Ram 2500

rhagfo wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

thehippie wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It doesn't.

Where are your numbers coming from?

i thought inline vas more torque than V.

Nope, torque is not power. Never has been and never will be.

To give you an example: On a bike I can put out around 225 Ft/lbs of torque. If I had a 5 foot crank I could put out more torque than a new Cummins 6.7 engine at the crank!

I can put out only about a 1/2 a HP for a short period of time.

Even though I can put out a lot of torque I would not make a good TV engine!

Yada, Yada, Yada :h

No Torque is not power, no way at all.

That is why a Diesel with less HP than a gasser can pull a lot more weight.

My antique 2001 Ram CTD with less than 280 hp,and 288,000 miles does a great job of moving between 19,500 to 20,000# CGVW uphill and down.

None of the HP is everything and torque is nothing, can't seem to explain that to me, oh an i have 3.55 gears to top it off. So now i am really confused as to how i do it.
:h :h :h

Why do you always apply your mileage to every scenario discussed here?

My take away from your statement is you have a low expectation for performance... We get it! But that's OK :B

Me Again wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.

I have owned a 1993 RAM, a 2001.5 RAM and now a 2015. I can only assume that you have never owned or driven one.

Regarding crash test, let me run into you with one and see who walks away. Chris

I have driven a pre production Dodge Ram with a cummins to be put on display in a truck market full of wealthy farmers and ranchers who love diesel trucks. I can assume I driven a Dodge cummins before you knew they ever exist. :W

Your crash test statement proves your a complete idiot and full of hatred! :B Troy

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:


Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.

The engine configuration does not determine the powerband either. The bore/stroke ratio does. An oversquare inline 6 can rev high just like the BMW N55 3.0L engines that redline at 7,500 rpm. Likewise an undersquare V8 can have a lower limit like the Ford 5.4L with a 5,200 rpm redline in the F150. The more undersquare an engine is the lower it's max speed and the lower it gets it's peak torque. It has nothing to do with cylinder configuration.

I don't see how an engine configuration would affect crash test ratings if it was made to break away properly in a wreck though.

I believe the power band I'm referring to is addressed in your article under the cons section with a Bore/Stroke configuration as semis have.

I've seen a wrecked truck with a I6 pushed into the fire wall in which invaded the interior space pretty bad. Engines don't crumble and absorb energy during a frontal impact. Another example but with a Ford V10 was the Ford SVT team was looking at utilizing a V10 in the second generation Lightning, but because of the extra long engine it wouldn't pass their crash test standards (again invading the interior space)at the time so that scenario was canned.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

thehippie wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It doesn't.

Where are your numbers coming from?

i thought inline vas more torque than V.

Nope, torque is not power. Never has been and never will be.

To give you an example: On a bike I can put out around 225 Ft/lbs of torque. If I had a 5 foot crank I could put out more torque than a new Cummins 6.7 engine at the crank!

I can put out only about a 1/2 a HP for a short period of time.

Even though I can put out a lot of torque I would not make a good TV engine!

Yada, Yada, Yada :h

No Torque is not power, no way at all.

That is why a Diesel with less HP than a gasser can pull a lot more weight.

My antique 2001 Ram CTD with less than 280 hp,and 288,000 miles does a great job of moving between 19,500 to 20,000# CGVW uphill and down.

None of the HP is everything and torque is nothing, can't seem to explain that to me, oh an i have 3.55 gears to top it off. So now i am really confused as to how i do it.
:h :h :h

Here is a great article I just found about the difference between I-6 and V8 diesels.

I-6 VS V-8 Diesel

thehippie wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It doesn't.

Where are your numbers coming from?

i thought inline vas more torque than V.

Nope, torque is not power. Never has been and never will be.

To give you an example: On a bike I can put out around 225 Ft/lbs of torque. If I had a 5 foot crank I could put out more torque than a new Cummins 6.7 engine at the crank!

I can put out only about a 1/2 a HP for a short period of time.

Even though I can put out a lot of torque I would not make a good TV engine!

FishOnOne wrote:

Flashman wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

thehippie wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It doesn't.

Where are your numbers coming from?

i thought inline vas more torque than V.

Engine piston configuration does not determine peak torque or when it is reached. Engine displacement, bore/stroke ratio, and induction (forced or N/A) are the major things that effect torque output and curve.

Can't argue that - but notice how all the Semis are straight 6s - and torque is of prime consideration for them.

Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.

Ya I hear you. I can barely get thru the intersection on a green light before it turns red with my Cummings. I usually have one of my power stroke friends tow my 5th wheel thru town and out to the freeway when we go on a trip.

FishOnOne wrote:


Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.

I have owned a 1993 RAM, a 2001.5 RAM and now a 2015. I can only assume that you have never owned or driven one.

Regarding crash test, let me run into you with one and see who walks away. Chris

FishOnOne wrote:


Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.

The engine configuration does not determine the powerband either. The bore/stroke ratio does. An oversquare inline 6 can rev high just like the BMW N55 3.0L engines that redline at 7,500 rpm. Likewise an undersquare V8 can have a lower limit like the Ford 5.4L with a 5,200 rpm redline in the F150. The more undersquare an engine is the lower it's max speed and the lower it gets it's peak torque. It has nothing to do with cylinder configuration.

I don't see how an engine configuration would affect crash test ratings if it was made to break away properly in a wreck though.

Flashman wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

thehippie wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It doesn't.

Where are your numbers coming from?

i thought inline vas more torque than V.

Engine piston configuration does not determine peak torque or when it is reached. Engine displacement, bore/stroke ratio, and induction (forced or N/A) are the major things that effect torque output and curve.

Can't argue that - but notice how all the Semis are straight 6s - and torque is of prime consideration for them.

Also notice how short the power band is. Not a big deal when your running a lot of highway miles, but is a PITA when having to run around city/town speeds.

I would also suspect that crash tests standards maybe more difficult to achieve with a straight six.