Rental Review: 2017 Ram 1500 Pentastar

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

The LS8 is currently in the shop for minor bodywork after I deftly dodged a doofus in a minivan and banged up the front right corner.

Until I have her back, I'm driving a brand new (33 miles when I picked it up) Ram 1500 crew cab with the Pentastar six. It's a 4wd extended cab (though Ram's extended cabs have 4 real doors).

Since I have it for a few days, rather than my usual google stock photo, I have real pictures of this particular truck this time!

Image
Image
(Timing for this was great; I had a truckload of green waste to get rid of today, so I put this underpowered beast to work!)


Exterior: 7.5/10
I'm a fan of the current Ram's styling (though I preferred the earlier, smaller, non-pen15-compensating grille to the bigger post-facelift one). The cheaper models look a little homelier than the nicer ones, with some lazier details like the front bumper, but it's still nice enough to look at. The stubby minidoors in the back look a little less awkard on this generation than they did on the previous Chuck the Truck cartoon bodystyle (which I didn't care for in general anyway). I certainly prefer Ram's styling to the exponentially-increasing levels of way overdone that Ford pours into their trucks. It's not nearly as well-realized as GM's current designs, though it does have wheel arches that are the correct shape, so it beats them there.

Interior: 6/10
It's not bad.
It's not good.
The plastics are hard and ugly. There's a lot of black and grey. There are a bunch of storage cubbies that aren't the right size for anything. There are also a few storage cubbies that are the perfect size for things, like the one on the top of the center stack that's great for sunglasses. Problem is, a lot like the lower-end Expeditions, those cubbies aren't rubberized, so stuff just flies out at the slightest hint of g-forces.
The seat in this cheap model doesn't have a height adjustment, and it was way too high for my taste. Still had headroom, but I feel like a lot of the cab's height is wasted under the seat.
I drove 5 adults around and didn't get any complaints about the back seat.
Unlike the Fords I've driven, climbing into this truck's cabin doesn't feel like squeezing into a vent to play Mission Impossible.
The sliding section of the rear glass is powered, which I learned to like very quickly. It's a nice way to get some fresh air in the cabin with minimal wind noise--though it'd be a lot more effective with a sunroof to vent as well.
The steering wheel controls are stupid. There are six buttons for controlling the hyper-low-resolution LCD between the gauges plus hands-free phone functions, and six buttons for cruise. THERE ARE NO MEDIA CONTROLS ON THE STEERING WHEEL. What the s***, Dodge?
Oh, and it still has mechanical door lock posts rather than levers on near the door latch release. I hate this, because they nearly always (including this case) put the lock post EXACTLY where my elbow falls naturally when my arm is resting on the door sill. At least Ford has the sense to have the damn thing sit below the sill when locked. Dodge just leaves it there to poke me.
I also still don't like the FCA rotary shift knob. And in a truck, it makes even less sense. A column shift would be vastly better.

Tech stuff
Did I mention how low-resolution the multifunction gauge cluster display is? I have an original green-screen Gameboy and it has more pixels than this Dodge's screen! It's hard to look at. Worse, even though FCA still doesn't understand multi-tasking on displays (one single type of info at a time, that's it), their attempts to cram iconography and things into low pixel counts leads to some really hard-to-read stuff. The Cruise Control icon ends up being a freaking octagon.
The display IS a nice high-contrast white-on-black that looks great in the daytime and lights up nice at night as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if the pixels were actually 1mmx2mm. They're HUGE and pointy.
Oh, and when you turn Cruise on, the entire screen is devoted to a message saying "CRUISE AVAILABLE" for several seconds, which is spectacularly annoying. I just turned cruise on. Chances are I'd like to see what my current speed is so I can start actually SETTING the cruise control. Chances are also good that I KNOW cruise is available, because I still remember pushing the Cruise ON button less than one whole second before.

The center LCD is larger, color and has a lot more pixels. It's a touchscreen. You can display one thing at a time on it. You can see the exterior temperature. In HUGE numbers taking up the whole screen. ONLY. You can see a compass direction. ONLY. You can see the clock. ONLY. You can view media info. ONLY. You cannot see what time it is while doing any of these other things. When you change the volume, a full-screen volume bar obscures everything else on the screen until you're done.

With no media controls on the steering wheel, one is relegated to using the touchscreen or the tuner knob. With my long arms, I still couldn't comfortably reach either without sitting forward in my seat. Same is true of the volume control.

Powertrain: 6/10
The Pentastar is a good motor. I like it.
It has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS under the hood of this truck.
Dodge advertises 295 ft-lb.
That's just a few ft-lb more than a 4 liter Frontier.
The Frontier weighs as much as a thousand pounds less. And the Frontier's V6 makes torque early, where the Pentastar has to work hard for it. That's because the VQ40 was designed for truck use, where the Pentastar was recycled from sedan use.
This thing is gutless.
Worse, shift behavior and throttle response are really opaque and inconsistent, which means you never know how much power you're about to get. I've had starts where I nailed the throttle and gotten nothing, and then subsequent starts where I needed power NOW, so I floored it and looked like a jackass while my rear axle hopped around while one wheel tried to find traction. The truck is NEVER in the powerband without a downshift, and it's never eager to downshift. Even mild acceleration to keep up with slight changes in traffic speed usually requires a downshift. And because that downshift comes so late, you've usually got he pedal sunk pretty far down in a desperate but hopeless plea to find some kind of thrust. Which means that once the downshift does happen, it's not smooth. But even then, the truck doesn't come anywhere close to anything resembling quick. It eventually moves. It reaches freeway speeds sufficiently fast. It doesn't make any of it feel easy.
It's a LOT less lazy-feeling than the ecoboost Expedition was, which is hilarious. But it's no spry fox. And that's with just me in it. Anything in the bed or any passengers and it's a very rapid decline from there.

Oh, and the Pentastar is pleasant-enough sounding below 3000rpm, but after that it's not particularly easy on the ears.

Fuel economy so far: 17mpg average.
My first reaction to that number is that it's pathetic.
My second reaction is that, frankly, I'd still sacrifice 5 of those measly 17 mpgs for the ability to add 2mph to the speedo without needing a downshift.
But mostly, I just think that I'd rather have a V8, because the fuel economy would be the same but I'd actually have torque on tap. OH, and the engine noises would be better.

I'm not even a big Hemi fan. In fact, I think it's kind of a turd and by far the worst full-size truck V8 on the market. But it's a lot better suited to work in this truck than the 3.6.

Handling/dynamics: 7/10
I'm a little unimpressed with the coil suspenion. Ride quality in this Ram wasn't any better than the Silverados and F150s I've driven. It's fine; not bad at all. But I've heard a lot of things about the new coil-sprung 1500 Rams, and I'm inclined to believe it's all placebo.
The truck feels planted-enough, handling-wise. Cornering is confidence-inspiring and understeer is surprisingly minimal. Steering feels like truck steering, but isn't any less communicative than any other pickup, and the ratio actually feels a little quicker than I expected.

Truck Stuff
The timing for this rental was excellent. I was already planning to clean up the garden for winter and then make a trip to the landfill with all the green waste. So I pulled the Ram into the back yard and started filling up the bed.
I put it in 4wd mostly for fun, but also to keep from tearing up my grass since it was wet and this truck's throttle has a mind of its own. It was a quick transition for an electronic transfer case. A lot quicker than the GM trucks I've played with.
The tailgate is very light. Almost disarmingly light, to the point that I wonder about its structural soundness. It's very easy to lift and drop, but I've always found the idea of a "one-hand" tailgate a bit of a joke, since even old heavy pickup tailgates have always seemed easy enough to close with one hand, and I'm not exactly Captain Biceps.
This Ram didn't have the bedside storage boxes, which I'd have loved to check out.

Overall: 6/10
With a V8 it would be 8. Without it, I simply don't think the truck is worth its own existence, even for the "I own a truck but use it exclusively as a sedan with a bed" contingent. It's just too gutless and the transmission gets in the way too much.


User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

So, after 5 days, a few additional thoughts:

The bluetooth media sync is really bad. This is something I've experienced in other Chryslers. Clearly, they cheaped out on the chipsets in these systems, both in terms of processor and (bluetooth) radio.
What's bad about it?
Well, audio cuts out regularly--either skipping like a CD or pausing randomly for half a second.
The actual info sync with the phone is bork'd. The media display will get stuck on one song, and won't advance to the next when it begins playing. Sometimes you can start playback from the touchscreen but other times it prompts you to start it by pressing play on your phone. There are also times where it'll "resume" a song on the display but start from the beginning again in actual playback, so the media display is out of sync.
Just generally doesn't work right. Glitches out frequently and doesn't seem particularly well-designed. It certainly seems to struggle with basic media integration with a stock android phone, which is about as simple as things can get.

The horn has a REALLY irritating delay. It's almost like it's digital. A quick tap on the horn button does NOT elicit a correspondingly brief and immediate blast from the horn. Instead, there's a half-second delay and then a horn burst of clearly preset length. No matter how quickly you hit the horn button, it always sounds for the same minimum length of time. It's impossible to make quick, polite "hey, check your corners before you hit me" horn beeps, making you look like a douchebag in traffic. I have no idea why this is, but it is yet another example of Chrysler replacing something simple and foolproof with electronics nobody ever asked for.

I HATE THE DAMN ROTARY SHIFT KNOB.
This thing's not a sedan with a center console to free up. It's a truck, with a long steering column and only a single left-side control stalk. There is absolutely no good reason not to have a column shifter instead. The rotary knob is in a stupid place that's not quick or natural to reach for, and 3-point-plus turns are simply obnoxious to make in this thing as a result. I hate it. I really, really hate it.
Another complaint is the limp-noodle gear engagement feeling. Shifting to reverse does not result in a solid drive engagement. Even on nearly level ground, the car will roll FORWARD slightly when in reverse. It gives the sensation of not actually being in gear, which is entirely un-confidence-inspiring. Combine that with the car's resistance to actually producing power and its inconsistent and nonlinear throttle inputs, and reversing smoothly is nearly impossible.

I can't figure out how to disable the horn from honking when I lock the truck, even with a SINGLE tap on the remote. I can disable the lights flashing, but not the horn. This is backward. I'm pretty sick of having to sound the horn late at night when parking in the driveway, and I'm sure my neighbors are, too. This is a really serious oversight, and I hope someone will point out that I've simply missed an obvious setting somewhere in the badly-designed menus of this car.

The headrests don't raise nearly high enough for people with actual heads.

Buzzman
Posts: 2079
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:35 pm
Car: 2016 Lexus RX 350
2023 Kia Stinger Elite V6 AWD.

Post

I really enjoy reading your rental reviews. Thanks for doing that.
When I read about all the nigly little irritating stuff that show up after having a vehicle for a few hours or a few days, it really makes me wonder where these manufacturers' heads are at when doing quality control on new product development.
Does anyone at Chrysler, or any other auto maker, actually test this stuff out in real world conditions? Seems not.

Example: I drive a 2006 Altima, and it took me less than a day after I bought it to realize that the radio/clock display (orange) was absolutely unreadable, especially in daylight with sunglasses. What were they thinking?

Some engineers at Chrysler need to be made to drive one of these trucks for a few weeks. Maybe that will smarten some of them up.

User avatar
PapaSmurf2k3
Site Admin
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:20 pm
Car: 2017 Corvette, 2018 Focus ST, 1993 240sx truck KA Turbo.
Location: Merrimack, NH

Post

I'm actually really curious to see/hear/try one of the horns now haha. I can't believe they'd do that!

Do you still have the truck? If so, can you take some engine bay shots?

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Another note: I have now averaged 18.9 mpg over about 350 mixed miles. MUCH more impressive. I can see why people who don't do much hauling with their truck getting some value from the V6 model. I still can't imagine it being any good for any real truck work (a simple bed full of compost would be way out of this engine's league), but for light-duty stuff as a DD, the 19mpg makes it a genuine alternative to crossovers and midsize trucks.
Buzzman wrote:I really enjoy reading your rental reviews.
Thanks!
PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:Do you still have the truck? If so, can you take some engine bay shots?
Yup. The shop found some more damage under the fender so I haven't got the LS back yet (hopefully tomorrow).

It's an interesting engine bay. Kind of the opposite of the LS8: tons of room. The V6 sits way back behind the front axle. You can see the diff, CV axles, steering rack, and forward frame crossmember completely unobstructed in front of the engine. The differential housing is TINY, about the same size as the one in my Lincoln. It doesn't look like a truck diff. I wonder if it's the same one used in the Durango. The transfer case is certainly different; the Ram has full 4wd control with low-range, where the Durango was fully automatic with no controls.
Plugs would probably be cake, except for the driver rear which is blocked by the master cylinder.

LOTS of airboxes in the way of everything. That "3.6" branded cover isn't merely cosmetic; it contains a resonation/expansion chamber for the intake track, and actually looks like it might be physically connected to the throttle body (though it's hard to tell without taking things apart).
Image
Image
Image

You can see the diff behind the joint where the steering column meets the rack in this picture, and of course behind the crossmember in the one below.
Image
Image

User avatar
PapaSmurf2k3
Site Admin
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:20 pm
Car: 2017 Corvette, 2018 Focus ST, 1993 240sx truck KA Turbo.
Location: Merrimack, NH

Post

Ah, that's the old Pentastar engine. I'd be curious to see how you like the new one.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

I would be, too. Though I don't think it'd make much difference in this particular vehicle.

What has changed with the new one?

User avatar
PapaSmurf2k3
Site Admin
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:20 pm
Car: 2017 Corvette, 2018 Focus ST, 1993 240sx truck KA Turbo.
Location: Merrimack, NH

Post

Slight power and fuel economy boost due to different variable valve timing system, and a couple other things.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Further observations:

The bluetooth link with the infotainment system on this thing makes WiFi on Linux look stable. It also takes MINUTES to connect to the phone after starting the car. It's not a "searching" issue, as forcing a connection manually takes just as long.

Now approaching 20mpg. I'm not exactly driving conservatively, but it's also not really possible to drive this thing hard. Even as hard as it can be driven, the powertrain behavior makes it unappealing. I guess that's the way to do it: make it so you can only drive the truck like a granny, and you're guaranteed good fuel economy.

Slushy reverse continues to drive me nuts. It honestly feels broken...to the point where I wonder if this particular truck has a defective trans. At under 500 miles. Drive and Park both engage with solid feedback (though nothing overdramatic). But Reverse just kind of floats there, even under throttle. Reversing is weird. It'd drive me nuts to try to park a trailer with this thing!

The door cupholders are ultra-lazy. There is a split compartment at the bottom of the door, with a partial divider along it. In front of that divider, there's a foam insert with two differently-sized cup holders. It holds drinks very snugly, but it's going to wear out FAST. Really, really fast. It's also not secured in any way other than being slightly squeezed into its section of the compartment. If owned this truck and was planning on keeping it for 5+ years (which I always do with my cars) I'd write off four of the cupholders right now. Fortunately, there are 5 scattered between both center consoles, but I prefer my cupholders out of the way, and it's disappointing how cheap Dodge's solution was for the door cupholders.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

I had the same BT issues with a Sentra I rented. I wonder if they use the same BT chipset.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

So I still have this thing (the body shop is comically inept and still has my LS8). This makes 5 weeks and 1500 miles in the truck.

I HATE this transmission. I hate it. It's sloppy, numb, sucks at finding the right gear in stop-and-go traffic (to the point that I'd honestly rather have a manual just to stop it hunting), and just generally feels like it's made out of glass and rubber bands. Like most modern transmissions, 95% of shifts are very smooth. However, in circumstances where it's most noticeable (like creeping along in traffic) it'll throw in some really jarring downshifts to third or second (it rarely drops to first, even from a stop).
But the worst thing is what I've come to refer to as "the sag." In Drive OR Reverse, on even a slight incline, the car will roll AGAINST the engine if you take your foot off the brake. Meaning if I'm stopped at a red light facing uphill in drive, and I take my foot off the brake, the truck will roll backward. IT WILL ROLL BACKWARD WHILE IN DRIVE.
This is obviously not remotely confidence-inspiring, and couples with the general mushiness and slushy drive engagement in D or R to leave me feeling like it's basically guaranteed to grenade itself before 150,000 miles. And it won't be sudden, either. It'll be a gradual degradation of performance. Lots of slipping (you know...more than there is already with only 1500 miles on the odo), lots of not-quite-in-drive-until-you-hit-the-gas-and-then-BAM.
It's like being back in an automatic Nissan again...just counting the miles until a rebuild is necessary.

I don't know if ZF is to blame, or if Chrysler's tuning or implementation is to blame, but someone at FCA needs to set some very steep goals for improving automatic transmissions across the brand, and FAST.

Also, I'm still very much of the mindset that, while academically impressive, the 19.5 average MPG I'm getting from this truck is far less appealing in the real world than usable torque. When I DO finally get my LS8 back, it's going to feel like a rocketship, and it barely manages a sub-7-second 0-60 sprint. There have been a couple times where I've had to reconsider pulling into moving traffic because I didn't have confidence I could do so without putting people in danger. And the truck can barely MAINTAIN speed on slight inclines (we're talking very gradual overpasses) without having to drop a gear. Accelerating at freeway speeds is not something this truck enjoys doing, and requires dropping multiple gears. So yes, I'm averaging 19.5 MPG, but every time I have to move in a hurry that average takes a huge hit because the truck actually has to make something resembling power for 5 seconds straight. This isn't the right way to do fuel economy. Gutlessness is not a tool, it's a nuisance. Give me more motor and let me use less of it, not the other way around.

And I still can't stand that rotary shifter. It's still stupid and unintuitive after 5 weeks and 1500 miles. I still find myself reaching for a column shifter and then realizing there's nothing there out of muscle memory and common sense. And the knob is still in a stupid spot that's not convenient or intuitive to reach for.
Given the transmission's "Sure, the indicator light says "D" so you must be in D even though the truck rolls backward" levels of gear-engagement, I also wonder at what point the electronically-actuated mechanisms that translate the knob's rotation into mechanical transmission adjustments will fail, and how spectacularly. Just stupid: adding design complexity while worsening user experience. The exact opposite of what any good design should strive to do.

User avatar
PapaSmurf2k3
Site Admin
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:20 pm
Car: 2017 Corvette, 2018 Focus ST, 1993 240sx truck KA Turbo.
Location: Merrimack, NH

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote: I HATE this transmission. I hate it.

I don't know if ZF is to blame, or if Chrysler's tuning or implementation is to blame, but someone at FCA needs to set some very steep goals for improving automatic transmissions across the brand, and FAST.

.
.
.
When I DO finally get my LS8 back, it's going to feel like a rocketship,
Funny, I was just going to bump this thread with some recent updates by me.
Does your truck have the ZF 8H45 (or whatever they are calling it?). For reasons that I wont post here, I recently found myself in possession of a 2017 grand Cherokee with the updated Pentastar engine and the 8H45 ZF trans. The engine is still pretty much how you describe it. Not much power down low, but seems to rev happily enough. Partial throttle accelaration on to the highway sees the engine taching to 6+k RPM regularly. Normal driving brings it to 3-4k.
I agree the trans is all-freaking-over-the-place, HOWEVER, in my jeep, in manual mode, you can select gears manually and it will literally bounce off the rev limiter all day and not shift for you. It'll also shift into a high enough gear to where there will be zero acceleration (and borderline bog) at full throttle, and hold that gear... so that's good for the testing I'm doing.
The start/stop system is the worst in the business. I think you mentioned that in another thread (or hell, maybe it was this one).

...and yes, driving this for a week and then hopping in my 312+k mile prelude made the prelude feel like a freaking rocket sled.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

It was in my Durango review that I talked about the bad "start/stop" system.

It's not even a start/stop system in the real sense. Sure, it stops and starts the engine automatically, but it uses the old-fashioned planetary starter Chrysler has been using for decades.
Everyone else uses really beefy motor-generators to keep it quiet, prompt, and reliable. Chrysler's solution is none of those things. I'd hate to have a car with that setup at 100,000+ miles. What happens when the starter fails at a red light? I'm sure they specced the battery up a bit, but I still wonder about that aspect, too. How does it cope with stop-and-go traffic? That's a lot of load on the battery in a short time, with only a standard alternator charging system to keep it topped up.

The Ram didn't even have auto start/stop, which makes the 19.5 MPG I averaged over 1500 miles even more impressive (and further undermines the supposed value of those stupid systems). If it had, though, I would have hated it even more. It's bad enough not having to rev to redline for any power. Having to wait for the engine to restart at every light would have compounded with that anemia to make for a really unpleasant experience.

I have the LS8 back now, and I have more thrust on tap at 5mph in 3rd gear than the Ram could manage at any speed in any gear at any RPM. And I am only doing 1mpg worse in the process. While driving like a freaking hoon (which I couldn't do even if I wanted in the Ram because how do you hoon a wet blanket?).

So, big lessons learned:

I don't care about fuel economy, and I never will.

Torque is the only thing that matters unless you're on a racetrack. Anything that costs you torque is a losing proposition, no matter what it offers in return.

Also:
MinisterofDOOM wrote:Since I have it for a few days, rather than my usual google stock photo, I have real pictures of this particular truck this time!
ROFL. Yep, it was a few days alright.


Return to “General Chat”