5.7l vs 6.4l. RAM 1500 vs Grand Wagoneer.

[devildodge]

 

[Rebel2022]

I just watched this, that Wagoneer is bad ***! I wish Ram would have put the 6.4 in the 1500 as an option. Doubt it will ever happen now, probably going the 6er TT route.

 

[SD Rebel]

They sell way too many 1500 RAMs to risk putting a 6.4L in there, it would seriously dent their CAFE numbers. They just recently stopped buying carbon credits from Tesla, adding a 6.4L in a 1500 is a no-go. Of course unless they make it a high-cost option like the 394 in the Wrangler to keep numbers down, however that would put a regular 1500 really close to the MSRP of a TRX.

I just hope we still have a V8 option in the future, since the I6 Turbo is pretty much confirmed. But considering that Ford and GM still offer V8s and RAM is known as the "Hemi" truck, I think it will still be offered as an option.

 

[Eighty]

I just watched this, that Wagoneer is bad ***! I wish Ram would have put the 6.4 in the 1500 as an option. Doubt it will ever happen now, probably going the 6er TT route.

Skip the 6.4 and go with the 6.2 SRT Hellcat. Better engine, and it’s already in a Ram 1500!

 

[esta1701]

Grand Wagoneer is nice but you pay $35k more to buy it and $.70 more a gallon to feed it. I'll stick with my Ram!

 

[silver billet]

They sell way too many 1500 RAMs to risk putting a 6.4L in there, it would seriously dent their CAFE numbers. They just recently stopped buying carbon credits from Tesla, adding a 6.4L in a 1500 is a no-go. Of course unless they make it a high-cost option like the 394 in the Wrangler to keep numbers down, however that would put a regular 1500 really close to the MSRP of a TRX.

I just hope we still have a V8 option in the future, since the I6 Turbo is pretty much confirmed. But considering that Ford and GM still offer V8s and RAM is known as the "Hemi" truck, I think it will still be offered as an option.

Pretty sure that CAFE numbers are calculated using MPG. If that's the case, Ram is hurting themselves by not offering the 6.4, in the video above the 6.4 crushes the 5.7 in every metric. It's faster, and gets better MPG, all while being in a heavier truck than the Ram.

This video pretty much confirms my suspicion and what I've been saying all along; the 6.4 (SRT) would be the best engine for the this truck and would destroy the competition.

 

[silver billet]

Skip the 6.4 and go with the 6.2 SRT Hellcat. Better engine, and it’s already in a Ram 1500!

The TRX is awesome. But there is a massive hole in the lineup between a 5.7 and the TRX. We need something like the 6.4 to match the GM 6.2 and the Ford 3.5 turbo, and it would fit nicely in the lineup between the 5.7 and TRX.

It is extremely bizzare that the 6.4 is offered everywhere else but not the Ram. They even put it in the Wrangler, which is basically just a "because we can" gesture and makes no real sense.

 

[SD Rebel]

Pretty sure that CAFE numbers are calculated using MPG. If that's the case, Ram is hurting themselves by not offering the 6.4, in the video above the 6.4 crushes the 5.7 in every metric. It's faster, and gets better MPG, all while being in a heavier truck than the Ram.

This video pretty much confirms my suspicion and what I've been saying all along; the 6.4 (SRT) would be the best engine for the this truck and would destroy the competition.

My bad, I didn't watch the video, I assumed the 6.4L in the RAM would get even worse mpg than it does now. If it's somehow better mpg and performance if it was put in a RAM 1500, than I'm all for that.

When I hear the HC motor in the TRX is averaging about 10 mpg, considering it's massive power advantage over the 5.7L in a heavier platform, I does make me wonder since I'm barely getting over 13 mpg in my truck. So yeah, that does make sense.

 

[SCA]

Unfortunately the problem is the way the EPA calculates their MPG figures. The video is a good example of how the Grand Wagoneer performed in the real world vs. what the EPA says it should do. My eTorque Ram gets about 15.5 combined even though the EPA says it should get 19 combined. Ram should be able to put the 6.4 in our trucks, but stupid government rules and regulations prohibit it.

 

[silver billet]

My bad, I didn't watch the video, I assumed the 6.4L in the RAM would get even worse mpg than it does now. If it's somehow better mpg and performance if it was put in a RAM 1500, than I'm all for that.

When I hear the HC motor in the TRX is averaging about 10 mpg, considering it's massive power advantage over the 5.7L in a heavier platform, I does make me wonder since I'm barely getting over 13 mpg in my truck. So yeah, that does make sense.

It got 24 mpg unloaded, their bighorn got 21 on same test. Not EPA ratings, actual "at the pump" calculations!

The 6.4 also got better mpg towing, just by a fraction of an mpg but at least its not worse, and of course towing performance is much stronger (13 seconds 0 to 60 instead of 16 IIRC).

 

[SD Rebel]

It got 24 mpg unloaded, their bighorn got 21 on same test. Not EPA ratings, actual "at the pump" calculations!

The 6.4 also got better mpg towing, just by a fraction of an mpg but at least its not worse, and of course towing performance is much stronger (13 seconds 0 to 60 instead of 16 IIRC).

That's impressive, the 6.4 is the SRT version as well? I was assuming the truck version like on the Powerwagon. But it's pricey, starting price is almost $90K to get a 6.4L equipped Grand Wagoneer.

 

[silver billet]

That's impressive, the 6.4 is the SRT version as well? I was assuming the truck version like on the Powerwagon.

Yes the SRT. The BGE is a different beast designed for durability; peak power numbers are only slightly higher vs the 5.7, but no doubt it still feels stronger due to better power lower down as well.

I'm not all that shocked considering many GM 6.2 owners say their MPG is equivalent to the 5.3.

 

[SD Rebel]

Yes the SRT. The BGE is a different beast designed for durability; peak power numbers are only slightly higher vs the 5.7, but no doubt it still feels stronger due to better power lower down as well.

I'm not all that shocked considering many GM 6.2 owners say their MPG is equivalent to the 5.3.

I think the price will make it unlikely to get in the RAM 1500, I mean if you compare the Wagoneer vs Grand Wagoneer, that is $69K vs 88K base MSRP for a 5.7L vs. 6.4L on the cheapest base price.

You will likely approach TRX territory with a 6.4L equipped RAM in terms of pricing. Which is something they do with the rather limited 394 Wrangler. It could be done in the 1500 class RAM, but not in any volume.

 

[ferraiolo1]

I'm not all that shocked considering many GM 6.2 owners say their MPG is equivalent to the 5.3.

Yep. But you need to run premium in the larger engines. And in some states it’s $1 or more per gallon. Which really adds up quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[silver billet]

I think the price will make it unlikely to get in the RAM 1500, I mean if you compare the Wagoneer vs Grand Wagoneer, that is $69K vs 88K base MSRP for a 5.7L vs. 6.4L on the cheapest base price.

You will likely approach TRX territory with a 6.4L equipped RAM in terms of pricing. Which is something they do with the rather limited 394 Wrangler. It could be done in the 1500 class RAM, but not in any volume.

There is much more difference than just the engine as you go up to the Grand Wagoneer. I don't see why the 6.4 would have to cost more than $2000 over the 5.7 in a ram if all else is the same.

 

[silver billet]

Yep. But you need to run premium in the larger engines. And in some states it’s $1 or more per gallon. Which really adds up quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many of us here run 89/premium anyway. I do, because I get far less knock.

 

[SD Rebel]

There is much more difference than just the engine as you go up to the Grand Wagoneer. I don't see why the 6.4 would have to cost more than $2000 over the 5.7 in a ram if all else is the same.

Absolutely, but there are no 6.4L SRT motors in any FCA product that is in any volume product, especially on the truck/SUV side of things. The Wrangler 392 and Grand Wagoner are it at the moment, and they are priced at $75K Wrangler and $88K GW at the lowest base prices for each.

I just don't see how RAM is going to put an SRT version of the 6.4L in any product for only $2K over a 5.7L. They are positioning it as a special engine with pricing to match. I can see it in a TRX Light, something with less power at a lower price point.

 

[JF19Longhorn]

Man RAM missed the boat. A 6.4L in the 1500 would have been a match made in heaven. Possibly better Hwy mileage and a buttload more Trq.

 

[silver billet]

Absolutely, but there are no 6.4L SRT motors in any FCA product that is in any volume product, especially on the truck/SUV side of things. The Wrangler 392 and Grand Wagoner are it at the moment, and they are priced at $75K Wrangler and $88K GW at the lowest base prices for each.

I just don't see how RAM is going to put an SRT version of the 6.4L in any product for only $2K over a 5.7L. They are positioning it as a special engine with pricing to match. I can see it in a TRX Light, something with less power at a lower price point.

You said the reason why: positioning/marketing. There is nothing in the 6.4 itself that would make it cost prohibitive, GM does the 6.2 at a similar markup. But just because they don't, doesn't mean it can't be done if they want to.

 

[ferraiolo1]

They would probably do the same dumb thing gm does with it also, only makes it available to the top tier trim model trucks.

No reason at all they couldn’t stick it in a lower trim truck for people wanting more performance and not the farkles, but that doesn’t make them money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk