It looks ok, what scares me though is what happens in a crash at 40 mph. That is a tin can that crumbles.

That is a good looking truck. Rams are arguably the best looking truckline over the last decade. Ram could update just the mechanicals of this truck and not change the design and it would continue to sell well.

Natethegreat78 you aren't under the impression this trucks body is constructed of copper... right?

@GMSRGREAT Agreed, Update their 5.7L hemi and maybe add a 6.4L. They got good modern V6 and a diesel. Few small touches is all Ram needs to keep them plants humming.

@Johnny doe

RAM should ask their dealers what they would like to see.

That Copper is unique.
Clearly the 5.7L is a good seller in this 1500. But asking for a 6.4L is going in the wrong direction for getting the engine compartment length reduced. If someone really needs a 6.4L can't that emphasis be put on getting people to move up to a 2500?
The only thing Ram needs to do is reduce the block size of the 5.7L to something with less distance between the cylinders. Modern material (thinner cylinder sleeves) is allowing this I thought I read. Then as I've harped for too long, the front end can be reduced and the full size will be the length of a midsize. We're only talking about a 6" reduction in the combination of engine bay reduction with more cab forward. Probably 3" reduction in engine compartment combined with 3" more cab forward gives the 6" needed. Then the full size with crew cab will fit in the 235" long garage. The king cab versions will then be even shorter and even easier to park. That's really the sweet spot for a modern truck. It's shown in the sales numbers: growth rate of the midsizers is very very good, but volume numbers of the full sizers is still king.

If someone really needs a 6.4L can't that emphasis be put on getting people to move up to a 2500?
Posted by: Angelo Pietroforte | Feb 8, 2017 2:48:12 PM

Maybe you should move on down to a midsize truck, and stop crying bout getting the engine compartment length reduced.

There is a 6.4 in the 2018 Durango SRT and there has been one in the SRT Jeep. Both of which have significantly shorter engine bays than the Ram.

Not the issue.

Jeep came out a few years ago with a limited number of Wranglers in Copper paint.

Ram is working on a turbo 3.6v Penastar to replace the 5.7

size of engine compartment?

@Angelo Pietroforte

I think that engine compartments today are already too crowded.

When I was young if my car got fixed--my hands got dirty doing it.

Changing out the water pump on my old Mercury only required some simple hand tools, some gasket cement, and a six pack of cold beer.

Today, just changing the hoses on my Chevy is a nightmare.

Angelo Pietroforte: the term you are looking for is called bore spacing. Too shorten the size of a 345 Hemi by 3" by using bore spacing, well, that would be thin walls if you shortened it by even .250 inches.

If you shortened the length of the engine by taking 3" inches off the length of the block, so, .75 less bore per cylinder, is 3 shorter, is when all the math is done, a whopping 226 cubic inches. Maybe you could come up with a 4-inch stroke, now you would have a 252. Doesn't sound like that's very well-thought-out.

Toyota packs a same size engine, they are able to tuck it in a little bit more, yet not have a pain in the butt to reach the back two cylinders.

Here's the surprise, not all of us with full-size trucks care so much about fitting it into a garage.

My point is, you can't take three inches out just by messing with bore spacing, if you did bore spacing, and then you shorten the bore you might be able to take two inches out, but then you got a totally re-engineer everything.

@Johnny Doe
:-( :-( Tears in my eyes! I hear you. But if Dave is correct about a Turbo 3.6 Pentastar, then my path might be the one FCA is on. Remember, they are the only one who hasn't talked about a return of the Dakota, and they've pushed out the next gen 1500 by a few more years which perhaps might be because an entire engine bay cab forward design is more work than just taking either separately.
@AJ OK, then to my point. Why is the 1500 engine bay so long. Perhaps my working in Silicon Valley has biased my reality that designs can be way more forward thinking than they currently are.

Ram is working on a turbo 3.6v Penastar to replace the 5.7

@Dave

What a lousy idea.

The current Hemi engine is the only reason Dodge/RAM/Chrysler are still in business. It would be like GM turning the Corvette into a station wagon, or Jeep turning the Wrangler into a hybrid.

RAM truck buyers already have great choices for powertrain.

Someone at Chrysler is doing very smart things with the RAM brand and going "green" in the engine department ain't one of 'em.

I said these things about 2 years ago on this site:
I've worked in cramp spaces, maybe more efficiently than most because my hands aren't that big.
Ie My brothers 351Cleveland with Hooker headers right at the shock tower in a '70Mach1. Header gasket replace was a b.....
But that prepared me for my E30 M3 that took compactness to a new high. The compactness of that engine was ahead of its' time, and still very little space to work on the header and water line that are both on top of each other on the right side. I just replaced water pump this weekend. 32mm wrench for that fan clutch, while bending over is not that much fun. So "hard to work on" is a matter of a persons experiences and personal size. But I too as I have aged, don't like doing it as much, but pride myself that I really can do it and crawl around and what not when required.
@TRX-4 Thanks. Bore spacing. Exactly. Sorry I didn't already design it through. Thanks for the thorough analysis. Yah, I didn't imagine 0.75" from each cylinder. Yes the (pie)r^2*L gives the volume and 0.75" on the diameter reduces the length, but then increase the stroke. On and on: it becomes a big design. I said only bore spacing and cylinder sleeving with more special materials. Anyway, you did say 2" total. Let's say 1.5" total from the engine, then by god couldn't they get 1.5" between a bumper and the space between a fan and the engine block or a thinner radiator. I'm just saying a little here and there goes a long way to adding up to 3". I know this site has many people who could car less about garaging a truck, but I do, and probably just as many others do too! At least for everyday driving. But really everyone hear who says that I just need a midsize, I say, maybe they all need to move up to a 2500. :-)

I like the engine bay design of the Tundra, it's probably the shortest and the most cab forward looking. Really take a look at it from the side. Thanks for all your input.

There is some talk about FCA discontinuing the Hemi if the future CAFE standards are not rolled back. This would not be good for Ram.

CAFE is based on a faulty assumption.

In fact there is plenty of energy. There is no "energy shortage." People incorrectly assumed that temporary supply issues 40 years ago represented a permanent condition.

CAFE is long overdue for a trashing. There are enough real problems in the world without inventing any.

@TRX4-TOM
Presuming a design team decides like you that there is not much engine length that can be reduced by focusing on bore spacing, for the amount of entire redesign required (cam lengths, crankshaft length, block length, length of heads, and other misc). Then would you agree that the fan radiator area in front of the engine, could much more easily bring big reductions in engine compartment length?

At first I thought to simply reduce the radiator depth, but then I understand that truck engines, when pulling, need a lot of cooling, so maybe not a good idea. Unfortunately, being that I haven't looked at the engine bay of a Colorado or Ram or F150 in a while, I can't definitively say that they don't have electric fans to assist with cooling. And why do I even bring up electric fans? Well my E30 M3 has both an electric fan out front and a traditional fan between the water pump pully and the radiator. And my 92 Prelude, which is front wheel drive, has two electric fans behind the radiator, and no pully driven fan at all because the engine is 90degrees off. As an aside these two cars have quite peppy 4Cy, 4Valve Hemi head designs, that helped create a "buzz" from the media at the time. And from what I read, the Prelude's technology transferred to the NSX. So with that said, the engine bay has been an area of focus from me, for a while which I don't think has been focused much on from the manufacturers, except from supposed clean sheet designs of the Colorado. And in the end, except for pulling or acceleration work, or crumple safety, it serves no other utility and should constantly be an area of constant reduction. Car engine bays today are so much shorter than in the 60's, but truck engine bays may not of followed the same trajectory.

American V8's are as American as apple pie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnWDN2jbcaU

No other V8 is more known for it's awesome power than the HEMI V8. Been a world beater ever since it hit the track. Chryslers first V8, Dodges first V8. Hemi engines. Designed for world war two planes adapted to street engines. This engine still dominates motor sports today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WhtU3sVa0&t=14s

@HemiV8
Nice ones. Seems that a Good old fashioned burnout will never totally go out of style.

@HemiV8. I'm a pilot and although I knew turbos were designed for high altitude flying, I never knew hemi's came from aircraft too. Have any references?

Nice truck for sure, they look they are gunning for #2 spot

Yah I found hemi aircraft engine online last night. Even a Chrysler 24cy that never went to production cause war ended in 1945.

@angelo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_IV-2220

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Hemi_engine

Chrysler also powered the abrams tank with their turbine engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

@HemiV8
Interesting. Thanks. But all the real high end aircraft don't even use piston anymore. It's all about turbine (jet or turbine at 30000rpm), but then there is a noticeable $ spike for those. Unfortunately my ratchet and socket tool set, and knowledge base, doesn't cut it for turbines, but I'm trying to learn. :-)