New truck...RAM

[stro1965]

Traded my 2012 6.7 F250 for a 2014 Ram 6.7 3500 SRW yesterday. Wanted the additional payload and the much nicer ride and nicer interior is a bonus. My F250 had power to spare, but I was pushing the limits on my pin weight. I hope the new Ram pulls the camper as well! Are you Ram guys pleased? Been many moons since I've driven a Dodge.

[blofgren]

jus2shy wrote:

stro1965 wrote:

Paul Clancy wrote:
Does ram offer wheel well liners?

I do not know.

They were standard on my truck.

Mine has them as well.

[ib516]

Paul Clancy wrote:
Does ram offer wheel well liners?

My 2007 didn't come with them on the rear but they were available at the dealer. I think they were about $90/pr.

[jus2shy]

stro1965 wrote:

Paul Clancy wrote:
Does ram offer wheel well liners?

I do not know.

They were standard on my truck.

[4x4ord]

Delete

[stro1965]

Paul Clancy wrote:
Does ram offer wheel well liners?

I do not know.

[Paul_Clancy]

Does ram offer wheel well liners?

[stro1965]

Just came from a body shop (new truck had a door ding on the lot, they fixed it). I asked about long term care and he suggested spraying the wheel wells with some undercoating. Rusty wheel wells are apparently still prevelant in the Rams.

[transamz9]

ib516 wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Isn't the Cummins 370HP and the Hemi 410HP? :h

Yes, but the Cummins has 800tq, and the Hemi has 429tq.

Mine has 385/850.

The TQ management is huge off the line but once it's gone the traction control has it's hands full for a few seconds.

Follow up on my other post:
My new truck will not tow with my '05.

[JordanH]

Beauty new truck, I love my 09 1500. Really look forward to getting a new 3500 in a couple years

[larry_barnhart]

45Ricochet wrote:

ib516 wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Isn't the Cummins 370HP and the Hemi 410HP? :h

Yes, but the Cummins has 800tq, and the Hemi has 429tq.

HP is everything to Bob, err turtle. Torque means nothing :B :B
I keep track of these things and he's a HP guy.
Having said that, I agree HP is faster on level ground. Pulling hills under load is Torque. HP is needed to make TQ but at some point the amount of torque needed will overtake the HP ratings.
That is exactly why the newer Ford and GM trucks are faster off the line empty, more HP.
Now put a real load on each up a 6% grade the higher TQ rated Ram will out pull the other two due to a higher TQ number.
A$$ in the seat empty, Ford, GM, and the slant six.
Passing everyone up the Grapevine, Ram, Ford and the tag along.
Got to love long stroke engines if your pulling anything.

WHY I don't remember having a problem towing our fifthwheel anywhere we go.
22920 combined lbs.

chevman

[45Ricochet]

ib516 wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Isn't the Cummins 370HP and the Hemi 410HP? :h

Yes, but the Cummins has 800tq, and the Hemi has 429tq.

HP is everything to Bob, err turtle. Torque means nothing :B :B
I keep track of these things and he's a HP guy.
Having said that, I agree HP is faster on level ground. Pulling hills under load is Torque. HP is needed to make TQ but at some point the amount of torque needed will overtake the HP ratings.
That is exactly why the newer Ford and GM trucks are faster off the line empty, more HP.
Now put a real load on each up a 6% grade the higher TQ rated Ram will out pull the other two due to a higher TQ number.
A$$ in the seat empty, Ford, GM, and the slant six.
Passing everyone up the Grapevine, Ram, Ford and the tag along.
Got to love long stroke engines if your pulling anything.

[ib516]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Isn't the Cummins 370HP and the Hemi 410HP? :h

Yes, but the Cummins has 800tq, and the Hemi has 429tq.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Isn't the Cummins 370HP and the Hemi 410HP? :h

[ib516]

goducks10 wrote:

ib516 wrote:
There has to be a lot of torque management on the Cummins. On any 0-60 tests I've seen the Cummins is slightly slower to 60 than the Hemi, yet it's much more powerful.

Put 950lbs in the 6.4 hemi's bed and see if it can still beat the Cummins from 0-60. That's apr the difference in curb weight.

You know, I doubted your data, so I had to looked it up. 🙂 You're right -- the 6.7L Cummins powered truck is roughly 900 - 950# heavier (truck for truck) than the 6.4L Hemi truck. WOW, that's a big difference, and you're right, that likely accounts for much of the difference in 0-60.