Why so slow?

[habu987]

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.

Ford uses a CGI block for its 2.7 EcoBoost and 6.7 PowerStroke, so looks like Ford, at least, has decided that a CGI block meets their cost-benefit ratio requirements. I don't see any reason why Ram couldn't follow their lead. Sure, there'd be costs associated with the switch from the regular cast iron, but that's a part of doing business. Side note, Audi also uses a CGI block for its formerly ubiquitous (outside the US, anyways) 3.0 TDI engine. I'm sure there are other non-exotic manufacturers that are using CGI blocks, but Audi and Ford are just the ones off the top of my head.

Given the ever-increasing prices of trucks, I think Ram could figure out a way to introduce a CGI block in the 5.7 without adding undue cost increases.

 

[habu987]

Ford uses a CGI block for its 2.7 EcoBoost and 6.7 PowerStroke, so looks like Ford, at least, has decided that a CGI block meets their cost-benefit ratio requirements. I don't see any reason why Ram couldn't follow their lead. Sure, there'd be costs associated with the switch from the regular cast iron, but that's a part of doing business. Side note, Audi also uses a CGI block for its formerly ubiquitous (outside the US, anyways) 3.0 TDI engine. I'm sure there are other non-exotic manufacturers that are using CGI blocks, but Audi and Ford are just the ones off the top of my head.

Given the ever-increasing prices of trucks, I think Ram could figure out a way to introduce a CGI block in the 5.7 without adding undue cost increases.

Following on that thought, potentially moving to a CGI block would just be another cost of business. Same with using more high strength steel in the frame, or upgrading the cabin tech, or really any improvement that comes with a higher cost to manufacture. The 5.7 has been around long enough that it should have pretty much been fully amortized by now and be a pure profit center. It's rare for a car manufacturer to rely on such a comparatively ancient major component (10 years now since the 5.7's only major update), whether powertrain or otherwise.

 

[Dusty1948]

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.

You are specifically addressing Cummins diesel motor. There may in fact be reliability, assembly, or serviceability issues that provide a cost benefit. Diesels generally are more susceptible to torsional stresses that a production gasoline motor never sees (excluding racing applications).

First, I never said "they" weren't going to do" it. In fact, I never said that anybody wasn't going to do CGI. Do I think Chrysler is going to CGI any time soon? Probably not, unless they really need to cut 40-50 pounds of weight and they can't find it anywhere else to loose it.

Second, I was not addressing any specific motor in the person I was responding to, in fact, the motors mentioned in that post were all gasoline, current production. So it's being done, yes, but how wide is that application?

I know how automobile manufacturers think. I'll bet they'll be challenged by marketing to justify the cost, especially if the component in question already has an extremely low failure rate. Marketing will ask if potential customers care or select a product based on a CGI block. I don't think the vast majority of customers do, especially with the high degree of reliability with the current product.

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.

 

[Rustydodge]

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.

Ford uses a CGI block for its 2.7 EcoBoost and 6.7 PowerStroke, so looks like Ford, at least, has decided that a CGI block meets their cost-benefit ratio requirements. I don't see any reason why Ram couldn't follow their lead. Sure, there'd be costs associated with the switch from the regular cast iron, but that's a part of doing business. Side note, Audi also uses a CGI block for its formerly ubiquitous (outside the US, anyways) 3.0 TDI engine. I'm sure there are other non-exotic manufacturers that are using CGI blocks, but Audi and Ford are just the ones off the top of my head.

Given the ever-increasing prices of trucks, I think Ram could figure out a way to introduce a CGI block in the 5.7 without adding undue cost increases.

Cummins deciding to go CGI on the I6, and Ford with the 6.7 PS and small displacement, twin turbocharged V6s is vastly different than FCA doing this to a naturally aspirated 5.7 V8. There is absolutely no need for the hemi to go CGI. The blocks used in the hellcats and redeye aren't CGI. The hellephant with 1000 hp and 950 lbft is aluminum...based on the 345 aluminum crate block in the drag pack challenger.

If the hemi gets replaced by a turbocharged I6 with CGI then whatever (i haven't really followed that rumor closely enough to know what the block material might be), but there is not much benefit or reason to switch the current hemi block to CGI, unless the company wants to decrease profits....

 

[Rustydodge]

Following on that thought, potentially moving to a CGI block would just be another cost of business. Same with using more high strength steel in the frame, or upgrading the cabin tech, or really any improvement that comes with a higher cost to manufacture. The 5.7 has been around long enough that it should have pretty much been fully amortized by now and be a pure profit center. It's rare for a car manufacturer to rely on such a comparatively ancient major component (10 years now since the 5.7's only major update), whether powertrain or otherwise.

What would CGI gain you other than a few pounds of weight savings? Just because a different manufacturer choses CGI for a different engine, doesn't mean FCA has to switch to it on the 5.7. Makes no since, but would be a great suggestion if you want FCA to go back into debt or go bankrupt again There is absolutely nothing wrong with the blocks currently used in the 5.7, truck 6.4, apache 6.4, 6.2 hellcat/redeye/demon. Aluminum would be a more logical fit IMO

 

[Dusty1948]

"Following on that thought, potentially moving to a CGI block would just be another cost of business."

Companies in a very competitive market do not casually accept increased cost. In fact, there's this category of talent usually referred to as Cost Engineering, where they are actively pursuing reducing cost.

"Same with using more high strength steel in the frame, or upgrading the cabin tech, or really any improvement that comes with a higher cost to manufacture."

Yes, when there are actually attainable improvements that can be demonstrable and translate into increased sales. Rams new frame was completely redesigned because they had to meet the offset crash requirements, but they also wanted to increase beam strength to match the increase in load weight goal, as well as torsional rigidity to decrease noise, etc. New interiors and tech. features translate to increased buyer appeal.

"The 5.7 has been around long enough that it should have pretty much been fully amortized by now and be a pure profit center."

Correct, assuming conventional tooling and manufacturing processes. But CGI blocks would increase the cost of tooling and cut manufacturing output potentially in half on an engine family that's actually doing quite well. Wouldn't any potential increase in making the current 5.7 be put to better use in developing a replacement engine series?

The bottom line question: if the 5.7 block was switched from iron to CGI, what tangible customer benefit would be realized?

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.

 

[Rustydodge]

So I was looking at truck reviews and I am just scratching my head as to why Ram 1500 with the 5.7L is so slow. It just seems like FCA just skipped investment in engine technology all together. The ride=segment leading, interior=segment leading, can storage=segment leading, drivetrain= meh. To my knowledge the hemi is still port injected when others are using direct or dual injection systems. Iron block when others have long moved on to aluminum or CGI. I mean, I love the truck (why I ordered) but it's slow. A Ford 2.7L EB V6 will beat it to 60mph by a second or more and let's not even talk about the 3.5L EB. A ford 5.0L is faster, a GM 6.2 will blow its doors off and offer better MPG and a GM 5.3L is a tad behind it. Why no direct injection or dual injection for the 5.7? Why no aluminum or CGI block for the 5.7L? IMHO the 5.7L should be putting out around 410hp and 440tq.

Was one of the reviews you were referring to this?
https://www.tfltruck.com/2018/11/fo...-1500-hemi-drag-race-which-truck-is-quickest/

A 2015 F150 supercrew XLT 2wd short bed with the 3.5 ecoboost weighs 4,662 per IIHS. The 5.0 is lighter i think than the 3.5 by 50 lbs, comparing their payload ratings on the 2019 Ford F150 brochure. So that truck probably with options weighed 4700?

The Ram limited 4x4 off road package they were racing against probably weighed what, close to 5400? So probably a good 700 more mass to move, and it didn't lose by much. That same 5.0 didn't lose to the 3.5 by much either.

The 5.7 is not the fastest which is fine by me. But mototrend clocked a 2019 crew at 6.1 seconds 0-60 if i remember correctly. Thats pretty darn good, and plenty fast for a vehicle north of 5000 lbs.

 

[Dusty1948]

Is one of the reviews you're referring to this?
https://www.tfltruck.com/2018/11/fo...-1500-hemi-drag-race-which-truck-is-quickest/

A 2015 F150 supercrew XLT 2wd short bed with the 3.5 ecoboost weighs 4,662 per IIHS. The 5.0 is lighter i think than the 3.5 by 50 lbs, comparing their payload ratings on the 2019 Ford F150 brochure. So that truck probably with options weighed 4700?

The Ram limited 4x4 off road package they were racing against probably weighed what, close to 5400? So probably a good 700 more mass to move, and it didn't lose by much. That same 5.0 didn't lose to the 3.5 by much either.

The 5.7 is not the fastest which is fine by me. But mototrend clocked a 2019 crew at 6.1 seconds 0-60 if i remember correctly. Thats pretty darn good, and plenty fast for a vehicle north of 5000 lbs.

I can tell you exactly how much my '19, Ram 1500 Laramie Quad Cab, 2-wheel drive weights: 4994 pounds.

According to an acquaintance of mine who just purchased a '19 Big Horn Crew Cab, 4-wheel drive, his New York State title lists it at 5631 pounds.

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.

 

[dmodem]

In addition to a stable of vehicles, I've had 6 Ram trucks over the years since '01, and I also purchased a new '17 Silverado. Although I liked the look of the Chevy, the interior and 5.3L engine didn't compare to the hemi. Taking into account the '19 Limited's interior and 5.7L power train, there is absolutely no comparison in the half ton market. Although the new Ram's exterior may be a little more "vanilla", the overall package is the best going.

 

[Kramersp]

Love my 19 limited w/ etorque. Just pulled my 4,600lb boat from Maryland to San Diego. I did the same trip with my 13 F150 EB. My ram has 3.92 gears, F150 3.55. Gas mileage during the trip was about the same as my F150 at 13.2 MPG. One very noticeable difference is low end torque. The 3.5L EB has LOADS more torque down low and across a wider RPM range than any domestic half ton gas V8. Just does. Makes it an awesome towing motor. For my use, I love the ram boxes, the air suspension and the interior is second to none. If I was going to pull 7000lbs regularly, I'd buy a F150 with the 3.5L EB all day long. But I'm not. I pull 4600lbs regularly. And in a pinch, I can pull 11000lbs with my Ram. Meets my needs. Ford makes a damn good truck, just not the perfect one for my needs. GM? Dropped the ball on the interior and exterior. The 6.2L IMHO is the only engine in the lineup worth a crap. It's a great motor.

 

[Ramit392]

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.

If Ram 1500 would offer the 6.4 as a choice i would be all over it. I really like the 6.4 over the 5.7 and I would bet with a little fine tuning the 6.4 could do same with fuel efficiency as well.

 

[Kramersp]

If Ram 1500 would offer the 6.4 as a choice i would be all over it. I really like the 6.4 over the 5.7 and I would bet with a little fine tuning the 6.4 could do same with fuel efficiency as well.

I would be too. But I'm pretty sure Ram ran out of development money.

 

[Kramersp]

Because how easy would it have been to either have a NA 6.2L or their 6.4L or heck, add DI to the 5.7L!

 

[Ramit392]

IMO FCA had a stock pile of 5.7 on hand using in many other vehicles other than just the trucks. However the 6.1 and the 6.4 not and they improved the 6.1 going to 6.4 which will most likely show up in the 1500 when the 5.7 stock pile and paid for profits are used up.The 5.7 is a very good motor with head bolt issues which is not a big deal....but the 5.7 was once the hp king in the trucks during the 2003 to 2009 years and has fell behind in hp some but not drastically until their stock pile is used up making the profit healthy with out short changing the buyers. They done a slight refresh on the 5.7 in 2009 but not really a major change speaks for itself the motor is actually 16 years old and going strong still.

 

[Roddog2220]

Well said Speedy - I currently have a 2016 Sierra with the 6.2 + a few mods.. and it does fly. I have owned new GM trucks every 2-3 years for the past 20+ years. However, I'm leaving the brand... getting my first RAM soon. The overall package of RAM with technology, storage, etc is light years ahead of the new 2019 offerings coming from Chevy and GMC. They simply got left way behind in my opinion.

just switched as well, hard to decide on that or new chevy 6.2, so far I like the ram but we will see if they hold their value like chevy

 

[Bullred]

Cold air has arrived in Houston. Last night and this AM I've made 5 0-60 blasts. All ranged from 5.61-5.68. The 1st gear surge is still there, but not nearly as noticeable. The truck has 1950mi on it now. I'll keep monitoring it to see if the surge goes away after 5k miles. The best 60' so far has been 2.06. My 2016's best 60' was 1.99, so there's something going on in 1st gear. The factory calibration under 5k mi seems most plausible explanation.

Also, as far as the 5.7Hemi vs the GM 6.2, it only makes sense the 5.7 is at a disadvantage, BUT.......That ZF 8sp tranny and 3.92 rear go a LONG WAY to even up the performance between the 2 trucks.

 

[Phoon]

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ram/1500/2019/ram-1500-2019-truck-of-the-year-finalist/

The rams are putting out very similar numbers to the 6.2 GM trucks in motor trend testing. The old gm trucks (2014 ish) with the new 6.2 and the 6 speed were actually faster.

 

[ChadT]

Cold air has arrived in Houston. Last night and this AM I've made 5 0-60 blasts. All ranged from 5.61-5.68. The 1st gear surge is still there, but not nearly as noticeable. The truck has 1950mi on it now. I'll keep monitoring it to see if the surge goes away after 5k miles. The best 60' so far has been 2.06. My 2016's best 60' was 1.99, so there's something going on in 1st gear. The factory calibration under 5k mi seems most plausible explanation.

Also, as far as the 5.7Hemi vs the GM 6.2, it only makes sense the 5.7 is at a disadvantage, BUT.......That ZF 8sp tranny and 3.92 rear go a LONG WAY to even up the performance between the 2 trucks.

Hmm, I will say, 0 to 60 aside? The passing power on the Ram is okay in my book. If you give it the gas pedal to highway pass, it'll do it no problem. Due to it being a NA engine it doesn't really have a turbo torque curve down low - but when it is time to pass on the highway it does so with authority.
With aftermarket exhaust, it's a rewarding experience!

Edited to Add: I would actually be interested to see the rolling 55 to 75 times of the trucks, candidly that's probably when perception of speed will matter most for these trucks, if we consider that serious concern to begin with in a fullsize truck of course.

 

[Agitated]

This conversation has made my eyes glaze over. Why are we talking about 1/4 mile times and how fast a damn pickup truck is? This is crazy and absurd to me.
I made the switch to Ram because of the engine. Call me crazy but I like the fact this engine is still a strong block, with a traditional old school cam, rockers and pushrods, and none of the direct injection mess that leads to carbon build up in the heads. Just a simple, tried and true and powerful engine. No turbos or intercoolers to worry about.

These kind of conversations is what makes magazines shift away from what's important and start treating trucks like some kind of sports car. Then the manufactures follow, and we're left with things that water down what a truck should be.

 

[Phoon]

This conversation has made my eyes glaze over. Why are we talking about 1/4 mile times and how fast a **** pickup truck is? This is crazy and absurd to me.
I made the switch to Ram because of the engine. Call me crazy but I like the fact this engine is still a strong block, with a traditional old school cam, rockers and pushrods, and none of the direct injection mess that leads to carbon build up in the heads. Just a simple, tried and true and powerful engine. No turbos or intercoolers to worry about.

we care about how fast they are, because they are our daily drivers . I use mine how people used to use full size sedans, but with the added capability to tow and haul large loads. To fill this role it needs to be comfortable, spacious, fun and quick. It is very fun to keep up with hot hatches in a big truck! You cant really buy rwd, v8 cars anymore so trucks it is! I think this hasnt watered down trucks at all, trucks have never been able to tow as much as they can now, and have never had as many configurations to chose from and tailor to your needs... un-loaded speed also helps when you are trying to drive up a steep grade with a heavy load...