Ram's 4.7-Liter V-8 Will Go Away; 8-speed to Stay

Ram LD
By Kelsey Mays, Cars.com/PickupTrucks.com

At a Chrysler event in suburban Chicago on Tuesday, I asked Mike Cairns if a pickup truck is the hardest sort of vehicle to make aerodynamic. "When you sell a Jeep Wrangler, not necessarily," he smiled.

The chief engineer for Ram Truck, Cairns has been with Chrysler for 27 years. He just turned 50. Improving aerodynamics on a pickup is a tall order, but a host of changes — a lower air dam, active grille shutters — has done just that, lowering the 2013 Ram 1500's drag coefficient to 0.360, down from last year's 0.387.

Cairns took us through Chrysler's changes to its popular light-duty Ram 1500 pickup, which we detailed in full last spring. It hits dealerships next month. Chrysler plans to position the Ram 1500's new Pentastar V-6 against Ford's 3.7-liter F-150, which currently accounts for about 10 percent of sales. Chrysler expects the 3.6-liter drivetrain and eight-speed automatic to sell in healthier numbers, especially compared with today's Ram 1500, whose 3.7-liter V-6 and 4.7-liter V-8 combine for just 15 percent of sales.

Value-oriented work trucks start with a 4.7-liter V-8, but even the cheapest Ram will gain fuel-efficiency improvements from electric power steering and more-aerodynamic bumpers, Cairns said. Still, EPA ratings for the 4.7-liter Ram 1500 remain at 14/20 mpg city/highway with two-wheel drive. That's the same as last year's work truck.

Over time, Ram will drop the 4.7-liter V-8, and the eight-speed will become standard "a few years out," he said. For now, the eight-speed comes standard only with the Ram's Pentastar V-6. It's optional with the Hemi V-8.

"To be fair, we haven't really had a great V-6 until now," Cairns said, but he wouldn't give a specific V-6 sales target. He said the two-wheel-drive V-6 Ram 1500 hits 60 mph in 7.5 seconds. If that figure holds in real-world testing, it represents a quantum leap over the V-6 Ram we tested (10.58 seconds) during our 2010 Work Truck Shootout and would edge out the quickest-in-test 3.7-liter F-150 (7.85 seconds).

The Ram 1500's Hemi V-8 accounts for 85 percent of sales today — a figure that will drop as the Pentastar comes in — but Cairns said he plans to position it against Ford's EcoBoost 3.5-liter F-150. The EcoBoost accounts for "the low 40-percent range" of F-150 sales, Ford sales analyst Erich Merkle told us.

EPA mileage will determine just how tough the proposition will be for Chrysler. The EcoBoost F-150 boasts 365 horsepower, 420 pounds-feet of torque, more than 11,000 pounds' towing capacity and is EPA-rated at 16/22 mpg with two-wheel drive. The 5.7-liter Ram 1500 makes 395 hp and 407 pounds-feet of torque, but its 10,450-pound towing capacity falls short. EPA ratings with the optional eight-speed are still pending, but with its standard six-speed, the two-wheel-drive Ram 1500 rates 14/20 mpg.

Of course, we'll need to get the trucks together to log real-world acceleration, mileage and towing figures. As many know, specs tell only part of the story.

Cairns said he's waiting to see what GM's redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra will do. "We've been gaining market share," he said, "mostly out of the GM guys." But the automaker's Detroit rivals "have some very loyal customers [who] don't even look at our truck. … The hard part is getting a loyal GM or Ford buyer to come look at our trucks."

Comments

@Robert Ryan, Sorry I did not include this link for you to read.

http://www.allpar.com/trucks/jeep/maserati.html

@Hemi V8 - you need to see someone for that PTSD that has plagued you since your uninsured car burned to the ground.
As far as being proud of my flaming Fords - I don't feel pride or love for machines. That would be as psychotic as blaming a car company for being too stupid to buy proper insurance coverage.

@Lou, You keep getting drunk on that kool aid buddy. Insurance had nothing to do with that P.O.S Ford burning. It was the Ford engineered switch you dope. Sound familiar???????

http://www.switchfires.com/

I don't feel pride or love for machines
Posted by: Lou | Sep 26, 2012 11:57:56 PM

If I drove that ugly, GUTLESS ford you do I would feel the same way buddy.

@RobrtRyan - did you read the link about the Maserati/Jeep?
Saying the engine is being made by Ferrari is misleading.
"The essence and all major system components of the Maserati sport luxury SUV will unmistakably be Maserati: style, engine, suspensions, brakes, handling and performance will all be 100% Maserati... created by the Maserati Style Center headed by Lorenzo Ramaciotti. ... New-generation high-tech Maserati proprietary engines will be designed in Modena by Paolo Martinelli - Head of the Maserati Powertrain Department ... will be produced in Maranello by Ferrari."

The engine is a Maserati design built by Ferrari. That is no different than International building the PowerStrokes for Ford.
Fiat and Marchionne would not be stupid enough to basterdize Ferrari by using Ferrari engines in a Maserati or a Jeep product.

I do find it funny that Marchionne would praise the Grand Cherokee architecture. That is tantemount to saying that Mercedes Benz builds great SUV's (since the GC was built off of the Mercedes M Class).

@Rambo Motard Goat Herder's President - speaking of coolaid - how does it taste with Methadone?

Insurance had nothing to do with it burning but it had all to do with you not being bright enough to insure it!

It must of been a horrific experience for you - did your therapist tell you that talking about it all of the time would help the pain go away?

@Lou,
I think there will be a lot of pressure on Sergio to "Italianise" the Maserati KuBang. When the Project started the US Dollar was low and it made sense to have it built on a Jeep Chassis or even built in the US as the Italian unions made life difficult for FIAT. Now Italy is drowning a lot of political pressure to bring the Kubang "home"
It is good they are keeping a distinction between Ferrari and Maserati, even though economic conditions are not great. Merging projects would dilute both brands.

@Big Al from Oz--Thanks for the link to the 265 Hemi E49 Charger. That was some engine for a 6 cylinder to beat a Posche. I would mind the price either of 4k but those times are gone. I think Ram is going to have no problems with performance out of the new Penstar V-6 in the Rams. The V-8 era of full size pickups is at its peak, but if they can squeeze more fuel economy and power out of a V-6 then most will not miss the V-8. The next 13 years will be an era of great change for the American full size pickup.

@Phillyguy: There's only one loophole in the 2025 CAFE numbers; that 54.x mpg number is to be an average across all of a brand's models--both cars and trucks. So if the truck fleet averages 25mpg, the car fleet MUST average 80mpg or higher to balance it. Not impossible--but that means cars will be getting much, much smaller or they will be converting to a significantly different fuel system.

@James: *"I looked at the Rams. They don't have enough interior room. The rear floors are bumpy as hec! I don't like the low payloads with the coil springs. They don't have the work features like the tailgate step. The long cargo bed is 2" smaller in a crew cab. The crash ratings are low. The reliability ratings are at the bottom of the barrel. Lastly the dealers suck."*

Gone soft on us, James? I thought you wanted a working truck, not a luxury car. Smooth floors? "Girly step"? Two inches? Really, Two Inches? I'd bet if your boss gave you one as a company vehicle you'd love it!

I'm not saying I like the RAMs any more than you, but definitely not for the same reasons. I have two and only two reasons I don't like the vast majority of the new trucks--RAM or otherwise: TWO too many doors. Even the Ford 'suicide'-style half doors with no visible outside handles is better than the blatantly obvious standard door handles on the RAM's half-doors. I don't want a crew cab. I don't need a crew cab. I do like the extended cabs though even there it's not an absolute need.

It's also why I'm not likely to buy any American branded car for a long time; they simply have too many doors. Trucks? They simply are too big. I'll buy used or foreign to get what I want rather than pay huge bucks for something I don't want.

@DWFields--Don't you realize that more is better and that you will be tagged a socialist for buying a car or truck from a foreign based manufacturer. You don't want to be labeled a niche truck driver because of a midsize truck. Don't you realize that is a niche product? Just kidding I could not resist. I agree with you but it appears on this blog we are in the minority.

I have nothing against these trucks but they are too big for me as well.

I believe the people that will buy the Hemi over the Ecoboost are going to be the same people who's have opted for the 5.0 over the Ecoboost as well. After all, there are just some people who do not feel too good about towing loads with a V6 yet regardless of power ratings and reviews -- they'll wait until long term viability has been proven.

@Jeff S. It was a very fast car for the early 1970's having a high 13 second quarter, to low 14 second quarter mile times. Top speed roughly 143-145mph. Yes it could do that turning left and right. The engine was derived a from a Dodge Truck Six Cylinder engine that was never put into production in the US and the three Weber fed engine was developed in Italy. A Unique vehicle.

@Fiat/Chrysler Fans
I read this a couple of days ago. It appears Sergio want to push ahead now and build Chrysler/Jeep products in Italy and export to the US.

It makes for sobering reading.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-24/news/34061851_1_fiat-plans-italian-carmaker-fiat-italian-plants


@HEMI V8 - if you do not care about MPG, why do you keep bringing it up?
WTF? Now you are going to brag about Ferarri?
What next?
Bragging about pizza and pasta?

Yup

Pizza
Pasta
Pepperoni

Posted by: Lou | Sep 26, 2012 10:05:33 PM

That had me damn near rolling on the floor LMAO!

@Lou
Why stop at pasta and pizza? HEMI V8 can also brag about the Roman Empire, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Venetian gondoliers, and the Dolomites.

@Lou, Robert Ryan and Hemi V7
I read an interesting article about Ferrari and they've increased production (more than doubled), and they want to increase it more.

It appears they are becoming more mainstream. That is they are going to lose their uniqueness.

Maybe they want to take on Porsche and the other German performance vehicles and leave the true supercar world.

And don't forget Sophia Loren.

@Big Al from Oz --I'll take Sophia Loren over any Italian car or Chrysler. She has a lasting design and great curves.

"Bumpy Floors? Ram has a load flat floor option."

For half tons it is not available on crew cabs, quad cabs only - which have always been flat load.

"Rams don't have enough room? Ram is the only truck that has a megacab."

The Mega Cab is only for Heavy Duty trucks, that is 2500 and up. Not half tons. If we want to talk heavy duty, the Ram Mega Cab only comes in one size short bed that is 6' 4" long. Ford's Super Duty bed is 6' 9" long and 8' long. With Ram in either combination you arelosing 5" or 20" of precious cargo space. James said he wanted work truck features!

I truly believe Ram fans have the worst reading comprehension problems of all truck fans.

@Big Al: we in the states, or me anyway, could only wish that Chrysler had built a bigger 6 cylinder in the 60s/70s. I had a 225 slant six in my 69 Dart. 3 speed on the tree. The torque was at a low rpm, but just not enough. All the money and research here was to make v-8s faster, or pull better. If they would have just put some more tech into the 6 cylinders they could have done far better. Here in the staes once upon a time they did something to sport up the slant six, but not much. I would love to have had a 265 vs. a 225. But the slant 6 lasted long. Easy to maintane. Maybe if they had built in the same cubic inches the Fords were for trucks and cars, 300s and 250s. GM had 292s. Who would want to trailer tow with a 225 in a full size truck??? My girlfriends 16 year old son has 82 Dodge 1/2 ton shortbed with slant six. Would be a better driver with a 390 Holley 4 barrel and short duration / higher lift (nothing radical, just more torque) cam, headers, and an overdrive 4 speed manual (toss the auto trans!) Then a higher rear end ratio to handle the overdrive (3.21 to 3.91) It would be way better off!

If they had only done the kinda cylinder head + quench research they did on v-8s into six cylinders, they woulda had far better sucess. I believe emmisions controls killed the inline 6 GAS engines. I think GM has the inline 5s still, and Jeep last to make a good inline 6 (the 4.0)

@Lou: I did have a 1978 Ford F-150 4x2 longbed 4 speed and a 83 F-100 same configeration, both with 300 inline 6. Neither had any real torque. I will never forget pulling onto H-1 in Hawaii after leaving the industrial park where the dirt track was. Me and my friend in the 78, a few engine blocks in the bed under the camper shell, no trailer, and our friend in a 91/92 Chevy 1500 350 towing a Monte Carlo on a trailer. Not real sure if his was even single cab or even just a 4x2, but am sure it went right by us! But that 300 was SO dependable! I think we just changed spark plugs and oil. It never let me down! And it would hold a load!

@TRX4 Tom
I remember my father had a 64 Galaxy with a 300cu six in it. We also had a 69 Suburban. As a kid it was like a playground inside. He also had a Falcon. All where sixes, I remember he said they still went quick enough and were cheaper on gas.

What made the E49 engine was the Webbers. Up until the early eighties if you wanted top end performance Webber were the go. Fuel injection wasn't as good as Webbers. I ran a L20 Datsun with a pair of DCOE side draught Webbers. The induction noise gave you a fat, better than the exhaust.

But I found the Webber finicky. If you didn't have the correct emulsion tubes or choked right they ran like a pig.

If anyone hasn't seen the E49 it was quite a great looking car as well, a 2 door fastback. GMH (Holden) toyed with 6 cylinder muscle cars as well called the Torana. But most of our muscle car were V8's as well.

As you can see over here we still make muscle cars.

@TRX4 Tom
Here is another link to the E49. Probably one of the nicer cars designed by Chrysler Australia.

It was the world's quickest 6 unitl Porche built the turbo 6.

http://hooniverse.com/2010/09/01/antipodean-oddities-the-unholy-valiant-charger-e49-six-pack/

@Dave, It's losers like you that won't even give Ram a chance. You won't even look at a Ram so how do you know how much room it has???????? The interior room and bed size is perfectly fine FOR WORK! Lots of people work Rams. Plus a couple inches short means you can park easier!

@Lou, Wha't s your obession with unions? It is losers like you and Dave who badmouth Ram in every Ram thread! Stop hijackign this thread.

@Rambo Motard Goat Herder Association Minnion aka hemi man -

" hijackign"????????????????

WTF is that?

Nothing against unions, I just prefer them to between a man and a woman.

RIP 4.7 had 2 over the years each one to over 180k before I sold it and never a complaint outta them. Really was its time though it doesnt seem that long ago this motor was on wards top ten for the year oh how technology changes quickly. And to some people here the 345 HEMI has YEARS before itll be done its super low tech compared to most other motors out there and has high power and MPGs imagine its numbers once it gets some tech

@Lou, Read this BEFORE YOU COMMENT!

RAM 2500 SLT MEGA CAB® 4X2 6'4" BOX
RAM 2500 BIG HORN MEGA CAB® 4X2 6'4" BOX
RAM 2500 LONE STAR MEGA CAB® 4X2 6'4" BOX
RAM 2500 OUTDOORSMAN MEGA CAB® 4X2 6'4" BOX


MSRP* $37,290 $39,125 $39,125 $39,985
Exterior Dimensions
Cargo Area - Bed Height 20.1" 20.1" 20.1" 20.1"
??? CargoAreaBedHeight ???
Cargo Area - Bed Length 76.3" 76.3" 76.3" 76.3"
??? CargoAreaBedLength ???
Cargo Area - Bed Width Wall 66.4" 66.4" 66.4" 66.4"
??? CargoAreaBedWidthWall ???
Cargo Area - Bed Width Wheel 51.0" 51.0" 51.0" 51.0"
??? CargoAreaBedWidthWheel ???
Ground Clearance - at curb weight - Approach Angle 14.0 deg. 14.0 deg. 14.0 deg. 14.0 deg.
??? GroundClearanceatcurbweight-ApproachAngle ???
Ground Clearance - at curb weight - Breakover Angle 15.8 deg. 15.8 deg. 15.8 deg. 15.8 deg.
??? GroundClearanceatcurbweight-BreakoverAngle ???
Ground Clearance - at curb weight - Departure Angle 24.2 deg. 24.2 deg. 24.2 deg. 24.2 deg.
??? GroundClearanceatcurbweight-DepartureAngle ???
Ground Clearance - at curb weight - Running Ground Clearance 7.8" 7.8" 7.8" 7.8"
??? GroundClearanceatcurbweight-RunningGroundClearance ???
Overall Body Width 79.1" 79.1" 79.1" 79.1"
??? OverallBodyWidth ???
Overall Height 74.1" 74.1" 74.1" 74.1"
The distance from the ground to the vehicle's highest point
Overall Length 248.4" 248.4" 248.4" 248.4"
Overall length of the vehicle from bumper to bumper
Overhang - Front 39.5" 39.5" 39.5" 39.5"
Distance measured from the center of the front wheels to the furthest forward point
Overhang - Rear 48.5" 48.5" 48.5" 48.5"
Distance measured from the center of the rear tires to the furthest rearward point
Track - Front 68.6" 68.6" 68.6" 68.6"
The distance between the centerlines of a vehicle's front tires
Track - Rear 68.2" 68.2" 68.2" 68.2"
The distance between the centerlines of a vehicle's rear tires
Turning Diameter - curb-to-curb - Left 50.7' 50.7' 50.7' 50.7'
??? TurningDiametercurb-to-curb-Left ???
Turning Diameter - curb-to-curb - Right 50.7' 50.7' 50.7' 50.7'
??? TurningDiametercurb-to-curb-Right ???
Wheelbase 160.5" 160.5" 160.5" 160.5"
The distance between the front and the rear axles
Interior Dimensions
Cargo Capacity - Behind Front Seat Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available
??? CargoCapacityBehindFrontSeat ???
Head Room - Front 41.0" 41.0" 41.0" 41.0"
??? HeadRoomFront ???
Head Room - Rear 39.7" 39.7" 39.7" 39.7"
??? HeadRoomRear ???
Hip Room - Front 63.2" 63.2" 63.2" 63.2"
??? HipRoomFront ???
Hip Room - Rear 62.9" 62.9" 62.9" 62.9"
??? HipRoomRear ???
Leg Room - Front 41.0" 41.0" 41.0" 41.0"
??? LegRoomFront ???
Leg Room - Rear 34.7" 34.7" 34.7" 34.7"
??? LegRoomRear ???
Passenger Interior Volume 142.6ft3 142.6ft3 142.6ft3 142.6ft3
??? PassengerInteriorVolume ???
Seating Capacity - Maximum Seating 6 6 6 6
??? SeatingCapacityMaximumSeating ???
Seating Capacity - Standard Seating 5 5 5 5
??? SeatingCapacityStandardSeating ???
Shoulder Room - Front 66.0" 66.0" 66.0" 66.0"
??? ShoulderRoomFront ???
Shoulder Room - Rear 65.7" 65.7" 65.7" 65.7"
??? ShoulderRoomRear ???
Capacities/Weights
Base Curb Weight - Automatic Trans 6224 lbs. 6224 lbs. 6224 lbs. 6224 lbs.
??? BaseCurbWeightAutomaticTrans ???
Base Curb Weight - Manual Trans 7179 lbs. 7179 lbs. 7179 lbs. 7179 lbs.
??? BaseCurbWeightManualTrans ???
Fuel Tank Capacity 34.0 gal. 34.0 gal. 34.0 gal. 34.0 gal.
??? FuelTankCapacity ???
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) - Maximum 9000 lbs. 9000 lbs. 9000 lbs. 9000 lbs.
??? GrossVehicleWeightRating(GVWR)Maximum ???
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) - Standard 8800 lbs. 8800 lbs. 8800 lbs. 8800 lbs.
??? GrossVehicleWeightRating(GVWR)Standard ???
Payload Capacity - Standard 2580 lbs. 2580 lbs. 2580 lbs. 2580 lbs.
??? PayloadCapacityStandard ???
Towing Capacity - Maximum 14750 lbs. 14750 lbs. 14750 lbs. 14750 lbs.
??? TowingCapacityMaximum ???
Towing Capacity - Standard 10650 lbs. 10650 lbs. 10650 lbs. 10650 lbs.
??? TowingCapacityStandard ???
Basics
Brakes - Front Disc Disc Disc Disc
??? BrakesFront ???
Brakes - Rear Disc Disc Disc Disc
??? BrakesRear ???
Driveline Configuration RWD RWD RWD RWD
??? DrivelineConfiguration ???
EPA Classification PUST2WD PUST2WD PUST2WD PUST2WD
??? EPAClassification ???
Maximum Number of Doors 4 4 4 4
??? MaximumNumberofDoors ???
Steering Rack & Pinion Rack & Pinion Rack & Pinion Rack & Pinion
??? Steering ???
Suspension - Front Ind Ind Ind Ind
??? SuspensionFront ???
Suspension - Rear Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf
??? SuspensionRear ???
Tires - Aspect Ratio 70 70 70 70
??? TiresAspectRatio ???
Tires - Construction R R R R
??? TiresConstruction ???
Tires - Spare Tire Type (Full / Compact) Full Size Full Size Full Size Full Size
??? TiresSpareTireType(Full/Compact) ???
Tires - Type LT LT LT LT
??? TiresType ???
Tires - Wheel Diameter 17.0" 17.0" 17.0" 17.0"
??? TiresWheelDiameter ???
Tires - Width 265 265 265 265
??? TiresWidth ???
Vehicle Type Pickup Truck Pickup Truck Pickup Truck Pickup Truck
??? VehicleType ???
Mobility
Body Opening Width 34.2" 34.2" 34.2" 34.2"
??? BodyOpeningWidth ???
Open Door Angle 65 deg. 65 deg. 65 deg. 65 deg.
??? OpenDoorAngle ???
Open Door Trim to Body 29.0" 29.0" 29.0" 29.0"
??? OpenDoorTrimtoBody ???
Seat Cushion Height from Ground 36.2" 36.2" 36.2" 36.2"
??? SeatCushionHeightfromGround ???
Seat Cushion to Rocker Panel 7.9" 7.9" 7.9" 7.9"
??? SeatCushiontoRockerPanel ???
Step-Out Height -0.7" -0.7" -0.7" -0.7"
??? StepOutHeight ???
Step-Out Width 7.9" 7.9" 7.9" 7.9"
??? StepOutWidth ???
Step-Over Height from Ground 20.9" 20.9" 20.9" 20.9"

@TRX4 Tom,
A friend had a Charger E49. The acceleration rammed your head into the seat. The car had this Banshee like scream as it built up revs. Slightly modified ones got into the mid 9second mark in a Quarter mile.
This is mid 12 second car running at a off the street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8a2fw0Va0

@Robert Ryan & Big Al: Hell yes! Our six cylinders here were nothing like that! That first video you posted showing him (her?) rev to 6, then jump on it and get right up to 7! I also see they were not slant sixes, as we had in Chryslers! I have no idea which one is best totally built to race, but obviously the 4.3 is WAY ahead in stock! I would like to know about the valve sizes, bore x stroke, cam, compression! The slant sixes we have might be better for a long stroke ingine, maybe, maybe more deck height, but they were also heavier then those (I am guessing, due to a taller block) I believe very few slant sixs here got the four barrel, but the one barrels sucked! Weber anything is way better then the junk our slant 6s got called carbs! It says they weigh about 3100, sounds like your version of my Dart (111" wheelbase, about 3200 with 340 v-8)

Come to think of it, I had read some about those when I was stationed in Hawaii in the 90s, and a Navy friend (who had a fine 69 Barracuda!) I knew from the dirt track brought back a copy of "Hey Charger!"

I woulda never known Galaxies had a 300, never known of them here, but then I never looked into it? The holdup with some early 60s cars were the 2 speed autos, atleast that what my X wifes 61 Falcon (in my yard) has. If I was doing project on it, it would get a 200 to replace the 144, as I believe the 250 is a differant block? The 300 I believe is a much bigger block. Or maybe skip the 6 alltogether, cause 5.0 Ford parts are not too hard to get.

So anyway- does this mean the folks building 4.7s can start building Hemis?

@TRX4 Tom
The E49 the next model after the E38 had two fuel tanks and were optimized for production Touring Car racing, where they battled eventually the 140mph Ford Falcon GT. and the earlier versions of the Torana XU1. all vehicles had to be showroom stock but engines could be blueprinted and brakes were allowed special pads etc. Slant Sixes were not strong enough for this sort of abuse. The cars were entered in 500 mile production races.
Later Ford and Holden upped the game with the Torana A9X a 5 Lite Holden V8 engined car. The Last Ford Falcon GTHO was a 4 door car 351 cu in Cleveland(Australian NASCAR Block) good for 165moh . The Public got outraged that such fast cars could be bought by teenagers and Series Production race cars were banned

Early 1972 race at the tight and now very defunct Warwick Farm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kinW9Q1OxoY&feature=related

1972 Bathurst Race 500 miles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcRyzA72nfw

@TRX4 Tom
I think you said you're into dirt track racing.

This type of dirt track speedway is quite popular as a night out over here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8s7yjoMPI

@TRX4 Tom
I was born in Long Island NY and lived in the States as a kid. That's why we had a Galaxy, Chev Suburban etc.

As a kid in Australia my father bought (I think) a Standard 6 ute with twin or triple SUs. I can't remember but I'll find out.

All this high power V6 stuff is questionable.

How long with a V6 running at high RPM last if it tows? We need small 6 or 4 cylinder diesels with manual transmissions which do the same job at 2000 RPM and last for years. Only 1 truck in a thousand every does the work load which needs an 8 liter monster diesel with 700 foot pounds of torque. Thats just money down a rat hole unless you tow 4 horses or tow a fork lift to construction sites.

After a few years of hard work what is it going to cost to keep one of the V6 high RPM motors on the road.

To be fair my current truck which has a 4X8 foot bed has only a small 3.0L (180 cubic inch) V6, very little power but,,,,, it is now 18 years old. It's slow, I can only tow light loads. BUT,,,,, it has had no problems in 18 years and 190,000 miles and still gets 19MPG. I would buy another in a second if anyone made a light simple full size truck. The T100 was a good light truck and I would not expect it to do the job of a 6000 pound F250 or Ram 2500. I also remember when our construction company lived with Chevy trucks with 250 cubic inch motors with 3 speed manual transmission. They worked, were cheap and lasted for years. If a rebuild was needed it was also simple and very inexpensive.

90 percent of the full size trucks are driving around empty and not towing anything. Many of us can us a simple V6, non-tubo. 300 HP is plenty. Industrial users still need the bigger low RPH high torque V8s. For heavy use they will be less expensive in the long run.

We would put an Indy race engine in a truck, run it as 12000 RPM and tow stuff but how long before it explodes. The new V6 engines with high pressure injection, twin turbos, variable valve timing might be close to the same thing.

What ever happened to real work trucks.?

I love my Rams. Drove the 84 Dually to Ft Hood and Back, not a single problem. My 2001 Has been to the ends of the earth many times, never stranded me. A 2013 3.6 8 speed seems like the way to the finish line. But yea Ford and GM have always struggled to keep up with the Mopar engines. Thats why in drag racing they use a Mopar engine lol.

I've been driving a 2003 Dakota with 4.7L for years and still do. I've towed cars from state to state with no fuss. Currently at 274K and counting. Never had an issue and expect to go way beyond 300K. Anyone that says these engines are junk are not truly familiar with them, or didn't care theirs.



The comments to this entry are closed.