Hemi production ending?

R/T_Fire · May 23, 2017

I wouldn't trust a youtube video to be factual.... The HEMI is their bread and butter, take the HEMI away and every company that uses it except jeep will be gone..... No one will buy their product without the HEMI or something better, and since there isn't anything better its here to stay..
I'll believe something like this more if it comes from a reputable source

mohemipar · May 23, 2017

There have been so many speculations over the past year that the Hemi is done. Dont buy any of it unless its a confirmed source from FCA. They already have Hemis stockpiled for at least a couple years’ worth of production. What are they going to do with those dump them in ocean? It would be nice after that though to see the engine evolve. Remain an 8 cylinder and a semi-hemi head but redesign for power and efficiency. Even if they downsized and did a twin turbo set up on it like the Germans are doing. It would be a beast.

R/T_Fire · May 23, 2017

Well I may stand corrected, Just saw this on my facebook from truck trend

Rumor: I-4 Turbo to Replace Pentastar V-6, I-6 Turbo to Replace 5.7 Hemi in FCA Lineup

Still being said by allpar and from what I have read they aren't the most reliable resource.... but still if this is true, anyone with stock in FCA may want to sell it before it tanks

02Steve15 · May 23, 2017

If they do cut the 5.7 I'm either going to hold onto my 15 for a lot longer than expected or run out and trade it in for a 18 or whatever final model year they put the hemi in.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

savage_46 · May 23, 2017

If & when they stop offering the hemi in new vehicles, likely all leftover engines would go to parts status--basically up for grabs by dealer parts dept's for customers, whether warranty or customer pay. They stopped offering the 4.7 a few years ago & we can still get engines for that. Same with the 545rfe & even 46/47/48RE trans.

As it is for me right now, the only thing that'll get me out of my current truck is a significant upgrade to the 5.7. Whether that be direct injection & mass air flow, 6.4 offered, or whatever else. I might even consider the rumored hybrid (pending how the Pacifica & upcoming wrangler do). Aside from those possibilities, I'll stick with mine.

jotin · May 23, 2017

I would forever be sad if the hemi ever did die. They are my favorite engine to work on in the shop. My cars are both hemi powered and other cars ahead would also be. But I hope it never does happen. I can dream

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Colin.jeffords · May 24, 2017

Wouldn't surprise me. V8's will eventually be a thing of the past as twin turbo V6's seem to be the future. Although I'd like to see ram come out with a twin turbo V6, I don't like the idea of it replacing the hemi V8. I'd question the long term reliability of the twin turbo V6 being under all that stress for a smaller engine. Even though they match the power of a V8, I've seen a lot of issues with the ecoboost F150's. But one could argue twin turbo V6's have been around for a while in foreign cars, so who knows.

metalmancpa · May 24, 2017

That would be lousy, especially for a consumer such as myself. Just the name Hemi alone gives me goosebumps. OK, not really, but it's honestly a major factor in why I chose to get a Ram over a GMC or Chevy. I loved the Hemi in my 300, and although I know there a comparably fast engine in other vehicles, for whatever reason the legend of the Hemi stands out for me. I think it's a draw for a lot of people, and will hurt sales.

MANual_puller · May 24, 2017

The Hemi thrives on being a relatively simple engine. With the quantity on the road the failure rate is pretty low. With all the extra systems on a turbo6 engine there's no way they are cheaper to produce so that can't be the driving force behind a move. The leakoboost hasn't proven to be any better on fuel either. Which makes sense, our trucks are big heavy parachutes that require a certain amount of energy to move through the air with fuel being that energy source. All the turbo system does is make the engine a variable displacement engine which is exactly the same thing the MDS system does. The theory is reversed though, more air (boost) when you need it versus less air (cylinder deactivation) when you don't need it.

dmillar74 · May 24, 2017

Turbo I6 to replace Hemi

Rumor has it, from Allpar, that the Hemi's days are numbered. Ford led the way on this one. I'm a fan of the inline 6 design!

Rumor: I-4 Turbo to Replace Pentastar V-6, I-6 Turbo to Replace 5.7 Hemi in FCA Lineup

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gustheram · May 24, 2017

Highly unlikely to lose the V8 in the HD class. This would be 1500s only. As long as they're well tested, for the light duty trucks I don't see a big issue with it except for the fact that they'll sound like ass.

NewBlackDak · May 24, 2017

A turbo I-6 should be a torquey little beast.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dmillar74 · May 24, 2017

I personally think that the trend will find its way into heavy duty trucks. Look at the numbers on the 2017 EB. They easily best Ford's 6.2 in torque and almost matches horsepower. I think in an inline 6 design (like the Cummins), if it is made to be durable, I could see it working. The inline design is great for torque!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ronheater70 · May 24, 2017

dmillar74 said:
I personally think that the trend will find its way into heavy duty trucks. Look at the numbers on the 2017 EB. They easily best Ford's 6.2 in torque and almost matches horsepower. I think in an inline 6 design (like the Cummins), if it is made to be durable, I could see it working. The inline design is great for torque!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I owned an Ecoboost for 3 years before switching to the hemi 6.4. My brother still has his.. While I did like the torque at such a low rpm..I like this Hemi Better.. The big difference is that turbo lag was almost always present. with twin turbo's it was supposed to be non existent, and it was very evident in every truck I drove in with it. Pulling out from a stop light to cross a road or something almost requires planning, as it takes a bit for the truck to actually register you want to drive it. I thought it might be just my truck, but actually have read where many, many others have the same complaint on a f150 forum.. Drove my brothers truck this past weekend and it quickly brought back my distaste for it.. NOW, when the turbos are spooled up and your just cruising around at 1800 rpms or so and you can just give it a bit of gas and accelerate up a hil in 6th gear, THATS what I miss with this Hemi..This 6.4 sure doesn't pull near as hard down low as that 3.5 twin turbo. That ecoboost would walk all over this 6.4 below 3K rpms.

dmillar74 · May 24, 2017

ronheater70 said:
I owned an Ecoboost for 3 years before switching to the hemi 6.4. My brother still has his.. While I did like the torque at such a low rpm..I like this Hemi Better.. The big difference is that turbo lag was almost always present. with twin turbo's it was supposed to be non existent, and it was very evident in every truck I drove in with it. Pulling out from a stop light to cross a road or something almost requires planning, as it takes a bit for the truck to actually register you want to drive it. I thought it might be just my truck, but actually have read where many, many others have the same complaint on a f150 forum.. Drove my brothers truck this past weekend and it quickly brought back my distaste for it.. NOW, when the turbos are spooled up and your just cruising around at 1800 rpms or so and you can just give it a bit of gas and accelerate up a hil in 6th gear, THATS what I miss with this Hemi..This 6.4 sure doesn't pull near as hard down low as that 3.5 twin turbo. That ecoboost would walk all over this 6.4 below 3K rpms.

Make sense what you were saying. Wonder if the in-line six design would help minimize some of those issues due to it being better designed for the low end torque delivery?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dmillar74 · May 24, 2017

I sometimes wonder if the big engine design with all this multi displacement technology is more efficient than a smaller engine that is turbo charged or twin turbo charged. Of course this is assuming that it is a durable smaller motor. I love my 6.4 hemi but I just wonder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ronheater70 · May 24, 2017

dmillar74 said:
I sometimes wonder if the big engine design with all this multi displacement technology is more efficient than a smaller engine that is turbo charged or twin turbo charged. Of course this is assuming that it is a durable smaller motor. I love my 6.4 hemi but I just wonder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To get power from a turbo motor, you need to have the turbos spooled up.. to have the turbos spooled up, you need to be on the gas.. On the gas= low fuel economy. My f150 ecoboost got better gas mileage than my 2500 6.4, both unloaded and towing.. However if that ecoboost was pushing around as much truck as this hemi is in the 2500 CC LB 4x4, then I think the difference would be VERY minimal..

SouthTexan · May 24, 2017

That has actually been proven somewhat false time and time again in the PUTC and Canadian truck King Challenge test over the past few years. While it is true that turbo vehicle do consume more fuel under boost/load, the same is true for all engines including N/A.

In the 2016 PUTC max tow challenge, the 3.5L Ecoboost got better fuel economy than the 5.7L Hemi both empty and towing a 10k+ trailer. (Texas Truck Showdown 2016: Towing Mileage Test ). The same is true for past tests as well.

The more air consumed in a gas engine means more fuel is consumed regardless if that added air is coming from higher rpms from an N/A engine or boost from a turbocharged engine. The only difference is that an N/A engine(without MDS) has a fixed effective displacement while a turbocharged engine can alter its effective displacement. The 5.7L Hemi only has an effective displacement of 5.7 liters in V8 mode and 2.85 liters in V4 mode while the 3.5L Ecoboost has an effective displacement from 3.5L up to 7.0 liters at full boost in stock form.

ronheater70 · May 24, 2017

SouthTexan said:
That has actually been proven somewhat false time and time again in the PUTC and Canadian truck King Challenge test over the past few years. While it is true that turbo vehicle do consume more fuel under boost/load, the same is true for all engines including N/A.

In the 2016 PUTC max tow challenge, the 3.5L Ecoboost got better fuel economy than the 5.7L Hemi both empty and towing a 10k+ trailer. (Texas Truck Showdown 2016: Towing Mileage Test ). The same is true for past tests as well.

The more air consumed in a gas engine means more fuel is consumed regardless if that added air is coming from higher rpms from an N/A engine or boost from a turbocharged engine. The only difference is that an N/A engine(without MDS) has a fixed effective displacement while a turbocharged engine can alter its effective displacement. The 5.7L Hemi only has an effective displacement of 5.7 liters while the 3.5L Ecoboost has an effective displacement of up to 7.0 liters at full boost in stock form. The only way the 5.7L alters its displacement is with MDS, but it is going down in displacement.

Yea, I don't follow many one time towing tests or a similar test with a different truck the following year) With a such a small motor you have to be on the gas to get anything lively out of it.. At least mine did..many complaints about the fuel economy from the ecoboost not living up to the hype and expectations. I expect the difference in the hemi comparison is that the ecoboost is making all its torque at about 2K rpm lower.
My ecoboost got average fuel economy, not horrible,not great, but when a 2500 6.4 is within 1.5 mpg around town and on back roads, and nearly equal towing, then I dont think it's necessarily that much of a fuel efficient motor everyone made it out to be. Now, in terms of performance pulling, The ecoboost absolutely destroys this 6.4 Hemi under 3K rpms..and thats with 3:31 gears compared to the 3:73 in this truck. It easily held a gear higher on the interstate towing my camper than the 2500 now that I have a few trips on it..towing 1900 rpms ecoboost vs 2400 ish on the Hemi

mohemipar · May 24, 2017

ronheater70 said:
Now, in terms of performance pulling, The ecoboost absolutely destroys this 6.4 Hemi under 3K rpms..and thats with 3:31 gears compared to the 3:73 in this truck. It easily held a gear higher on the interstate towing my camper than the 2500 now that I have a few trips on it..towing 1900 rpms ecoboost vs 2400 ish on the Hemi

I think if Ram had a version of the transmission with gearing and programming specifically for the 6.4 Hemi, much of this problem would be fixed. Especially with 4.10s. The 6.4 really pulls hard up high but you can just tell by driving it the trans was meant for the diesel. I get surprised sometimes how hard it starts pulling when you get moving though. It feels like something just grabbed the front of the truck and yanked it. *Mine has 4.10s.

Hemi production ending?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Shade tree grease monkey

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page