Anybody have Dodge Ram 3500 w/6.4L Hemi gas engine

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Once someone has grown accustomed to the smoothness and quietness of a modern gas engine in a pickup it is difficult to imagine anyone who doesn't tow every day wanting a diesel!


Could a sound level meter detect a difference? Sure.
Would I buy the gas engine? Absolutely.

Having spent time though in both Rams (new 6.4/new Cummins), arguing against the diesel on NVH alone is specious reasoning.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Perhaps in your opinion it is. I fully support your right to it.

But having owned both I cannot imagine anyone comparing the NVH of any diesel pickup to a V8 model. My 09 Dmax is a bit quieter than any Cummins I have heard, but the NVH is markedly different from my 14 RAM 5.7 which is smooth and quiet at any rpm.

Like I said, if towing regularly the diesel is the easy choice. But the 6.4 has significantly more horsepower than the Cummins, it just lacks the stump pulling torque off idle. Stock for stock it outruns the Cummins, too. A full 6/10ths faster in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. It is also a full 8 grand cheaper! And I guarantee you it is smoother and quieter at all speeds...

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
the 6.4 has significantly more horsepower than the Cummins


The 6.4L Hemi produces 25 more horsepower at twice the RPM.
The 6.7L Cummins more than doubles torque output (471 lb-ft) at less than half the RPM.

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Stock for stock it outruns the Cummins, too. A full 6/10ths faster in both 1/4 mile and 0-60


You appear to have pulled this from here. What you neglected to mention is that's comparing the 6.4L Hemi to a now four-year old Cummins (MY2012), which is not only down on power from MY2016, but has a completely different transmission behind it. As well, here's the direct quote:

"Although that’s 0.6 second better in the 0-to-60 and quarter-mile measures than the 2012 Ram 2500 diesel we last tested, it doesn’t tell the entire story. When it comes to motivating 7039 pounds of Ram truck, the gasoline Hemi is all hands on deck, working overtime to rush through its six-speed automatic transmission. Its diesel-powered sibling, however, goes about its business with conviction, working hard but never feeling stressed or short of muscle."

 

[DoubleWasp]

The gas model is hardly an invalid, but as previously stated, twice the torque at half the rpm is hard to brush aside. And speaking of half; that's how much towing capacity you get with Hemi vs. Cummins.

With regards to NVH, lack of the diesel audio experience sitting in the driver's seat is actually a complaint I have had about my newer Cummins.

Gas model is a good truck, but as we know from the old big block era of 6.8 V10, 8.0 V10, and 8.1 V8, a gas engine should have more torque at a lower rpm when motivating a 1-ton.

I know a few people who have both 6.2 powered Raptors and 6.8 V10 F350 and F450 trucks, and none of them would rather have the 6.2 in their truck. Torque is a major factor if you're actually hauling weight.

 

[mobilaltima]

How is it a royal pita to get them to run right? Guys like Kory Willis with PPEI and Ryan Miliken with Hardway Performance have the proper tuning for them to run better and trouble free. EFI Live no problems

 

[mobilaltima]

Not trying to start an argument just saying

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Before these days of what is a giant peeing contest in torque, how did we get by with medium duty trucks that had, say, a 366 that made ~250 horsepower? Sure torque was around 500lb/ft, but they wound out pretty quick.

Does one really need 900 ft/lb in a pickup truck?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Before these days of what is a giant peeing contest in torque, how did we get by with medium duty trucks that had, say, a 366 that made ~250 horsepower? Sure torque was around 500lb/ft, but they wound out pretty quick.

Does one really need 900 ft/lb in a pickup truck?


Well I guess that depends on the application. It possible that one doesn't need it but since there is only 1 diesel option for the most part it's either the big dog diesel or nothing.
Dodge has a light truck diesel that I like but I'm unconvinced of its durability vs cost.
I know the farmers love these newer diesels. I see trailers pulling double the bales now,so you can get more work done with them however again there is a single diesel option.
We need more light duty diesel options.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I know the farmers love these newer diesels. I see trailers pulling double the bales now,so you can get more work done with them


Preposterous, Clevy.

For 15 years now (among the big three light-truck diesels), horsepower/torque hasn't been the limiting factor in pulling these type of loads.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I know the farmers love these newer diesels. I see trailers pulling double the bales now,so you can get more work done with them


Preposterous, Clevy.

For 15 years now (among the big three light-truck diesels), horsepower/torque hasn't been the limiting factor in pulling these type of loads.



How would you know what I see local farmers pulling.

Something is preposterous. And it's your assumption you have any real idea or clue

If a diesel truck 10 years ago can pull 15000 pounds,and today can pull 20000 pounds does that not increase the load pulling ability.
Would that also not increase how many hay bales loaded on a trailer.

Yep. Preposterous alright. Obviously you just like to argue as proven by your trash talk to many here. Once you get over yourself do find something sharp to sit on and rotate.

 

[Ramblejam]

Appreciate the warm words; trying to hit every logical fallacy in the book though doesn't help.

Look, the tactic of stating someone doesn't "have any real idea or clue" would be suitable for almost every single person here on this subject. Unfortunately, you decided to employ that with one of the few that does:

This is the kind of stuff I do on a daily basis. Not by observing vehicles going down the road and perceiving relationships to exist, but by actually getting behind the wheel of a truck or tractor.

As anyone familiar with the industry will tell you, light-duty pickup towing numbers have been nothing more than a back-and-forth marketing game for quite a period of time -- when capacities change with nothing more than a new model year, it doesn't take the sharpest tool in the shed to see that they're next to meaningless. Of course, your arbitrary 15k/20k figures have no bearing on reality either.

So, what does matter?

GVWR
GAWR

2001 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,200 (Front GAWR)
9,750 (Rear GAWR)
11,200 (Max GVWR)

2015 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,940 (Front GAWR)
9,650 (Rear GAWR)
13,000 (Max GVWR)

Now, take a truck that's popular for usage here - class 7 tractor @ 32k GVWR (avoiding the 12% FET). This would be spec'd as follows:

12,000 (Front GAWR)
21,000 (Rear GAWR)
32,000 (Max GVWR)

At these numbers (more than double pickup GVWR), it's equipped with a 250-280hp diesel (6 to 8 liters), 660-800lb-ft torque and either a Allison auto, or 5/6-speed manual.

Take a look again at my picture. Those are 61" x 72" bales coming in around 2400lbs. 16 total. Do the math. All moved with a truck that makes significantly less horsepower and torque than any new pickup.

As I originally stated in the other post, that's my point. Power output has nothing to do with limitations here -- pickups have made plenty for ages. It's all the other systems (suspension, transmission, braking, tires, etc.) where attention needs to be given.

 

[Benito]

^ Great info, explanation and schooling Ramblejam!

 

[Nate1979]

More power allows you to pull the hills at 65mph+ instead of 45mph. Thats the difference between todays diesel or gas and the engines 10-20 years ago.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Tampering with emissions equipment IS illegal in all 50 states, even if your state doesn't have emissions testing. Whether or not your area actually enforces that law is another issue entirely.


Exactly.

In CT, the "emissions" test for diesels is they can't blow smoke at idle. Any truck with a tuner can pass it. You can bet with the whole emissions scandal with VW TDI cars that this will be changing.

I personally think "deleting" a brand new truck is incredibly foolish. Pay $70k for a new truck only to pay more money to delete all the emissions stuff and if anything goes wrong they WILL void your warranty. I've actually heard of this happening with a few Ford 6.7 owners with blown turbos. The turbo bearings failed but since the truck was modified the warranty didn't cover the turbo. An older truck might benefit from deleting (like a 6.0 PSD) but then again its illegal, so you run that risk.

Modern diesels are very expensive to own and maintain, this is why many contracting companies are switching back to gas trucks. Unless you really know what you are doing I wouldn't recommend messing with them.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Before these days of what is a giant peeing contest in torque, how did we get by with medium duty trucks that had, say, a 366 that made ~250 horsepower? Sure torque was around 500lb/ft, but they wound out pretty quick.

Does one really need 900 ft/lb in a pickup truck?


No, they want to be able to sail up a hill at 80 pulling the camper like they are in a car. Doing things at truck speed isn't cool.

HP is not the limiter for towing, a 1 ton is still a light duty truck. You can only ask those brakes, axles, and frames to do so much.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Before these days of what is a giant peeing contest in torque, how did we get by with medium duty trucks that had, say, a 366 that made ~250 horsepower? Sure torque was around 500lb/ft, but they wound out pretty quick.

Does one really need 900 ft/lb in a pickup truck?


No, they want to be able to sail up a hill at 80 pulling the camper like they are in a car. Doing things at truck speed isn't cool.

HP is not the limiter for towing, a 1 ton is still a light duty truck. You can only ask those brakes, axles, and frames to do so much.



You got it! It's so they can propel themselves and their camper to unsafe speeds on the highway. Then burn out their transmission or be constantly replacing brakes because of the way they drive.

There are still farmers around here that get by hauling with 30 year old gas powered trucks ... that are still running after 30 years because they are built significantly heavier duty than a pickup. But get there slower. And no peeing contests.



Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Appreciate the warm words; trying to hit every logical fallacy in the book though doesn't help.

Look, the tactic of stating someone doesn't "have any real idea or clue" would be suitable for almost every single person here on this subject. Unfortunately, you decided to employ that with one of the few that does:

This is the kind of stuff I do on a daily basis. Not by observing vehicles going down the road and perceiving relationships to exist, but by actually getting behind the wheel of a truck or tractor.

As anyone familiar with the industry will tell you, light-duty pickup towing numbers have been nothing more than a back-and-forth marketing game for quite a period of time -- when capacities change with nothing more than a new model year, it doesn't take the sharpest tool in the shed to see that they're next to meaningless. Of course, your arbitrary 15k/20k figures have no bearing on reality either.

So, what does matter?

GVWR
GAWR

2001 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,200 (Front GAWR)
9,750 (Rear GAWR)
11,200 (Max GVWR)

2015 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,940 (Front GAWR)
9,650 (Rear GAWR)
13,000 (Max GVWR)

Now, take a truck that's popular for usage here - class 7 tractor @ 32k GVWR (avoiding the 12% FET). This would be spec'd as follows:

12,000 (Front GAWR)
21,000 (Rear GAWR)
32,000 (Max GVWR)

At these numbers (more than double pickup GVWR), it's equipped with a 250-280hp diesel (6 to 8 liters), 660-800lb-ft torque and either a Allison auto, or 5/6-speed manual.

Take a look again at my picture. Those are 61" x 72" bales coming in around 2400lbs. 16 total. Do the math. All moved with a truck that makes significantly less horsepower and torque than any new pickup.

As I originally stated in the other post, that's my point. Power output has nothing to do with limitations here -- pickups have made plenty for ages. It's all the other systems (suspension, transmission, braking, tires, etc.) where attention needs to be given.


And a Class 7 tractor will do it for 30 years where a 1 ton chassis cab will only do it for 1/3 of that (if used at the max 100% of the time). E

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Appreciate the warm words; trying to hit every logical fallacy in the book though doesn't help.

Look, the tactic of stating someone doesn't "have any real idea or clue" would be suitable for almost every single person here on this subject. Unfortunately, you decided to employ that with one of the few that does:

This is the kind of stuff I do on a daily basis. Not by observing vehicles going down the road and perceiving relationships to exist, but by actually getting behind the wheel of a truck or tractor.

As anyone familiar with the industry will tell you, light-duty pickup towing numbers have been nothing more than a back-and-forth marketing game for quite a period of time -- when capacities change with nothing more than a new model year, it doesn't take the sharpest tool in the shed to see that they're next to meaningless. Of course, your arbitrary 15k/20k figures have no bearing on reality either.

So, what does matter?

GVWR
GAWR

2001 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,200 (Front GAWR)
9,750 (Rear GAWR)
11,200 (Max GVWR)

2015 Super Duty Chassis Cab:

5,940 (Front GAWR)
9,650 (Rear GAWR)
13,000 (Max GVWR)

Now, take a truck that's popular for usage here - class 7 tractor @ 32k GVWR (avoiding the 12% FET). This would be spec'd as follows:

12,000 (Front GAWR)
21,000 (Rear GAWR)
32,000 (Max GVWR)

At these numbers (more than double pickup GVWR), it's equipped with a 250-280hp diesel (6 to 8 liters), 660-800lb-ft torque and either a Allison auto, or 5/6-speed manual.

Take a look again at my picture. Those are 61" x 72" bales coming in around 2400lbs. 16 total. Do the math. All moved with a truck that makes significantly less horsepower and torque than any new pickup.

As I originally stated in the other post, that's my point. Power output has nothing to do with limitations here -- pickups have made plenty for ages. It's all the other systems (suspension, transmission, braking, tires, etc.) where attention needs to be given.


Here are the specs you are missing from your comparison there:

2001 Maximum Trailer Weight Rating:

Ram 3500 4x2 Regular Cab 5.9-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel I-6: 13,900

2015 Maximum Trailer Weight Rating:

Ram 3500 4x2 Regular Cab 6.7-liter Cummins Turbo Diesel I-6: 30,000


So why the disparity in towing capacity between a 2001 Ram 3500, and say an International 4700 with the exact same engine? Why does a Ram 3500 need so much more torque to match a Medium Duty's Towing Capacity?

Well, you're forgetting that most of those trucks had an axle ratio of between 4.44-6.14. The 2015 Ram with the 30,000 lb. trailer rating has a 3.73.

The light duty 1-tons need to have drivable gear ratios that can deliver good fuel economy. The entire purpose of the 1-ton sector is to deliver a livable truck that can still haul the loads. If you're not going to use a super high axle ratio to increase wheel torque, then you have to make it at the engine.

I have 13 medium duty trucks, and I want one of those in my driveway at home about as much as I want an emptying SWAT van.

Pathetic unloaded acceleration, abysmal loaded acceleration, engine screaming in all gears, single digit fuel economy on the highway, 60mph top speed? No thank you. They have their purpose, and they can stay right there in it.

As to your comments about meaningless tow ratings; as a person who claims to be intimate with the art of towing large loads, you should know that all 1-ton trucks are now certified to SAE J2807 in their tow ratings. They are hardly an arbitrary number invented by the manufacturers.

 

[Nate1979]

^^^^^^ My understanding is only Ram has J2807 certified their HD trucks.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Ford was the first, and Dodge and GM followed along once Ford dipped their feet in the water. Nissan is the only holdout right now. That is expected to change in the upcoming diesel Titan.

 

[Ramblejam]

I'm talking about legal ratings, and you're discussing gear ratios...

The 2015 Ram figure you quote (30k) is on a truck as follows:

GVWR - 14,000
GAWR - 5,500 (Front)
GAWR - 9,750 (Rear)
Payload - 6,580 (Empty)

Could you please explain to us how a truck with those ratings is going to legally pull a 30k trailer with 7,500lb. pin weight?

Compare that to a Class 7 tractor:

GAWR - 12,000 (Front)
GAWR - 20,000 (Rear)
GVWR - 32,000

SAE J2807 establishes performance requirements. As I said before, and I'll say again for the sake of clarity -- engine power hasn't been the limiting factor for many years, nor has gear ratio for that matter; I have no doubt a new Ram has the drivetrain for 30k. It's the rest of the chassis (axles, suspension) where deficiencies are for these loads, and a 1-ton with those GVWR/GAWR ratings isn't the tool for the job.