ram 2500 5.7 longevity

Kavoom wrote:
Go over to Ramforumz. Everything you ever wanted to know. BUT, I have never heard of longevity problems with them if taken care of. That subject is not one I have seen brought up.

"TDR" - Turbo Diesel Register

Check out the "longevity" awards.

:W

"the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt"

"most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt.

This runs counter to the “myth” that oiled media filters actually “work better” as they get dirtier."

Lynnmor wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:
If you want it to last, lose the dirt passing K&N "filter".

Intresting and biased by lack of knowledge comment. Nothing wrong with a K&N air filter or any other oiled filter for that matter so long as you maintain it properly.

I've had a K&N Cold air intake on my 1997 Ford since 2000 and I check the intake tract all the time. It's always clean but then I maintain the filter properly.

Other than Internet 'folklore' bet you cannot cite any instance where they have caused engine failure, like I said, 'folklore and unsubstianted opinion aside.

How about it bub?

I can read!
Real Test

Wow! "This report shows, with empirical data and sound reasoning, why OEM filters perform better in a variety of areas."

Good info, Picjare, thanks.

Op, I work for a ram dealer and I think the hemi is one of the best engines being made. There's Four different sizes used in cars and trucks and they're all built nearly identical but have different bore sizes and strokes to make different displacement.

Overall extremely reliable. Here are problems I see with them: rear exhaust manifold bolts break causing ticking from engine. The hemi is a noisy engine especially when started cold. They don't knock, just make a lot of noise customers have to get used to. New 6.4L especially guilty of this for some reason, but it's normal. Most serious problem I see about once every two months is camshaft lobes ground down. I have seen it on very, very well maintained vehicles (maintained by us!), and engines that are in trucks that just get used hard, there seems to be no pattern or way to avoid or predict which engines will experience worn cam lobes, just happens. However, my understanding is other manufacturers, such as GM 5.3 and 6.0 have this happen as well. It's expensive.

I think people really need to think hard on these new diesels. The emissions components are expensive and somewhat prone to failure. But nothing will pull a trailer easier than a diesel. The trans behind the new 6.4l and the new 6.7l diesel are same design--a 66rfe and a 68rfe. 68 has shafts rated for higher torque. Seriously consider your mood when towing and how patient you are with heavy trailer in headwind or long climb or something and if you can be a little more patient I recommend the 6.4l. If you won't tolerate being slowed down 10mph during those times, I guess the diesel is way to go.

It will last 10-50 years. Depending on a number of factors.

The truck will likely outlast your desire for it barring a situation where it is totaled while under your possession.

Fact is most vehicles are traded off for trivial reasons and desires and yours likely will be too.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Road Phantom wrote:
No comparison between my heavy duty 2014 2500 and a 2004 Durango.

True for the most part but the engine itself isn't much different. My 2004 has the 5spd auto, I believe yours has the 6spd auto. Both are good but the 6spd is more robust for towing. It should hold up fine. My 2007 Ram 2500 has the 6spd and I now have 120,000 miles on it with no issues.

The 5.7L has been improved slightly over the years but nothing huge. 383hp vs 335hp, torque 383 vs 375. My Durango has a 3.55 rear end. Yours may have the 3.92 which would help towing.

It looks like I'll be better off staying out of the mountains with this truck/trailer combo. (11,000 GCW) I spend the winters in South Texas where it's relatively flat. I don't mind taking the coastal route back to Pa, since I have family in Florida and Georgia. No comparison between my heavy duty 2014 2500 and a 2004 Durango. I pulled my last 8000 lbs GCW 5th wheel with this truck through Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico with little problem.
Due to dusty Texas, I may dump the K&N.

Lynnmor wrote:
If you want it to last, lose the dirt passing K&N "filter".

X2. I live in AZ where there is a lot of fine dust. No way will I ever use a K&N. K&N's own specs (that they since removed from website) showed the amount of fine dust allowed thru was 50% more than a conventional air filter. I used one in my younger years and found considerable amount of dust under the filter each time I went to clean. Never again!!

Back on topic!! The 5.7L is a great engine. I cannot imagine pulling 11,000 lbs though. I pulled a 5,000 lb TT for 10 years with my 2004 5.7L Durango. Did quite well but was slow up the 6% mountain grades. Wouldn't want to tow more than double, unless perhaps you live in flat lands.

The transmission would be where I'd worry. I had to rebuild mine at 90,000 miles. Clutch plates were burned. Stopped using it to tow at about 100,000 miles. It now has 170,000 miles and runs like new.

Change differential oil often. 15K miles if most mileage is towing.

SidecarFlip wrote:
Filter phooey or not, best way to insure the longevity of any engine is maintain it correctly.

I will agree that an OVER OILED oiled air filter will foul a mass air flow sensor from the downstream atomized oil mist. Been there and did that myself on my wife's gas motor. Quick spritz of CRC MAF sensor cleaner fixed that issue.

Mine was NOT over oiled as it came straight from the factory.