AF: Ram 1500: official (w/movie) | Page 162 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ram 1500: official (w/movie)

Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by redriderbob, Jan 15, 2018.

  1. ramajama

    ramajama Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes:
    1,259
    I don’t normally like stuff like that.... But this one works.
     
  2. bew

    bew Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes:
    20
    Pickup.com just tested the current trucks. Ram got third behind the f150 and winner GMC Sierra. Was very surprised with all the negative things said of the new GM trucks and positive reviews of the Ram.
     
    UN4GTBL likes this.
  3. ramajama

    ramajama Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes:
    1,259
    Pick up trucks dot com
    Yeah they really liked it but their big reason why it was 3rd is because it was down on power as compared to the Ecoboost and the 6.2 in the GMC. The complete lack of attention to the power output is a whole other thread. Oh well, I’ve griped till I’m blue in the face. As great as the DT is, there’s always a ..BUT...Huge missed opportunity to be the undisputed king of the new trucks, at least for the DTs debut year.
     
  4. Chase300

    Chase300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes:
    1,619
    So Pick up trucks dot com don't care about ride, interior room, features, quality of materials, tech, refinement and just rank based on HP?
    Are buyers buying the 6.2L over the 5.3L in Chevy/GMC trucks?

    BTW, as impressive the HP output of the 3.5L Ecoboost is, I can tell you it can't outrun or even catch a early gen 5.7L LX on the highway. :)
     
  5. Chase300

    Chase300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes:
    1,619
    Reading through the pickup trucks dot com review and GM's 6.2L reminds me of when back in '93 GM blindsided Ford by sticking the Vette LT1 engine into the "new" Camaro while the "new" Mustang was introduced with a 4.6L putting out some 50hp less. Ford figured GM would stick to the 5.0..HA!

    Would like to see FCA consider installing the 392 as an option. In the LX cars, there doesn't seem to be much if any fuel penalty with the 392 over the 5.7L other than you have to run premium fuel as you do with GM's 6.2L.
     
  6. red-jk

    red-jk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    430
    Likes:
    315
    The 6.4/392 in my 2018 2500 gets 10 city/15 highway with a tailwind. It is a substantial MPG penalty compared to 17/23 with the 5.7 etorque.
     
  7. Chase300

    Chase300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes:
    1,619
    Isn't the 6.4L in the 2500 a different version than the 392 SRT version? Plus a 2500 is quite a bit heavier and taller than a 1500.
    Question is how would the SRT 392 perform in a 1500?
     
    VoiceOfReason and GasAxe like this.
  8. red-jk

    red-jk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Messages:
    430
    Likes:
    315
    I don't believe the SRT 392 would have the durability to last in a pickup.
     
    VoiceOfReason likes this.
  9. Chase300

    Chase300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes:
    1,619
    Should be fine in a 1500...I believe it has some added parts over the 5.7L such as oil cooling jets for the pistons, not sure if the crank is forged or not but we know the 5.7L doesn't have any stronger parts in it and it holds up fine in a 1500.
     
  10. crouchta

    crouchta Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    497
    Likes:
    589
    Don't forget the 2500 doesn't have the fuel advantages offered by the Torqueflite 8......
     
  11. hotmach

    hotmach Not an insider !

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes:
    767
    My understanding is the 6.4L was purpose built for trucks/reliability.
    Is there any actual statistics/facts supporting the 6.4 is more reliable than the 5.7L ?
     
  12. ramajama

    ramajama Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes:
    1,259
    They gave the RAM its props for all the new upgrades.
    Why bring out a new truck after a 9 year run and leave any box unchecked? Especially the powertrain box?
    Honestly, they should have given it an upgraded engine option at least.
    Look, we all know it’s a great new truck but to intro the DT with a powertrain that was last “upgraded” in 2013 is inexcusable. RAM colored glasses can’t hide it.
    Oh well, It is what it is and RAM ignored the powertrain for their own strange reasons, maybe for etorque reasons, which has gone over with a fizzle and a pop from what I can see so far. But as a consumer I feel it was a mistake IMHO. I still really like the truck and as so many reviewers add....”But”.
    It’ll be interesting to see how it fares in the TOTY battle.

    I’m fairly certain we’ll all be pleasantly surprised in the coming few years though.
     
  13. Chase300

    Chase300 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes:
    1,619
    Excellent point ramajama and I don't see the value of e-torque with the Hemi...though it makes more sense with the Pentastar especially since its included and not a high price option.
    But I agree in the powertrains need an upgrade. Currently only have 2 options. Ford has 6 engine choices.
     
  14. hotmach

    hotmach Not an insider !

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes:
    767
    I agree.
    For me etourque has been a pop and fizzle, for some reviewers its significant. TFL chose it as a long term test truck. While we gripe about lack of powertrain upgrades, lets not forget the reason the insiders gave. Phasing upgrades in is a strategy for winning ongoing truck of the years. However they also said square nose styling and higher fenders was for better lighting requirements.
     
    ramajama and Devildodge like this.
  15. bew

    bew Active Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes:
    20
    Etorque hasn’t shown any real benefit in acceleration or mpg from most stuff I’ve seen. The power train gets great reviews typically for its smoothness, just a little underpowered in the comparison. That aside it looks like the Ram was by far the class of the field.
     
  16. Devildodge

    Devildodge Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes:
    1,760
    Etourque is to make stop/start seemless... nothing more nothing less.

    There is a pretty high take rate, well much higher than Ram expected.

    The take rate on the other brands miricale motors is much less, and the Hemi competes very well with their regular strain.

    Some more engines are coming...trickle down will keep Ram winning awards for awhile I am sure.

    I am torn, as much as I want to see these Ram trucks Continue to get better, I also want to see the truck market fail...so these things get affordable again.

    Heck, buying 2nd Gens is expensive, 3rd Gens are ridiculous, and you can't buy a used 4th Gen for much less than a new one.
     
    sickboy and thebluegoat like this.
  17. wilbur

    wilbur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,181
    Likes:
    1,217
    Curious, have you driven a RAM with eTorque?

    Thanks
    Wil
     
    suzq044 likes this.
  18. Orsalak

    Orsalak Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    145
    Likes:
    179
    UN4GTBL, patfromigh, wilbur and 2 others like this.
  19. patfromigh

    patfromigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,492
    Likes:
    3,127
    From the Car and Driver website, emphasis added:
    Also hiding in the background are a few other fuel-saving technologies. The updated Pentastar V-6 now features variable intake-valve lift and cam phasers capable of running the more efficient Atkinson combustion cycle. Engine power and torque are unchanged at 305 horses and 269 lb-ft. On V-8 models, cylinder deactivation saves a little fuel between 1000 and 3000 rpm. It is paired with two electronic vibration dampers on the frame rails to cancel out extra vibration from the engine, and active noise canceling in the cabin makes sure you won't hear when the V-8 is running on half the cylinder count.
    The changes to the Pentastar V6 are significant in that FCA engineers have added the cam phasing technology from the Firefly engines. The eTorque system has been discussed for a long time here at Allpar. The progress of its development was peer reviewed and the paper trail from those annual reports has given us much information and a lot of it is here on this website. Chevy and GM have all new trucks for 2019 as well, and they have a new engine option, a turbo four. I'm sure consumers will flock to it.

    Chrysler historically has usually never added a new drivetrain with a new or heavily redesigned vehicle. The slant six was a year old when it was introduced in the all new 1961 "Dart Line" Dodge pickups. The Magnum engines were two years old when the revolutionary 1994 Ram pickups were introduced. The V10 was slowly phased in and in later updates so was the Hemi.

    The K-Cars are a great exception to this tradition, but given the degree of change from the past they required, I think it's understandable. There are probably other exceptions, but I can't think of them. The updates to the 135ci Trans-4 motor used in the K-Cars proves the wisdom of FCA playing it safe.

    If Chrysler was able to offer an unproven V6 (like the 2.7 liter) with the UltraDrive Four-speed auto in the 1984 minivans, there would be no Chrysler, Dodge or Ram existing today to talk about. Jeep would still exist, but only as a unit of Renault-Nissan.
     
  20. sickboy

    sickboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    897
    Likes:
    888
    I am also waiting for the truck market to fail. Too many of them not being used for their intended purpose. If it’s utility people pretend they need when they buy their next vehicle, may I suggest a motorhome? Wouldn’t it be fun to see our streets choked with those?
    “Yep, me n the wife travel twice a year, so we needed it. Got the Denali king ranch version with an additional 3200 pounds of chrome. 60” wheels and mud tires and a 30” lift for muddin’. Took out a 30 year mortgage”
     
    jwp44, wvutuba and Devildodge like this.

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.