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

[ShinerBock]

I'm Rick James wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

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

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.

Do you have any articulable facts to back up these statements.

Sure! Throttle Sensivity Booster installed by Motorhead Garage!!

If you want to read some reviews on the BD from actual Cummins owners - BD Throttle Sensitivity Booster and here Accelerator Sensitivity Module

[Cummins12V98]

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".

[I_m_Rick_James]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

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

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.

Do you have any articulable facts to back up these statements.

[I_m_Rick_James]

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.

Bravo, I completely agree! My '14 might as well stop running when I try to aggressively accelerate.

[ShinerBock]

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.

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:


Actually the OP said nothing about other engines. The OP was just about the new Cummins 900 and he didn't make his second post until the end of page 4. As with just about every other Ram diesel thread in the past year, the usual culprits have turned it into a EB vs ED thread. I've got news for all of them . Cummins didn't build either of them!

Actually yes he did. He specifically stated "Everyone knows that a in-line engine makes tons of torque down low and thru the mid rpm range" He did not name a specific engine and only said "a in-line engine" so he was speaking about in-line engines in general having more low rpm torque due to them just being an in-line engine which is false because it has to do with them being a long stroke. You just don't want to see it even though it is right in front of you because you just argue with me. Well, if you just want to argue because you are still hurt from our last run in then by all means I'll be your huckleberry.

[wilber1]

ShinerBock wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

Gee, I guess I misread the topic title. Here I thought it was about a 6.7 Cummins making 900 lbft. My bad.

I guess you also misread where the OP stated...

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.

He was talking about inline engines in general so I replied.....

ShinerBock wrote:




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.

So do some more reading before jumping in a topic that you don't know about. Although I do think this is an extension our last debate.

Actually the OP said nothing about other engines. The OP was just about the new Cummins 900 and he didn't make his second post until the end of page 4. As with just about every other Ram diesel thread in the past year, the usual culprits have turned it into a EB vs ED thread. I've got news for all of them . Cummins didn't build either of them!

[rjstractor]

transferred wrote:
900LB/FT from a stop would be unmanageable in a rear-light pu application. Nice to have when pulling a grade though

x2. Without torque management a full throttle application from a stop on a steep hill with a 20K plus trailer would bend or break something.

[Adam_R]

How about when you mash the pedal, something, anything happens immediately, not half a second later. There is only a couple hundred posts out there about "dead pedal", torque management, ect. That is a flaw that many of the Rams have. I've test driven over a dozen trucks, both with the Aisan and 68 tranny's and only 2 had instant throttle response.

[wilber1]

transferred 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.

What flaw? Most high powered engines have tm. One example would be the 2015 M3. 900LB/FT from a stop would be unmanageable in a rear-light pu application. Nice to have when pulling a grade though

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

[transferred]

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.

What flaw? Most high powered engines have tm. One example would be the 2015 M3. 900LB/FT from a stop would be unmanageable in a rear-light pu application. Nice to have when pulling a grade though

[ShinerBock]

wilber1 wrote:

Gee, I guess I misread the topic title. Here I thought it was about a 6.7 Cummins making 900 lbft. My bad.

I guess you also misread where the OP stated...

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.

He was talking about inline engines in general so I replied.....

ShinerBock wrote:


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.

So do some more reading before jumping in a topic that you don't know about. Although I do think this is an extension our last debate.

[DirtyOil]

[wilber1]

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 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.

Gee, I guess I misread the topic title. Here I thought it was about a 6.7 Cummins making 900 lbft. My bad.

[Adam_R]

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.