Ram 1500 V-6 Road Test Under Way

Ram Faces Lead II

We've been busy the last few days on the road with a pair of closely spec'd Ram 1500 V-6s to see how well they work empty and at maximum trailer weight.

Readers may remember our FX2 EcoBoost 2,200-mile road trip in 2011 where we took two identically equipped F-150s (one with a 9,000-pound trailer and the other empty) to find out exactly how well the all-new twin-turbo, direct-injection V-6 performed in several different performance tests. The results gave us a new understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the EcoBoost technology, as well as what it was like to live with the new F-150.

We're doing something similar with this pair of 2013 Ram V-6s equipped with the all-new, segment-first TorqueFlite 8 transmission. We aim to have all the details and data by next week, so stay tuned.

Pair of Rams II


@ WOOPUD: Trust me,13k miles on a jk without a problem so far is a big deal.Been there done it.They are extremely capable as one would figure,but they are pure junk on wheels.The build quality is the pitts.The 3.6 has had more then a normal share of serious problems that evidently don't get much press.Even macaroni recently said they need to improve the quality.

@WOOPUD Yes...with the known engine head failures on this engine, 13,000 miles with no problems is a positive sign. I was just making the point that I've had NO trouble with this engine. My opinions of it still stand though.

Of course the ticking is not normal, but until the engine throws a code, your dealership will consider it "normal". Although I don't like the click at all either, I have read here and there that the click is not harmful to the engine, they could be wrong though. I have not gone to my dealer yet, but when I go I will ask them to put a note to the file so that if something happens they will know it was there from the beginning. Im just not a fan of letting a mechanic dig in the head of my new engine.

Actually you can compare what Motortrend got for towing a heavier trailer with their v-6 4x2 3.21 geared crew/Ram box (heavy combo), to what Fords single cab (lighter) 3.73 geared (higher, with smaller tires) did with a lighter trailer, in the V-6 "work" truck shootout.

@Gregory: If you really think a Ridgeline can tow worth a crap, then have at it. It only has a 5 speed with a 5 to 1 spread, while the 8 speed has many gears closer together with a 7 to 1 spread. Plus a Ridgeline has a whopping 1.9 reverse ratio, lets see how good that would back up a 4,000 plus pound trailer up a hill. The Ram even with 3.21s has a much better gear advantage. Get the 3.55s if you want to tow near 6,000. The only advatage the Ridge has on a Ram crew is: in 4x4 crew, a Ridge might be 700 pounds lighter.

The diesel v-6 will be compareable to the Ecoboost and any others leading 1/2 ton tow engine. You can justify the diesel price and extra for the engine because when you tow heavy, mileage won't drop like a rock.

This v-6 is better suited to somebody that doesn't tow often, or tows light. Say they need a truck for the space it offers, and maybe don't tow so heavy. They cant see paying the diesel premuim and extra fuel if they want to pull a pop up trailer. Or a lawn mower trailer.

The Hemi is good for those that don't tow real heavy on a regular bases.

@WXman: what is your engine rated max torque RPM? I know that in the cars they have up to 4800 rpm is where the max torque is. Motortrend, and I believe this site, reported the max torque at 4175 RPM for trucks, differant cams. I do know the Jeep one shows 260 ft pounds trq, while trucks are 268 or 269.

It did say the Jeep Wrangler is only 2,000 pound rated to tow, which part of that is the short wheelbase isn't great for towing, but I am guessing you have a granny low crawling 1st gear, so that spreads your gears out, and yoor 6th gear is pretty high. I know on the trucks, the tow haul ussually keeps it in a gear lower then top gear, so if your Jeep where used like that, you would use 5th gear. Just not as many gear choices. What is your tire size?

Ford850: the 3.6 in not the entry level engine in the Ram, that would be the 4.7 V-8, as the 3.6 is an option on the ST and is the only engine in the SLT! and in the ST the 3.6 cost more, and is otional, while the 4.7 is standard, in the ST and Tradesman.

oh and the "ticking" some of you are hearing, might just be a noisy injector or injectors! I have come across that before!

@Ford850: hey, nice steroetype! Actually, all of us Hemi owners don't race from light to light. I barely floor mine. Once in awhile, it is good to, but I normaly don't. I am not a street racer. If I was, I would do it in something far less lighter! Such as my Dart, which I have an engine that will make about the same torque as a Hemi, but the car weighs 2500 pounds less=a no brainer.

The race for me is off the road, as in at some Sports Car Club of America santioned autocross, or a 1/4 mile or 3/8 mile dirt oval, or a dragstrip.

But there is alot of people buying Ecoboosts just to race. But I won't suggest thats all they do, as you suggest.

Will Chrysler stop buying the ZF 8hp45 that is used with the 3.6 V6 'pentastar' engine, once they start producing the 8hp70, under license from ZF.
If so, that should cause the mileage to drop, just slightly, enough that the advertised 25 mpg highway would be 24.

Maybe if/when this happens, the 3.6 V6 will adopt direct fuel injection...

What good is "great" mileage if the heads fail during heavy use?

That is something to be concerned about.

We'll see if the mileage lives up to the hype and if the heads fail.


These comments are the reason I hate this site. There are several good comments here, from people talking about axles and how their old trucks handled the weight.

But for every one of those, there are two "GUTS GLORY RAM" and "FORD IS THE BEST" and other comments by people who can't be older than 16 who are talking trash and adding nothing constructive.

Can we ban the IP's of people like that?

It's not a violation to say guts glory ram. If it is we can also ban everyone that says anything like "go Toyota!" If you like axle talk, that is fine but that's not for everyone.

No Chrysler article is complete on this site without some bashing from a site that only bashes: Tundra HQ. Of course, that's kinda old news of the past there, Ken. They done fixed it. But we know...Toyotas NEVER have ISSUES, yeah, right.

Hey Ken, how are the brakes lasting on those Tundras? Overbuilt, yada yada yada.....but yet some folks can't get 25,000 miles on their brakes!

Anything to try to sway somebody to Toyota, eh Ken? Ah Ken, are you just upset, Toyotas Tundra V-6 is a fuel sucker? Or actually, a Tundra is a fuel sucker. Or maybe cause the Tundra is a poor seller? Or maybe it's refresh leaves an ugly truck, with no new powetrain updates except the 5.7 maxs torque at 3400 instead of 3600? Are you upset cause Toyota spent all their time on the Avalon, and not trucks? And of course they made the Camry and Prius V new for 2012, too bad both bombed the IIHS small overlap test. As in not marginal, but POOR! And you want to post links to a Ram being most dangerous because some 'tard didn't even bother to see the Ram is the best in a head on? Better then your Tundra steering wheel comming to the rear and moving downward, while the A pillars are weak?

Any momment hemi lol will be here to complain cause I said something bad about Toyota. Maybe if his Toyota counterparts didn't bash others so much....

I just like the way the Toyota guys sweep it under the rug so they can pretend their precious trucks are perfect.

"Toyotas NEVER have ISSUES, yeah, right."

Nobody is making that argument.

There Tom goes again. I was just asking a question about the Ram and Tom goes off on a 5 paragraph diatribe on the Tundra. Some things never change. They done fixed it? How could you possibly know this at this early juncture? I have owned new vehicles and never had to rip a motor apart, so despite all the hype about this new motor, those who buy it will now have to worry about long term durability, not to mention if any repairs were done properly or if the redesign head was done properly.

@Sandman4x4, I meant entry level for capability, not pricing. Maybe I wasn't in the right area on the Ram site, but what I could see were drastically reduced towing numbers for the 3.6 compared to either V-8. Maybe that is due to the 8 speed transmission and it having lower numbers, or it is from the smaller engine. Or because I didn't find the correct data on the Ram site :) But as far as buying a Ram with entry level towing or hauling, it looks like the 3.6 to me.

@TRX4 Tom, I never said all Hemi owners only buy theirs to race. I was making fun of the Dodge marketing, and laughing at their choice of how THEY portray the Hemi droolers. I was describing the Dodge commercial. Here's what I said:
"I have to laugh when I see those Hemi commercials, that show the mentality of the Hemi buyers. Drag race from light to light, but still have the slow car roll up beside you before the next light turns green anyway. Genius! "
If the commercial offends you, tell Dodge, not me.

Yeah Ken, just like when the Tundra first came out with bad cams? So did people constantly worry their cams would break?
Oh, I got it. Toyota fixed it, you will say....we don't know if Ram did.....That's what you will say.

Whatever...you just trying to throw that out there to scare people. Typical Toyota fanboi

Ken, Never covet another man's ride, fanboi!


@Lou & Dave -
If you are a Ford owner you belong in Ford posts. Same goes with your Ford comments. They don't belong here. These new Ram commericals are AMAZING and will help sell a TON of trucks. Sales are up for 13 MONTHS straight! NOBODY else can say that but RAM. Dodge lovers like myself have no choice but to religiously defend our trucks and what we believe in and don't need to hear about Ford in a Ram post. The only way Ford trucks could ever compete with Dodge or Chevy performance was to turbocharge their engines. That being said, their non aspirated engines suck when it comes to performance. The modern Hemi produces more HP per CI than any Chevy or Ford, even more than the old Hemi. And that's what bothers me the most from you Ford guys, the 0 to 60 times showing it beating the Ram. I don't care about the towing capacities, I don't compete with that and don't care to. I like the Ram for it's style and looks, and performances. Ford and Chevy both look like crap to me with Toyota coming in second to the Ram. People will soon see what the Hemi is capable of when they release the 6.4/475 HP for 2012. This motor is capable of an easy 550 HP. The Ford 6.2 is their modern version of the Boss 429 and using the same valve cover design but will never amount to anything and will prob have to turbocharge it like they did the lightnings, lol!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: Mopar Man | Jun 15, 2011 3:05:37 AM

Posted by: HEMI | Feb 21, 2013 6:27:41 PM

Something bothered me about this post. The hemi hp to ci thing. I thought about it and thought of how 5.0 is not that far behind the hemi in hp and is smaller. then the ecoboost has got to be more hp to ci. So this isnt meant to bash anyone or any truck but just to correct that statement and not mislead people into believing it. I understand this was posted in 2011 but these engines were around so heres the numbers.

Hemi 5.7- 395hp/345ci= 1.14 hp/ci
Ford 3.7- 302hp/227ci= 1.33 hp/ci
Ford 5.0- 360hp/302ci= 1.19 hp/ci
ecoboost -365hp/213ci= 1.71 hp/ci
Ford 6.2 - 411hp/379ci= 1.08 hp/ci

So theres 3 engines that disprove that false statement. I don't know gm's numbers off hand sorry didn't do them. This doesn't prove one truck or engine better than another.

"just like when the Tundra first came out with bad cams?"

Tom, The diffrence is the Tundra cam shaft was a supplier problem and a minor one. The Pentastar V6 was a design problem. Fiat had to redesign the head to fix it. Is it bad luck that quality problems that have plagued Chrysler for decades? Perhaps. But it’s our opinion that Chrysler has a fundamental problem in their design process. Perhaps their company culture that doesn’t emphasize quality control. Perhaps the cash-strapped automaker is cutting corners in terms of testing or the specs they pass to suppliers. Perhaps they’re just not as good at building cars. Whatever the case, this is just one more issue in a long line of quality problems that have hurt Chrysler’s image with consumers.

"Whatever...you just trying to throw that out there to scare people. Typical Toyota fanboi"

If being a fanboi means it is wrong to ask questions about Chrysler quality problems I don't want to be right.

Ken, it's funny how you got on the bandwagon when the recall for axles (a supplier issue) but now you say Toyotas problems are supplier issues, then you posted a link to that dumbass story abot safety, which had nothing to do with recalls. you are just a basher, trying to scare people off. The redesigned the head, and it wasn't even a problem on a Ram, it was sorted out before it got to the Ram. But you'd like to make it seem like a Ram issue. Nice scare tactics.

Here Ken, I will be like you. Since you want to post a safety related link when the talk is about recalls, not safety design, what if all you precious Tundras fail that new IIHS test, because thats just the Toyota builds them?

Lol, they had two POOR ratings on those cars, the Prius V and Camry. Last I checked a marginal is better then a poor (but yet both need improvement) but hey, they both get top safety pick, what a joke! Wow Ken, Dodges old Avenger, designed for 08 (unlike those two Toyotas for 2012) and it got an ACCEPTABLE. So I guess I find Toyotas questionable. Hell, they probably build them Tundras like Camrys.

Or you can pick up the copy of Motor Trend where the Camry came in 5th to the Passat, the Accord, the Fushion, and the Altima and they said the Camry was of POOR QUALITY, the dome lamp was barely attached....on and on...

But people keep buying them.

Yeah Ken, keep living on the past.

Lol, TRX4 from Ram HQ, I don't even go on Ram HQ, and you would know it aint froom RamHQ because theres no line under it.

Old Ken is just mad the Tundras don't sell....another Toyota salesman on here probably...I guess business is so down, unless they are selling Tacomas, which are selling. Tundras.....LOL

Hey Ken, you can only reach a small percentage of people on here that will buy trucks...

I would not know about TOY O TA quality. I will never know about TOY O TA quality. I will never buy a TOY O TA.

When I bought my 03 Dodge Ram that I drive everyday. TOY O TA could not pull my 7,400lb toy hauler. Now that I have owned my first Dodge truck I know how dependable and capable it is. This Ram owner is going to buy another Ram. :)

I do have to say, that's one sharp looking truck. It would be tough to buy a Dodge but even as an ex Chevy guy, I'm not sure I could go back to Chevrolet if Ford weren't around. Their trucks just don't look this sharp anymore like they did in the old days. Dodge trucks really got it together lookwise on this new model. Even the interior is up to taking on Ford. I'm glad Ford will be around for a long time however. I'm just not a Dodge guy. Still, they have my respect now. I think Chevrolet needs new truck designers myself. The last couple have been duds. The new one is ok but still not here it should be when it comes to exterior looks. I'd even caution Ford to look out for Dodge. They'll be right at our heels soon as a #2 seller I have no doubt. Kudos to the Mopar boys here. Just don't expect to ever be #1.

For the Jeep guys, here is a link to the Wrangler Special Ops, I don't know if is the same as your Call of Duty version. The articlce isn't a road test, just a quick look. I think it hasn't had time for a more thorough test.

There are two things that I find interesting is the market it is targeting here and the fuel economy of the Pentastar.

From the article it considers the vehicle heavy on fuel.


I have to agree with you regarding the cam issues with the Tundra engines. A production problem is different than a design flaw.

The Pentastar must have some underlying problems in design. It was designed to combat the Eco Boost by Ford, but Chrysler hasn't dropped the turbo on it yet.

I was wondering if Chrysler hasn't resolved the head issue completely so the engine can be used at its designed potential.

Maybe Chrysler have to redesign the heads to handle the extra loads placed on the heads by the turbo ie, heat.

Also the promised fuel economy does fall a little short, similar to the Ford's Eco Boost. I'm not saying it isn't getting better fuel economy.

Hopefully the diesel engine will give you guys what we have enjoyed for a while, 4cyl economy with V8 torque.

@TRX4 Tom
What should the ratio spread be on the Jeep Wrangler and what ratios should the transfer case use for rock climbing.

Just give me some basic ratio numbers through the gears?:)

That's using the current wheel/tyres. Remember we want to improve fuel economy.

I ask you this because here the Jeep Wrangler is considered heavy on fuel.

We use to have a 2500 RAM VAN with the 3.9L V6 and a 4.10 rear. It pulled a RANGER 2180 Bay Boat with ease and got 11 MPG doing it. More than anyone could ask for out of a V6 is a big family hauling van. These newer V6 engines are more powerful, have better gear spacing, more gears, and are more fuel efficient. If I didn't tow a 23' Center Console all the time 5+ hours each way to the coast I would get a V6 RAM. The HEMI is awesome in my 08 RAM ... and will be that much better when the new 8-spd gets put behind them. I will test a new Diesel out the next go around. Gonna hook a new one up to my boat and see some real world mileage/performance before I buy. Cannot wait!!!!!

There is nothing wrong in moving heavy loads with a V6. If the drivetrain can handle it, why not.

V8s and even a diesel are nice, but it isn't necessary.

I do see alot of comment on PUTC stating that you need a V8 to tow. Here we used to have had 6 cyl Landcruisers and Nissan Patrol that were very capable at towing and they used to be 6cyl petrol engines and with much less power and torque these new 6s are getting.

I have a V6 4x4 SUV on the highway its getting about 24mpg, but city driving it is getting about 16mpg.

I do think Lou's comment that people need to be driving at 85mph when towing plays a part in the percieved V8 need.

I don't care what kind of engine you have, if your towing a trailer doing 85 MPH, you have to reguard for the lives of others on the road and have very little common sense.

@Big Al, actually, I looked it up, and it is a NSG-670. Says it should be a 4.46 1st gear (not as much as an 8 speed) and .84 6th-final gear. So: 5.31 I can't tell you what it SHOULD be, I can tell you and your buddy George that the 5.31 is less then 7.02 of the 8 speed.

Maybe YOU should tell us, Mr engineer? Look, Jeeps push alot of air. They sit up somewhat high. That one you posted a link to has somewhat more aggressive, ok, alot more aggressive tires then these Rams. Lets see, the top gear is the same as the 8 speeds in 7th gear. I can't tell you what transfer case gear to use. I know from EXPERIENCE with the truck this story is about, not sitting behind a desk, that I want more gears and lower 1st then my current RFE-545, which gets it done, but would be smoother.

Where is here? On pickuptrucks.com or in Aussie?

Also, I looked it up, and yeah, WXmans Jeep has max torque at 4800 rpm, unlike the Ram in this review, that puts out a slight bit more, but more importantly, it is at 600 plus rpm lower.

Of course you will talk smack about gas burners. You think that the world should all drive diesel, like you. Diesel has it's bennifits, but it's not for everybody. Not everybody can justify the extra cost of the engine and the fuel. Both have there place.

And no Al, I don't tow at 85 or whatever Lou said people want to tow at. I can tell you I did run 70 the only time I was towing on interstate-44, and 70 was the limit, and that's fast enough for my truck, and the additional 7,000 pounds. Now if I am in the hills of northwest Arkansas, where I spend most my time, towing at 55-60 is plenty fine. But we have some steep hills here. A newer V-6 might have the power for some of my towing, but not all of it, and I would be at the max rated before I even add passengers.

Oh....I did have a few old Ford 300s, they didn't tow that great. If they put as much work into them as they did the 302s, they would work better.

And an engine with more power worked not as hard will always outlast the one that needs to work really hard.

This is for all the young guys that want to learn about gearing and gearboxes.

As I have described in an earlier piece there are only two types of machines, levers and inclined planes. Gears are levers.

Don't worry about the formula's yet.

As gearing is determined by many factors, torque and load being the most signifcant. Have a good read of my link, I know it isn't full of pretty colour pictures and animations but it will give you insight into gearing and gearboxes.

It even has a piece on transfer cases and 4x4 operation.

The current challenge with new automobiles is getting the right ratios to perform a task.

Constraints placed on manufacturers in meeting mpg targets has made this task harder.

These new challenges conflict with vehicles like utes and pickups because of the wide variety of loads expected by the vehicle to manage and yet achieve the mpg ratings. Believe it or not a heavy truck is easier, because it will be expected to be loaded most of the time.

Diesel engines will become the dominant type of internal combution engine due to their characteristics, plenty of low to midrange torque. Also the efficiencies of diesel engines is over 50% better than a gasoline engine.

Diesels achieve their torque advantage because the diesel is slower to burn, hence providing an expansion of gasses for a longer period on the powerstroke. Length of stroke does play a part.

Because gasoline engines are nearing their zenith. Efficiencies at mpg ratings is being direct to areas outside of the actual engine. Gearing is one of them, using lighter materials another and aerodynamics. Just having an eight speed doesn't make a vehicle better. It is becoming a necessity.

Even with less gear number and ratio spread a diesel engine will still use less energy than a gas engine to gain equivalent results.

Here is the link.


Looking forward to see the same test with the upcoming 3-litre V6 diesel.

The 4.7l needs to be tested along side the new V-6. I would like to see how they compare to each other, especially when towing. Cant wait until the new GM's are out with the new 4.3 v6. The next V6 work truck shootout should be good.

Write something nice - the hemi mayor or the village simpleton may go yelling.

No reason to buy the 4.7, gets worse mileage then the Hemi eight speed, yea you'll save a few bucks up front but not enough to justify it.

I do think Ram needs a new small V8, or even a 5.0 Hemi, they could get some good MPG by going to smaller displacement while keeping close to the same power.

Al, diesel efficiencies are closer to 30% or less. You are still comparing America to the rest of the world. Our fuel is up to half the cost and will drop in time. That's the main reason diesel is not taking off here. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of diesel engines, my 7.3 has been great. Gasoline engine technology has not met its zenith, not by any means. With direct injection and ethanol injection the burn can last as long as a diesel engines burn.

I just got this in an email.It's from a thread I subscribe too on a very popular Jeep forum: P0302 bad cylinder head
Well, I'm now part of the bad pentastar club. Just over 19,500 miles. Light came on with P0302 but then went off on its own. A few days later it came on again. Went to the dealer and they scanned it and scheduled an appointment to replace the head when the next shipment of heads arrived.

Mine was the third one of the week. It is so common that even the kid doing lot cleanup asked me if I knew about the issue with the heads. I didn't have the loud ticking sound like some of the others but it turned out that the #2 exhaust valve was burnt.

Thankfully the dealer skipped all the runaround that others have had to deal with and just fixed it. It only took a day and part of that day was finishing up the one before mine that they had started the day before. I guess they are getting good at changing the heads.

JBrown: I have no idea what to think of your post, as far as I know, Dodge never used their 3.9V-6, or any V-6 in their 3/4t vans, no mater where I look, I am told the standard engine in that van was a 318V-8 and the only option was the 360V-8, now in the 1500 1/2 T vans? that is another story as yes, the 3.9V-6 was the standard engine in all their vans, since the last of the slant six engines, but I do know there were a few diff. sets of gears for the rear dif. all the way up to the 4:10's you mentioned, are you sure it was a 2500? and not a 1500?

@Sandman: they had 3.9s in 2500 vans. I have seen a few in scrapyards. One way you can check is by going on autozone's, or allot of other parts stores sites, and enter your vehicle. I just did one on a 96 Dodge 2500 van. Even though I have seen the exact one or two of them at a scrapyard 30 miles from home. But I have to think Jbrown lives somewhere flat.

@Roger: I agree, they could build it smaller, and while they are at it, make it have less bore and more stroke. I can't say I needed 407 ft pounds of torque at all or often, and even though it is a fairly broad powerband (compared to other NON TURBO engines) it can stand to be at lower rpm for it's max. Like the 5.9/360 settup that is going in my RV:all in by 3200 rpm.

TRX4Tom: I just did as you said, and guess what? all they listed for engines in a 2500 van was like I said in the first place was the 318 and 360 V-8's Dodge did not ever use their 6cyl in a 2500 van! NEVER!!! only in the 1/2ton!

Al, if I am a "young guy" then you must really be an old fart.

Lets see, diesel, cost more, cost more for the engine, and the EPA noose keeps getting tighter.

The are suited for some people, but not all people.

It's just funny to see you change your story on here. One minute you are defending ol George, who is giving RPMs at 85 mph (for whatever reason) Then you say he is wanting more spread, only because this or that car company has more, like Lexus or whatever.

Then he goes on about how Fords 3.7 V-6 (less spread then the Ram 8 speed, 6.04, the 8 speed 7.03) needs 4.10 gears because he wants to compare it to V-8s and the ecoboost, which it and the 3.6 aren't rated to do the same work. It's funny because even with Fords 6 speed and 4.11s, he would be towing with a 2.83 ratio. Buy a Ram with the AVAILABLE 3.55 gears and in tow haul- 7th gear (like I have to repeat cause you don't get it) the Ram has a 2.98 ratio. About the only thing a Ford 4.10 gear would have on the Ram 3.55 is a bit more starting ratio. But Ford having a 4.10 won't "fix" the ratio spread. Not that there is that much wrong with Fords ratio spread,but it's not as much as Rams. Which gives you lower starting gears, closer gears, and a highway gear for economy.

To think, we used to tow this kinda weight with 318s, 302s and 305s, that had 3 speeds, and didn't have near as much power, and they sucked gas. People keep bitching.

But the Ford doesn't have them so they have less starting ratio available, and if you ever get out of the office you would see what that can do. They only have 3.73, and some 4x2s have 3.55s.

If a person is towing somewhere real hilly or slower, they can choose to use 6th gear, so it doesn't get into the overdrive. A push of a button, and you are towing with a 3.55 (or 3.21) Or, you can tow in 5th, a 4.58, if you are at max weight and real hilly.

It's not rocket science Big Al. You just blow smoke. You just try to complecate things.

@ Sandman: did you look up B2500 van at autozone? Because they did build them, I have seen them. They have two differant choices for vans, pick the one on the left. In the case that you STILL CANT FIGURE IT OUT, and still don't believe me, I will send you a pickture of the van, the vin number, and the engine....just leave an e mail address.
NP3500 usage.


For the Jeep Wrangler, for better mileage.
3.2 V6 235hp 235ft-lbs & ZF 8hp45 replaces the 3.6 V6 285hp 260ft-b & W5a580 transmission.

HCCI engines will replace BOTH diesel & gasoline engines, eventually.

The problem with diesels are the nanoscopic particulates. The highest injection pressure is over 30,000 psi in the state of the art injections systems.

TRX4Tom: I have gone through all the yrs in your own link thank you, have you? go back, and from the very 1st yr they list the 3.9, yes list it till the last yr they list it, yes list it, they will also tell you the % of each engine for that yr. and in EVERY one of the yrs listed, the 3.9 accounted for 0%, that right 0%! and they also listed the % of the 5.2 and 5.9 in 2brl and 4brl carb of each yrs, and in every yr listed all the pecentages added up to 100% with not one yr having a 3.9 V-6!!! look again closely and you will also see. I am old enough to remember the vans in question, and remember what was available in them, and at no point in time was there a 3.9 engine in any 3/4t truck or van, no mater what you say, you are starting to be a troll here stop it, your post have been better than this.

@ George: The particulates are taken care of by the DPF,and that is cleaned by the DEF in regen mode.It ain't a problem anymore.

Diesel fuel in the US will one day match the Euro diesel in quality and you can operate the same engines.

Diesel efficiencies are generally closer to 40% and a gas engine is well under 30% (25%). From my maths diesels are 50% more efficient than a gas engine. That what I meant, sorry.

For a gas engine to make up those kind of efficiencies some kind of drastic innovation has to come into play.

@TRX4 Tom
Diesel will drop in cost as more and more are sold in the US also. Diesel is more expensive by given capacity to gas, everyone knows that. But you guys will soon realise the advantages of diesel, like the rest of us.

That post I did on gearing is for everyone, not just you, but you had a part in making this occur, which is good.

As for your comments, I have had encounters with you, what do you seek in your threads. Do you ever offer education, I do try and offer information for everyone.

I don't view PUTC as a "me thing" or a "brand thing" when subscribing comments on PUTC, that's how I id trolls. Lou, Jeff S, Robert Ryan and many others were the same also.

I do tend to preach, which annoys some. I'll try and change that.

Look at what I have made you do TRX4 Tom, learn more about gearing, that can't be bad.

Diesel fuel in the US will one day match the Euro diesel in quality and you can operate the same engines.

Diesel efficiencies are generally closer to 40% and a gas engine is well under 30% (25%). From my maths diesels are 50% more efficient than a gas engine. That what I meant, sorry.

For a gas engine to make up those kind of efficiencies some kind of drastic innovation has to come into play.

@TRX4 Tom
Diesel will drop in cost as more and more are sold in the US also. Diesel is more expensive by given capacity to gas, everyone knows that. But you guys will soon realise the advantages of diesel, like the rest of us.

That post I did on gearing is for everyone, not just you, but you had a part in making this occur, which is good.

As for your comments, I have had encounters with you, what do you seek in your threads. Do you ever offer education, I do try and offer information for everyone.

I don't view PUTC as a "me thing" or a "brand thing" when subscribing comments on PUTC, that's how I id trolls. Lou, Jeff S, Robert Ryan and many others were the same also.

I do tend to preach, which annoys some. I'll try and change that.

Look at what I have made you do TRX4 Tom, learn more about gearing, that can't be bad.

@TRX4 Tom
You don't have to be correct. It isn't a competition.

The 85mph was in fact brought about by Lou commenting as a "tongue in cheek" response on the power ratings of pickups.

You were involved in that discussion.

Also, you have never mentioned ratio spread in any of your posts prior to George's discussion with you concerning gearing. It was George who made an awareness to you about that aspect of gearing.

Gearing and determining ratios isn't subjective, it's all maths and physics. This area is not open to discussion or debate. It's like having a debate on whether water is wet or dry.

You can keep on throwing numbers of engine sizes, diff ratios etc around. You have the very basic understanding for gearing, but what I've been trying to do is have you understrand why it is so.

I'm not going to give you answers either. You will learn by yourself. I know you will because it seems to be an area of interest for you. And that is also good.

@Big Al: Just because I never said "ratio spread" doesn't mean I wasn't aware or never wanted more of it. I have said many of times, that the lower 1st gears in the GMs, Fords, and Tundras is what made it work, and also said that it would be good to have a good highway economy gear. But you were so busy preaching about deisel and bitching cause I was talking about gear ratios to even pay attention. George didn't make me aware of crap. Like I have said many of times, these Tundras have alot more gear to start, and more and a lower gear, which is essencially spread. I have pointed it out as well that Fords do quite good, do to there lower gears, and although I didn't say spread for professor Al, yeah, that's what I was talking about. Maybe you should read some of the things on here about when the Ram 2500 got a differant trans, which got higher starting ratio, and a .62 6th gear, which is once again, spread. So don't think George learned me a thing. His first words were blah blah blah, that 3.6 Pentastar makes so poor of power, or something to the effect. Then he proceeded to compare it to a bunch of V-8s.

It's making plenty of power compared to older, and other newer non turbo v-6s. It's not rated to do what v-8s do.

Al, I don't expect any answers from you either Al. Your metality is that you think you know all because you got some damn degree, but you hardly ever put it to use.

In laymans terms Al, I don't want/expect crap from you. Just the last paragraph tells everybody your cockiness. BFD.

You need to wake up. Come on down to earth off of whatever it is you are on, it aint rocket scienece.

At least I use my truck, you probably just make 85 mph trips to the bank.

Oh, gears are a good portion of what makes these smaller engines, as well as bigger engines perform there best. I will discuss it and debate about it weather you want to talk about it or not. This is not BIGAL.com. You don't run anything. You are not the know all you think you are.

George would be happy with an 8 spread, even if he only had 5 gears, yeah, that's his mentality, spread is good, so is having gears somewhat close.

.55% Rpm of the next gear doesn't get it either, it's all part of a big picture.

@Sandman: Just click the AUTOZONE link. look in the very top of the page. It aint that hard.

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us