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.

 

[Nethellum]

I had a 2012 quad cab Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi. My 2025 Ram rebel with the 3.0 sst S/O engine would easily smoke it!! No contest. On top of that, its nicer in every way besides the exhaust note. I would have preferred a nice TRX. But I'm not a rich man.

 

[jmr]

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.

You forgot about the awesomeness of the tuner era. The 2003-2005 SRT4 or 2008-2009 Caliber SRT4 they were awesome. SRT even offered turbo toys for the SRT 2.4.

 

[1791]

i get it it's the new thing but no matter what in the long run a turbo charged gas motor will have more upkeep cost. the turbo will need to be replaced and running boost will wear the motor out faster these are facts. they don't make cars to last they are disposable and the new turbo almost everything really shows that. there is only so much energy in a drop of gasoline. my friend has a eclipse with 400hp and he gets 20mpg if he's lucky my ls3 camaro 425hp got 19 around town like my Ram. seems like 400hp 5000-6000 pounds equals similar mpg's no matter what it's in.
the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long......
i'm old school at the end if the day i can fix the hemi myself cam, lifters and heads it's easy to pull the whole motor out. i can even pull the dipstick go figure?
the devil you know.

 

[LOWRMPG]

i get it it's the new thing but no matter what in the long run a turbo charged gas motor will have more upkeep cost. the turbo will need to be replaced and running boost will wear the motor out faster these are facts. they don't make cars to last they are disposable and the new turbo almost everything really shows that. there is only so much energy in a drop of gasoline. my friend has a eclipse with 400hp and he gets 20mpg if he's lucky my ls3 camaro 425hp got 19 around town like my Ram. seems like 400hp 5000-6000 pounds equals similar mpg's no matter what it's in.
the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long......
i'm old school at the end if the day i can fix the hemi myself cam, lifters and heads it's easy to pull the whole motor out. i can even pull the dipstick go figure?
the devil you know.

My 540HP HO gets 17-20mpg depending on how I drive it..sounds like your personal preference is the older tech. I haven't pulled a dipstick on a vehicle in decades

 

[1791]

My 540HP HO gets 17-20mpg depending on how I drive it..sounds like your personal preference is the older tech. I haven't pulled a dipstick on a vehicle in decades

that's cool man,i'm glad your happy with your truck. i literally haven't paid to have my oil changed in decades so i am quite familiar with the dipstick. and yes you are correct i do not like turbo's i am a naturally aspirated guy all day long. but turbo's are far from new tech i've had turbo charged cars and i'm all set on them. they are great on diesel motors.
turbo chrysler lebaron lol. turbo went bad
PT loser gt turbo again i had issues
vw passat turbo direct injection. D.I caused mad carbon on valves needed walnut blast on the valves.
i would lease a new ram but not buy. to each his own that's why we have choices.

 

[LOWRMPG]

that's cool man,i'm glad your happy with your truck. i literally haven't paid to have my oil changed in decades so i am quite familiar with the dipstick. and yes you are correct i do not like turbo's i am a naturally aspirated guy all day long. but turbo's are far from new tech i've had turbo charged cars and i'm all set on them. they are great on diesel motors.
turbo chrysler lebaron lol. turbo went bad
PT loser gt turbo again i had issues
vw passat turbo direct injection. D.I caused mad carbon on valves needed walnut blast on the valves.
i would lease a new ram but not buy. to each his own that's why we have choices.

I can understand that, I do all my own maintenance as well. Seems like a lot of your experience with turbos is in vehicles decades old. That said, I get leasing over buying especially if you aren't fond of the new tech.

 

[WXman]

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.

Was waiting for somebody to bring this up.

I guess the 3.0 Hurricane is great until it's in the shop for 2 days getting a water pump, or 2 months getting a new wire harness, or any of the other issues we're seeing on that Euro engineered dog pile. Just wait until those things are out of warranty and owners start complaining about the labor hours required to fix ANYTHING on them.

As I said in the Dodge Charger forum and applies here as well, I would take a 400 HP V8 over a 450 HP I-6TT every day of the week and twice on Sunday.