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

Dmace · Apr 12, 2012

Turbys_1700 said:
With the 8 speed tranny when does the torque convertor lock up?
On my F350 the torque convertor locks up in 3rd...
Lot of heat is generated without the TC locked up...

I can't find it now but I read somewhere it would lock-up at a very low speed even in 1st.

Our new Mazda3 with the SkyActiv 6 speed auto locks up the TC at 5 mph and uses a multi-plate clutch above that. More efficient, smoother shifts, lighter weight and much smaller TC. I wonder if those ideas will make their way to this transmission...

jcaldarelli said:
Im not one of those people that completely hate progress, but im thinking ill hold on to my old truck with a 350, codes you can check with a Paper clip (OBD-1) A firm Ride, (If you want a Caddilac, then buy a Cadillac) and simple stuff compared to one of these new monstrosities.

You sure sound like you hate progress...
My trucks only a few years newer than yours (and very old compared to today's trucks) yet makes 130hp and 75lb ft. MORE POWER with less displacement, same or better fuel mileage, higher payload/towing (assuming 1/2 ton), smoother ride but no Cadillac and will last as long or longer. Progress is good!
Oh and I don't need a paper clip to check OBD-II codes, I just turn the key three times and the codes show up in my digital odometer. ;-)

jejeosborne · Apr 12, 2012

deerefan said:
You and I share some of the same thoughts. Actually, take away the 6spd tranny and driver info system and your 95 and my 2011 chevy 4x4 are not that much different. Power locks, power windows, cruise and a c/d player are about it. Some say gm is lagging behind in the tech dept, but when I get the same mpg as a comparably equipped truck with an Eco-Boost engine (18 mpg average on my chevy) then I will stick with simple, especially when it works. Honestly, I am not a huge fan of the 6spd tranny. I liked the 4l60e and 700R4 in the old trucks.

You are doing well getting 18 mpg with a 6.2 liter. Most are reporting 12-14 mpg with that engine.

deerefan · Apr 12, 2012

jejeosborne said:
You are doing well getting 18 mpg with a 6.2 liter. Most are reporting 12-14 mpg with that engine.

Mine is the 5.3, 3.42 gears 4wd. Wish i had the 6.2!!

jejeosborne · Apr 12, 2012

deerefan said:
Mine is the 5.3, 3.42 gears 4wd. Wish i had the 6.2!!

Oh, I think you got the ecoboost and the 3.7 liter confused. The 5.3 liter is a closer match to the 3.7 liter or possibly the 5.0 liter. The ecoboost is more equivalent to the 6.2 liter.

RollingsFarms · Apr 12, 2012

jejeosborne said:
Oh, I think you got the ecoboost and the 3.7 liter confused. The 5.3 liter is a closer match to the 3.7 liter or possibly the 5.0 liter. The ecoboost is more equivalent to the 6.2 liter.

My 6.2 with 3.73 gears gets 17-18 mixed driving(which is what I do all the time living in the country.). Worst it's gotten was 13 towing a heavy trailer and once I tried E85 to see how it would run and it got 11mpg. Consistently get in the mid 17's to low/mid 18's though driving mostly on 55mph roads. Got 20 once on the interstate but usually it gets about 19 or so on interstate doing 70.

jcaldarelli · Apr 12, 2012

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

Dmace said:
You sure sound like you hate progress...
My trucks only a few years newer than yours (and very old compared to today's trucks) yet makes 130hp and 75lb ft. MORE POWER with less displacement, same or better fuel mileage, higher payload/towing (assuming 1/2 ton), smoother ride but no Cadillac and will last as long or longer. Progress is good!
Oh and I don't need a paper clip to check OBD-II codes, I just turn the key three times and the codes show up in my digital odometer. ;-)

Dont Get me wrong, I like the power of the new stuff, I probally should have worded better, i just like the pure simplicity of something older. **** if something happens nowadays to some drivers info rear park assist or whatever, you need a high dollar computer before a **** wrench!

Dmace · Apr 13, 2012

jcaldarelli said:
Dont Get me wrong, I like the power of the new stuff, I probally should have worded better, i just like the pure simplicity of something older. **** if something happens nowadays to some drivers info rear park assist or whatever, you need a high dollar computer before a **** wrench!

True, I don't need 8" touch screens or power memory heated/cooled seats in my truck either but that's why they make ST/SLT XL/XLT and WT/LT trims without that stuff. But overall progress has made huge improvements.

Many people strive for the "old days" with basic trucks that were underpowered, unreliable, yet easy to fix. I prefer newer equipment that just doesn't need to be fixed nearly as much. My last three trucks (98-200k, 01-160k, 03-120k and counting) have not needed more than brakes and oil changes with one wheel bearing. My "old trucks" needed constant repairs between alternators, plug wires, coils, fuel pumps, brake calipers, etc... I don't miss it one day!

deerefan · Apr 13, 2012

jejeosborne said:
Oh, I think you got the ecoboost and the 3.7 liter confused. The 5.3 liter is a closer match to the 3.7 liter or possibly the 5.0 liter. The ecoboost is more equivalent to the 6.2 liter.

Actually no. I know what engine i was referring to. My point is this: i am getting the same overall mpg and only lack 700lbs in tow cap to the comparable truck with eb, however do not have the twin turbos to deal with as a maintenance or costly repair issue. Simple "outdated" tech matching up with new tech pretty well.

jejeosborne · Apr 13, 2012

deerefan said:
Actually no. I know what engine i was referring to. My point is this: i am getting the same overall mpg and only lack 700lbs in tow cap to the comparable truck with eb, however do not have the twin turbos to deal with as a maintenance or costly repair issue. Simple "outdated" tech matching up with new tech pretty well.

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.

scrappy isb67 · Apr 13, 2012

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

Dmace said:
I can't find it now but I read somewhere it would lock-up at a very low speed even in 1st.

Our new Mazda3 with the SkyActiv 6 speed auto locks up the TC at 5 mph and uses a multi-plate clutch above that. More efficient, smoother shifts, lighter weight and much smaller TC. I wonder if those ideas will make their way to this transmission...

Volkswagon has had a t/c less auto since '06
it is basically an automated manual without a clutch pedal. and they shift lightning fast (as in .06sec gear changes)
the computer modulates the clutch for starting moving and shifting gears