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

[mich800]

jmtandem wrote:

Only on rv.net can people get so hung up on semantics to force an argument or debate.

Only on RV.net? Apparently you have not visited many forums.

See I told you. 😉

Actually I have, point made for emphasis.

[jmtandem]

Only on rv.net can people get so hung up on semantics to force an argument or debate.

Only on RV.net? Apparently you have not visited many forums.

[ib516]

Adam R wrote:
900 ft lbs or torque will be awesome. The torque management that comes along with that engine will be less than awesome.

Would be nice to see Ram fix that flaw in their programming.

I'll let you in on a not so secret piece of info :W. They all torque manage (big 3 diesels), as do some gassers.

[mich800]

Only on rv.net can people get so hung up on semantics to force an argument or debate. Traction control is to reduce or eliminate wheel spin or a skid. Torque management is so you don't break stuff. Sure they may share some of the same methods to achieve that end but they are completly different objectives.

[RobertRyan]

wilber1 wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
The cheapest traction control modulates your brakes to keep wheel RPM within a close delta. Many times it is just additional logic within an ABS setup. Smarter traction control will retard engine output along with selective wheel braking.

Retarding engine output is managing torque.

Another good reason to manage torque in low gears is to keep you from ripping the tires off your TV.

Yes Power and torque have to be reduced

[parkersdad]

Maybe it's just me but torque management does not bother me. My Ram gets everything moving that I have stuck behind it just fine. I'm not trying to win a race for money.

[RobertRyan]

Been following the thread , standard definition of traction control. Take your pick

Brake force applied to one or more wheels
Reduction or suppression of spark sequence to one or more cylinders
Reduction of fuel supply to one or more cylinders
Closing the throttle, if the vehicle is fitted with drive by wire throttle
In turbocharged vehicles, a boost control solenoid is actuated to reduce boost and therefore engine power.
Typically, traction control systems share the electrohydraulic brake actuator (which does not use the conventional master cylinder and servo) and wheel speed sensors with ABS.

[mich800]

All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs. 🙂

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:


How exactly does traction control work then if it doesn't do it by managing torque?

My face....




when I read this post. Followed by a head shake.

[wilber1]

Bedlam wrote:
The cheapest traction control modulates your brakes to keep wheel RPM within a close delta. Many times it is just additional logic within an ABS setup. Smarter traction control will retard engine output along with selective wheel braking.

Retarding engine output is managing torque.

Another good reason to manage torque in low gears is to keep you from ripping the tires off your TV.

[Bedlam]

The cheapest traction control modulates your brakes to keep wheel RPM within a close delta. Many times it is just additional logic within an ABS setup. Smarter traction control will retard engine output along with selective wheel braking.

[ShinerBock]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

PS: Shiner has been 100% correct so far, even including the part about traction control. I've been keeping tract. 🙂 So far it's a shutout. :B

Thank you for the words Sir!

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

A lot of vehicles have torque management. It's called traction control.

False! Torque management is NOT traction control. Torque management is the ECM cutting the power of the engine between shifts and in low rpms to save the transmission and driveline. With diesels, the ECM will lower boost levels and fuel delivery to manage the amount of torque going through the driveline. Traction control is something totally different and is used for totally different reasons.



Also to everyone else, a lot what most perceive as torque management is actually the laggy and slow to respond pedal in DBW(Drive By Wire systems). Just because one mashes there pedal down does not mean they are sending telling the engine to give you 100% power. The DBW sends a signal to the ECM and the ECM will dictate how much power for the engine to give. One may press their pedal down 50%, but the ECM is telling the engine to only be at 25%. There are ways to get around this like the BD throttle sensitivity booster. Of course not all of it is the pedal and a tuner will go the rest of the way in taking off torque management or force the engine to not lower boost or fuel at lower rpms and between shifts.

How exactly does traction control work then if it doesn't do it by managing torque?

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

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.

I don't know about that. This one is 5.9L and it's pretty high perf. Over a 1000 HP and over 140 lbs of boost is good enough for an old 12 valve for me.

PS: Shiner has been 100% correct so far, even including the part about traction control. I've been keeping tract. 🙂 So far it's a shutout. :B

[Adam_R]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Adam R wrote:
900 ft lbs or torque will be awesome. The torque management that comes along with that engine will be less than awesome.

Would be nice to see Ram fix that flaw in their programming.

It's not a flaw. If they had no management the driveline would self destruct.

My mealy 865 TQ gets 30K rolling quite easily even with the "FLAW".

When you mash the pedal and nothing, nada, zip happens for a split second, that IS a FLAW and why I won't by a Ram until it is fixed. Try driving down the road, lift your foot and then re-apply throttle. The RPM gauge will sit there and do nothing for a good 1/2 a second which can seem like an eternity if you are trying to accomplish something. Hell, give me 400 ft/lbs of torque from a dead stop and I might be happy, but giving me nothing is UNACCEPTABLE.