2018 Cummins high output is Torque King!

[RAM-pagingMN]

anyone see the TFL article yet about the upgrade from Cummins on the 2018 Ram? not even the new model, but increased Torque to 930....now if we could get some more HP out of that bad boy it would be unstoppable. I guess its true use is to tow, but more HP never hurt anyone!

 

[mohemipar]

I saw it. Pretty funny, they clearly did it just for bragging rights over Ford and GM

TFL Truck guys already named the current Cummins HD as their favorite, the extra torque definitely wont hurt. In one of their last episodes the Ford gasser puked all over the highway. Not going to be good for the built Ford tough image lol.

Pretty cool how Ram is also going to be making their own 5th wheel.

 

[theviking]

I hope the engine nannies don't continue to limit the same output in lower gears as they have done in the past. Seems to deflate much of the benefit of more power, other than bragging rights.

 

[07MegaCabRam]

Ram had the most torque before.

There was a video floating around here where they tested the three big trucks and only Ram was the closest to what they claimed. Infact, Ram had more than what they had said.

6 in a row - you're ready to tow

 

[BossHogg]

Pretty cool how Ram is also going to be making their own 5th wheel.

Could be the beginning of the end of goose necks.

 

[AzRamLover]

Is >900 Ft-Lbs Meaningful?

FWIW, while I applaud the innovation to reach 930 Ft-Lbs, adding more torque no longer adds more value. All 3 manufacturers make >900 ft-lbs and limit lower gear torque production. In other words, we make more torque but you can't use it all without breaking stuff, esp. in 1st.

Rather than continuing to lengthen and compare penises, I encourage RAM to improve the areas that **would** add more customer value. For instance:

1) NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness)

NVH causes driver fatigue, as shown by peer reviewed, statistically significant, independently funded studies. Comp(etition) has lower NVH and necessarily, driver fatigue on long trips.
​

2) Throttle response

The "pedal lag," materially different from turbo lag, has created an aftermarket industry to fix the problem - Pedal Commander exists for a reason.
Comp does not appear to have the problem to the same extent.
​

3) Purchase cost

All 3 manufacturers have room to improve on their ~$9K diesel option cost; without delving into price elasticity, customers would get more value if the diesel option were cheaper.
​

4) Operating costs

If 900 or 930 ft-lbs is enough, more MPGs, more miles between scheduled maintenance, faster/cheaper/easier maintenance, and lower DEF consumption would all deliver customer value.
​

5) Fault tolerance

Thirty years ago, diesel was the indestructible, unstoppable, high torque, & high efficiency engine choice. Now it's a "pay to play" option that's ironically and surprisingly delicate. Without arguing emissions regulations, increased fault tolerance (crappy fuel, water in fuel, extended idling, low/no load driving, short trips, etc.) would deliver customer value.
​

Feel free to flame on.

 

[Power247]

I'm with @AzRam on this one. It's awesome that they decided to do from the factory what tuners have been safely doing for years now. What would be more impressive if they would make more of that power and torque available in the lower gears.

I would have been much more excited to hear that Ram was contracting with RevMax to source parts to build the transmissions.

Greg
2012 | RAM 2500 | CCSB | Custom tuned by Double R Diesel
2016 | Heartland Pioneer | DS310

 

[07MegaCabRam]

1) NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness)

NVH causes driver fatigue, as shown by peer reviewed, statistically significant, independently funded studies. Comp(etition) has lower NVH and necessarily, driver fatigue on long trips.
​

Solid front axle is much stronger than IFS. The trouble that GM has with their IFS alone is dangerous not even towing, let alone towing. No thanks. Will keep the solid front set up any day.


2) Throttle response

The "pedal lag," materially different from turbo lag, has created an aftermarket industry to fix the problem - Pedal Commander exists for a reason.
Comp does not appear to have the problem to the same extent.
​

I agree with this, but if you've never towed a huge trailer, you hate the lag and pedal response. If you drive daily and tow, you freaking LOVE it and HATE the other manufactures driving characteristics.. The constant pulling/jolting when taking off is SO annoying. If you've ever drove a 30'+ trailer behind your truck, you know EXACTLY what I am talking about... and RAM Nailed that!! It does suck for daily driving without towing.. but again, this truck was ment to work.

3) Purchase cost

All 3 manufacturers have room to improve on their ~$9K diesel option cost; without delving into price elasticity, customers would get more value if the diesel option were cheaper.
​

There are a lot of components that are added to these vehicles with the CTD. Emissions is to blame here.

4) Operating costs

If 900 or 930 ft-lbs is enough, more MPGs, more miles between scheduled maintenance, faster/cheaper/easier maintenance, and lower DEF consumption would all deliver customer value.
​

DEF combustion? Dailiy driving, you can go almost 20 tanks without filling up.
$80 for fuel filters every 15K miles is alot cheaper than $300 injectors. I do 1 oil change a year..


5) Fault tolerance

Thirty years ago, diesel was the indestructible, unstoppable, high torque, & high efficiency engine choice. Now it's a "pay to play" option that's ironically and surprisingly delicate. Without arguing emissions regulations, increased fault tolerance (crappy fuel, water in fuel, extended idling, low/no load driving, short trips, etc.) would deliver customer value.
​

Feel free to flame on. [/QUOTE]

Emissions to blame here.

 

[AzRamLover]

1) NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness)

Solid front axle is much stronger than IFS. The trouble that GM has with their IFS alone is dangerous not even towing, let alone towing. No thanks. Will keep the solid front set up any day.​

Agreed - I meant engine NVH.


2) Throttle response

I agree with this, but if you've never towed a huge trailer, you hate the lag and pedal response. If you drive daily and tow, you freaking LOVE it and HATE the other manufactures driving characteristics.. The constant pulling/jolting when taking off is SO annoying. If you've ever drove a 30'+ trailer behind your truck, you know EXACTLY what I am talking about... and RAM Nailed that!! It does suck for daily driving without towing.. but again, this truck was ment to work.​

Good point - throttle response should be driver adjustable; maybe like how trailer brakes are.


3) Purchase cost

There are a lot of components that are added to these vehicles with the CTD. Emissions is to blame here.​

Agreed - RAM should optimize emissions compliance costs rather than trying to increase torque >900 ft-lbs. I feel this would deliver more value to customers.


4) Operating costs

DEF combustion? Dailiy driving, you can go almost 20 tanks without filling up.
$80 for fuel filters every 15K miles is alot cheaper than $300 injectors. I do 1 oil change a year..​

Also agreed - I say even though we've got OK costs, we can still do better and more cost reduction drives more customer value than more torque >900 ft-lbs.


5) Fault tolerance

Emissions to blame here.​

​

Agreed. I say RAM should a) focus its future development efforts differently; and b) doing so delivers more customer value than increasing torque beyond 900 ft-lbs.

 

[BossHogg]

If the rumors are true, and it looks like this one is, expect to see 1,015 ft. lbs. of torque on the 2020 HD Cummins along with an EGR-less engine and a redesigned all-in-one emissions system.