Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

What are all your thoughts on the new ram charger? Basically an EV with a gas generator on board to power up the battery as needed.

 

Leaving aside the issue of Ram vs GM, I'm curious how you guys feel about the concept itself, ie: an EV with no range anxiety. More pulling power (well over 600  hp) for towing, a very low/heavy-ish center of gravity for better trailer control, no public charging needed, and when daily driving you just plug it in at night!

 

The devil is in the details though. Price is everything here, as well as implementation (like is it too complicated?). The generator used in this truck is the very popular 3.6 pentastar, though it is only wired into the generator and there is no physical connection to the drivetrain (unlike the volt).

 

I'm mildly optimistic. I want a v8 for many years, but if we're forced into EV's then this is the only truck I'd consider if the price can be kept in check.

Edited by the wanderer
Posted (edited)

Its like the Volt (not 100% the same but simliar) but in a pickup truck.  And the Volt idea was great.  Up to 50 miles of pure EV driving, you could recharge it, and if you needed to go past the just EV range the engine fires up as a generator but could if needed drive the wheels.  RamCharger however just uses the engine strictly as a generator.  

 

So to me, a great product but its late to the game about 5-7 years.  

 

 

Edited by newdude
Posted

I don't see how something can be late to the game when there is no direct competitor (no other EV truck has a generator onboard so they all suffer from range anxiety). The other standard EV's are still ramping up production in a market that is 95% untapped. We're all going to be pushed into EV's, yet nobody is driving them when it comes to trucks. Seems like this charger is being brought out right when it needs to be.

Posted
30 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

I don't see how something can be late to the game when there is no direct competitor (no other EV truck has a generator onboard so they all suffer from range anxiety). The other standard EV's are still ramping up production in a market that is 95% untapped. We're all going to be pushed into EV's, yet nobody is driving them when it comes to trucks. Seems like this charger is being brought out right when it needs to be.

 

 

Late to the game = What they've come up with is pretty much the same idea GM came up with from 2010-2017, the Chevy Volt.  And if we want to get really technical, everyone does keep mentioning how the ICE engine in the Volt "drives the wheels" but at a fully depleted battery.  Its otherwise just a generator like the Ram.  

 

Ram should have had this truck years ago, but FCA/Stellantis always seems broke.  

 

Everyone seems to still be hung up on range anxiety, but its not range anxiety, its charge anxiety.  Silverado EV with the 450mi battery has potentially 450mi of total range.  Towing figure it cuts it 200mi.  For 99% of use cases, there is zero need for a range extender there.  

 

And, the point of EVs coming out is do get away from fossil fuels, not add them into the mix for range extending.  Better batteries (less weight but more energy density), less rolling resistance (more aero) and lighter weight and more affordability are what is needed for EVs to really make them stick for 99% of consumers.   

 

Posted

If you're going to carry an engine strictly for use as a generator, why not diesel? Wouldn't that make the complexity slightly less while improving the overall longevity of the engine?

 

For me, I'll never own any Dodge/Jeep product. There's something about their seat design that isn't compatible with my body. After about an hour behind the wheel, no matter the model, I am extremely sore. I travel for work and have issues with all kinds of Dodge/Jeep vehicles over the years plus I owned a Ram and a Jeep at one point in time - have never been comfortable driving them.

Posted
25 minutes ago, ember1205 said:

If you're going to carry an engine strictly for use as a generator, why not diesel? Wouldn't that make the complexity slightly less while improving the overall longevity of the engine?

 

For me, I'll never own any Dodge/Jeep product. There's something about their seat design that isn't compatible with my body. After about an hour behind the wheel, no matter the model, I am extremely sore. I travel for work and have issues with all kinds of Dodge/Jeep vehicles over the years plus I owned a Ram and a Jeep at one point in time - have never been comfortable driving them.

Because you don’t want that eco-diesel 😂

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, newdude said:

 

 

Late to the game = What they've come up with is pretty much the same idea GM came up with from 2010-2017, the Chevy Volt.  And if we want to get really technical, everyone does keep mentioning how the ICE engine in the Volt "drives the wheels" but at a fully depleted battery.  Its otherwise just a generator like the Ram.  

 

Ram should have had this truck years ago, but FCA/Stellantis always seems broke.  

 

Everyone seems to still be hung up on range anxiety, but its not range anxiety, its charge anxiety.  Silverado EV with the 450mi battery has potentially 450mi of total range.  Towing figure it cuts it 200mi.  For 99% of use cases, there is zero need for a range extender there.  

 

And, the point of EVs coming out is do get away from fossil fuels, not add them into the mix for range extending.  Better batteries (less weight but more energy density), less rolling resistance (more aero) and lighter weight and more affordability are what is needed for EVs to really make them stick for 99% of consumers.   

 

 

The concept of a gas engine generating electric power on board is not exactly new and exciting. That's how diesel trains have worked for decades, so this is not some earth shattering discovery on GM's part with the volt. This idea makes far more sense in a truck than a commuter car which just shuttles back and forth between home/work and can be kept charged overnight. A (work) truck can have other needs, like immense amounts of power and unpredictable destinations that change every day.

 

However that misses the point. This truck has no competition. By definition it can't be late to a game when it's the first one there. You can say that Ram should have had this years ago, but I don't see Ford or GM building one, do you?

 

And as for range/charge anxiety, you can call it what you will but the problem is the same: guys who regularly pull trailers will never buy a pure EV in the next 2 decades. The battery capacity is not there, the charge time is too slow, the chargers are too few and far between especially in rural areas, and that doesn't even get into the uglyness of charging where you block other spots or have to disconnect your trailer to fit into the tiny EV spot.

 

An onboard gas generator completely eliminates all this. It's really the best of both worlds.

 

Finally; as I said in the first post it'd be nice if we can stick to the idea (gas generator on board) vs the brand.

Edited by the wanderer
Posted

As for the diesel, no way you can fit a modern diesel into a small package like this along with the generator, battery, emissions, def etc etc. Diesel weighs significantly more as well making an already heaviest truck in the class even heavier.

Posted

If I was to buy an electric truck. I would put a generator in the back like my 1500$ stand by generator for my house. I would use rubber mounts have a bed cover run the exhaust to the truck exhaust. Easy plum job. I would open the bed cover fire up the generator. But of course the electric trucks are way too expensive, why bother?

Posted
13 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

If I was to buy an electric truck. I would put a generator in the back like my 1500$ stand by generator for my house. I would use rubber mounts have a bed cover run the exhaust to the truck exhaust. Easy plum job. I would open the bed cover fire up the generator. But of course the electric trucks are way too expensive, why bother?

Ok, I gave it a few minutes. There’s no exhaust on an electric truck. 

  • Haha 1
Posted

I haven't read up on it but I'll certainly check it out when I'm ready to swap trucks. I've had about 8 Rsm/Dodge trucks. Last being a 2019 Ram Limited which was a great truck. I liked the air suspension and the interior was the best truck interior by far at the time. The GMC Denali Ultimate interior rivals the Ram Limited. If the Ram has the new Hurricane twin turbo straight 6 along with the hybrid electric drive I will really interested in it if offered in the Tungsten model. I had the F150 Powerboost.. That was fine till it broke. The dealers can't diag and/or fix them. 

Posted

Let me understand this...

 

This truck has a full onboard ev system? Then it has a full onboard V6?

 

So you have the complexity of a EV and the complexity of a V6 in one truck.

 

Won't this V6 have to have emissions? O2 sensor, a cat, a gas tank and evap components for it, a charging system, a water pump, and cooling system. 

 

Dodge, Mopar, Chrysler, Ram Stenatlas(sp) whatever it is today, needs to die and just go away.

Posted (edited)

https://www.ramtrucks.com/revolution/ram-1500-ramcharger.html

 

I think this is brilliant. EV running around town. Then load it up and take off for Florida. Able to drive straight thru with only one stop for gas (690 mile range). Hands free driving of some sort. Hopefully equal to Super Cruise. Best of both worlds. Doesn't have the Hurricane....the only con for me. 

Edited by Jus Cruisin
Posted
14 hours ago, the wanderer said:

As for the diesel, no way you can fit a modern diesel into a small package like this along with the generator, battery, emissions, def etc etc. Diesel weighs significantly more as well making an already heaviest truck in the class even heavier.

So, we can put a diesel engine in a vehicle capable of pulling 80,000 pounds but we can't put an appropriately sized one in a pickup... to run a generator? A diesel engine, comparable in size and power output to what the V6 gas engine can do would add... a couple hundred pounds overall max?

 

We can have the diesel in the truck to directly operate the truck, but it won't fit if there's a generator added on. Which already adds more weight. There seems to be a lot of holes in this rationale. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,633 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...