Talk:Dodge Ramcharger

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Dodge Ram#1994.E2.80.932001 .28BR.2FBE.29|Dodge Ram]] The anchor (#1994.E2.80.932001 .28BR.2FBE.29) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Name discussion[edit]

Ram...charger. Hah.--Jnelson09 21:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 5.2L was 318 cubic inches, not 320. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.242.130 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Ramcharger (see also i.e. the german wikipedia entry is neither a Ram nor a Charger.
(at least we do know now Dodge could make up one name and name 3 vehicles with it :) — SuNotísima^Talk 22:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Dodge Ramcharger was the same thing as a 1st-generation Dodge Ram with a roof and bench seat on the pickup bed (although it bears no relation to the Charger). —Reelcheeper (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One word?[edit]

On the sides of these vehicles, the word "Ram" is above "Charger." The title of this article is "Dodge Ramcharger"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC). That is what it was marketed as[reply]

Yeah, shouldn't it be "Ram Charger", not "Ramcharger". As said above on the side of the vehicle are two words. Also I looked at sales brochures of amazon.com, and both are clearly "Ram_ Charger" and "Trail_Duster". I think this article is wrong and should be changed. Bavaria II 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Allen's article in the June 2007 issue of "Off Road Adventures" magazine used Ramcharger (one word) exclusively, while the Trail Duster model was two words. Since that magazine usually knows their stuff and is usually right, I vote it stays. Plasticboob (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the owner of four different Ramchargers of various years, i can assure you it is one word. The name plate on the vehicle is one word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.87.149.130 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Ramcharger[edit]

Does anyone know the exact years when the 3rd-gen Mexican-only Ramcharger was produced? It uses the back door of the Caravan, so I would guess it was produced into 2001 to use up parts from the 1996-2000 Caravans. —Reelcheeper (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D-series/Ram merger[edit]

Mechanically, the first-gen Ram/2nd-gen Ramcharger was little more than a rebranded & facelifted D/W series/1st-gen Ramcharger. They were the same truck underneath. Why should a separate section be kept for the 81-93 Ramcharger if it was little more than a slight visual redesign of the 74-80 Ramcharger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd surmise that the reason it was done that way in the first place is so the Ramcharger aligns with how the pickups are organized. I don't think it would help a reader's understanding to combine them here, so I think they should stay separated as they are. --Sable232 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it actually hinders a reader's understanding of the Ramcharger. The pickup might have been rebranded in 1981, but the Ramcharger was the exact same as it had been since the beginning. Neither the branding nor mechanics changed. There's no reason to count it as a separate generation. This also isn't done anywhere else. The R/V-based Blazer & Suburban as well as the V-Jimmy aren't counted as separate generations because of a simple branding change from "C/K" to "R/V". The same thing happened with the Ramcharger. Aside from a front fascia change and the shift to a nonremovable roof (precedent also with the K5 Blazer, as a similar change didn't warrant a separate generation), the 1979, 1980 and 1981 Ramchargers are all identical. Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]