Anyone getting a 2025 with the I6 Hurricane?

[silver billet]

Unless I'm mistaken, a turbo diesel has a turbo on it.

Gasser. Ecoboost vs large NA. If you can't read I'm not surprised you can't understand the argument.

I get you dont like the Hurricane, we all do; but it's here, don't want it, don't buy it.

As I said, I won't be buying it.

As for towing 15K lbs with a gasser, re-read what I said.
Towing with a gasser and towing comfortably with a gasser are two entirely different things. I see 2500 gassers daily struggling to tow a trailer loaded with a small directional drill, they cant get out of their own way.

We're not talking about towing gas vs diesel. The argument is towing the same load with an ecoboost vs a large NA gasser making similar power numbers, and obviously the NA gasser is going to outlive that tiny boosted engine. The argument is "duty cycle" and how the ecoboost can't handle the daily abuse of a heavy duty truck.

As for them being a better engine

They have/will fix this, it's a simple materials issue. Not a complete flaw in the engine design and/or a result of using the wrong engine in a given workload/duty cycle. If you can't understand the difference maybe you shouldn't be arguing.

 

[PetePA]

I get that folks are passionate about the Hurricane vs. Hemi. I think it comes down to: Emissions, gas mileage, power, reliability, fit and acoustical aesthetic.

I've seen data on everything except reliability (at least I've not found anything) and acoustical aesthetic (it's subjective).

 

[BowDown]

Gasser. Ecoboost vs large NA. If you can't read I'm not surprised you can't understand the argument.


As I said, I won't be buying it.


We're not talking about towing gas vs diesel. The argument is towing the same load with an ecoboost vs a large NA gasser making similar power numbers, and obviously the NA gasser is going to outlive that tiny boosted engine. The argument is "duty cycle" and how the ecoboost can't handle the daily abuse of a heavy duty truck.



They have/will fix this, it's a simple materials issue. Not a complete flaw in the engine design and/or a result of using the wrong engine in a given workload/duty cycle. If you can't understand the difference maybe you shouldn't be arguing.

Lol, there's a lack of understanding alright but it ain't in my part

 

[Biga]

This guy gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the Hurricane is set up, also some other things like the fact you have to remove the exhuast to do a transmission flud change at least on the Jeep, I wonder if the Ram will be set up the same way. I would think since the front half of the frame is essentially the same.

 

[BowDown]

This guy gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the Hurricane is set up, also some other things like the fact you have to remove the exhuast to do a transmission flud change at least on the Jeep. I wonder if the Ram will be set up the same way. I would think since the front half of the frame is essentially the same.

There's another with a jeeps body needing to be removed to access a leaking hose that runs from the left side to the right side on the back of the engine. The hose is rubber, seems to me that should have been a steel hose especially in that location. Hopefully things like this get addressed.

 

[mikeru82]

Not a difficult concept, not sure why you're having trouble understanding this view.

Perhaps it's because you're using circular logic. You make arguments about half ton trucks not meeting your needs, yet you drive a half ton. You sing the praises of the 5.7 Hemi in a 2500 but Ram hasn't equipped a 2500 with a 5.7 Hemi for years. You say Ford doesn't put engines with turbos in any of their real trucks, yet you argue the case in favor of turbo-diesel engines (I'll give you a hint: the "turbo" in turbo-diesel does in fact mean the engine is equipped with a turbo).

 

[Pikeman_66]

This guy gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the Hurricane is set up, also some other things like the fact you have to remove the exhuast to do a transmission flud change at least on the Jeep, I wonder if the Ram will be set up the same way. I would think since the front half of the frame is essentially the same.

I wish they would have built the power boards into the ram like that.

 

[HSKR R/T]

This guy gives a pretty detailed explanation of how the Hurricane is set up, also some other things like the fact you have to remove the exhuast to do a transmission flud change at least on the Jeep, I wonder if the Ram will be set up the same way. I would think since the front half of the frame is essentially the same.

Have you looked at you 5.7l Hemi Ram transmission? The exhaust runs right under the trans pan

 

[WXman]

I see 2500 gassers daily struggling to tow a trailer loaded with a small directional drill, they cant get out of their own way.

What?

I used to drag my 6k 24' enclosed trailer around with the 3.6L gas Jeep pickup. A Ram with a 6.4L Hemi would have made light work of it. I see guys all the time praising the new gas HD trucks and talking about how amazed they are at the pulling power.

The Ford 7.3 gas gets within 2 MPG of the diesel when towing 15k loads, and does so without DEF, 3 gallons of engine oil, fifteen coolers mounted all over the chassis, or $100 worth of fuel filters. It also runs on fuel that's less expensive and easier to find.

It's not 1994 anymore. These new high powered gas engines mated to 8 and 10 speed transmissions are no joke. I would go as far as to argue that they are a better option for 95% of HD truck owners. I'm currently driving a 6.7 Powerstroke, the most powerful engine you can possibly buy in any pickup truck and honestly if I buy another truck in a couple years it WILL be a gasoline truck.

 

[silver billet]

Perhaps it's because you're using circular logic. You make arguments about half ton trucks not meeting your needs, yet you drive a half ton.

You guys are only reading half of what I'm writing and then trying to dismiss the argument.

The 5.7 hemi has been proven to handle the heavy duty cycle of a 2500. From a suspension view point a 1500 is enough for me, but from a drivetrain perspective I want a powerful v8 to tow my loads and most importantly, be reliable, last a long time, and be easy to work on.

You sing the praises of the 5.7 Hemi in a 2500 but Ram hasn't equipped a 2500 with a 5.7 Hemi for years.

Completely irrelevant. That past history proves it can do it.

You say Ford doesn't put engines with turbos in any of their real trucks, yet you argue the case in favor of turbo-diesel engines (I'll give you a hint: the "turbo" in turbo-diesel does in fact mean the engine is equipped with a turbo).

Did you miss the part where the cummins turbo diesel weighs like a 1000 pounds more than even the 6.4 hemi? Those are completely different engines designed for business/industrial use vs a tiny gas turbo engine designed for cars and minivans. The fact that you guys keep bringing this up is very funny and shows you don't understand what's going on.

Again, even Ford does not put small turbo charged ecoboost engines in their real trucks. That's like a giant red flag if I ever saw one but some of you can't figure this out without a map.

I'm not going to argue the point further.

 

[silver billet]

What?

I used to drag my 6k 24' enclosed trailer around with the 3.6L gas Jeep pickup. A Ram with a 6.4L Hemi would have made light work of it. I see guys all the time praising the new gas HD trucks and talking about how amazed they are at the pulling power.

The Ford 7.3 gas gets within 2 MPG of the diesel when towing 15k loads, and does so without DEF, 3 gallons of engine oil, fifteen coolers mounted all over the chassis, or $100 worth of fuel filters. It also runs on fuel that's less expensive and easier to find.

It's not 1994 anymore. These new high powered gas engines mated to 8 and 10 speed transmissions are no joke. I would go as far as to argue that they are a better option for 95% of HD truck owners. I'm currently driving a 6.7 Powerstroke, the most powerful engine you can possibly buy in any pickup truck and honestly if I buy another truck in a couple years it WILL be a gasoline truck.

You and I have completely different wants/needs from a truck than most on this thread. The little whiz bangers seems to really appeal to stoplight racers.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Again, even Ford does not put small turbo charged ecoboost engines in their real trucks. That's like a giant red flag if I ever saw one but some of you can't figure this out without a map.

I'm not going to argue the point further.

No manufacturer puts small turbo engines in their HD trucks. Not sure what point you are trying to make be repeating that over and over againz or even singleing out Ford specifically

 

[mikeru82]

You guys are only reading half of what I'm writing and then trying to dismiss the argument.

Could be that you're only voicing half of what you're trying to say.

The 5.7 hemi has been proven to handle the heavy duty cycle of a 2500. From a suspension view point a 1500 is enough for me, but from a drivetrain perspective I want a powerful v8 to tow my loads and most importantly, be reliable, last a long time, and be easy to work on.

That makes sense, but in an earlier post you said half ton pickups are basically passenger cars. If that's true then, speaking as an F150 ecoboost owner, the Hurricane will be more than enough engine for it. I can respect your choice of not wanting your next half ton to have a 6 cylinder turbo. I share that choice as well. But the reasons you provided for not wanting it kind of conflict with your definition of a half ton pickup being basically a passenger car.

Completely irrelevant. That past history proves it can do it.

Relevant or not, you're the one who brought it up.

Did you miss the part where the cummins turbo diesel weighs like a 1000 pounds more than even the 6.4 hemi? Those are completely different engines designed for business/industrial use vs a tiny gas turbo engine designed for cars and minivans. The fact that you guys keep bringing this up is very funny and shows you don't understand what's going on.

Just when you seem to want to have a reasonable discussion you throw out triggering statements like the above. BTW, I never mentioned the 6.7 Cummins. You made the obviously inaccurate statement about Ford not putting engines with turbos in real trucks. Why not just own that and admit you made a mistake?

Again, even Ford does not put small turbo charged ecoboost engines in their real trucks. That's like a giant red flag if I ever saw one but some of you can't figure this out without a map.

I'm not going to argue the point further.

It's funny when people do this. Make statement you fully know will trigger other members, then say you aren't going to talk about it anymore. So you're basically saying you're gonna take your ball and go home?

 

[Jimmy07]

The 5.7 hemi has been proven to handle the heavy duty cycle of a 2500.

All of these HD/superduty truck arguments you’re inserting into this thread are completely moot.
When the HD Rams were equipped with the 5.7, the highest available towing capacity in those trucks was less than the highest available towing capacity in a 5.7 equipped 5th gen 1500. So we’re right back to square one just comparing 5.7 1500’s against the hurricane equipped 1500’s.

 

[Darksteel165]

Can I get a large v8 with a supercharger instead for my next Ram 1500?
Would it kill em to just give us the engine options and charge us whatever these "fees" are that they are 100% not getting away from with this turbo I6 engine anyways?
Cars have passed the gas guzzler tax along to consumers for years, trucks and SUVs can't trigger that tax or else that would get passed along to us too.
Profit on profit it seems

 

[silver billet]

Could be that you're only voicing half of what you're trying to say.

Nope, some of you are clearly and intentionally misreading this.

That makes sense, but in an earlier post you said half ton pickups are basically passenger cars. If that's true then, speaking as an F150 ecoboost owner, the Hurricane will be more than enough engine for it. I can respect your choice of not wanting your next half ton to have a 6 cylinder turbo. I share that choice as well. But the reasons you provided for not wanting it kind of conflict with your definition of a half ton pickup being basically a passenger car.

Not at all. You CAN still work a half ton. Towing is a great example. But clearly the designs and intended audience is sinking lower and lower into passenger car duty and this latest engine is just proof of that.

When I'm looking for my next truck (say I total mine tomorrow): the options are a good v8 vs a tiny turbo charged engine and I'm getting the v8.

Relevant or not, you're the one who brought it up.

And this is proof of you intentionally misreading my statement. I brought it up as proof that the 5.7 can handle heavy duty usage. That's not irrelevant, what's irrelevant is that its no longer in the lineup because the reason it isn't there has nothing to do with reliability but power demands (it's just not big enough anymore to match the competition even as a base engine).

Just when you seem to want to have a reasonable discussion you throw out triggering statements like the above. BTW, I never mentioned the 6.7 Cummins. You made the obviously inaccurate statement about Ford not putting engines with turbos in real trucks. Why not just own that and admit you made a mistake?

Again a "missreading". Obviously I'm well aware that all modern diesels in trucks these days are turbo charged so you could have used your head and figured out what I was saying: They don't put ecoboost turbo charged gassers in their trucks. I made the point several posts ago that they had the option of putting the ecoboost turbo in their super duty, but instead went way out of their way to design a large NA v8 instead. Even though the ecoboost could put out enough power, they refused to use it. That is the point here.

The turbo diesels used in heavy duty trucks are a completely different class of engine. And at a certain point forced induction is needed if you want to tow very massive loads.

But that's not the options here for less powerful needs. The options are a small turbo charged gasser vs a large NA gasser putting out similar power numbers and they chose the NA gasser for the duty cycle of a hard working truck.

It's funny when people do this. Make statement you fully know will trigger other members, then say you aren't going to talk about it anymore. So you're basically saying you're gonna take your ball and go home?

At a certain point talking further is futile and I'm just running out of patience. Nothing personal.

 

[silver billet]

All of these HD/superduty truck arguments you’re inserting into this thread are completely moot.

Ford begs to differ.

When the HD Rams were equipped with the 5.7, the highest available towing capacity in those trucks was less than the highest available towing capacity in a 5.7 equipped 5th gen 1500.

Say what? The 5.7 with a 4.10 was rated in excess of 13,800 pounds, in a heavier truck.

https://www.ramtrucks.com/content/dam/fca-brands/na/ramtrucks/en_us/towing/2018%20Ram%202500.pdf

 

[silver billet]

No manufacturer puts small turbo engines in their HD trucks. Not sure what point you are trying to make be repeating that over and over againz or even singleing out Ford specifically

It's like your so close with the obseravation that "No manufacturer puts small turbo engines in their HD trucks".

I used Ford because they're the only manufacturer that was producing strong (hp/torque) turbo charged gas engines in trucks for many years, but refused to put them in their super duty. Instead they did it right by going out of their way to design a heavy duty NA gas engine even though they had ecoboost on the shelf ready and waiting for many years. It's all about the duty cycle (and probably even MPG plays a part), not the hp/torque.

 

[E.Hands]

25 horses?

That's not going to be noticeable in a 5,600 lb. vehicle.

I for one, would love to see the HP & TRQ curves laid out in an comparison overlay.
Or just the dyno plot of each engine so that we could see exactly which engine has better numbers in the normal driving range RPMs.

 

[E.Hands]

In an earlier test 0-60 for the HO with brake torque was 4.7; for the SO brake torque 5.2 and no brake torque 5.7. The HO without brake torque was not listed - that would have been insightful.

Source?

Official EPA gas mileage numbers: ZERO gain over the Hemi in the S.O. version, less than the Hemi in the H.O. version, plus you need mid-grade on the S.O. version. So essentially, you're paying more to drive the new engine than you did the Hemi. Just brilliant.

It's hard to imagine that the "Clown-World" we now live in would allow such a thing as an increase in power at the expense of economy. Right?