RAM 1500 V6 vs GM's new 4.3L V6 - Davis Dam etc.

fla-gypsy wrote:
Just more banter for the school boys

looks like that to me also. The red truck is always better.

chevman

Just more banter for the school boys

ktosv wrote:
So, based on these numbers...is HP or torque "king"?

With a perfect transmission, only HP matters, as agreed by Newton.

The closest perfect transmission in real life would be a AC-AC locomotive (AC generator, VFD + AC traction motors). 90%+ efficiency from walking pace up to 75 mph, one seamless "gear".

It's for that reason that no locomotive is ever rated in torque, only hp. Their pulling power is determined by hp and weight.

The whole "torque" argument is really out of date - back when transmissions had 3 gears, you need a fat torque curve to have enough power under the curve.

ktosv wrote:
So, based on these numbers...is HP or torque "king"?

Good point.

What I think is important is that no engine power gets to the wheels without first going through a transmission. You have to consider the whole powertrain rather than just the engine.

In the past, Dodge/Ram would typically perform worse in these comparos even with superior power in their engines. Tests that come to mind are when the Hemi was hampered by the 545RFE 5 speed auto with it's weird ratios when the competition had 6 speeds.

Also the 48RE held the 5.9L Cummins back in performance numbers when it had more hp and tq than the other guys. More ratios to choose from usually means better performance. I think despite the slight tq deficit the 3.6L has when compared to the 4.3L, the 8 speed auto made the difference. Better hwy mpg and better performance numbers = win/win.

So, based on these numbers...is HP or torque "king"?

Not enough difference to give a patoot about. As said, buy what you like, what fits you and your needs.

ib515 said:

"Pretty decisive win for the RAM in every single performance related category. I'm surprised the higher tq and larger displacement 4.3L V6 didn't do better. Must be the 8 speed auto in the RAM that gave it the edge. "



I think you nailed it....re: the extra ratios.

Reminds me, back around 1970, of a buddy's '66 Mustang. He had a 289 V8 that he installed a 3 X 2 bbl carb set up, coupled with some really good exhaust headers and a few other speed parts that I can't remember anymore.

But he only had a 3 speed standard transmission. He could never compete with other '60's Mustangs with 289 V8 and 4 speeds. Even though his 289 was putting out a bit more power than the stock 289's...he just didn't have enough gears.

I think it would be a different story if the GM had a similar transmission as the Dodge...pardon me...Ram as it is now known.
All things being equal...# of speeds in transmissions, final drive ratio, traction, weight....then it's all about engine power...which of course comes down to whose got the best power to weight ratio and the best gearing.

My understanding is that the Dodge transmission is a ZF....similar to the ZF automatic used in BMW and Mercedes RWD vehicles. I'm sure there have been mods done to the tranny to accommodate the different needs a truck has....probably ratios, different components for increased durability, etc.

A neighbour has a 2013 Ram 1500 4 door, 4WD pickup with the 3.6 V6. I like it very much and I think it's a fine truck. One I would consider if my wife would go for a pick up truck.

The other truck I would consider would be a GM 1500, 4 door, 4WD with the 4.3 LS V6. The LS engine family is quite impressive.

parkersdad wrote:

blt2ski wrote:
Like a lot of things, if you want the first to the finish, top of mtn.......but the seats do not fit you, buy that one. If you want the one the seats fits you, but is not that much slower, do these differences in times matter? Compared to the day one got a 250I6 with maybe 125HP, and 200 lbs of torque, a 3 in the tree emanual tranny.......I have to say, EITHER of those trucks performance specs look great! Some of the V6's are putting out what was BB power in the later 70's to early 80s. Along with trannies that have double and triple the gears, better mpgs, by double all around.....better more comfortable seats.......

Anything to not like about the new trucks?

Marty

I would not want a v6 full size truck. To me that is like putting a 4 cylinder in a corvette.

Some of todays 4 bangers are probably putting out more power than the original V8 in the vet back in the 50's frankly. Could probably get it moving faster too!

I would not have an issue with todays V6 in a full size truck, be it a 1500, or a 3500, IF I was to use that 3500 as strictly a gvwr only rig, and not towing what the chassis is capable of. This also is an issue with folks say on this forum. Yeah all of us tow. so a bigger badder motor is needed. Some like myself, choose rigs like a tool, what is its end use age. If a V6 will do the job, why buy a lower mpg motor? other than one likes the seat of the pants power one gets from a larger motor?!?!???

marty

blt2ski wrote:
Like a lot of things, if you want the first to the finish, top of mtn.......but the seats do not fit you, buy that one. If you want the one the seats fits you, but is not that much slower, do these differences in times matter? Compared to the day one got a 250I6 with maybe 125HP, and 200 lbs of torque, a 3 in the tree emanual tranny.......I have to say, EITHER of those trucks performance specs look great! Some of the V6's are putting out what was BB power in the later 70's to early 80s. Along with trannies that have double and triple the gears, better mpgs, by double all around.....better more comfortable seats.......

Anything to not like about the new trucks?

Marty

I would not want a v6 full size truck. To me that is like putting a 4 cylinder in a corvette.