What would you prefer?

[Darksteel165]

It just seems to me that I have seen far more posts here concerning MPG than I have seen concerning HP/TRQ
And now Stellantis goes and offers us more HP/TRQ with the same MPG?

But I'm sure that theiy study more about what will sell to future buyers than what previous owners want.

Because this choice has 0 to do with the consumer and is all about politics and profit margins.
The selling price of the truck went way up and most likely the cost to make is down compared to a v8 larger engine, maintenance and upkeep is going to be more expensive thus more expensive dealership visits for out of warranty work. R&D is very expensive, it was not cheap for them to design these twin turbo I6.

 

[mikeru82]

Stop taking the bait guys. He's pushing some kind of an agenda with this thread.

 

[silver billet]

5.7 Hemi = 395 HP / 420 TRQ
SST S/O = 420HP / 469 TRQ
SST H/O = 540 HP / 521 TRQ
Ram Charger = 663 HP / 615 TRQ
Eco Diesel = 260 HP / 480 TRQ
6.4L Hemi = 410 HP / 429 TRQ
6.7L Cummins = 370 HP / 850 TRQ

Not really considering the differences in the engines platforms, which is huge (cost, reliability, power & torque curves, fuel type requirements, et cetera).
But from a 5.7L Hemi Owner's perspective, which would you prefer more the power or the efficiency?

Let's say:
395 HP / 420 TRQ @ 21 MPG
or
540 HP / 521 TRQ @ 15 MPG

Basically, if RAM had come asking "Do you wish that your Hemi made more horsepower or got better MPG?"
What would be your answer?

The 6.4 you listed is the BGE variant found only in the 2500. The SRT 6.4 puts out more power and is found everywhere else (challenger, jeep etc):

485 hp, 475 lb/ft torque

That's above the SO and apparently is neck and neck with the HO when comparing these two engines in the Grand Wagoneer.

I'll take that SRT in a heartbeat. That's all I wanted.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Because this choice has 0 to do with the consumer and is all about politics and profit margins.
The selling price of the truck went way up and most likely the cost to make is down compared to a v8 larger engine, maintenance and upkeep is going to be more expensive thus more expensive dealership visits for out of warranty work. R&D is very expensive, it was not cheap for them to design these twin turbo I6.

So you say it's probably cheaper to make but then say they spent a lot of money on R&D. I which is it?

Chrysler has long since recovered the cost for the Hemi R&d. So that is no longer being passed in to consumer. And since it's been around for so long the cost to produce is likely lower than initial production.

The process to apply the hardened coating on the cylinders for the Hurricane is more than just boring and honing a cylinder.

 

[E.Hands]

Stop taking the bait guys. He's pushing some kind of an agenda with this thread.

Stop being paranoid. What are you afraid of? My opinion, yours?
C'mon Bro.

Edit: I'm sorry, thanks for keeping us all safe...

 

[E.Hands]

Because this choice has 0 to do with the consumer and is all about politics and profit margins.
The selling price of the truck went way up and most likely the cost to make is down compared to a v8 larger engine, maintenance and upkeep is going to be more expensive thus more expensive dealership visits for out of warranty work. R&D is very expensive, it was not cheap for them to design these twin turbo I6.

Seems a bit contradictory, no?

 

[E.Hands]

The 6.4 you listed is the BGE variant found only in the 2500. The SRT 6.4 puts out more power and is found everywhere else (challenger, jeep etc):

485 hp, 475 lb/ft torque

That's above the SO and apparently is neck and neck with the HO when comparing these two engines in the Grand Wagoneer.

I'll take that SRT in a heartbeat. That's all I wanted.

Yeah, I just put those others in just for fun. The real point of my question was to get a feel for how many current Hemi owners wanted more MPG and how many wanted more power.
Because the Hurricane leans more toward increased power than improved MPG.
And IMHO, the posts on the forum complain more about fuel economy than lack of power.

 

[silver billet]

Yeah, I just put those others in just for fun. The real point of my question was to get a feel for how many current Hemi owners wanted more MPG and how many wanted more power.
Because the Hurricane leans more toward increased power than improved MPG.
And IMHO, the posts on the forum complain more about fuel economy than lack of power.

The problem with your original post and many like it, is in comparing a 20 year old v8 which was last updated 15 years ago, vs a brand new turbo and asking what's better or some variation of that.

Most of us who like the hemi will agree that it's time for an update; we disagree on the end result. We want an updated/new NA v8, not a whiz bang turbo.

Sad to say for Ram, I'd still rather own my hemi than drop a penny on the hurricane.

 

[Darksteel165]

So you say it's probably cheaper to make but then say they spent a lot of money on R&D. I which is it?

Chrysler has long since recovered the cost for the Hemi R&d. So that is no longer being passed in to consumer. And since it's been around for so long the cost to produce is likely lower than initial production.

The process to apply the hardened coating on the cylinders for the Hurricane is more than just boring and honing a cylinder.

It's both. R&D costs eventually pay off.
The thought that the Hemi R&D cost is no longer passed to the consumer is funny though. Truck prices have never went down as fsr as I know, ever. Profit margins just increase.
This thread is just dumb trolling anyways though, not going to put any more effort into it, we all know what game OP is playing.

 

[Darksteel165]

Seems a bit contradictory, no?

You would think that but Stellantis is playing the long game. Sometimes you need to make what appear to be dumb decisions at the time for a longer end goal.

 

[DEG]

Focusing on MPG alone is somewhat misleading since there may be significant differences in fuel costs even at the same MPG to achieve the maximum HP.

Both the Hemi and standard Hurricane engines can use 87 octane Ram recommends 89 octane for optimal performance in the Hemi and the standard Hurricane recommends 91 octane for optimal performance. The HO Hurricane requires 91 octane only. In my area 91 octane is $.50 higher than 87 and $.25 higher than 89.

 

[E.Hands]

It's both. R&D costs eventually pay off.
The thought that the Hemi R&D cost is no longer passed to the consumer is funny though. Truck prices have never went down as fsr as I know, ever. Profit margins just increase.
This thread is just dumb trolling anyways though, not going to put any more effort into it, we all know what game OP is playing.

Then continues to post.... thank you for your contribution.

BTW - I disagree that the SST is any cheaper to produce than the Hemi.

 

[E.Hands]

It's both. R&D costs eventually pay off.
The thought that the Hemi R&D cost is no longer passed to the consumer is funny though. Truck prices have never went down as fsr as I know, ever. Profit margins just increase.
This thread is just dumb trolling anyways though, not going to put any more effort into it, we all know what game OP is playing.

The gig is up, you got me. I was actually forcing your opinion out of you all along.

 

[E.Hands]

If the window stickers are claiming 21 MPG for the S/O. And 15 MPG for the H/O, what do you think the real world numbers will look like?
We all know that the window sticker numbers are overly optimistic and are taken in best case scenarios.

 

[HSKR R/T]

It's both. R&D costs eventually pay off.
The thought that the Hemi R&D cost is no longer passed to the consumer is funny though. Truck prices have never went down as fsr as I know, ever. Profit margins just increase.
This thread is just dumb trolling anyways though, not going to put any more effort into it, we all know what game OP is playing.

Just because they haven't lowered the cost of the Hemi option doesn't mean the R&D cost is still being passed on. It's just more profit. And the Hemi is still a cheaper engine to build.

 

[Darksteel165]

Do you even read what YOU post?

Chrysler has long since recovered the cost for the Hemi R&d. So that is no longer being passed in to consumer.

Just because they haven't lowered the cost of the Hemi option doesn't mean the R&D cost is still being passed on. It's just more profit. And the Hemi is still a cheaper engine to build.

 

[c_bass16]

I have and love my 23 Laramie GT...Console shifter, the sound...but damn. the MPG is disgusting.

I had a 19 Ram 1500 with 3.21 gears. Everyone said 35" rubber on 18" wheels would kill my MPG. Averaged 18.5mpg going 85mph to texas and back. (roughly 2000 miles) and was quite happy. I can handle 18...
My 23 Laramie GT with the 3.92 gears was suppose to be "better" with 35" wheels/tires but holy crap it's not. Not even close. Driving conservatively somewhere between 55 and 65...I'm LUCKY to average 13...but 11.8 is more common.

In the new 2025 with the 3.0...I would MUCH rather have the same HP with even the same MPG my old truck had...but I feel like that's going to be wishful thinking.
I took a 3.0 out for a drive a few days ago, and it's nice, but it sounds like **** and with 35" wheels/tires...I'm not expecting much.
And a GT pkg with 3.92 gears will be hard to stomach if it gets bad mpg AND crappy mpg.

Thank God I have 30 more months before my lease is up to think it all over and see what happens

 

[Rick3478]

I have and love my 23 Laramie GT...Console shifter, the sound...but damn. the MPG is disgusting.

I had a 19 Ram 1500 with 3.21 gears. Everyone said 35" rubber on 18" wheels would kill my MPG. Averaged 18.5mpg going 85mph to texas and back. (roughly 2000 miles) and was quite happy. I can handle 18...
My 23 Laramie GT with the 3.92 gears was suppose to be "better" with 35" wheels/tires but holy crap it's not. Not even close. Driving conservatively somewhere between 55 and 65...I'm LUCKY to average 13...but 11.8 is more common.

That is pretty poor. The Laramie is a bit heavier, but I'd still have expected 16 or better. Almost makes me wonder if something is wrong with it. Mouse nest in the air box, potato in the exhaust? And ... ummm ... not to underestimate the human factor, console shifter and pleasant exhaust note might be causing you unconsciously to drive it much more aggressively than you realize.

 

[mophead]

I'll still take what I changed my signature to in what '23? Yep still not holdin my bref

 

[c_bass16]

That is pretty poor. The Laramie is a bit heavier, but I'd still have expected 16 or better. Almost makes me wonder if something is wrong with it. Mouse nest in the air box, potato in the exhaust? And ... ummm ... not to underestimate the human factor, console shifter and pleasant exhaust note might be causing you unconsciously to drive it much more aggressively than you realize.

It's right at 8500 miles and don't get me wrong...I definitely drive it more aggressively because it absolutely sounds naughty. BUT...I'm not referring to City/Highway average. I'm talking road trip average.
100 mile trips to visit family down the interstate are common.
80 mph averaging 11 mpg
If I go a different direction it's 90 miles to visit my niece going 60 mph and I MIGHT get 12 to 12.5 if there's no wind at all.

It's wild