[RogerDodger8508]

Hi all...newbie here. I don't know if this is old news to you guys but, it's new to me. Check out the engine selection chart for the 2014 ram truck according to wikipedia:


Model Years Engine Power Torque 1500 2013– 3.6 L (220 cu in) Pentastar V6 305 hp (227 kW) 269 lb·ft (365 N·m) 2009–2012 3.7 L (226 cu in) PowerTech V6 215 hp (160 kW) 235 lb·ft (319 N·m) 2009–present 4.7 L (287 cu in) PowerTech V8 310 hp (230 kW) 330 lb·ft (450 N·m) 2009–2012 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi V8 390 hp (290 kW) 407 lb·ft (552 N·m) 2013– 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi V8 395 hp (295 kW) 410 lb·ft (560 N·m) 2014– 3.0 L (182 cu in) VM Motori A 630 DOHC V6 Diesel 250 hp (190 kW) 440 lb·ft (600 N·m) 2014– 6.4 L (392 cu in) Hemi V8 455 hp (339 kW) 475 lb·ft (644 N·m) 2500/3500 2010–present 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi V8 383 hp (286 kW) 400 lb·ft (540 N·m) 2014– 6.4 L (392 cu in) Hemi V8 450 hp (340 kW) 480 lb·ft (650 N·m) 2010–2012 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (6-Speed Manual/Automatic) 350 hp (260 kW) 650 lb·ft (880 N·m) 2011.5–2012 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (High Output 6-Speed Automatic) 350 hp (260 kW) 800 lb·ft (1,100 N·m) 2013– 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (6-Speed Manual) 350 hp (260 kW) 660 lb·ft (890 N·m) 2013– 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (68RFE 6-Speed Automatic) 370 hp (280 kW) 800 lb·ft (1,100 N·m) 2013– 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (Aisin ASC69RC Automatic) 385 hp (287 kW) 850 lb·ft (1,150 N·m) Chassis Cab 2010–present 5.7 L (345 cu in) Hemi V8 (3500 Only) 383 hp (286 kW) 400 lb·ft (540 N·m) 2010–2012 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 305 hp (227 kW) 610 lb·ft (830 N·m) 2013– 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (6-Speed Manual) 320 hp (240 kW) 650 lb·ft (880 N·m) 2013– 6.7 L (408 cu in)Cummins diesel I6 (Aisin AS69RC Automatic) 325 hp (242 kW) 750 lb·ft (1,020 N·m)

That 6.4 sounds pretty good!

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Truck

 

[MoparNorm]

It actually is old news, I spotted the 6.4's testing last summer in Colorado.
However the list is new, so thanks for the list.

 

[normtest]

Some doofus tossed in a concept on the assumption that the Urban would be a real production truck in 2014. I'm surprised he didn't put in a Hemi-powered concept too.

 

[vipermoon64]

So 450hp, 480 tq. Just speculation?

 

[dieseldog1970]

I am liking the sound of this...love my diesel...but I would definately look at this engine for my new truck purchase!! But that is ONLY if it could be had with TWO sticks and THREE pedals..... B)

 

[Mopar392]

The horsepower listed with 6.4HEMI for 2500/3500 is a bit optimistic.. The actual horsepower rating will be 10-15% lower than SRT392.

SRT Ram won't have 392. if anybody remember one of Ralph's interviews when he was asked about SRT Ram, he said there is an engine option that they are thinking about.. Guess what that engine is...

 

[kcoc]

6.2 SC Hellcat?

 

[dakrt99]

Pure speculation. My guess: 425HP 425TQ Peak torque much lower and a flatter torque curve.

 

[redhed]

Pure speculation. My guess: 425HP 425TQ Peak torque much lower and a flatter torque curve.

torque had better be more than 425 lb/ft or they might as well not even bother since the 5.7l is already over 400 lb/ft. i suspect torque might drop to about 450 lb/ft after you factor in a lower max engine speed/regular grade fuel and different cam vs the SRT motor. does anybody know if the truck (non SRT) 6.4l will get VCT?? that could throw off those numbers a bit.

 

[MoparNorm]

torque had better be more than 425 lb/ft or they might as well not even bother since the 5.7l is already over 400 lb/ft. i suspect torque might drop to about 450 lb/ft after you factor in a lower max engine speed/regular grade fuel and different cam vs the SRT motor. does anybody know if the truck (non SRT) 6.4l will get VCT?? that could throw off those numbers a bit.

Keep in mind, the trucks I saw testing in CO, were pulling 8,000 and 12,000 lb. sleds, at 12,000 ft. I don't think torque will be a concern.

 

[oh2o]

The horsepower listed with 6.4HEMI for 2500/3500 is a bit optimistic.. The actual horsepower rating will be 10-15% lower than SRT392.

I have no idea what the final numbers will be, but might tend to agree with the "10-15% lower" range being that the engine is described internally as a "Mid-duty 6.4L".

 

[dakrt99]

torque had better be more than 425 lb/ft or they might as well not even bother since the 5.7l is already over 400 lb/ft. i suspect torque might drop to about 450 lb/ft after you factor in a lower max engine speed/regular grade fuel and different cam vs the SRT motor. does anybody know if the truck (non SRT) 6.4l will get VCT?? that could throw off those numbers a bit.

Ford rates their 6.2 in the HDs at 385HP 405TQ. 425HP 425TQ would be pretty good. More would be just fine, lol.

 

[redhed]

Keep in mind, the trucks I saw testing in CO, were pulling 8,000 and 12,000 lb. sleds, at 12,000 ft. I don't think torque will be a concern.

i wasn't worried...just thought 425 lb/ft was too low an estimate! ;-)

 

[AutoTechnician]

Ford rates their 6.2 in the HDs at 385HP 405TQ. 425HP 425TQ would be pretty good. More would be just fine, lol.

Considering the 6.2 Ford V8 can run with the 6.7 Cummins (well the older 350/650 Version), I'd say Ram would be pretty okay with 400-425HP. It's about time they have a competitive gasoline engine.

 

[Ramfan]

450 HP & 480 TQ sounded great to me. Does sound a bit optimistic compared to the 470/470 the SRT version makes. I'll take a jab at 425/450. Guess we will see.

Nobody mentioned the coming 3.0 Ecodiesel in the 1500 being listed at 250 HP & 440 TQ. The original 5.9 Cummins TD was 160 HP & 400 TQ. I think the 250/440 is a good guess as the Ecodiesel was promised to be class leading in torque and if the Ford 6.2 makes 434...

 

[MoparNorm]

Nobody mentioned the coming 3.0 Ecodiesel in the 1500 being listed at 250 HP & 440 TQ. The original 5.9 Cummins TD was 160 HP & 400 TQ. I think the 250/440 is a good guess as the Ecodiesel was promised to be class leading in torque and if the Ford 6.2 makes 434...

It was promised to be class leading in fuel economy, it is rated at 240 HP and 420 lb ft of torque. The V6 should not be compared to a V8, with more than double the displacement. The ford is 6.2, the VM is 3.0 and almost beats the ford in power, while delivering 30 mpg (in some applications).

 

[neebs22]

Considering the 6.2 Ford V8 can run with the 6.7 Cummins (well the older 350/650 Version), I'd say Ram would be pretty okay with 400-425HP. It's about time they have a competitive gasoline engine.

In what world, pulling what load does the 6.2 run with the Cummins?

It was promised to be class leading in fuel economy, it is rated at 240 HP and 420 lb ft of torque. The V6 should not be compared to a V8, with more than double the displacement. The ford is 6.2, the VM is 3.0 and almost beats the ford in power, while delivering 30 mpg (in some applications).

I imagine they can package the 3.0 with a little more power since the Ram should have better underhood cooling than the Jeep... nothing earth shattering but I bet they'll beat the Ecoboost V6 for torque so they can claim class leading fuel economy and torque.

 

[MoparNorm]

In what world, pulling what load does the 6.2 run with the Cummins?



I imagine they can package the 3.0 with a little more power since the Ram should have better underhood cooling than the Jeep... nothing earth shattering but I bet they'll beat the Ecoboost V6 for torque so they can claim class leading fuel economy and torque.

The thing with the ford V6, gasser, is that its torque is higher rpm torque. Most diesels develope their torque off idle and down low, where working trucks use it.

 

[AutoTechnician]

In what world, pulling what load does the 6.2 run with the Cummins?

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/08/2010-hd-16-percent-hill-climb-test-.html . 16% Grade, 10,000 pounds.

Ford really hit the ball out of the park with their 6.2. A couple of guys over on the Ford-Trucks forum had a big tow-off between members. They pulled 15,000 pounds up an ~18% grade with a variety of trucks. The 6.2 actually ran very close to a 6.7 PSD, and both crested the hill within 1 MPH of each other.

A 6.4 Hemi coupled to a ZF8 (or even the 66RFE with improved ratios) should be extremely competitive.

 

[bumonbox]

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/08/2010-hd-16-percent-hill-climb-test-.html . 16% Grade, 10,000 pounds.

Ford really hit the ball out of the park with their 6.2. A couple of guys over on the Ford-Trucks forum had a big tow-off between members. They pulled 15,000 pounds up an ~18% grade with a variety of trucks. The 6.2 actually ran very close to a 6.7 PSD, and both crested the hill within 1 MPH of each other.

A 6.4 Hemi coupled to a ZF8 (or even the 66RFE with improved ratios) should be extremely competitive.

To be fair, peak torque is not likely the issue. (Putting side the 850 torque version). When pushed, I have not doubt that the large gasser can do quite well.

But of course, that's when pushed. The way people usually describe pulling a load with the big diesel engines is that you usually barely notice. The engine behaves much the same as it does with out the load. Where as the 6.2 almost assuredly has to be pushed to the top of it's range to yield the comparable numbers. And of course, the diesel is probably FAAAAR more efficient under heavy load.

I think it'd be fair to say, that if you aren't going to make a habit of towing large loads long distances, the 6.2 is probably a fine engine indeed.