3.0L S/O vs 5.7 Hemi Dyno Video

[DEG]

Out pull, yea.

This weak hemi feels ALOT quicker than 6.7 Cummins.

Throw about 2000 lbs in the bed of your hemi truck for an apples to apples comparison.

 

[DEG]

Classic DEG. The context of the comparison (the guy you replied to) was the 5.7/SO 1500 vs the 6.7 2500.

READ HARDER.

And you're still out to lunch, of course, because the 2013 ram 2500 with the 5.7 (powerwagon no less) was tested at 8.1 seconds.

2013 Ram 2500 Review & Ratings | Edmunds

Edmunds' expert review of the Used 2013 Ram 2500 provides the latest look at trim-level features and specs, performance, safety, and comfort. At Edmunds we drive every car we review, performing road tests and competitor comparisons to help you find your perfect car. Read the full in-depth review...

www.edmunds.com

Of course, now come the excuses. Different weight trucks, different days, different weather, different testers, I bet they even wore different color socks.

"blow away". Yeah. An engine that "blows away" another one doesn't need qualifiers about gear ratios and tire sizes. You dig into those details when two engines are almost perfectly matched.

Welcome to my ignored users list. Ain't nobody got time for this.

You are just factually wrong and comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Ramroo]

Throw about 2000 lbs in the bed of your hemi truck for an apples to apples comparison.

apples to apples

Ok then, honey crisp to cosmic crisp.

I like cosmic crisp.

 

[Ramroo]

apples to apples

Ok then, honey crisp to cosmic crisp.

I like cosmic crisp.

Hey I have an idea.

Let’s compare an imaginary kind of apple that does not exist on plant earth
to
a cosmic crisp apple.

 

[steves1911]

Y

Yea, there is a significant curb weight range between the two and I took the most conservative estimate. My point was in the exact same truck, the 6.7 will out perform the 5.7 in any kind of competition.

Yeah idk the diesel really only shines in towing . It's downfall is it revs slowly and it is insanely heavy. 2 identical trucks one with an engine that weighs 2.5 x as much as the others engine tells me one of those truck will handle much better than the other regardless of any power discrepancy.

 

[Richard320]

I don't dispute the readings, but I remain wary The true test will be in a couple years when we see how they hold up. You can generate huge numbers in a race car engine, but how long do they last? I'm old enough to remember the 2.2 Turbos Chrysler had in the 1980s. They were great until they weren't all of a sudden. My Mom's Lancer howled like mad. You'd think the cops were chasing you. It sounded like a siren.

 

[LOWRMPG]

I don't dispute the readings, but I remain wary The true test will be in a couple years when we see how they hold up. You can generate huge numbers in a race car engine, but how long do they last? I'm old enough to remember the 2.2 Turbos Chrysler had in the 1980s. They were great until they weren't all of a sudden. My Mom's Lancer howled like mad. You'd think the cops were chasing you. It sounded like a siren.

Pretty certain the tech is vastly improved in nearly half a century

 

[Foogie]

Yea, there is a significant curb weight range between the two and I took the most conservative estimate. My point was in the exact same truck, the 6.7 will out perform the 5.7 in any kind of competition.

Correct. If we stuffed the 6.7 with 3.92 gears in a 1500 that's 2000lbs+ lighter it would be crazy...my 2500 had 3.42 gears but it towed great.

 

[eaglemike]

I've owned a few of the 5.7's. My 2009 was really the best. I had 2 e-torques, both of which were disappointing. One was 3.92 rear, other was 3.21. 3.92 was more responsive of course.
The 3.0 SO is more responsive and makes better torque without doubt.
If you haven't driven one yet, do it. My Laramie has 3.21, I would have been fine with the 3.92. The truck I bought was in inventory at Mark Dodge, and had most everything I wanted. The SO makes the truck what I would have liked the 5.7 to be. If they fixed the oiling to the lifters and cams in the 5.7, and put a small turbo on it, that would be amazing. My SO MPG is averaging about 2 mpg better than my 5.7 e-torques, hand calc'd, about 3500 miles so far. I've been running 87, last tank I filled with 91, and going to try that for a few tanks The SO is a NICE engine. The response makes it easy to merge if the distance to merge is short, stuff like that.