Anyone getting a 2025 with the I6 Hurricane?

[Scap]

I've read a lot about rear axle ratios 3:21 vs 3:92 over the years; my 5.7 has 3.92 but I no longer tow a boat. I assume the equation has changed with the I6 turbo engines so wondering what the preferred rear axle ratios will be for either mostly highway or towing? Is everything a 3:92 or are there choices? I don't see a rear axle reference on the order sheets for the Limited but do see a 3.92 option on the Laramie. I assume the base for that is a 3:21. Any ideas on this with the new engines?

My intention for now is the Limited for several reasons but you also get the projector headlights not available on the Laramie, something I think is worthwhile at night.

In the ecoboost world we wanted higher gear ratios (lower numerically) to hold gears long to keep in the boost for best performance.

 

[BowDown]

A reasonable person also understands that the turbos won't be at full boost unless at full throttle or under heavy load. So normal day to day part throttle driving will be low to no boost.

Not sure what modern turbo vehicles you've driven and experienced that but money I have operated as you described.

How soon and how much boost is delivered depends on the wastegate, part throttle on a modern turbo engine is far from a dog and generally will out preform an NA engine in every rpm range.

An electronic wastegate won't have that problem at all, never heard an ecoboost owner complain about it and the 2.7 ecoboost explorer rental I had had loads of part throttle torque.

 

[BowDown]

But whether there is a lot or a little boost of an irrelevant. The ecm will dial up a specific torque target for the load and throttle position demanded. Might just require a little boost, as in a part throttle maneuver.

Difference is an NA motor requires building rpm’s to hit target, but a turbo motor might just close the wastegates some & add some fuel and BAM hit that target nearly instantaneously. That’s what makes (modern small) turbo engines feel so responsive.

(Whether that makes them “better” is subjective.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, not sure why there's any dusputing this.
1200 rpm, close the wastegate, boom, instant power

 

[BowDown]

In the ecoboost world we wanted higher gear ratios (lower numerically) to hold gears long to keep in the boost for best performance.

And another exactly. Blowing through the powerband because of too much gear is useless and a lot of shifting

 

[HSKR R/T]

Not sure what modern turbo vehicles you've driven and experienced that but money I have operated as you described.

How soon and how much boost is delivered depends on the wastegate, part throttle on a modern turbo engine is far from a dog and generally will out preform an NA engine in every rpm range.

An electronic wastegate won't have that problem at all, never heard an ecoboost owner complain about it and the 2.7 ecoboost explorer rental I had had loads of part throttle torque.

That doesn't mean full boost. And will still depend on load/demand.

 

[BowDown]

That doesn't mean full boost. And will still depend on load/demand.

No one is talking full boost, we're talking part throttle driving.
That said, I'd argue that the hurricane can get to full boost before 3000 rpm given it hits peak to at 3500rpm.

The turbo engine could easily call for x boost during part throttle operation, get enough boost to satisfy load demand, accelerate and be back out of boost in a few hundred rpm whereas an N/A engine needs to wait / rev up for rpm to make power.

N/A engines cannot compete with modern turbo engines

 

[HSKR R/T]

No one is talking full boost, we're talking part throttle driving.
That said, I'd argue that the hurricane can get to full boost before 3000 rpm given it hits peak to at 3500rpm.

The turbo engine could easily call for x boost during part throttle operation, get enough boost to satisfy load demand, accelerate and be back out of boost in a few hundred rpm whereas an N/A engine needs to wait / rev up for rpm to make power.

N/A engines cannot compete with modern turbo engines

I know how it works, but my initial reply that started this was someone saying the 3.92 gear ratio would be too aggressive for a turbo motor since the max power ratings were more than the Hemi. Just not true and was, obviously, from someone who doesn't understand how turbos work.

 

[RAL]

I'm not beating the drum for the hurricane but I do believe that it will be a more than capable engine and likely more capable and a better driving experience than the 5.7HEMI simply do to the improved low speed part throttle torque.

I agree with this completely. While I really enjoy the 5.7, the only potential downside I can see with the turbo six is the greater complexity and potential for repair. That being said, I think Stellantis has a great deal of R&D dollars and reputation on the line with this motor - they are using it in their high end, high profit products - and I believe that aside from the inevitable teething problems this will be a great motor. And the teething problems can and will be addressed under warranty. If I were in the market for a new Ram, the only precautions I would take is to let a few model years go by and then perhaps go for one of the longer extended warranties. On the latter point, I have an extended on my truck already, just because of all the gizmos.

 

[BowDown]

I know how it works, but my initial reply that started this was someone saying the 3.92 gear ratio would be too aggressive for a turbo motor since the max power ratings were more than the Hemi. Just not true and was, obviously, from someone who doesn't understand how turbos work.

3.92 is too much gear for this engine combo to utilize to its potential, especially paired with the ZF8 speed. Less gear keeps you in power longer, period. Everyone thats spoken on that aspect of this understands that and has said the same thing but you do you.

 

[BowDown]

I agree with this completely. While I really enjoy the 5.7, the only potential downside I can see with the turbo six is the greater complexity and potential for repair. That being said, I think Stellantis has a great deal of R&D dollars and reputation on the line with this motor - they are using it in their high end, high profit products - and I believe that aside from the inevitable teething problems this will be a great motor. And the teething problems can and will be addressed under warranty. If I were in the market for a new Ram, the only precautions I would take is to let a few model years go by and then perhaps go for one of the longer extended warranties. On the latter point, I have an extended on my truck already, just because of all the gizmos.

I agree to a point, turbos do add additional complexity or more specifically, the electronics involved in running them. The only downside I see is the direct injection and if DI issues have been resolved.
The 2.0 version of this engine has been out for a while so I'm really wouldn't be worried about any potential teething problems.

The better drivability is what appeals to me

At 3.0L displacement (that's 183 cubic inches), the Hurricane six cranks out horsepower on-par with a V8. What's more impressive, is that about 90% of that power is available throughout the powerband.

Deep Dive: Jeep's New 500-Horsepower

The new

www.holley.com

As much as I like the 5.7 HEMI, it doesn't have anywhere near 90% of its power through the powerband. I am not in the least a Ford fan but having driven an ecoboost powered explorer, it had torque everywhere and I wanted that in my truck after driving it.

 

[HSKR R/T]

3.92 is too much gear for this engine combo to utilize to its potential, especially paired with the ZF8 speed. Less gear keeps you in power longer, period. Everyone thats spoken on that aspect of this understands that and has said the same thing but you do you.

You're missing the point. Don't need to have the engine in power longer. People are already saying it won't get the fuel mileage quoted because of the turbos and using more fuel uhdef boost. Taller gears will help it by not requiring it to be "in the power" as much and can do more with less boost. But, yes, you do you.

 

[BowDown]

You're missing the point. Don't need to have the engine in power longer. People are already saying it won't get the fuel mileage quoted because of the turbos and using more fuel uhdef boost. Taller gears will help it by not requiring it to be "in the power" as much and can do more with less boost. But, yes, you do you.

Don't need to have the engine in power longer.

If that's your take away from this, it's you that's missing the point and now you're moving to furl mileage lol.

The predicted fuel mileage isn't much different than what many of you claim to get now so no change but to your comment, yes, taller gears all it to not be in "power" as often when accelerating, kinda like the 3.92 don't require the 5.7 to be in power as often yet the 3.92 trucks still get worse mileage than the 3.21 trucks so, dead point.
The taller 3.92 gear will also have the engine running at a higher average rpm 100% of the time.
Fact of the matter is 5he hemi is going away, period.
Your options or the hurricane SO or HO, the pentastar 6 or Ford, GM, Toyota or Nissan.

Back to the topic.
The hurricane is going to be in the 1500s with no HEMI option, will it be better? Not for everyone and I'd rather have the 5.7 option or really the 6.4 option but presented with either hurricane and the 5.7 or 6.4 in a 2025 truck, id probably still choose the hurricane HO.

Given that the tungsten only comes in 4x4, ramboxes and 3.92, it's probably not the trim I'd buy.
Given that the limited too comes with ramboxes, probably not going that route either, I'll likely stay in my current truck if and until Ram realizes forcing buyers into expensive options they don't want or need isn't a sound strategy.

 

[SpeedyV]

What was the original topic again…?

 

[Darksteel165]

I agree with this completely. While I really enjoy the 5.7, the only potential downside I can see with the turbo six is the greater complexity and potential for repair. That being said, I think Stellantis has a great deal of R&D dollars and reputation on the line with this motor - they are using it in their high end, high profit products - and I believe that aside from the inevitable teething problems this will be a great motor. And the teething problems can and will be addressed under warranty. If I were in the market for a new Ram, the only precautions I would take is to let a few model years go by and then perhaps go for one of the longer extended warranties. On the latter point, I have an extended on my truck already, just because of all the gizmos.

Meanwhile I'm over here on earth waiting for Ram to put good quality oem 12v batteries in and make a rear window that doesn't break and leak.
GL on your new Ram turbo engine.

 

[HSKR R/T]

If that's your take away from this, it's you that's missing the point and now you're moving to furl mileage lol.

The predicted fuel mileage isn't much different than what many of you claim to get now so no change but to your comment, yes, taller gears all it to not be in "power" as often when accelerating, kinda like the 3.92 don't require the 5.7 to be in power as often yet the 3.92 trucks still get worse mileage than the 3.21 trucks so, dead point.
The taller 3.92 gear will also have the engine running at a higher average rpm 100% of the time.
Fact of the matter is 5he hemi is going away, period.
Your options or the hurricane SO or HO, the pentastar 6 or Ford, GM, Toyota or Nissan.

Back to the topic.
The hurricane is going to be in the 1500s with no HEMI option, will it be better? Not for everyone and I'd rather have the 5.7 option or really the 6.4 option but presented with either hurricane and the 5.7 or 6.4 in a 2025 truck, id probably still choose the hurricane HO.

Given that the tungsten only comes in 4x4, ramboxes and 3.92, it's probably not the trim I'd buy.
Given that the limited too comes with ramboxes, probably not going that route either, I'll likely stay in my current truck if and until Ram realizes forcing buyers into expensive options they don't want or need isn't a sound strategy.

The point was, which you completely ignored and/or just talked around, is with the 3.92, it will allow the engine to operate at lower boost levels,(if needed) in same part throttle day to day driving situations, than the 3.21. you don't need to be "in the power" longer. And with the 8-speed gearing, there are plenty of gears to choose from. Im not saying the 3.92 will get better fuel economy when cruising, but I guarantee the engine will spend less time in boost

 

[ThatAirRideThough]

For what it's worth (and l think already covered above, but I'll throw in just in case), never driven a Hurricane-powered anything yet, but they're said to make 90% of torque from as low as 2300 RPM and carry it all the way to redline...not sure if that's the SO, HO or both?

Stellantis Debuts Hurricane Twin-turbo I-6 Engine That Cuts Emissions, Increases Fuel Economy And Is More Powerful | Stellantis Blog

blog.stellantisnorthamerica.com

 

[Bsteiner36]

I'd bet there's some safety's in place that limit boost and max power till 500 miles so you may not have even felt everything it has

It also weights about 1000lbs more than a ram 1500 so there's a good chance the ram 1500 with wings might fly.

 

[RAL]

Meanwhile I'm over here on earth waiting for Ram to put good quality oem 12v batteries in and make a rear window that doesn't break and leak.
GL on your new Ram turbo engine.

I wonder if you are this rude in person - another internet tough guy. Sorry to hear you have had issues with your truck. All vehicles can have issues. Mine has been almost perfect in 35k miles/.

 

[RAL]

I agree to a point, turbos do add additional complexity or more specifically, the electronics involved in running them. The only downside I see is the direct injection and if DI issues have been resolved.
The 2.0 version of this engine has been out for a while so I'm really wouldn't be worried about any potential teething problems.

The better drivability is what appeals to me

Deep Dive: Jeep's New 500-Horsepower

The new

www.holley.com

As much as I like the 5.7 HEMI, it doesn't have anywhere near 90% of its power through the powerband. I am not in the least a Ford fan but having driven an ecoboost powered explorer, it had torque everywhere and I wanted that in my truck after driving it.

Direct injection has been around long enough now that it falls into the category of it is what it is. It is not a risk specific to this motor, and all of the majors have plenty of experience with it. The additional risk is incremental but no worse than buying pretty much any other new vehicle.

The F150 with the 3.5 turbo I have driven does produce more torque down low, and it provides a more relaxed towing experience, at least when I drove a friend’s. But the fuel economy benefits of the eco boost aren’t really as advertised. That being said, I think it is a good motor.

 

[ChrisID]

I agree with this completely. While I really enjoy the 5.7, the only potential downside I can see with the turbo six is the greater complexity and potential for repair. That being said, I think Stellantis has a great deal of R&D dollars and reputation on the line with this motor - they are using it in their high end, high profit products - and I believe that aside from the inevitable teething problems this will be a great motor. And the teething problems can and will be addressed under warranty. If I were in the market for a new Ram, the only precautions I would take is to let a few model years go by and then perhaps go for one of the longer extended warranties. On the latter point, I have an extended on my truck already, just because of all the gizmos.

It is certainly spec'd well (per link above):
" forged crankshafts, forged pistons (in the high-output version), and a host of other features that would have been race engine fare a scant few years ago."
While I agree with most that it is a complex engine vs older engines, it's all we have. And almost all engines on the market are there already or following suite. Long gone are the big monster, low rpm, low energy/cc units. In the rotating equipment we sell, same thing. We call the old stuff 'legacy x brand', and while they were monsters and lasted 30+ yrs, no one can afford to make or buy them anymore. Add the handcuffing and corruption of incredibly ever-restrictive emissions regs, and here we are.