Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few eyes.

[WilliamBos]

Re: Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few e

Well I must say that they are NOT comparable or matching at all. I am not sure what configuration your chevy is but the best possible configuration of regular cab long bed for 2011 is 9,600 lbs. The ecoboost is 11,100 lbs. I couldn't imagine towing 9,600 lbs with the 5.3 liter unless you are in the flat lands. It is not known to be a strong towing motor and people who tow tend to shy away from that combination.

How in the world can you say that 315 HP and 338 ft lbs of torque matches up to 365 HP and 420 ft lbs of torque? I won't even get into the torque curves between these two motors. I know you want to defend old technology and I agree sometimes new and old achieve the same results, but not in this case.

I know this is a dodge thread and we are talking about two other manufactures but stating misinformation needs to be brought out.

I think you are talking 2500 HD towing numbers. The 5.3 is a proven engine, the ecoboost is still new.

And you are exaggerating on the lack of power from the 5.3L, they hold their own just fine.

You cant legally tow 9,600 with a 1500 anyway.

 

[deerefan]

Well I must say that they are NOT comparable or matching at all. I am not sure what configuration your chevy is but the best possible configuration of regular cab long bed for 2011 is 9,600 lbs. The ecoboost is 11,100 lbs. I couldn't imagine towing 9,600 lbs with the 5.3 liter unless you are in the flat lands. It is not known to be a strong towing motor and people who tow tend to shy away from that combination.

How in the world can you say that 315 HP and 338 ft lbs of torque matches up to 365 HP and 420 ft lbs of torque? I won't even get into the torque curves between these two motors. I know you want to defend old technology and I agree sometimes new and old achieve the same results, but not in this case.

I know this is a dodge thread and we are talking about two other manufactures but stating misinformation needs to be brought out.

The eb truck, ext cab 4x4 with gears similar to mine (3.55, mine is 3.42) tow cap is 10200, mine is 9500. Looking directly at the literature as i type. My truck is ext cab 4x4, comparing two similar trucks. Yes the 6.2 is stronger and supports my argument that newer is not always the best even further. I am not saying the eb is junk, i am merely saying the twin turbos and other high tech apps on the motor really did not make a huge difference.

 

[deerefan]

I think you are talking 2500 HD towing numbers. The 5.3 is a proven engine, the ecoboost is still new.

And you are exaggerating on the lack of power from the 5.3L, they hold their own just fine.

You cant legally tow 9,600 with a 1500 anyway.

I have had 2 5.3 4x4 chevys, an 05 and currently 2011. I have towed with both, anywhere from 3-8k lbs and they did fine. Both got decent mileage while towing too.

 

[crashz]

Re: Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few e

Actually the latest styling of the Dodge trucks (inside and out) are definately my favorite. In fact the latest design of all the trucks are by far the best looking (besides maybe the 80's versions of all three). I would have considered the Dodge if I could have afforded the Cummins. But I thought the chevy 2500HD would yeild the best mileage of the three gas engine HD trucks. I'm not sure if I was right, cause mileage is a little lower than my lofty expectations.

My question for you guys is: Why did they drop the "Dodge" logos and go with just "Ram"? I like the Dodge name (sounds tough!) and feel like "Ram" sounds like a big puffy sheep. They should have dropped "Ram" and kept Dodge.

 

[Soundguy]

Re: Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few e

wow.. 3.42 gears.. those must fly!

 

[Dmace]

My question for you guys is: Why did they drop the "Dodge" logos and go with just "Ram"? I like the Dodge name (sounds tough!) and feel like "Ram" sounds like a big puffy sheep. They should have dropped "Ram" and kept Dodge.

As part of the bankruptcy filing, they split the truck line into a seperate company, "RAM".

 

[Diamondpilot]

Re: Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few e

As part of the bankruptcy filing, they split the truck line into a seperate company, "RAM".

Why did they do this? Was this because of profitability with the trucks versus the cars? Also, what ever happened to the Sterling line of trucks made by Dodge?

Chris

 

[deerefan]

wow.. 3.42 gears.. those must fly!

Yep good top end!! If i remember correctly you have 4.88 in the 450. I bet that truck has some good low end grunt.

 

[Soundguy]

Re: Say what you want about Dodge...errrr "Ram" trucks, but they are catching a few e

yep.. pulls great.. but it doesn't like to go over 72 due to rpm getting high.. not to mention 68-72 is the sweet spot for fuel economy with a load. I can still do 9mpg at 72 mph with a 14k trailer... if I up that to 75 I near halve the fuel economy..

my 350 has a good inbetween.. 4.10 gears... doesn't have the nice air bags in the rear though.. I like those on big loads..

 

[jejeosborne]

I think you are talking 2500 HD towing numbers. The 5.3 is a proven engine, the ecoboost is still new.

And you are exaggerating on the lack of power from the 5.3L, they hold their own just fine.

You cant legally tow 9,600 with a 1500 anyway.

?
I can legally tow 11,300 pounds with my f150.

The discussion is about technology not improving power vs mpg. I am stating that the ecoboost is more comparable to the 6.2 liter gm motor rather than the 5.3. It gets better mpg than an equal HP/torque motor from any truck lineup.