Ram 1500 EcoDiesel

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: RangerGress
The payload capability posted in this thread is wrong. The payload in the Ram 1500 isn't great, but I'm ordering a Crew cab and it's published payload is ~1600lbs


Look at the GVWR for your new Ram.

You honestly think it's going to roll across the scales anywhere near 1,600 less than that?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: RangerGress
So much wrong in this thread it's embarrassing.

1. Hp isn't all that useful. Torque is all. Since HP really just boils down to torque X rpms, all hp really brings to the table is the ability for the engine to wind out.


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!

 

[RangerGress]

Yes, I would expect the truck to be reasonably close to the weight on the sticker. Call it
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/towing_guide/tow_chart/

The Ram is light in weight and has coil springs. That means better gas mileage and a more comfortable ride. Those characteristics will appeal to some and not to others. That doesn't make the characteristics objectively good or bad, just different.

That said, I'll probably put some airbags in the rear springs. This is really easy in a coil spring and it will level out the truck. I have a weight distro hitch, but even tho I run it as tight as I can, the amount of weight it xfers from rear to front isn't all that much.

Re. I understand hp=hp. But so what? HP is nothing but torque X RPM / . So HP differs from torque only in that RPM is in there.

Consider 2 engines that can produce 300ftlbs of torque from 0-4000rpm. But one of the engines can rev higher and continue to produce 300ftlbs of torque to 8000RPM. The latter engine would have twice the hp as the former.

Now consider the transmission. You're in the first car, you're revving at 4000rpm so now you have to shift gears. You still have your 300ftlbs so you're ability to accelerate up a hill etc. is undiminished. In the latter high rpm car you did not have to shift gears, you could accelerate by simply running the engine's RPM higher.

As long as the engine revs higher than 5252, referring to an engine as a high hp engine really means calling it a high rpm engine.

The reason we use hp to describe engine performance is mostly that it contains that cool word "power." We know a lot more about an engine's performance when we see it's torque curve.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!


Let's put that high school physics knowledge to the test then, shall we?

From the above, let's assume all those engines are put in the same type of chassis, mated to the same transmissions, with the same ratios, in other words the trucks are identical except for the engines. Given all this information and nothing more, can you tell which configuration will pull more payload? Or maybe it will be the same?
Let's hear it.

 

[ls1mike]

Should move it why not?
I am not sure I understand you question.

The Tundra MOVED a space shuttle(I say moved as there is a difference between moving something and towing something)

I think maybe you mean which on will pull it safe and reasonably. But if both trucks are the same and make the same HP it just depends at what RPM you are going to be spinning to move said item.

It all depends on the torque in this application. Problem is torque is left out so I can't really answer the question. If everything is equal than payload is payload.

That is why Diesels are so nice. The torque they make, makes them a better tow vehicle. They don't require a lot of rpm to do the same thing as a gas motor.

Best comparison I can make is on 01 Duramax to an 01 6.0 GM

Both were 300 hp. The diesel made 520 foot lbs of torque. The 6.0 made 345 ft lbs. of torque.

Duramax was obviously the better vehicle but if everything were same including torque. It should move the weight just at a different RPM.


You can't have this discussion without talking about torque.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I'd rather have a simple mechanical injection diesel over all of them. Sadly, won't ever happen

Part of the appeal of diesels back in the day was that there wasn't much to break and not much maintenance was required.
You also used what was then a cheaper fuel and got better fuel economy than the gassers. The unique engine note was either a plus or a minus. I liked it.
With our old W123s, you had to change the oil pretty often and the fuel filters every now and then and that was about it.
I've never minded changing oil, although the fuel filters were a little more complicated, since the fuel smell would linger in whatever clothes you'd worn after washing and it would also remain on your hands for a day or so. You also had to bleed the system after opening it, but Mercedes had a little hand pump installed for that purpose, which could also be used in the event that you ran out of fuel.
Simple machines built to last that were also priced lower than equivalent gas models.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!


Let's put that high school physics knowledge to the test then, shall we?

From the above, let's assume all those engines are put in the same type of chassis, mated to the same transmissions, with the same ratios, in other words the trucks are identical except for the engines. Given all this information and nothing more, can you tell which configuration will pull more payload? Or maybe it will be the same?
Let's hear it.


If geared correctly, it will be the same. (Any vehicle needs to be geared appropriately for the job, of course.)

 

[KrisZ]

ls1mike, that was my whole point. One cannot make a determination on how much work (read how much payload) a truck can pull without knowing the torque.

People started quoting physics, but they obviously have no idea what torque represents and what HP represents and they represent two different things.

Let's use Overkills example of two engines making roughly 500HP but one is capable of 1500lb-ft and the other 300lb-ft of torque. What HP represents is the fact that both engines will be capable of the same speed while pulling their respective maximum loads, but the payload will be much higher for the 1500lb-ft engine. You can gear the 300lb-ft torque engine to be able to pull the maximum load for the 1500lb-ft engine, but the speed at which the 300lb-ft engine will comfortably pull that load will be severely reduced.

So no matter how you look at, it the less torquey engine will do less work because it will either keep up with the bigger engine but pull less load, or pull the same amount of load but at a slower speed.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: RangerGress
I'm still at 1500lbs of real payload capacity.


Gress, that's absolutely laughable.

You've said you're ordering a crew cab with the diesel. Take a look again at the published max payload figures for this model.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
ls1mike, that was my whole point. One cannot make a determination on how much work (read how much payload) a truck can pull without knowing the torque.

People started quoting physics, but they obviously have no idea what torque represents and what HP represents and they represent two different things.

Let's use Overkills example of two engines making roughly 500HP but one is capable of 1500lb-ft and the other 300lb-ft of torque. What HP represents is the fact that both engines will be capable of the same speed while pulling their respective maximum loads, but the payload will be much higher for the 1500lb-ft engine. You can gear the 300lb-ft torque engine to be able to pull the maximum load for the 1500lb-ft engine, but the speed at which the 300lb-ft engine will comfortably pull that load will be severely reduced.

So no matter how you look at, it the less torquey engine will do less work because it will either keep up with the bigger engine but pull less load, or pull the same amount of load but at a slower speed.


I figured it was...I thought there may have been some sarcasm in you post. Sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet.

Fact of the matter is if I could have found a clean 8.1 when I bought my truck that is what I would have. Gas motor with tons of torque and low maintenance, the deal I got when I purchased mine was to good to pass up.

 

[RangerGress]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
I'm still at 1500lbs of real payload capacity.


Gress, that's absolutely laughable.

You've said you're ordering a crew cab with the diesel. Take a look again at the published max payload figures for this model.

I've been looking at them for weeks. I quoted them above for the Big Horn trim. I'm not seeing what you describe. Elaborate pls.

 

[Ramblejam]

Just so we're on the same page with what you're ordering:

Crew Cab
Diesel

5'7" or 6'4" bed?
4x2 or 4x4?
Trim level?

 

[RangerGress]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
So much wrong in this thread it's embarrassing.

1. Hp isn't all that useful. Torque is all. Since HP really just boils down to torque X rpms, all hp really brings to the table is the ability for the engine to wind out.


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!


Do the math. Work out how much torque you have in each of those scenarios, at 300hp. What you will find is that your turbine engine has almost no torque. Good luck trying to do anything useful with a vehicle engine that puts out torque that is so small you can't hardly measure it in in-lbs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: RangerGress
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
So much wrong in this thread it's embarrassing.

1. Hp isn't all that useful. Torque is all. Since HP really just boils down to torque X rpms, all hp really brings to the table is the ability for the engine to wind out.


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!


Do the math. Work out how much torque you have in each of those scenarios, at 300hp. What you will find is that your turbine engine has almost no torque. Good luck trying to do anything useful with a vehicle engine that puts out torque that is so small you can't hardly measure it in in-lbs.


Thank you for that hanging curveball! The sound you just heard was me launching it into the Monster Seats!

The 60+ ton M1 Abrams tank is powered by a turbine! It produces approximately 1500HP...and no more than 300lb/ft of torque. It spine extremely high RPM's (turbines usually idle over 10,000RPM) and is geared accordingly!

 

[Spazdog]

It's not that new or revolutionary of an idea.

Back in the '80s, you could buy a C10 with a 6.2 Detroit Diesel. I still do not understand why GM did not capitalize on this and put a big badge on the fender that said "Powered by Detroit Diesel".

For a short time, you could buy two different half ton diesels at a GM dealer. The C10 and the LUV (Isuzu). Three if you include the diesel Blazer.

All the Japanese trucks had them. Toyota had their own diesel. Nissan used a Minsei (UD). Mazda used a Perkins. Isuzu and Mitsubishi used their own diesels.

I do not remember Ford and Dodge using diesels in their half ton full-size. You could buy a Dodge D50 (rebadged Mitsubishi) or a Ford Ranger diesel (IIRC, the Ranger used the same Mitsubishi engine as the D50) Ford was buying diesels from all over the globe at that time (Mazda F diesel in the Tempo, BMW in Lincoln...)

 

[fdcg27]

...and even before that, you could buy a half ton Chevy with the 5.7 liter Olds diesel, but let's not talk about that one.

 

[hattaresguy]

I just looked at the specs on the new Ram trucks. Built the same as a 14 Chevy they payload is about 500 pounds less, and they are heavy.

They have a nice drive train but need to lose some weight. One model had a payload of 1200 pounds! That's insane, if you put 4 big guys in that truck with a set of golf clubs for each it might be very close to be overloaded! Most station wagons can haul more than that.

I'm not wild about the Italian diesel either, IMHO its going to cost more over the lifespan of the truck than a basic none boosted V8 or V6.

Not sold on the coil setup either, in the G wagon they are known to snap coils when carrying a load with the on road 18in tires. So now Dodge makes a truck that you can get low profile tires on that one would assume people will load up and drive on un paved roads? They are going to start snapping coils in a few years...

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
One model had a payload of 1200 pounds! That's insane, if you put 4 big guys in that truck with a set of golf clubs for each it might be very close to be overloaded!

 

[RangerGress]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
So much wrong in this thread it's embarrassing.

1. Hp isn't all that useful. Torque is all. Since HP really just boils down to torque X rpms, all hp really brings to the table is the ability for the engine to wind out.


No, wrong! Repeat after me: one horsepower equals one horsepower! This is junior-high-school physics!

300HP is 300HP, whether it's from a DD60 at 1300RPM, a C10 Cat at 1900, a 5.9 Cummins at 2900, a Ford V10 at 4500, a Pentastar V6 at 5800, a turbocharged Honda at 8500, or a turbine at 45,000!


Do the math. Work out how much torque you have in each of those scenarios, at 300hp. What you will find is that your turbine engine has almost no torque. Good luck trying to do anything useful with a vehicle engine that puts out torque that is so small you can't hardly measure it in in-lbs.


Thank you for that hanging curveball! The sound you just heard was me launching it into the Monster Seats!

The 60+ ton M1 Abrams tank is powered by a turbine! It produces approximately 1500HP...and no more than 300lb/ft of torque. It spine extremely high RPM's (turbines usually idle over 10,000RPM) and is geared accordingly!

Your welcome.

Says here 2750 ftlbs of torque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

The problem here I think is that we're conditioned to admire hp. The math is unescable tho. One needs torque to accelerate or pull a load. Because HP is proportional to Torque X RPM, all you need to get high hp is high rpm. Therefore when HP is high, you have to look at the engine's redline to see how much grunt the engine's going to have.

The race car is a perfect example. If you and I have 300ftlbs at redline, but my redline is 4000rpm and yours is 8000rpm, then I have to shift well before you do. But since I still have 300ftlbs when I upshift, this isn't a big disadvantage, it just means more shifting. But in terms of power the fact that you can hold 300ftlbs to twice my rpms means you have twice the hp. That sounds like a big deal but in reality it boils down to me shifting 2x as often.

 

[RangerGress]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
One model had a payload of 1200 pounds! That's insane, if you put 4 big guys in that truck with a set of golf clubs for each it might be very close to be overloaded!

Smallest engine, heaviest trims. I agree that's not much payload. It would not be my choice of combinations.