especially during my winter were we can have -50 some time.
I was just curious regarding the current standing of the program. On the online interview the engineer was really excited about the development of it.

 

If Chrysler wants to impress me, they will do something along the lines of what Ford has done with their V6 motor. Manufactures have known for years that turbo charged engines not only net us better fuel economy, but if engineered correctly, they will indeed outlast a naturally aspirated motor. Why? Motors that are built for forced inducted applications tend to have lower compression ratios as compared to a natural aspiration motor which will have higher compression ratios. Lower compression = less wear while higher compression usually means more wear. Another idea would be to insert another I4 diesel motor. Cummins has one right at this moment, but sadly, there is simply not enough demand for Chrysler to incorporate that motor into their trucks.

It's a catch 22 in my book. I mean, I love seeing how many miles I can get per gallon, but I know that I bought a truck and I know that whatever I do, it will not be all that great compared to the hamster powered golf cart cruising down the highway next to me. Compared to the fuel economy I used to see, my 2010 is a vast improvement. If I ever saw 13.2MPG out of my 1997 5.2 while cruising down the highway at 70MPH, I was coasting. Now it seems that I can get anywhere from 16.2 to 18.5 depending on what state I'm in, the gas and the weather.

People do indeed ask me all the time why I have a truck. You never see me hauling anything and you never see me towing. My reason for having a mammoth sized truck is that I feel confident that when Ms. Head up *** who is snarfing down a big mac and has her blackberry shoved in her head runs a red light and T bones my ***, that I'll walk away. It's a safety choice that I've made and I'll gladly take 16MPG to feel save compared to 48MPG and wonder what would happen when if that semi truck next to me veered over into my lane.

 

lol...that's a good reason. I don't necessarily haul stuff all the time, but it's nice to know I can if I want. Plus I like playin in the mud and the snow without gettin stuck. It's kinda nice when you're driving down the highway in the winter and you're not one of the guys in the ditch.