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

[cummins2014]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:


I don't dispute that it is the bore/stroke ratio, what I am saying is that design limitations dictate that large displacement I6's be understroke engines. The Supra example is a small displacement engine and is not relevent to this thread.

Regardless of design limitations in any given scenario, it is the bore stroke ratio that effects when the engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. No matter how you want to slice it, that will always be the case.

Also, the Supra engine was relevant in making my case that there are inline six engine that are over-square. If it was not relevant for you then you can go point sand because I don't since it was my point. After all, I can say the design limitations is irrelevant since we are talking about engines in general.

We have another News w , how lucky can we be .

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:


I don't dispute that it is the bore/stroke ratio, what I am saying is that design limitations dictate that large displacement I6's be understroke engines. The Supra example is a small displacement engine and is not relevent to this thread.

Regardless of design limitations in any given scenario, it is the bore stroke ratio that effects when the engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. No matter how you want to slice it, that will always be the case.

Also, the Supra engine was relevant in making my case that there are inline six engine that are over-square. If it was not relevant for you then you can go pound sand because I don't care since it was my point. After all, I can say the design limitations is irrelevant since we are talking about engines in general.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

When did the Jeep 4.0 become a high performance engine?

Where did I say that I was only talking about high performance engines? IIRC, I was talking about how the bore/stroke ratio effects when an engine gets its peak torque and max engine speed of ALL ENGINES . I don't recall limiting what I said to just performance engines.

You were the one who brought up the Supra. My point is that for the 6.7 Cummins to be a square engine it would have to be 5 inches longer just to accommodate the larger bores.

I brought up the Supra engine as an example of an over-square inline six. I don't understand how me using the Supra engine as an example of an over-square inline six automatically means that I am only talking about performance engines.

Again, and I do not know how to say this to make it simpler, the bore/stroke ratio is what effects when an engine reaches peak torque and its max engine speed, NOT the cylinder configuration. It doesn't matter that you have to make the inline six 6.7L under-square to get to fit because it is not the fact that it is an inline six that makes it have low peak torque, it is the fact that it is under-square. You can decrease the stroke and increase the bore on the same inline six 6.7L and you will change when it reaches peak torque. I really don't know how many ways I can say this to make it easier to understand.

I don't dispute that it is the bore/stroke ratio, what I am saying is that design limitations dictate that large displacement I6's be understroke engines. The Supra example is a small displacement engine and is not relevent to this thread.

[srt20]

Just to add fuel.....

The camshaft is a major player in where the engine makes it power.



Ok back to your regularly scheduled tow vehicles sub forum debate.....

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

When did the Jeep 4.0 become a high performance engine?

Where did I say that I was only talking about high performance engines? IIRC, I was talking about how the bore/stroke ratio effects when an engine gets its peak torque and max engine speed of ALL ENGINES . I don't recall limiting what I said to just performance engines.

You were the one who brought up the Supra. My point is that for the 6.7 Cummins to be a square engine it would have to be 5 inches longer just to accommodate the larger bores.

I brought up the Supra engine as an example of an over-square inline six. I don't understand how me using the Supra engine as an example of an over-square inline six automatically means that I am only talking about performance engines.

Again, and I do not know how to say this to make it simpler, the bore/stroke ratio is what effects when an engine reaches peak torque and its max engine speed, NOT the cylinder configuration. It doesn't matter that you have to make the inline six 6.7L under-square to get to fit because it is not the fact that it is an inline six that makes it have low peak torque, it is the fact that it is under-square. You can decrease the stroke and increase the bore on the same inline six 6.7L and you will change when it reaches peak torque. I really don't know how many ways I can say this to make it easier to understand.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

When did the Jeep 4.0 become a high performance engine?

Where did I say that I was only talking about high performance engines? IIRC, I was talking about how the bore/stroke ratio effects when an engine gets its peak torque and max engine speed of ALL ENGINES . I don't recall limiting what I said to just performance engines.

You were the one who brought up the Supra. My point is that for the 6.7 Cummins to be a square engine it would have to be 5 inches longer just to accommodate the larger bores.

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

When did the Jeep 4.0 become a high performance engine?

Where did I say that I was only talking about high performance engines? IIRC, I was talking about how the bore/stroke ratio effects when an engine gets its peak torque and max engine speed of ALL ENGINES . I don't recall limiting what I said to just performance engines, and I don't know where you are getting that I did.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:
The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

When did the Jeep 4.0 become a high performance engine?

[ShinerBock]

The Jeep 4.0L was an over-square inline six along with even larger displacement inline six prop plane engines, but that is neither here nor there since it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engine reaches peak torque and max engine speed, not cylinder configuration. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[transferred]

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Inline six engines are generally under-square(long stroke) due to most inline six's having a tall block. However, that is not the case for every inline six. Some old Toyota Supra inline six engines were over-square (short stroke) which is why they were able to get such high horsepower due to their higher revs. Likewise, some V engines are under-square and get their torque down low and have low max engine speeds. HAVING TORQUE AT LOW RPM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INLINE SIX. This is a FACT!

For practical purposes it does. Large displacement I6's need to be under square or their blocks and crankshafts will become excessively long. That is why you don't see many high performance I6's and the ones you do aren't bigger than 3 litres, including your Supra example and BMW straight sixes.

Not disagreeing with your point but one pedantic correction; not bigger than 3.2 liters would be more accurate (E46 M3).

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Inline six engines are generally under-square(long stroke) due to most inline six's having a tall block. However, that is not the case for every inline six. Some old Toyota Supra inline six engines were over-square (short stroke) which is why they were able to get such high horsepower due to their higher revs. Likewise, some V engines are under-square and get their torque down low and have low max engine speeds. HAVING TORQUE AT LOW RPM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INLINE SIX. This is a FACT!

For practical purposes it does. Large displacement I6's need to be under square or their blocks and crankshafts will become excessively long. That is why you don't see many high performance I6's and the ones you do aren't bigger than 3 litres, including your Supra example and BMW straight sixes.

That still does not change the fact that it is the bore/stroke ratio that determines when an engines reaches peak torque and max engine speed, and NOT cylinder configuration.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:
Inline six engines are generally under-square(long stroke) due to most inline six's having a tall block. However, that is not the case for every inline six. Some old Toyota Supra inline six engines were over-square (short stroke) which is why they were able to get such high horsepower due to their higher revs. Likewise, some V engines are under-square and get their torque down low and have low max engine speeds. HAVING TORQUE AT LOW RPM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INLINE SIX. This is a FACT!

For practical purposes it does. Large displacement I6's need to be under square or their blocks and crankshafts will become excessively long. That is why you don't see many high performance I6's and the ones you do aren't bigger than 3 litres, including your Supra example and BMW straight sixes.

[ShinerBock]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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.

I think you should read that again. They were giving an example of a tractor-trailer engine which do have a low engine speed due to the fact that their are very under square. Like I keep saying over and over again, when an engine gets its peak torque and its max engine speed is NOT dependant on its cylinder configuration. Regardless of cylinder configuration, the more under-square an engine is (longer stroke and shorter bore) it will get its torque at lower rpms while having a lower max engine speed. The more over-square an engine is (shorter stroke and larger bore) the higher rpm it needs to get its torque and the higher max engine speed it will have.

Inline six engines are generally under-square(long stroke) due to most inline six's having a tall block. However, that is not the case for every inline six. Some old Toyota Supra inline six engines were over-square (short stroke) which is why they were able to get such high horsepower due to their higher revs. Likewise, some V engines are under-square and get their torque down low and have low max engine speeds. HAVING TORQUE AT LOW RPM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INLINE SIX. This is a FACT!

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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!

I think that you have already proven that just because you say something does not mean it is fact or true. According to all the reviews that I have seen, the 3.0L ED is not quicker from first through third than the 2.7L EB. Looking at the test thet PUTC done in the chart below, unless the 3.0L ED shifted from first to third by the time it hits 10 mph, then the 3.0L ED is not quicker from first to third.



Also, if you look at those Ike Guantlet tests of the two trucks, the 2.7L EB was between 3,000 to 3,500 rpms towing almost the whole way up just like the 3.0L ED was so how can you say that it was the higher redline of the 2.7L EB that made it quicker up the hill if both were at the same RPM most of the way.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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.

The Ecodiesel is slower and every review site from here to ten buck two has proven that. If you try to say that the either EB is slower than the 3.0L ED then you are a lying cur dog because I got proof after proof that it isn't. I don't know who this mysterious person you raced, but he obviously did not have the pedal to the floor the same time you did.

You bought your truck for fuel mileage knowing that other trucks were quicker, faster, and more powerful just like I did so why go around after the fact trying to say yours is quicker and fatsrer? You don't see me going around posting lies saying that my stock 370 hp and 800 lb-ft CTD is quicker, faster, and more powerful than a 2015 440 hp and 860 lb-ft PSD. I knew the PSD was quicker and more powerful when I bought my truck, but that was not the reason I bought my truck. I enjoy my truck for the reasons I bought it, not for the reasons I didn't buy the others.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
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!

Yes, I have driven one at a Ram event in San Anontio. If your foot is already to the floor towing 7,000 lbs like that in the ike gauntlet, the Fourwheeler.com article, and trucktrend article where they were loosing speed ot barley able to maintain speed then you will not be able to accelerate. It just not going to happen.

[FishOnOne]

Wow the vm motori doesn't get any love even in a cummins thread. I will say my Power Stroke didn't show any love to a ED either.:W

Time for this thread to go bye...bye

[IdaD]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Not sure why you think the Ecodiesel is slower, pulling a step long grade yes but other than that nope they are very fast.

Literally every test I've ever seen has shown that the 2.7 EB is substantially faster than the ED. I'm not even sure how this can be a point of discussion. Faster doesn't necessarily mean better, but it is clearly faster in every scenario.