Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by redriderbob, Jan 15, 2018.
I don’t normally like stuff like that.... But this one works.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I don't believe the SRT 392 would have the durability to last in a pickup.
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.
Don't forget the 2500 doesn't have the fuel advantages offered by the Torqueflite 8......
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Curious, have you driven a RAM with eTorque?
This was a very nice and concise review and info video on the eTorque and all that it does. It is much more than start stop.
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.
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”