Ram Goes to Stunning 900 lb-ft of torque

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

The 2016 Ram 3500 breaks the towing record previously held by the old Ram 3500 (at 30,000 pounds) by moving up to 31,210 pounds,more than two tons beyond its closest rival. To get there, Ram went from 12 to 16 hardened bolts on the rear axle ring gear (for all trucks with the 11.8-inch axle), and used stronger materials in the differential case.

LINK

[dodge_guy]

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.

[jmtandem]

Some good info on why the Ram won't necessarily be the fastest, even if it has the most torque. To me being marginally faster up a hill, largely due to simply starting out a little quicker, is pretty meaningless. When I bought my Ram I knew I wasn't getting the fastest diesel. I'm pretty sure I got the best diesel and overall package of the current crop, though - for my needs anyway. None of them are bad by any means.

From what I can learn the Davis Dam test out of Laughlin is fairly comparable across the models. The Eisenhower tunnel test (Gauntlet)tests are statistically not predicatable as to comparable performance. They tow the same trailer on the same road. Beyond that they are doing these tests on different days, different humidity, temperatures, wind, and sometimes even different rear axle ratios. The one that I cannot get out of my mind was the 6.4 gas engine getting something like 2.8 mph at 35 mph. And that was wide open throttle with nothing in reserve. You got to be kidding. If that would have been me the next stop would have been at a Ram dealer getting the diesel.

[ib516]

ksss wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Truck Trend
prnewswire.com
autoblog.com



As far as who gets to the top first, if that is all you have to hold on to you can have it, the Ram will settle with being to the top a few minutes after you.



Don

Who gets to the top first is kind of the point isn't of all that power? I mean on one hand you are bragging that your truck OEM has a pickup that makes 900 foot pounds but on the other hand you don't care when you makes it to the top of hill, that seems contradictory to me. Why then feed all that power? Why offer a pickup that specs so great, but gets owned by trucks with considerably less impressive spec sheets. Kinda like the 6.4 gas, stomps the competition in every measurable stat except pulling a load up a hill. Suddenly then it becomes less important how fast you can get up hill, cause you know, it isn't race.

I'll correct you there.

The correct statement would be: "It stomps the competition in every way except pulling a load up a hill above ~10,000 ft in elevation." Don't forget it was fastest at the Davis Dam grade too, which I'm pretty sure was an uphill grade :B. I'll take those odds. The highest paved road in the country I live in is 7200 ft. And how many roads in the whole USA are above 10,000 ft in elevation where one would pull an RV? How they programmed it to perform at 10 of 11k ft is all but irrelevant to me.

[ShinerBock]

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.

[ShinerBock]

IdaD wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


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

Some good info on why the Ram won't necessarily be the fastest, even if it has the most torque. To me being marginally faster up a hill, largely due to simply starting out a little quicker, is pretty meaningless. When I bought my Ram I knew I wasn't getting the fastest diesel. I'm pretty sure I got the best diesel and overall package of the current crop, though - for my needs anyway. None of them are bad by any means.

Same here. When I bought my 2014 CTD I knew it would not be the quickest off the line or fastest up the hill. I did know that all the diesel options available had more than enough power to pull what I needed with plenty of power to spare so I went to the rest of the requirements on my list like fuel economy, cost, and ease of maintainance.


From all the research that I did and speaking with people that had each truck, the fuel mileage of the Cummins was on average better by 1-2 than the other two in the configuration I wanted. Up front costs leaned towards the Ram since the dealer was giving me more options for a lower price than the others. Then the ease of maintainance with a 15k oil change interval and the fact that I get Cummins parts 10% over cost at work. Those reasons along with Cummins being my old employer and I have some background knowledge of the engine and can still get any maintenance diagram I want led me to the Cummins.

There is no doubt in my mind that the new powerstoke is more powerful, quicker, and faster than my Cummins, but those were not the reason I bought it. If the Cummins did have enough power to tow what I need it to with power to spare then it would be a different story, but since it easily can then my secondary requirements made my decision. That still doesn't mean that I admit the fact that the Powerstoke is more powerful.

EDIT: I also loved the Cummins automatic exhaust brake of the others as well.

[e-light]

must have one of these

[dodge_guy]

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

[Bedlam]

My V8 6.0 PSD was definitely faster off the line with the same GCW than my I6 6.7 CTD. Where my PSD would start to plateau, the CTD continues to pull (kind of like the tortoise and the hare over a longer distance). The shorter stroke of the PSD let the RPM's spin up faster but it also made power at higher revs than the CTD.

[IdaD]

ShinerBock wrote:


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

Some good info on why the Ram won't necessarily be the fastest, even if it has the most torque. To me being marginally faster up a hill, largely due to simply starting out a little quicker, is pretty meaningless. When I bought my Ram I knew I wasn't getting the fastest diesel. I'm pretty sure I got the best diesel and overall package of the current crop, though - for my needs anyway. None of them are bad by any means.

[Bird_Freak]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well we don't have the testing numbers yet so until then we don't know who will make it to the top first. 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. Then add the Ram can out tow both the others and the question becomes do you want top speed or towing ability. Just like the Ford EB and the Ram ED do you want top speed or mileage? The Ram is the fastest off the line in every video I have seen also. It was not far enough behind the other two to really make a big difference, it will catch you guys on the backside and control that speed much better than the other two going down the hill.

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!

Myself, I think Ram shot themselves in the foot letting that V8 Cummins go. If I were in charge that engine would be in the 1500 and 2500 Ram along with a HD tow/payload option (think 6 lug axles) on the 1500 trucks. I also would have optioned the Ecodiesel in the 1500 but without the HD option. But I'm just a lowly Toolmaker stuck in the Tool & Gage department without any say in the matter.

Don

If cummins had thought a V8 was the way to go they would not have dropped the old VT903 in the old days and kept the inline's. You have a lot of false statements posted here but I am not interested in the BS games of power here. Lots of good trucks built today.

[FishOnOne]

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 around 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.

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 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.

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.

Speaking on passing performance what's the HP rating going to be?

[ShinerBock]

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.

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 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.

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.

[jmtandem]

Who gets to the top first is kind of the point isn't of all that power? I mean on one hand you are bragging that your truck OEM has a pickup that makes 900 foot pounds but on the other hand you don't care when you makes it to the top of hill, that seems contradictory to me. Why then feed all that power? Why offer a pickup that specs so great, but gets owned by trucks with considerably less impressive spec sheets. Kinda like the 6.4 gas, stomps the competition in every measurable stat except pulling a load up a hill. Suddenly then it becomes less important how fast you can get up hill, cause you know, it isn't race.

.........and maybe for most of us that use the diesel to tow getting to the top first is not that important. As you said it is not a race. But having the power, even if some is always in reserve, is beneficial and should it be needed, it is there. Nice to know that should the bridge call down to the engine room for more power it will happen. Race of not, the power is nice even if 'just in case' it is needed. And to race the big three diesels against each other might be fun to read about but reality says all three will get to the top of the hill within a matter of seconds of each other so who towing an RV really cares? Also, who cares if the numbers are paper or real world, all three diesel perform so much better than anything in a pickup twenty years ago. It will be interesting to see what we can tow with in another twenty years.

[RCMAN46]

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.

[Grit_dog]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Well we don't have the testing numbers yet so until then we don't know who will make it to the top first. 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. Then add the Ram can out tow both the others and the question becomes do you want top speed or towing ability. Just like the Ford EB and the Ram ED do you want top speed or mileage? The Ram is the fastest off the line in every video I have seen also. It was not far enough behind the other two to really make a big difference, it will catch you guys on the backside and control that speed much better than the other two going down the hill.

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!

Myself, I think Ram shot themselves in the foot letting that V8 Cummins go. If I were in charge that engine would be in the 1500 and 2500 Ram along with a HD tow/payload option (think 6 lug axles) on the 1500 trucks. I also would have optioned the Ecodiesel in the 1500 but without the HD option. But I'm just a lowly Toolmaker stuck in the Tool & Gage department without any say in the matter.

Don

Yeah Ram screwed the pooch by letting go of the 5 liter.
But wow, 900 ft lbs stock is pretty impressive. I guess since the epa put all the programmer guys in the soup line, the OEs are picking up some of the slack.
Love it!