โJan-04-2014 04:51 PM
โJan-09-2014 02:48 PM
โJan-09-2014 01:36 PM
โJan-09-2014 01:11 PM
ib516 wrote:
"If there was one on-road aspect all judges could easily agree on, it was the underwhelming power from the 6.4L Hemi. With a rating of 410hp and 429 lb-ft of torque, we all felt like there should have been a better power-on-tap feel. Instead, the truck constantly downshifted to provide extra gearing to compensate for the power that just wasnโt there. An eight-speed transmission might be a good answer to the underwhelming power problem, or you could always opt for the torque-rich Cummins diesel option if your funds allow." ๐
โJan-09-2014 01:03 PM
2008Wildcat wrote:
Yes, and some people still think horsepower is needed to tow.....
It is all about the torque.
โJan-09-2014 08:26 AM
ib516 wrote:
Sorry to post on topic :B
But here's a "review" of the Ram 2500/6.4L Hemi. Ya, it's only one magazine writer's opinion, but I'm a little dissappointed. I hope other magazines/test drivers have a different opinion as I was seriously thinking this would be my next truck.... ARTICLE
It's from a "four wheeler" mag, so the big Ram loses points for less axle articulation, etc that wouldn't matter a hill of beans to RV haulers, but the part that left me unimpressed was this:
"If there was one on-road aspect all judges could easily agree on, it was the underwhelming power from the 6.4L Hemi. With a rating of 410hp and 429 lb-ft of torque, we all felt like there should have been a better power-on-tap feel. Instead, the truck constantly downshifted to provide extra gearing to compensate for the power that just wasnโt there. An eight-speed transmission might be a good answer to the underwhelming power problem, or you could always opt for the torque-rich Cummins diesel option if your funds allow." ๐
The test truck was equipped with 3.73 axles, so maybe if one chooses the 6.4L Hemi, 4.10 might be the way to go...which is probably what I would have ordered anyway.
Take it FWIW.
OH, almost forgot:
Recommended fuel - REGULAR UNLEADED according to the spec sheet :S
โJan-09-2014 07:25 AM
โJan-09-2014 07:13 AM
larry barnhart wrote:
I agree the 4:10 should be better because I felt it worked great on our 8.1 truck we had. I am glad the premium fuel story is over after My comment that was from the truck ad.
chevman
โJan-09-2014 06:01 AM
โJan-09-2014 04:59 AM
โJan-09-2014 03:47 AM
2008Wildcat wrote:
Yes, and some people still think horsepower is needed to tow.....
It is all about the torque.
โJan-09-2014 03:43 AM
bucky wrote:
Some people on here will argue with a stick.
โJan-09-2014 03:13 AM
โJan-09-2014 02:15 AM
โJan-08-2014 06:16 PM
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
HAHAHAHAHA silly boy....your still new to RV.net. Here we sink our teeth in to something and run it in to the ground. Unfortunately it usually has nothing to do with what the original post was about! Come on get with the program man! :W ๐
Don
โJan-08-2014 05:26 PM
NJRVer wrote:catfishmontana wrote:
Not cab style, CC = cab/chassis. You know a work truck with no box .
OK, I was thinking CC=Crew Cab; MC-Mega Cab; RC=Regular cab.
My fault.