Ram Goes to Stunning 900 lb-ft of torque

RCMAN46 wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
. Then add the Ram can out tow both the others and the question becomes do you want top speed or towing ability.

Don

This is based on what towing event?

Almost all of the towing tests I have seen the Ram came in last.

Out as in weight not speed.

ShinerBock wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Everyone knows that a in-line engine makes tons of torque down low and thru the mid rpm range and a V8 is just the opposite so the V8 should be able to out run the Ram over a long haul.

False! I am starting to not take you seriously on how much false information you have posted in this thread. There are many characteristics of an engine that determines when it gets its power, but the cylinder configuration is NOT one of them. The stroke length of the engine has a lot more to do with when an engine gets its torque. There are a lot more dynamics in an engines design that effect its characteristics as well. Currently all three light heavy duty diesel engines get their peak torque at 1,600 rpm. The only odd man out its the Cummins high output variant that gets its peak torque at a higher 1,700 rpm.

Here is some light reading with the actual differences between a I6 and V8 diesel. I6 versus V8 diesel.

You might want to re read your link my friend. It reads that in-line or I6 diesels top out or "red line between 1600-2000 RPM and "produce peak torque AT 1200 RPM, but by 1600 the torque has dropped drastically" This is found under the "I6 Advantages and Disadvantages" section.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
As far as the lying about the SAE J2807 specs both GM/Chevy and Ford had to remove parts and not just on the F-450 but all across the line up, to be able to get their trucks to look half way decent, Ram did not!

Don

False! Not the F150.



As far as the 2.7L EB versus the Ecodiesel, the mpg may be different but the cost per mile may not be too far off depending on the time of year due to the cost difference in fuels. Also the 2.7L was not "racing" up the hill since it was just doing the speed limit and had plenty of power to accelerate if needed. Just because the Ecodiesel could not hold the speed limit and the Ecoboost could does not mean it was "racing" up the hill. The quicker (not faster) off the line acceleration of the Ecodiesel has a lot more to do with the muck lower first gear of the 8 speed in the Ram than it had to do with engine power.
The Ecodiesel makes better fuel mileage towing and empty. If you do some checking I have said the Ram ED eats the Ford EB off the line through third gear (the Ram's third gear) do to the 8 speed transmission in the Ram. The only reason the Ford can hold speed is do to the twin turbos and higher red line over the ecodiesel. But and this is a huge BUT it will cost you gobs of fuel to be able to do it! This is not a slam against the EB they are great engines and I have no problem saying so and have said so. Even over on the Ram forums!

The differences between the two just depends on preferences. If you like having power to spare in those cases when you need to pass traffic that is going slower than the speed limit and do not mind paying extra in fuel then the 2.7L Ecoboost is for you. If you want better fuel economy, but do not mind not having as much power or you do not mind going slower than the speed limit then the Ecodiesel is for you.Not sure why you think the Ecodiesel is slower, pulling a step long grade yes but other than that nope they are very fast. As the guy in a 2015 Ford suv with a EB found out yesterday morning. We were side by side and I needed over in his lane, push down on the ole go pedal as did he and bye bye Ford. I will say when he got the chance he went around me like a raped ape. But then I was getting off the e-way so I waved good bye as he raced by me lol.


My preferences is that I don't mind paying more for power and capabilities. I have been in one of those situations towing where I was stuck behind slower moving traffic back when I had my 4.6L. I could not pass because I did not have enough power to pass without needing two miles of roadway to do so since the truck was barely able to accelerate. The semi in front of me and I were being passed by trucks that had more power than mine and I was stuck behind that truck for at least 20 miles. After that I said never again which is why my trucks have always been overpowered since then, and I will gladly pay extra for it. Others may not feel the same.

Well again other than a steep grade the little Ecodiesel is more than capable of passing and not needing 2 miles to do it. Have you ever driven one? I betting not as 98% of the people that are making these comments have never been behind the wheel of a Ecodiesel. I ordered mine with the optional 3.92 gears, why like you it's better to have it then need it!



Don

A lot of talk about how fast you can climb hills but torque doesn't tell you how fast you can climb the hill. Torque (at the wheels) tells you if you can climb the hill.

HP is what determines how fast you can climb.

Then again how many people really do a zero to 60 time up the eisenhower?

mr. ed wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

mr. ed wrote:
My 2007 3500 RAM has far less than 900 ft/lbs torque but it handles my 30' Fiver quite well. I don't think my stock clutch could have handled any more torque than it does (clutch was replaced about 1 1/2 years ago ).

Easy fix to that issue, install a double disk clutch!

I had considered that but decided on a stock replacement because I liked the "feel" of the original clutch. Besides, I've read on other forums that some Dodge diesel owners had various problems with their after market clutches, such as being too "grabby" among other issues. I've driven stick shift vehicles for many years and have always been relatively easy on clutches.Anyway, I'm happy with the choice of clutch I opted for.

I daily drive my DD, and very seldom have an issue with it being grabby, DD Organic.
Only time the "Feel" got to me was after 10 days in Ireland driving a nice little Peugeot 1.9L diesel six speed manual 508 Mini Van, that point my clutch felt a little hard!

But I would venture a guess that 99% of truck owners will NEVER tow heavy over that road. So many posters here on RV.net make reference to that roadway and justify why someone else NEEDS a certain engine.

My family went cross country camping in the early 90's when I was a kid. We drove east through the south and back west through the north. Never hit that stretch of roadway. When I eventually take my family across the country I MIGHT take that road one time. I doubt I will regularly haul across the road.

By then I will likely have a diesel, as I hope to be pulling more often and have less need for a daily driver. But again, I won't be buying a truck on the off chance I drive that roadway while hauling a trailer once or twice.

This route is Interstate 70 one of the major east west routes across America. I think many do drive and tow on this route even if you don't. I have been across the Rockies on this route many many times (including Loveland and Berthoud passes) and venture a guess that many RV'ers have also. Some folks live in Colorado and cross this road often. But, I guess you said it all when you said you will eventually take your family across the country. If you don't get out to Colorado often, you won't cross through the Eisenhower tunnel. Your response is not really about diesels, more it is about where you go or don't go or will eventually go. Colorado has a lot to offer, why would you even think you might not visit that state on a cross country trip? After all there is a world outside the beltway!

"and sometimes even different rear axle ratios. "

The rear axle ratio used should be determined by the torque/horsepower characteristics of the engine involved.

Also the transmission ratios will be included in determining the rear axle ratio.

Thus I would not expect nor should it be required that all of the trucks tested should have the same rear axle ratio. Each truck should use the ratio that best fits the above described issues and the job or hill that will be used.

No argument if the trucks are supplied from the manufacturer to test how fast they can climb a hill. I have watched the Gauntlet test videos and in some cases the testers said that the truck tested was the truck that was available, not necessarily the one that would be provided by the manufacturer as their offering for the fastest up the hill. And, of course, it also depends to some extent on the entry speed for the test. None are tested from a standing stop, all from entering the freeway at least 35 mph. The tests are fun to watch but I put no statistical inference into the findings.

A 3.73 is a lower ratio than a 4.11 in case there is confusion about what was meant by a lower ratio rear end gear.

Industrywide, generally speaking a 4.10 is a lower gear ratio than a 3.73. A 3.73 is a higher ratio than a 4.10.

FishOnOne wrote:

Not sure I agree u can change the oil and filter easier than a PowerStroke. By the time it takes you to remove your oil filter I can have my oil change done with no clean up either.

I seen the new 2013+ CTD oil filters changed by my techs many times. Unless you are changing your oil in under 10 minutes then I don't see what you are saying here.

"and sometimes even different rear axle ratios. "

The rear axle ratio used should be determined by the torque/horsepower characteristics of the engine involved.

Also the transmission ratios will be included in determining the rear axle ratio.

Thus I would not expect nor should it be required that all of the trucks tested should have the same rear axle ratio. Each truck should use the ratio that best fits the above described issues and the job or hill that will be used.

With the Ram having lower rpm's for it's peak torque and horsepower I would expect the Ram would want a lower ratio rear end gear than the V8 diesels.

A 3.73 is a lower ratio than a 4.11 in case there is confusion about what was meant by a lower ratio rear end gear.

dodge guy wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

dodge guy wrote:
Actually straight sixes have always made their torque at low rpm, just like big block gas motors. It's been proven over the years.

That has more to do with straight sixes having a longer stroke due to its design rather than just because it is a straight six. You put the same long stroke on a V8 and it would produce the same low end torque.

That's why I said a big block gas motor works the same way. There is just something about a straight 6 that makes low rpm torque with very little HP.

And as I said it has more to do with whether the engine is over-square(short stroke) or under-square(long stroke) rather than it being a straight six or big block. There are high revving short stroke straight sixes and bog blocks just as their are long stroke straight sixes and big blocks that make a lot of low end torque. Being a straight six or "big block" has nothing to do with whether it makes torque down low or not.