To butcher a line from Shrek, The 2024 Ram 1500 REV is like an onion. While Ford and GM were keen to announce electric half-ton pickup trucks and some of their key specs well before expected production dates, Ram seems more interested in peeling things back layer by layer. After a Super Bowl commercial and a styling debut in February, we now have far more details on Stellantis’ electric pickup truck. It turns out that two absolutely enormous battery packs play a huge part in making this electric truck stand out from the crowd.
Styling
While we’ve already touched on the styling of the Ram 1500 REV, that was when it was fresh and the Revolution concept was still on our minds. See, designers have this thing called soak time where they take a design, keep it where they can see it, but put a pin in it. The premise is that if you familiarize yourself with a design, you’ll find that passing judgement is easier. On the face of things, the Ram 1500 REV looks handsome, if conventional. It’s certainly not Avalanche-in-a-fun-house-mirror like the Chevrolet Silverado EV, but it’s a slightly more dramatic change from its gas-powered equivalent than the Ford F-150 Lightning. The tuning fork daytime running lights look interesting and perform a neat optical illusion. The actual headlights are mounted on the fenders and the area in between the forks looks to be a dummy lamp.
Unlike its dino-burning equivalent, the Ram 1500 REV uses a flush-fit bumper cover that eliminates the gap between the frame-mounted bumper and cab. It’s a smart and modern look, and the plastic bumper cover should theoretically bounce back from minor bumps. Of course, if you hit a raccoon at 70 mph, a more typical steel bumper is the way to go, but the 1500 REV’s plastic cover should work in the majority of situations. Plus, although I’d imagine that tightening up the bumper gap doesn’t create a massive aerodynamic benefit, every bit counts when trying to make something this brick-shaped have a 0.34 Cd.
Out back, Ram has freshened up appearances with hockey stick-shaped tail lamps flowing onto the tailgate. While this may not be an idea on traditional trucks considering how common tailgate theft is, I have a feeling that the tailgate on a well-equipped Ram 1500 REV will be much harder to remove than the tailgate on a base gas truck. Yes, a power tailgate is on the options list, and that power mechanism has to go somewhere and bolt in securely.
Other than the updated fascias, some new badging, and the curiosity of eight-lug hubs, the Ram 1500 REV looks exactly the same as the combustion-powered model. I’ve always thought that Ram makes the most handsome, tasteful half-ton truck of this model cycle, so it’s reassuring to see the same familiar, confident body lines we’re all used to. Don’t get me wrong, a more dramatic truck would’ve been cool, but the target audience wants a conventional truck more than anything. After all, you don’t see too many tradies drinking the Cybertruck bong water. [Ed Note: Also, to put it explicitly, this helps Ram save money. -DT]
Huge Batteries
Exterior over, let’s talk powertrain. Slung between the frame rails of the Ram 1500 REV’s STLA Frame architecture is a truly massive 168 kWh worth of capacity. That’s 37 kWh more than the optional extended-range battery pack in a Ford F-150 Lightning, or roughly 7.63 times the capacity of David’s BMW i3 when it was new. All this to go an estimated 350 miles, huh? But wait, there’s more. Ram 1500 REV customers can opt for a gargantuan 229 kWh battery pack that Ram hopes will offer 500 miles of range. Remember when Indiana Jones whipped out his gun in a swordfight and just blasted a golf ball-sized hole in that dude? That’s basically what Ram’s trying to pull here.
Even though Ram claims that the 1500 REV’s 800-volt architecture can charge at up to 350 kW, it’s going to take a long time (relative to the gas truck) to juice up a 229 kWh battery pack. If 500 miles still isn’t enough for you, Ram claims to be working on an XR model, although it’s playing coy on what those letters mean. Don’t be surprised if they stand for “extended range.” I wonder if that model might feature a range-extending combustion-powered generator; sometimes excess is never enough.
Power, Payload, Towing
Speaking of excess, let’s talk power. Dual 250 kW electric motors with a combined output of 654 horsepower should slingshot the Ram 1500 REV to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. For those of you keeping track at home, that’s an eyelash quicker than an original Viper in something the same size and weight as Abe Lincoln’s stiff, white monument. Oh, and it blows the Ram SRT-10’s zero-to-60 time out of the water, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the old V10 beast holds onto its top speed title.
So, lots of power, lots of torque, and lots of battery capacity. That’s interesting on paper, but how does it help the Ram 1500 REV do actual truck work? Well, Ram expects maximum payload clock in at 2,700 pounds and a maximum towing capacity of 14,000 pounds. That’s an extra 465 pounds and 4,000 pounds over the respective maximum capacities of the Ford F-150 Lightning, or 400 and 1,250 pounds over the respective maximum capacities of a properly-equipped ICE-powered Ram 1500. It’s a weird world when a brand’s most capable half-ton truck is electric, but that’s 2023 for you.
Off-Road Cred
As for off-road cred, the Ram 1500 REV has all-terrain tires on the options list and its rear drive motor is available with a proper locking differential. This is exactly the sort of stuff you’d expect from any half-ton truck. Less expected is a claimed 24 inches of water fording depth, partly thanks to standard air suspension, but mostly due to the new powertrain. That’s not exactly flood-rated, but it should be fine for small washouts and the like [Editor’s Note: The current Ram’s rather low limit for water fording is mentioned in the owner’s manual: “Always check the depth of the standing water before driving through it. Never drive through standing water that is deeper than the bottom of the tire rims mounted on the vehicle.” -DT]. Unsurprisingly, there’s no low range offered here, but the instant low-end torque of electric motors should be an acceptable alternative for most places anyone sensible would take a vehicle this enormous.
The Frunk
While certain trims of the regular Ram 1500 are available with a hood bulge, the REV gets a cargo bulge for all your junk in the frunk. It’s power-operated because anyone who isn’t an NBA player couldn’t possibly be expected to reach it when open, and it covers a whopping 15 cu.-ft. of space. Throw your tools in there, charge them up with 3.6 kW of available frunk power, and keep them safe from prying eyes. Oh, and if that’s not enough juice for you, Ram claims that a power panel in the bed can supply up to 7.2 kW if you want to set up a rotating stack of shawarma meat at your next tailgate party. Speaking of, if you’re setting up a rotating stack of shawarma meat at your next party, let me know; I’ll be there.
Trim Levels
From work trucks to luxury cars in disguise, half-ton trucks offer a wide array of trim levels and the Ram 1500 REV is no exception. It can be ordered in five trims: Tradesman, Big Horn or Lone Star depending on whether or not you live in Texas, Laramie, Limited, and a new one right at the tippy top called Tungsten. Why Tungsten? I don’t know, maybe because tungsten carbide makes for some hard-ass drill bits.
So what makes the Tungsten trim so fancy? Well, aside from a bunch of tech, it gets a two-tone blue and white interior that should never see a job site, a suede headliner, diamond knurling, silver trim officially described with more adjectives than a game of Mad Libs, metal pedals, a special shift knob, and a console-mounted VIN plate so you can pretend that your cowboy Cadillac is any different from the tens of thousands just like it. It sounds terrible for truck stuff but awesome as an alternative to a Mercedes-Benz EQS in case you want an electric luxury machine, have a lot of money to blow, and make some of the most scrambled playlists Spotify has ever seen.
Even if you don’t pop for the extra-fancy trim, you can still get an absolutely bewildering array of in-cabin technology. A digital gauge cluster and a huge infotainment screen are par for the course in today’s EVs, but the Ram 1500 REV offers something extra: A front passenger display that’s a bit like what’s optional on many Ferrari models. Although this 10.25-inch screen can show navigation route guidance, exterior camera views, and energy stats, it’s not for monitoring how many gs you’re pulling. Instead, its primary focus is on entertainment, especially since it features an HDMI input. Plug in a gaming console, connect to the truck’s Wi-Fi hot spot, and the front passenger can play Warzone on road trips.
Of course, visual entertainment needs to come paired with auditory pleasure, so Klipsch has lent its name to the top-of-the-line sound system featuring 23 speakers, which I’d love to play some testing tracks through, particularly as Klipsch isn’t owned by Harman International. It would be especially interesting if this were a Voxx International system, a break from the uninspiring sameness of Harman’s soulless Clari-Fi codec.
As far as EV-focused in-cabin tech, the infotainment system gains a whole host of what Ram is calling “EV pages,” with some of them sounding very useful indeed. Anyone who’s used public DC fast charging networks knows that they’re absolutely terrible, a mess of NFC cards, pre-loaded accounts, and general reprehensible fuckery. It would be great if every station had working credit card readers but until that happens, plug-and-charge capability is the best we’re going to get. Thankfully, the Ram 1500 REV supports it.
In addition to plug-and-charge capability, another desirable feature for EV owners is to limit charging rate and maximum charge. High-kilowatt fast charging can really take a toll on a vehicle’s battery pack over time. Plus, it’s generally considered healthy to keep a battery buffer in day-to-day operation. By placing restrictions on charging, the idea is that owners can reduce battery degradation.
Of course, EV tech wouldn’t be complete without a few nags, and the Ram 1500 REV has a bunch of them. It’ll suggest when it’s best to charge and what habits can increase range, but sometimes those tips just aren’t worth it. On the other hand, it’s kind of neat to see historical power flow almost like your iPhone’s battery page.
More Like An F-150 Lightning, Less Like A Rivian R1T
Overall, the Ram 1500 REV doesn’t break the mold, but that’s a good thing. It probably won’t scare off existing Ram customers, and being late to the electric truck party has given Stellantis the chance to offer more of what the people want. In this case, more range than any other electric truck out there and more toys than a branch of Gamestop combine to make a very compelling on-paper argument. Of course, we need to try the Ram 1500 REV out for ourselves to pass a final verdict since trucks aren’t driven on paper, but all signs so far point to it being a hot contender.
(Photo credits: Ram)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Ram 1500 REV: Ram’s Electric Pickup Is Here
-
Engineering Expert Sandy Munro Takes A First Look At The Ram Revolution’s ‘STLA Frame’ Platform. Here’s What He Thinks
-
The 2022 Ford Lightning Is Just A Standard F-150 With An Electric Powertrain And That’s Why It’s Going To Change The World
-
Here’s What Our Professional Car Designer Thinks Of The Ram 1500 Revolution
-
The Ram 1500 Revolution Is A Three-Row EV Wondertruck For The Future
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
so how long do I have before there’s one of these with off-road lights on tailgating me in the slow lane despite the fact that I’m already doing 10 over and the fast lane is wide open?
Careful there, Sport. The Bro-driver may Ram you to get you out of his way.
don’t worry, he’ll pass you on the right when he gets a chance
With a 229kwh battery pack this truck will actually be worse for the environment than a conventional ICE vehicle. On average, battery pack production will generate about 0.12 tons per kwh (source here). With a 229kwh battery pack, you’re looking at 29 tons worth of CO2 emitted just from production alone. To put that into perspective, 29 tons is roughly equivalent the emissions generated from driving a 22mpg Ram 1500 the national average of 11,500 miles a year for 13 years. The amount of emissions generated from that battery pack is truly astonishing, and if you actually want to have a positive impact on the climate you wouldn’t be buying a gigantic pickup truck like that in the first place. It’s also likely to be incredibly heavy, considering the battery pack is larger than the 9000lb Hummer EV’s. I’m an avid supporter of electric cars, but this truck is needlessly excessive and wasteful, and we haven’t even talked about the dangers to pedestrians and other motorists posed by this truck.
It’ll be pushing close to 10k lbs unladen.
And well over that when Joe Bro picks up my mom for a date.
You’re cherry picking the worst possible data from your source, then claiming that as fact.
Stellantis haven’t specified the battery technology used, nor where the battery will be produced.
From your own source, if it’s lithium ion and produced in the US or Europe as is likely to gain the IRA tax credits, the largest battery may be produced with only 6870kg of emissions, or 6.87 metric tons of CO2 emissions, which is less than 1/4 of your claim.
What you say is possible, but incredibly unlikely, and doesn’t consider any possible improvement in the manufacturing processes that are certainly being achieved. You’re using panic journalism techniques similar to biased sources.
I strongly dislike conspicuous consumption, but I don’t believe in cherry picking data to generate almost impossibly improbable worst-case scenarios to discourage it.
Not cherry picking, a 220Kwh battery can’t not be horrible for everybody and everything. It would take some colossal improvements in battery manufacturing for the battery alone not to produce more emissions than an entire Honda.
Look at the article he cited and actually linked. It was cherry picked for the worst possible scenario.
That doesn’t mean a huge battery isn’t bad when it’s not needed. But it’s a neutral item, whose ultimate utility and value depends on what it is replacing, and whose CO2 costs are nowhere near what gk 450 stated.
This degree of exaggeration doesn’t help. In fact, posts like gk 450’s hurt the credibility of those who want real change and environmental responsibility, by making anti-pollution facts seem less credible and reliable.
I don’t think drivers of the Ram Road-Rage Electric Vehicle are going to be worried about the various wildlife that explodes upon impact with the front bumper.
Hell, I’m pretty sure if I get nailed in a crosswalk by this thing the first person to even notice will be the car wash pre-spray attendant a few days later when he notices my ring finger sticking out of the grille.
I’m just over here in my 2000 Ford Ranger EV with 40 miles of range going to Home Depot and the local dump no problem, which probably weighs less altogether than this thing’s battery pack alone. But I guess bros gotta bro harder with the bro-dozers and such.
How exactly do non-NBA people use the hood on ICE trucks? They go up at least as high as a frunk lid will. I guess it’s less of an issue because you don’t open the hood often?
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Entertainment screens do not belong in the front seat of any vehicle. Even if they’re in front of the passenger, they’re still incredibly distracting to the driver. Those screens are literally going to get people killed when someone watching the screen from the driver’s seat mows down a pedestrian or a smaller car not designed to stand up to an 8000 lb behemoth.
The level of distraction allowed in modern cars is absurd and it needs to be regulated by NHTSA.
Many years ago I gave a jump start to a short statured young lady, who asked if she should shut my hood while I was putting the cables back behind the seat.
After watching several attempts at jumping to grab the grille of my stock height truck, I guided her to the side of the truck where she could walk the hood down.
These engineers have clearly grasped the obliviousness of the general public.
These are going to result in so much unused / wasted battery capacity. So stupid.
Not if they are used for towing. This probably brings towing range in line with an ICE 1500.
Also, range anxiety is a huge thing, and has been a major factor in slow uptake of EVs.
150 miles of Hwy range when towing 8k lbs… Or less.
…wait for the Real-World results.
The only people talking about “range anxiety” are those who want to sow doubt to slow EV uptake. Talk to anybody who has owned an EV for more than 3 weeks and ask them whether this is a thing or not.
I don’t think the target consumer for these knows the words “range anxiety”
KIA…. oh no it says RAM
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again. If electric cars are supposed to be good for the environment, this is missing the mark.
Depending on which studies you read, a Model 3 with an 82Kwh battery is roughly half the lifetime co2 of a comparable midsize sedan. A huge proportion of those emissions comes from the battery manufacture and disposal.
A giant pickup with a 220Kwh battery definitely produces at least double the lifetime emissions of a Model 3. Meaning, this is unquestionably worse for the environment, in every metric, than driving an Accord or something. Obviously ditto for the Hummer.
Also, if it has 8 lug wheels I refuse to call it a half ton. Those 8 lug wheels are for the 3/4 ton gawr. Yes I understand it doesn’t have 3/4 ton level payload. Something with 3/4 ton axles and 1/2 ton payload I call bad at being a pickup.
Say it louder for the folks in the back
Why would a Model 3 be a relevant benchmark for this in the least? A BMW 3 series and a Ram 1500 aren’t competitors, why would electric equivalents compete either?
Compare the gas Ram to this, like for like.
Because a majority of buyers will be daily driving it as if it were.
It’s still worse. I’ve never seen an automaker try so hard to design a pickup truck for people who’ve never worked with their hands a day in their life.
Lol I can never forget that I’m in the realm of the “buy only what you need” police.
Or is it the “no one actually tows with their truck, how absurd a notion” police?
Or is it the “anyone who buys a truck must be compensating for their anatomy” weirdos?
I hope they sell a million to people who drive 2 miles a day just to piss you guys off.
People will buy this truck for the same reason they buy umbrellas, it doesn’t rain everyday, but I sure want the umbrella when it does.
I don’t need a truck everyday, but when I do, I have one.
Not me personally, however I get why people buy them, plus this is still America, where we are free to spend our money as we want too.
Just using the Model 3 as an example of comparing gas to electric. This Ram is very possibly less emissions than a gas Ram……. which is still too much………
If we care about the environment, what we really need is El Caminos. The emissions of a car, the payload of a half ton. That’s kinda what the Maverick is, but a Maverick with an 18″ bed and a 63lb payload isn’t gonna be replacing any half ton pickups any time soon.
Yep, ~200 kWh is getting into entry level electric class 6-8 regional haul trucks territory. Just like the current HD diesel pickup trucks that have powertrains comparable to a regional bus or box truck, that are mostly used to move a few people around, just a waste of resources.
…so, your thoughts on Ford’s 7-lug wheels?
The f150s that have 7 lug axles literally have 3/4 of a ton of payload capacity. Those are 3/4 ton pickups, with a simple case of putting the wrong badge on. They also put the same 7 lug axles under actual 3/4 ton chassis.
Tome for a comparison test (remember those?) between this, the Lightning, and the R1T
This has my attention. Up until now I’ve been interested in the Ford Powerboost because I need to tow, but with a 500 mile range and hints of a range extender, I might be all in on this thing…even if it’s pricey. We’ll have to see. But if I could get 250 miles pulling a trailer and have a range extender and fast charging I’d be pretty happy and willing to put up with the hassles to be ahead of the curve. The price might be the rub (pricey or absurd?), but we’ll have to see.
150 miles range or less with 8k lb trailer. Get used to lots of coffee breaks while waiting to plug into an open Public charger.
The rated 14k towing capacity is reportedly achievable only with the smaller of the 2 battery packs…
Ford and RAM seem to understand how to do this. GM’s Silverado/Sierra look super weird. I think I like this RAM variant better than all three in looks and on paper though. I won’t be able to afford the RAM or any of the others, regardless. The weight coupled with the acceleration/top speed has got to be something to be regulated. Things are going to be really scary soon.
GM’s trucks look fine.
How much is this damn behemoth going to weigh? We’re already having issues with how dangerous our current crop of tiny wiener compensation vehicles are to pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles and this will provide the same human eviscerating size with an additional 4 figures of poundage. Oy vey…
This x1000
Less than the Hummer at least
More than the Hummer if Ram uses large capacity battery pack. Wait for the details.
Is it going to be drivable in Europe without a commercial truck license?
A CDL should be mandatory anywhere this thing can be sold.
CDLs are not required until you reach 26,000 lbs GVWR in the US.
Speaking purely aesthetically, this sure looks like a win to me. It’s a nice balance of conventional with a proper dash of EV-specialness. As Thomas says, the Silverado EV takes the futurist approach way too far, and the Lightning doesn’t take it far enough. Much as the conventional Ram 1/2T is the best-looking of the Big Three, I think the Stellantis team is to be commended here.
And speaking as a design professional, I can attest to the value of “soak time.” It’s amazing how many great ideas turn to shit through the lens of overnight or even a few hours’ consideration.
Its cool, I guess. good to see more options in electric, I like that it is more Lightning than cybertruck. but that front is ugly. but just ugly stick ugly, not beaten with an ugly brick like the silverado.
You can’t see the ugly front end from the driver’s seat.
You can’t see pedestrians either
Now Ram will be in a bit of a dillema. 229kWh for a crew cab pickup truck that is supposed to hold 5 people and potentially some amount of stuff in the truck bed AND maybe tow something at the same time? I’m guessing that the 229kWh will have to go over the 10,000 lbs GVWR threshold and the lower pack might be able to stay under 10,000 lbs. GVWR.
Truck tow ratings are based on a 200-250lb driver in cab, no additional passengers or luggage/cargo in cab or bed…
And I would drive five hundred miles
But I won’t drive five hundred more
‘Cause to be the man who drove a thousand miles
Needs a charging network that’s less poor.
Da da da da! (Da da da da!)
I shudder at the thought of the price. As a concept, I like it as it is taking a well known vehicle and making it EV. I use pick ups for dump runs, home improvement store runs, short hauls in beds, and general use. This could fit the bill.
If I was hauling 5th wheel trailers, then I am looking at other options.
Dude the Tradesman will only be
$40,000$45,000$49,000$57,000!A 10-15 year old Tacoma would suit your use needs just fine.
I’m curious to know what curb weight is. I definitely never want to be in accident but I really hope I’m never on the receiving end of a run red light by this beast.
not to mention the impact on our infrastructure, which could already be mistaken for that of a developing country’s
I work with a lot of pavement engineers, and I’ve learned that stress on pavement is exponential with weight. Pavements are designed for heavy trucks with 18,000lb axle weights. Pavement design basically doesn’t even consider light vehicles – all that matters is the expected number of heavy trucks. My understanding is that the weight of EVs, even heavy EV pickups, is projected to have negligible impact on roads/highways. There are a lot of other issues with EVs, but infrastructure impact is one of those anti-EV canards that really needs to die.
Highway pavement, yes. So I agree that we don’t need to worry about the impact on our public infrastructure. But if you’ve ever parked a car in the same spot in your driveway for a time, then you know that eventually little divots form where the tires always sit. My old house had this, and my spot at work is starting to develop it as well, and the heaviest thing I drive is a Colorado. Park a 229kwh battery in a typical driveway for any time at all and I guarantee it will succumb, because historically driveways have just never been made with these kind of weights in mind.
QQ what material is your driveway? It has to be blacktop yes? I’ve never experienced this with concrete (or heard of anyone experiencing this), outside of blacktop
That is purely a blacktop issue. And only an issue if they skimp on the base prep (which always happens in private pave projects). Nobody wants to pay the extra to meet roadway standards.
this is 100% correct. remembering my courses in flexible pavements and roadway design and nothing lighter than an empty box truck really matters. EVs are negligible. Even the Hummer.
It’s possible that our current design standards are out of date and time will tell. I think there may be some exacerbated washboarding issues at stoplights on high speed surface roads where they use flexible pavements as the saturation of high GVWR consumer vehicles increases. But, I don’t think that will matter for 10-20 years. And, even then, we already have pavement mixes to deal with that. So, we can just spec different mixes for the next re-pave.
This is why large 18-wheelers should be paying nearly 100% of the road taxes. They account for the vast majority of the road wear not caused by weather. We’re being forced to subsidize the trucking industry.
Then you just pay for it in the cost of goods you buy. It’s not like shifting the cost makes it go away.
Also, FYI, a lot of wear is attributable to Environmental factors anyway. Either VOCs getting baked out by the sun or freeze/thaw and deicer damage. And that is not attributable to any specific vehicle. So, there is still a large portion of the cost that is really fairly apportioned to non-commercial consumers.
Trucks mean the pavement has to be thicker. Commuters mean we need more lanes. Tragedy of the commons.
if you work for the DOT, yeah. But more lanes just translates to more traffic according to every traffic analysis ever
More lanes don’t lessen traffic or traffic congestion.
Agree. Induced demand is real.
We’re being forced to subsidize a number of things…
sure, a brand new pour with a proper mix and proper ground prep, but what about the random ass patchwork of 3″ of asphalt and 15 year old concrete and whatever else that makes up most of the streets in this country?
18,000-lb axles have been the standard for all pavement designs since at least the early 1960s. I think it’s fair to say that nearly all city streets and paved county roads are designed/maintained using engineered pavement designs. Even if the original road was built prior to the 1960s, whatever is there now would have been engineered for the truck traffic forecast at the time it was last rehabilitated. Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. would quickly destroy any street not engineered for truck loads.
I found this page: (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/equivalent-single-axle-load/) with information that somewhat explains the background. I can’t 100% vouch for the content, but it seems consistent with what I’ve learned elsewhere. It also has a little table that shows the exponential nature of loading. I learned that it’s actually not exactly exponential, but instead it’s roughly a 4th-power relationship between load and damage. Vehicles under 10,000-lb (per axle) are way down in the round-off zone in terms of the damage they cause.
I’m not an engineer, but as I’ve had the opportunity to work with engineers, it’s been fascinating to learn about how much goes into maintaining our infrastructure.
Articulated BYD electric buses have been going past my house few hundred times a day for about 3 years, haven’t noticed any more wear than normal.
Mark and Jack at Savagegeese recently interviewed actual engineers as part of their new Honda Pilot review.
The engineers straight up said that their new platforms are being designed to be in collisions with vehicles in the 5000 – 7000lb range.
Curb weight will be roughly 17 tons. So, extremely reasonable.
It’ll be over 9k lbs, likely closer to 10k lbs.
Still sad they showed off the bed extending into the cab concept for no reason other than to torment me. Oh well, life is a meaningless abyss of disappointment and heartbreak.
Yeah I was very bummed by that too. The timing of the concept reveal was strange though. It’s almost like it was meant to be released at least a year before the actual production model would be unveiled, not a month and a half or so. It was clear that Ram had been working on this REV for at least a couple years, so when was the initial REV concept created?
I think the 500mile is under optimal conditions. Watch it be around 350. The other thing im concerned about is the massive fires the battery can create because of the large battery size.
If you think that battery fire is big, you should check out what kind of fireball a 31 gallon gas tank can make.
You mean the cooler shorter lived fire that can be put out in 10 minutes, and not the 8 to 12 hour intense fireball that is as hot as the sun? Right,
The thing is that as awful as the battery fires are, they are far, far less frequent than fires from gas powered cars. The batteries are placed in protective enclosures. The manufactures know battery fires are a bad look and put a lot of emphasis on that. That is very different than what is happening in China where these things are catching fire regularly since there is not near the level of safety standards.
Normally Im all for nuance, but Im not sure why youd rather spend 10 minutes in a gasoline fire than 8-12 hours in a battery fire.
The Left will outlaw gasoline fires.
Keep the politics on fox news
Keep the politics off this site
How big was a Pinto tank?
…let it go, man. Just let it go.
I know that the battle of range continues, but I was kind of hoping that they were going to go with the range extender and a smaller battery. I’m guessing the XR will instead pair the range extender to the most massive battery possible.
500 miles in the big battery version will certainly sell these, though.
Honestly, with how rarely most people will use more than 200 miles of the 500 miles of range, the range extender might be “greener”. In general, EVs have lower lifetime emissions, but at some point, the battery is so big and offers so little incremental capability that the manufacturing emissions of the battery outweigh the very occasional use of a little range extender.
Extra range gives diminishing returns and going from 400 to 500 is VERY diminished returns for *most* use cases.
But with a truck, empty range is not the only consideration.
500 miles empty might mean 250 miles towing. Going from 200 to 250 is probably a bigger boost to usability than 400 to 500.
While true, I would still have rather seen the extra space go to a range extender and fuel tank, which would probably be more useful for towing range, too. Hoping the XR version offers a reasonably small battery with range extender (even if it also offers a massive battery with extender, too). Just seems like it would best cover the use case of a lot of people.
Of course, but my point is that only a tiny handful of people, even truck owners, are towing further than 200 miles (or driving >400 miles w/o towing) frequently.
For those that do tow long distance frequently, it’s probably worth it, but there will likely be tons of people buying this that will rarely use greater than 400 miles (or greater than 200 miles towing) that will see VERY diminished returns compared to the 400mi/200mi towing version, or for that matter a 300mi/150mi towing version. As a result, the extra 100kWh of battery that rarely gets used is almost 2 Model 3s or a base Lightning worth of battery that are just along for the ride 350 days per year.
I would suggest that those people buy the smaller battery then. It’s hard to imagine this thing with the big battery will cost under $100,000, so presumably people won’t be buying it unless they see value in that extra range.
Tons of commenters here fall into the trap of assuming other people’s vehicular use is (or maybe should be) just like theirs (minimal road trips, minimal towing, no need for a large battery or a truck). I would counter that Ram (and the other OEMs) know their customers, and offer this battery size and range for a reason.
If you want to get everyone into an EV, that includes everyone who uses more energy in their daily lives or recreational activities than you do. Calling that usage “wasteful” just adds resentment and defeats the point.
A lot of people also overbuy. People often look at EVs or pickups and want something that is more than they will actually use. A 2500 to pull jet skis a few times a year and an annual trip with a camper that a Ranger would easily pull. A 500 mile range because they take a road trip each summer that could be planned with meal/charging breaks instead of assuming they’d drive straight through.
I’m not saying everyone, but a large portion of buyers would find that they could do with less than they think they need, but they buy more than they believe they need now, just in case, putting them a couple classes beyond their real needs.
A smaller battery and a range extender would cover the day-to-day needs of most people on all battery and add that additional range for towing/longer trips. It would mean less weight, less battery manufacturing, and might even be more efficient.
Ram does know the customer, though. Getting the longest range and the most towing capability will be a selling point, regardless of actual need/use.
I’m with you on the range extender, and I think most buyers would be better off with one. Even with 229 kWh, towing will still be a challenge for a pure EV.
I’m just not ever in favor of policing other people’s buying habits vs what someone else thinks they “need”.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to police buying habits. Marketing habits, maybe. We’ve convinced a LOT of people that they need a lot more vehicle than they do. I don’t even blame the buyers for that. Sure, consumers could do a better job taking an honest look at their uses and getting something that suits their needs, but a market saturated in massive pickups and SUVs has people like my mother choosing a massive SUV just to be high enough to feel she can see around the other massive SUVs. Spec competitions have people buying things that can tow way more than they’re actually towing. And even here, where people have often driven a number of malaise-era cars, I sometimes see people worried that a 0-60 speed of 8 seconds is unsafe.
I’m not going to deny that people have differing needs. But I’m not willing to assume that America actually went from needing sedans and half-ton or compact pickups to needing SUVs and 3/4 ton pickups in the past 30 years. Sure, buying a vehicle is a lot more about emotion than logic for most people, but the manufacturers have taken that and made sure people “need” massive vehicles.
Kind of like how people in the US raised families in ~1200 square foot houses for generations, but now a house under 2500sf is considered small.
Big trucks are created by corporate greed while big homes are created by nimby-driven zoning laws.
The most popular vehicles for decades were full size V8 sedans with the dimensions, weight, and poor economy of todays full size trucks and SUVs. Unless you mean a return to the 1920s, or a rare period in the 70-80s where downsizing was basically compelled, there is nothing exceptional about todays fleet except what shape the vehicles are.
Those V8 sedans weren’t so high that a third grade class was invisible in front of their grills. And they didn’t have those V8 engines so they could tow a house or hit 60 in 6 seconds, because they didn’t produce the kind of power we get now.
As to weight, a 1967 Fairlane 500 sedan, for example, weighed almost 3000 pounds. A Chevelle was about the same. Heavy, for sure. An F150 weighs over 4000 to over 5700 pounds. An Expedition weighs around 5500 pounds.
We have so many pickups and SUVs because the auto manufacturers pushed back on efficiency regulation with light trucks, not because we’ve somehow always been in big vehicles.
The ‘500’ mile range version has a lower tow/haul weight capacity.
Exactly, if your pickup is going to be going 50 miles most days and 200 miles some days, the range extender for the few very long days will be a better use of resources. There may be some people who use the 500 miles often enough, but I’d guess more just need that extra range once in awhile.
Unfortunately, unless they really heavily prioritize battery use over the REX or basically make it impossible to drive it permanently as a hybrid, a huge percentage of people will drive it permanently as a hybrid. At least that is what the historical data shows so far for PHEV. I don’t have the source in front of me but I believe it was above 60% of PHEVs are not regularly charged.
I think there are a number of factors there, including how most PHEVs kick on the engine if you want significant acceleration and how limited the range of most of them is.
I saw some people on the Niro forums trying to conserve their electric range for when they thought it would be best, which certainly means they weren’t using it enough in the hope of using it when it was most efficient. If they had more electric range and/or were always powered via electric motors, I think that problem would be mitigated.
I could be wrong, but I would expect that having a reasonably high EV range, only using the range extender to charge the battery, and marketing it as an electric you can sometimes use gas in would likely have different results than we’ve seen with current offerings.
I have a PHEV and I think part of the issue is incentives. I have a PHEV because it saves me money on gas and I am trying to lower my carbon footprint. But I one study I read from the UK indicated that although firms were incentivized to get PHEVs as company cars for their employees, they didn’t provide a mechanism to incentivize drivers to charge at home. If my company gave me a PHEV and gave me a gas card to get free (to me) fuel, but they didn’t have a way to reimburse me for the electricity I add at home, I probably would do the same thing most of those people did and rarely charge it. The other class (and I use that term loosely) of users that were purchasing these in the USA were higher-income people who bought PHEVs to get access to the HOV lanes in urban areas. Probably a lot of them didn’t care about the PHEV features at all – they just wanted to shorten their commute time. I think the observed PHEV use in the study you refer to was distorted by these kinds of incentives, and in reality more people would plug in if they understood that it would save them money over just using gas.
I also strongly suspect that car salespeople are under-stating the benefits of plugging in. I know people who seem to think it would be a hassle to plug in every day (I can see why they might feel that way) and I can really easily imagine sales staff at dealerships try to lower resistance to a sale by telling people that plugging in is TOTALLY OPTIONAL and really not necessary to get the benefits of a hybrid vehicle. Hence the stories we’ve all heard about Wrangler 4xe owners who didn’t even know their car had a charging port.
I think there can be a LOT of benefits of PHEVs, but these early stories of people not using them as-intended are, I believe, signs of teething pains with this technology. I don’t believe it should be used as evidence to kill them off, but rather an opportunity to look for ways to improve how people use the technology by aligning incentives.
Yeah the study I saw about that was very flawed. Many of those that weren’t plugged in were company provided vehicles where the company would pay for the gas but not pay you for the charging at your home. Many of the others were purchased by people who didn’t have home charging and they only purchased the PHEV because the tax breaks made it the cheaper option, which is also why they were purchased as company cars. To be fair the fact that the PHEV version was cheaper due to tax brakes certainly weighed in on our recent PHEV version but it gets charged at home after every use and the ICE is rarely used in our regular daily driving.
This again?
I don’t think this will be the case if it’s a 200-300 mile battery, plus REx.
Also, the right way to design it would be to make it like the i3 where the REx is not really designed to be the sole propulsion. You can’t drive up a mountain at 70mph with the i3 running on REx. You’re supposed to just SLOW the rate of battery discharge with the REx, not use it as your sole power source.
Bad idea.
Instead, Use the range extender with the smaller pack.
That’s what I want them to do. Preferably, an even smaller pack than the default one. I’m just afraid they are going to try for MAXIMUM RANGE, because that will probably sell.
With that battery size the 8 lug wheels are likely because it needs at least a load range D tire to give it any real payload. Overall it sounds like a good effort, though pricing is the big question as that big battery has to carry a big price tag. I’m betting they will have a smaller battery available too.
I assume a minimum curb weight of 6500 or more pounds?
I know the body is primarily aluminum now, but even the F-150 Lightning is just shy of 6200lbs in its lighter trims.
I’m excited to see them taking the shift lever out of the center console. That has always been an absolutely terrible place for it and I’ve waited for this since trucks moved it from behind the steering wheel. Now the space can once again be used for useful things and not pretending to be a manual.
Maybe they’ll get rid of the center console once again, so I can have the option to seat 6 when absolutely needed. I wish GM didn’t do away with their front bench on the Silverado.
That isn’t an REV thing, Ram has had the rotary shifter on the dash for years now.
I know, I’m just sill pleased to continue to see it in their new offerings. I just drove a Colorado and the shifter in the middle made it a serious PITA for large cups in the cupholders, place to store my phone and wallet that I could easily access, etc. All because a shifter in the center console feels sportier or something.
I used to love the Silverado with a front bench that had a center fold down seat and a column shifter. I could pick up a pizza and put it on the center console and eat from it when on a trip. AND could flip it up when I needed to seat 6 in a pinch.
Oh, I’m totally with you here. Someone still owes me an explanation of what was wrong with the column levers that served us so well for so many years (and which HD trucks still have)
Mercedes has used a column shifter for years. Tesla also uses it. I’ve found it’s super easy and convenient to be there, as it’s right at your fingertips.
The location of those tiny shifters is convenient, but the electronic operation is not intuitive (at least to me).
PRNDL with physical movement through the sequence or GTFO.
Yeah, the Ford implementation is ridiculous and, on top of it, they’re so proud of it.
The console shifter is *motorized* so you can push a button to make it fold down so that it’s not in your way.
Or, crazy idea, just don’t put it there since it’s electronic and not attached to anything anyway, at least in the Lightning.
The Ford folding shifter is so silly. I spent time in a loaded Gen 3 Raptor with it recently and it feels so flimsy, like fisher price has better plastics. The ergonomics are compromised because of it needing to fold and when you do fold it, it sounds like a bunch of tiny plastic gears grinding into dust. It sounds soooo bad. I should also say all of the buttons on the steering wheel felt pretty flimsy and cheap too.
What are you talking about? Go look at most of the Silverados on lots, at least around me, and they all have bench seats up front with the fold down center back rest. Most trucks on the lot below LTZ trim are like that.
For 22 th 40/20/40 front was only std on work truck and custom trims, optional on low trim LT. And anything better than the basic LT trim it’s not available.
Dealers stopped ordering WT and basic LT a few years ago. Only trucks coming in are LTZ and loaded trims. Try ordering a basic LT and they’ll make you wait 6 months and call you every week asking if you want to take one of the LTZ they have coming on the truck next week.
If the dealer by you stocks LT and lower with a bench then you are in luck, as long as you don’t want leather seats or any of the niceties of LT2 or LTZ.
“ sometimes excess is never enough.”
Translate this to Latin and stick it on the Great Seal of the United States.
interdum excessus numquam satis est
I like the way the Grand Old Dame put it on Downton Abbey: “Nothing succeeds like excess.”
Sounds like an old gal who’s had very limited experience with both laundry detergent and ghost peppers.