Why so slow?

[Phoon]

I haven't noticed a jump half way through first... mine will chirp the tires good most of the way through first, where my old truck would only chirp once or twice. Maybe do a bunch of full throttle launches and get the transmission to learn a little. New vehicles tend to have a lot of torque management in lower gears so a custom tune would probably wake it up a lot off the line. According to most magazine tests that i have seen the new trucks are about 1/2 a second quicker to 60. I've never seen a crew cab tested at quicker than 6 though so maybe that g-tech isn't the most accurate device.

 

[GoMango16]

I was wondering if the PCM's were programmed like the 5.7 in the Charger and Challenger. It has been said that they would not have full VVT until they reached 3500 to 3600 miles. Both my cars came more alive at that milage.

 

[19RamLimited]

My 2013 Ram 5.7 3.21 gears and 6speed is great in all scenarios to me. Towing it works well. Getting up and going it’s perfect. My 19 is a Hemi no etorque 3.21 gears and it moves out faster than my old truck in my opinion. Maybe the trans has something to do with that feeling.

I am very surprised that Chevy and Ram haven’t done a 6 cylinder turbo considering the success ford has had. I know at first everyone thought Ford was nuts and no one would want a 6cylinder truck. Chevy has a turbo 4 that’s been laughed at.

I don’t think the etorque is a good solution due to the fact there is too much involved and too little benefit. Turbo engines when done well seem to be performing better than anyone could imagine. I mean ford is puttingnit in their halo car and their top of the top teir trucks.

Amazing to me the lack of power train options from ram that has big plans of being a large player in the truck segment. A huge reason that ford moves so many units is the fact they have a power train for everyone and any reason. They have 2 6 cylinder turbo options, a v8 5.0 and a diesel for higher trim trucks.

I hope ram eventually starts to invest in some new power plants

 

[ChadT]

My 2013 Ram 5.7 3.21 gears and 6speed is great in all scenarios to me. Towing it works well. Getting up and going it’s perfect. My 19 is a Hemi no etorque 3.21 gears and it moves out faster than my old truck in my opinion. Maybe the trans has something to do with that feeling.

I am very surprised that Chevy and Ram haven’t done a 6 cylinder turbo considering the success ford has had. I know at first everyone thought Ford was nuts and no one would want a 6cylinder truck. Chevy has a turbo 4 that’s been laughed at.

I don’t think the etorque is a good solution due to the fact there is too much involved and too little benefit. Turbo engines when done well seem to be performing better than anyone could imagine. I mean ford is puttingnit in their halo car and their top of the top teir trucks.

Amazing to me the lack of power train options from ram that has big plans of being a large player in the truck segment. A huge reason that ford moves so many units is the fact they have a power train for everyone and any reason. They have 2 6 cylinder turbo options, a v8 5.0 and a diesel for higher trim trucks.

I hope ram eventually starts to invest in some new power plants

Call me old fashioned, but I do not want an ecoboost.
If they made a 5.0 V8 ecoboost with one turbo? Oh that sounds excellent.
A 2.7 Vee-six, no thank you.
3.5 with a turbo, no thank you. The 5.0 is small for my tastes. Right or wrong, I look at it and think ,"mustang engine."
I personally like a truck engine that's got at least 5.5L of displacement, was sold in the 2500 trucks, and is a true V8 (if not a diesel of course).
If Ram offered the 6.4 in a 1/2ton I'd take it.
I took a hard look at a GMC 1500 AT4 with a 6.2 before I stayed with the Ram family.
I'm a V8 enthusiast. I think truck engines should be powerful, simple, big pieces of pigiron that you can beat on and keep ticking. I don't want to be thinking about turbos and have to pipe sound into the cabin. That unless it's a nearly 7L diesel engine but IMHO that's different.

I agree, Ram could use some more engine options, but Ford despite its "variety" (as long as you like turbos and small displacement) doesn't make anything I like in a half ton gas engine.

 

[Dusty1948]

I guess if speed was what I wanted I would buy a Challenger or a Mustang. The general assumption is that a truck is purchased for hauling something, and I do. I'm not concerned about speed so much as in racing, although I can tell you that my last 4th gen, 8-speed, Quad, with 3.92 LSD would launch almost even with the pre-aluminum F-150 and eventually pull on them. My 2019 does seem slower, but it also has a 3.21 axle. But I don't care. I've only had one tank of fuel under 20 MPG.

I'm more concerned about the power band when towing or hauling, and in my experience, based on a number of EcoBoost owners, that unladened speed does not necessarily transfer to power when towing.

For those that bought the Ram 1500, now the heaviest 1/2 ton on the market, with a supposed ancient power source and then complain about the speed, I would say you should have done a better job of shopping.

As for Direct Injection, I am darn glad Ram doesn't have it! I know too many folks that have had cylinder head replacements, and/or turbo replacements because the valves gum up so bad.

Regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005656 miles.

 

[Dusty1948]

I was wondering if the PCM's were programmed like the 5.7 in the Charger and Challenger. It has been said that they would not have full VVT until they reached 3500 to 3600 miles. Both my cars came more alive at that milage.

Fourth gen Rams (2013 and up, at least) used a retarded timing algorithm until the engine recorded 5000 miles. I would bet the same design philosophy applies to the 5th gens.

Regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005656 miles.

 

[LossPrev]

Dusty I totally agree about DI ruining motors but dual injection seems to be the best of both worlds. Too bad they can't slap it on the current 5.7 to freshen it up a bit.

I wonder if Ram just doesnt want to take a hit to their corporate fuel economy average with the 6.4L in a 1500. I think everyone can agree plenty of people would line up to pay good money for that option. If they used the Challenger version they could even claim best in class HP.

In 2, maybe 3, years they will come out with new power trains. Let people jump on this new truck then give them a reason to upgrade again and win over customers that said "no" to the current 5.7. Ford did the same thing with the F150 in 2015.

 

[Blazn]

Inb4 procharged DT stats come rolling in...so much room for activities under the hood

 

[Dusty1948]

Dusty I totally agree about DI ruining motors but dual injection seems to be the best of both worlds. Too bad they can't slap it on the current 5.7 to freshen it up a bit.

I wonder if Ram just doesnt want to take a hit to their corporate fuel economy average with the 6.4L in a 1500. I think everyone can agree plenty of people would line up to pay good money for that option. If they used the Challenger version they could even claim best in class HP.

In 2, maybe 3, years they will come out with new power trains. Let people jump on this new truck then give them a reason to upgrade again and win over customers that said "no" to the current 5.7. Ford did the same thing with the F150 in 2015.

I would guess that a hit to CAFE is the big reason. FCA no longer has a 4 cylinder Dart or Chrysler 200 . Four cylinder Jeeps and a few Fiats aren't enough to offset the penalty of a nearly a million V8 motors sold each year. FCA has had to buy CAFE credits for the last eight years. That costs money.

By just chopping off weight and reducing the volumetric size of their motors, Ford took the easiest route to obtain fuel mileage. That, however, was not the least costly path, as you can't bend aluminum like you can steel, therefore requiring much different tooling. Smaller motors was easy, but in order to keep power up they had to rely on forced aspiration. Turbos work, but add complexity and do not benefit low RPM power requirements.

With a much smaller engineering staff and a lot less in the bank account, Ram concentrated on efficiency. And in this respect they've done an admirable job, in my opinion. With most of their debt now erased they will have options they didn't have just a couple of years ago. I think you'll be seeing some engine changes in the next few years. Maybe even sooner.

Best regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005656 miles.

 

[knightro84]

The general assumption is that a truck is purchased for hauling something

Yeah, HAULIN' ***!

 

[U-235]

Much like others on here, I went from a 2017 GMC Sierra Denali Ultimate to my current 2019 Limited. I KNEW I was getting a 2019 Denali when they came out. I mean, that tailgate! The push-button start (finally)! HUD!
Then I made the mistake of test driving a Ram Limited, just to do my due diligence. It makes the brand new Denali look like a work truck. The tailgate, I'd use exactly twice - once to play with alone, and once to show my friends. And if you wear polarized sunglasses, the HUD is a waste because you can't see it.

My '18 Denali had the 6.2. I don't miss the extra power EVER, and I rarely even notice it. If I need to get somewhere fast, I have other tools for that job.

 

[Jus Cruisin]

^^^^^^^ Me too.......

 

[habu987]

I'm leasing my truck, so I'll be on the market again in 2021. My pipe dream for Ram's gas engine lineup then, completely ignoring CAFE requirements or any other bureaucratic nonsense, along with the reality of designing these engines within 3 years, falls into two camps: base engines that are designed for a core truck duty of towing and all that stuff, and engines designed for performance, not so much for towing. I assume that all would have eTorque by then, or something similar. I'm also blithely ignoring any engineering constraints such as metallurgy, cost, performance profiles, ability to fit engine, etc.

With the exception of the 5.7, these are all engines that are currently in FCA's portfolio, so theoretically speaking they should be able to truckify them without having to design an engine from the ground up.

• 3.0 Pentastar (base): Twin turbo, etc. Ballpark of 345 hp, 369 tq (this engine in the Maserati Ghibli goes from 325 hp/369 tq to 424 hp/428 tq)
• 5.7 Hemi (base V8): Thoroughly updated, CGI block, dual injection, etc. Ballpark of 425 hp, 450 tq.
• 6.4 Hemi (mid upgrade): Take the base 392 crate engine. 500 hp, 475 tq.
• 7.0 Hemi (performance): Take the base 426 crate engine. 600 hp, 575 tq.

ETA: I've currently got the 3.6 and it meets my (99% non-towing) needs quite well. That being said, I'd be all over the 3.0 Pentastar if it does show up, since that's a substantial hp boost and very substantial tq boost over the current 3.6.

 

[devildodge]

In 2, maybe 3, years they will come out with new power trains. Let people jump on this new truck then give them a reason to upgrade again and win over customers that said "no" to the current 5.7.

This is exactly their plan. Stated in many meetings and throughout the FCA lineup.

Plenty of great engines coming...unfortunately we are all impatient

 

[Bullred]

I haven't noticed a jump half way through first... mine will chirp the tires good most of the way through first, where my old truck would only chirp once or twice. Maybe do a bunch of full throttle launches and get the transmission to learn a little. New vehicles tend to have a lot of torque management in lower gears so a custom tune would probably wake it up a lot off the line. According to most magazine tests that i have seen the new trucks are about 1/2 a second quicker to 60. I've never seen a crew cab tested at quicker than 6 though so maybe that g-tech isn't the most accurate device.

Mine won't chirp the tires. I leave in AWD with traction control off. There is a definite surge of power approx 1/2 way thru 1st. The Gtech has been consistent for me, especially when it locks on to 6 or more satellites. Under 6 and it does get screwy. However, measured at the track on my wifes R8, it was consistently within .05 on all 1/4mi runs. As far as sub-6 second times, Houston in the fall/winter is blessed with dense air. -1500DA is not uncommon. Everything runs good in that kind of air.

The timing retard until after 5k miles seems plausible. I only have 1800mi on it now.

 

[taff]

I think one key thing is that power can always be added or adjsuted relatively easily and cost effectively, a tune, full exhaust system, pedal commander, who knows what else. Especially with the hemi, it's been around long enough that there are many options out there.

What you can't do quite so easily/cost effectively is add a 12" screen or Ramboxes or all the other things that made me choose a '19 Ram over the offerings from GM and Ford.

Made it a no brainer decision for me!

 

[Dusty1948]

I'm leasing my truck, so I'll be on the market again in 2021. My pipe dream for Ram's gas engine lineup then, completely ignoring CAFE requirements or any other bureaucratic nonsense, along with the reality of designing these engines within 3 years, falls into two camps: base engines that are designed for a core truck duty of towing and all that stuff, and engines designed for performance, not so much for towing. I assume that all would have eTorque by then, or something similar. I'm also blithely ignoring any engineering constraints such as metallurgy, cost, performance profiles, ability to fit engine, etc.

With the exception of the 5.7, these are all engines that are currently in FCA's portfolio, so theoretically speaking they should be able to truckify them without having to design an engine from the ground up.

• 3.0 Pentastar (base): Twin turbo, etc. Ballpark of 345 hp, 369 tq (this engine in the Maserati Ghibli goes from 325 hp/369 tq to 424 hp/428 tq)
• 5.7 Hemi (base V8): Thoroughly updated, CGI block, dual injection, etc. Ballpark of 425 hp, 450 tq.
• 6.4 Hemi (mid upgrade): Take the base 392 crate engine. 500 hp, 475 tq.
• 7.0 Hemi (performance): Take the base 426 crate engine. 600 hp, 575 tq.

ETA: I've currently got the 3.6 and it meets my (99% non-towing) needs quite well. That being said, I'd be all over the 3.0 Pentastar if it does show up, since that's a substantial hp boost and very substantial tq boost over the current 3.6.

I'm sure your list tickles the soul of a lot of people, and in total the list represents an admirable viewpoint from a customer perspective. Although you qualified the list as ignoring requirements of the state (as in federal power), the one aspect not mentioned is cost.

Engineers, although potentially creative, unfortunately have to work with specific limitations in real life. When we especially talk about production vehicles, cost is always a primary consideration.

For example, let's take CGI castings. CGI blocks are almost double the strength of aluminum with very little comparative weight penalty and roughly 50% stronger than nodular iron. They are harder, more resistant to fatigue, have superior ductility, and greater tensile strength. They are far more stable dimensionally and more resistant to torsional stresses. In fact, Ford uses this material in their new 2.7 motor as opposed to aluminum.

But what about cost?

Compared to conventional methods, CGI is about 5-7% more costly to cast (material cost & casting).

But the hard costs are in tooling and time. CGI may cast like nodular engine blocks, but they machine much like steel: they are harder to cut and much harder to grind. In addition, you cannot push CGI parts through the machining operations as rapidly, even using diamond or CBN tooling. In general, machining costs rise about 50%. In fact, from what I know, most manufacturers consider CGI components at "fixed cost," meaning they do not amortize production tooling well.

So engineers would look at CGI from a cost benefit ratio, with a bottom line question: would any increase in assembly, reliability, or serviceability offset the actual cost of production?

Beyond bragging rights, in small scale production there might be a case for it. Some European manufacturers do use CGI in blocks, but not at the production rate of a million (or more) blocks a year and not in less expensive models.

Best regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005673 miles.

 

[ChadT]

So engineers would look at CGI from a cost benefit ratio, with a bottom line question: would any increase in assembly, reliability, or serviceability offset the actual cost of production?

Best regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005673 miles.

*hits Jeopardy buzzer* "What is, Yes?"

Rumor on the street is that the Cummins diesel may get a CGI block.
https://5thgenrams.com/2020-ram-cummins-to-get-a-cgi-block/

 

[Dusty1948]

*hits Jeopardy buzzer* "What is, Yes?"

Rumor on the street is that the Cummins diesel may get a CGI block.
https://5thgenrams.com/2020-ram-cummins-to-get-a-cgi-block/

Don't think so.

I have not heard reports of engine failures related to the engine block beyond extremely rare.

The only area that has potential from a platform perspective, is the potential for weight savings. Compared to iron, switching to CGI is reported to represent about a 30-40% reduction. Is that still enough? It would depend on the ability of the platform engineers to reduce weight or increase efficiency in other areas.

Regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005673 miles.

 

[ChadT]

Don't think so.

I have not heard reports of engine failures related to the engine block beyond extremely rare.

The only area that has potential from a platform perspective, is the potential for weight savings. Compared to iron, switching to CGI is reported to represent about a 30-40% reduction. Is that still enough? It would depend on the ability of the platform engineers to reduce weight or increase efficiency in other areas.

Regards,
Dusty

2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Laramie Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33 gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Now at: 005673 miles.

I said nothing about engine failures, I'm uninterested in engaging that strawman.
The point I disagreed with, central to the whole idea of the above, is this:
"So engineers would look at CGI from a cost benefit ratio, with a bottom line question: would any increase in assembly, reliability, or serviceability offset the actual cost of production? "

which is, when boiled down to the simpler business question:
" CGI is expensive, is it worth doing?"

Well it looks like they're doing it, according to the people who run this site that you're on, and their well placed sources.
I'm not sure what you believe you're stabbing at, from what we know but they're going to CGI for cummins and it's up to you to figure out why they appear to be doing that very thing you said they weren't going to do.