6.4 2500- A different perspective

[drittal]

How dare you?!!

I assume you also referred to it glowingly and with high regard.

 

[PippinAin'tEasy]

Fordemort. It that shall Not Be Named.

"Oh, sweet debt. Thy name is Truck."

 

[MANual_puller]

How dare you?!!

I assume you also referred to it glowingly and with high regard.

Bahahahahaha!

 

[Snyd]

Did you mean 4.10? There is no 3.92 in a 2500 and those ratings are too high for the 5.7L 3.73.




I would have to disagree here. I towed the max tow rating (10,000 lbs +) of my old half ton 4-5 times a year for four years, and even up and over the Rockies a few times at close to max load and never had one issue. The guy who has it now , who I see pulling his 8,000 lbs RV with it to our BBQ cook offs a few times a year, hasn't had an issue either since the last time we talked a few months back. And no, it wasn't a Tundra because I wouldn't have had enough payload to tow what I needed to if it were.

Yup, typo. 4.10 in 2500 5.7. GVW is only 9000 with 5.7 in the 2500.

Not talking about "old half tons" whatever that means. I'm merely pointing out RAM's numbers and that if a guys goes by them, that's what you've got. Max trailer weight in 1/2 ton ram puts you OVER max payload. Add some options like ram boxes, a couple more doors, high end packaged, etc. and you lose payload quick.

 

[Snyd]

Eventually, yeah. It likely won't happen the first time or the 10th but eventually it will with any auto. The 545RFE is particularly susceptible. The 8-speed issues that have come up so far are mostly codes and limp mode issues, most of which seem to "go away" on their own......For those that don't like shifting there is a technology out there, optional in some jeeps, that has a lot of promise. Infinitely variable transmissions are a really cool technology and they seem to hold up better than automatics. Massey Ferguson has been installing them in tractors for several years and John Deere has developed one too. You won't see a transmission anywhere that takes more abuse than that of a farm tractor. You also don't see a transmission that operates like our truck automatics do in a farm tractor. Automatic transmissions are literally designed to eventually fail.

The point of most of my posts is that I don't see the reasoning of upgrading the engine to the 6.4 when automatic transmissions are crap and also our only option. The lower powered engine should let the trans live longer but to take away towing and payload for having the lower powered engine is flawed. For frequent light towing and occasional moderate towing the 5.7L is the best bang for the buck. There isn't any room between the 5.7L and the CTD. If they move to disband the 5.7L and shift towards the 6.4L that's fine but do we really need 2 different gas V8 engines to choose from? I can stick the $1500 for the 6.4L option into the 5.7L and have more power. If they want a big gas engine in HD trucks they should make it worth the upgrade and at least give it 2 more cylinders. And enough with the fuel mileage discussion. Don't buy a truck if you want fuel mileage. That's fantasy land. Anyone that knows physics knows that it takes a certain amount of energy(gas) to move heavy things with poor aerodynamics. You can't overcome physics.

But with the 5.7 in the 2500 RAM drops the GVWR to 9000.

Tranny, ya, I'd like a stick as well. But "wish in one hand..."

The 6.4 really isn't a "big gas engine" it's only a 392. Not THAT much more power than the 5.7 but it makes hp at tq 1000 rpms lower and RAM says they did things for longevity and call it a "medium duty" truck engine. Time will tell if it pans out that way.

Also, the only difference between the 2500 and 3500 srw's is rear springs and price. Frame, axles, etc. are the same now. If a gy want the CTD then the 3500 is a no brainer since you lose payload in the 2500.

 

[6.4 dude]

Anyone notice how the 6.4 discussions dominate the heavy duty section?

 

[theviking]

Anyone notice how the 6.4 discussions dominate the heavy duty section?

That's likely because most Cummins owners hang out on the Cummins forums. And everything regarding the 5.7 has already been beaten to death over the last 13 years.

But just a guess.

 

[MANual_puller]

But with the 5.7 in the 2500 RAM drops the GVWR to 9000.

Tranny, ya, I'd like a stick as well. But "wish in one hand..."

The 6.4 really isn't a "big gas engine" it's only a 392. Not THAT much more power than the 5.7 but it makes hp at tq 1000 rpms lower and RAM says they did things for longevity and call it a "medium duty" truck engine. Time will tell if it pans out that way.

Also, the only difference between the 2500 and 3500 srw's is rear springs and price. Frame, axles, etc. are the same now. If a gy want the CTD then the 3500 is a no brainer since you lose payload in the 2500.

That part right there is what I think is crap. I personally don't believe that the little power difference between the 5.7L and the 6.4L warrants a 1000lb difference. I fully agree, we'll see how it pans out. I think they are going to move to offering the 6.4L as the base in HD trucks once it's proven and leave the 5.7L as the premium engine for the 1500s. My guess is '19 models, that would make 5 years. Chrysler always did build good engines so I have faith that the 6.4L will pan out, their cryptonite has always been transmissions.

I think the best drivetrain they could build would be a CTD backed by a spicer or some other mid duty manual trans. They could stop dumbing it down for the manual trans and actually sell some then. They need to get rid of that G56 behind the CTD, guys have been breaking that since it came out. It can't handle the torque. Haven't heard of one failing behind a hemi although they only did that for 3 years. I owned a 5.7L/G56 2500 for 8 years, heck of a truck. I loved it but when our second daughter came along we didn't have room for 2 carseats lol

 

[SouthTexan]

Man, I step out to go to my local Republican convention and miss all the good stuff.

Not talking about "old half tons" whatever that means. I'm merely pointing out RAM's numbers and that if a guys goes by them, that's what you've got. Max trailer weight in 1/2 ton ram puts you OVER max payload. Add some options like ram boxes, a couple more doors, high end packaged, etc. and you lose payload quick.

You said.....

These 1/2 trucks aren't designed for towing and hauling at the same time or really even towing the max. Unless you only haul aBBQ and a bike in the back while towing. But, the numbers look good on paper and sell trucks.

So I was just saying I disagree because my old 2011 half ton, which wasn't a Ram, did not have any issues towing close to its max 4-5 times a year I did nor the rest of the year when I towed around other stuff that weighed less. In fact, I had a trailer (even a gooseneck cattle trailer) hooked up to that thing just about every other week and never had any issues in the four year I had it and neither does the current owner. I never went over my payload either. That is why I said I disagree.

The funny thing is, I go over my Ram 2500's payload all the time and it actually has less payload than my old half ton going by the door stickers. Although, I know the real reason why my 2500 's payload is limited to what it is and it has nothing to do with the trucks actual weight caring ability so I have no qualms about going over it.

 

[6.4 dude]

That's likely because most Cummins owners hang out on the Cummins forums. And everything regarding the 5.7 has already been beaten to death over the last 13 years.

But just a guess.

And the 6.4 is getting beat to death as well.....

 

[SouthTexan]

I think the best drivetrain they could build would be a CTD backed by a spicer or some other mid duty manual trans.

Dana/Spicer has not built a medium duty on highway trans since they split with Eaton in 2012.

The last one I drove was a three pedal Eaton Auto but the rest in the fleet you put the shifter in "D" & drive away. Thats not considered an automatic?

The Eaton Autoshift or Ultrashift was basically a manual transmission with a pneumatic X-Y shifter on top that shifted through the gears for you. When they first came out they were finicky since the computer they used to control the shifting didn't know what to do half the time and X-Y shifter broke down on the other half. They have since gotten better with the Ultrashift Plus, but it still ain't no Allison.

 

[theviking]

And the 6.4 is getting beat to death as well.....

That's how it goes What else are we going to talk about?

 

[MANual_puller]

Dana/Spicer has not built a medium duty on highway trans since they split with Eaton in 2012.

Eaton would fall into the "some other mfg" category, would it not? Tell me that wouldn't be an awesome rig.

Edit: I don't care whose transmission they use as long as it's strong enough for the full powered CDT. Dumbing down for the G56 is stupid and has zero advantage for anyone. It's not even the internals, it's the G56 case that is causing the failures.

 

[SouthTexan]

Eaton would fall into the "some other mfg" category

Well, yes and no. Eaton-Spicer was one company and technically Spicer did not make the transmissions, Eaton did during this time. However, that all stopped in 2012 when they split from each other.

Yeah, I have read and scene a split G56 (due to it's crappy aluminum housing) when just a little power is added with a tuner. Ram already had a rock solid iron housing transmission with the NV5600. Why they went with the G56 I have no idea. Maybe to save money.

 

[MANual_puller]

I wish they would fill the remainder of the Getrag contract for the G56 behind the hemis and find something that works behind the full power CTD. That would be home run ball for Ram IMO.

 

[drittal]

How much is a transmission like that going to weigh?

Side note, the 2017 F250 6.2 will get a different transmission to improve fuel economy.

That and cost is probably we don't see the Aisin behind the 6.4.

 

[68PowerWagon]

IMO Chrysler hasn't had a good transmission since the old 727 Torque Flight. I remember back in high school some bowtie boys dared this kid to take his old beater with a 383 & 727TF down the highway at 55mph & slam it into reverse. The idiot did it... it locked up the tires & they were hoping so much it shook off years of dirt from the under carriage but the tranny held together. This bone head thought it was funny & proceeded to do it 3 or 4 more times. Surprising to all of us it held together & he drove that thing around for at least a couple more years. Ahh the things we did to prove a point at 16.

 

[drittal]

The 727 weak link is the sprag. If it over revs like in a scenario where you break a u-joint during a burn out, it could be a ticking time bomb. When it let's go, it literally grenades and has the tendency to try and take the drivers right foot with.

Got one behind a 408 magnum small block and 440.

 

[SouthTexan]

IT WAS ME......I BROUGHT UP THE FORD 6.2L.......although I thought it came up before me.....but who cares.

Did I miss a rule about not talking about the 6.2L? If so I apologize I brought up that thing.......

Any other engines we can't talk about besides the previously mentioned soft blue oval engine of which we shall not speak? lol

From what I take of it is that you can bring up other engines just as long as you are ******* said engine. Apparently if you bring up factual specs in the discussion and any of those specs paint this other engine in a positive light then you get in trouble for "worshiping" the manufacturer that makes said engine.

In other forums I used to belong to like the F150 and John Deere forums, you could have a discussion and bring up factual information about other makes (even if it was better) without anyone getting mad about. People there understood that "it is what it is", but that doesn't mean we couldn't talk about it or bury their heads in the sand . They also understood that every engine and truck make has its pros and cons. While other engines or makes were better in certain areas, they didn't buy what they bought for those reasons so they didn't mind talking about it. It was only when the information that was given was not factual that people got flamed. I guess I am just used to being on that kind of forum.

Take my Cummins for example. Yes, the current Powerstroke and Duramax will smoke the Cummins off the line at wide open throttle due to it's aggressive torque management. Yes, the Powerstoke was faster up the Ike than a Cummins pulling 21k. Yes, the Ram Cummins didn't win the PUTC One-Ton Shootout. However, I didn't pick the Cummins for those reasons so it is no skin off my nuts to talk about them. Nor would I get mad at people for bringing it up if it was factual. I bought what I did for reliability and my access to Cummins parts and information(also for my loyalty to my former employer). I knew that it wasn't the quickest diesel on the block stock when I bought yet still bought it for my own reasons so why would I get mad at someone for bringing up that it is not the quickest when it is a fact if I didn't even buy it for that reason. It is what it is and it ain't what it ain't. I bought mine for what it is to me, and I am grown up enough to understand and talk about what it ain't (as long as it is factual) because I didn't buy it for those reasons.

 

[River19]

I'm not sure that is entirely true in all cases, but in your case I understand the point.

I'm guessing if someone consistently brings up the same powerplants etc. and posts them in a positive light and defends them consistently I'm not sure why people wouldn't believe they are a fan or significant supporter of that engine.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't be surprised to take some ribbing on a Ford site for waxing poetic about a Hemi or Cummins either.

Facts also come in various shapes and sizes. Graphs, stats etc. are one form. Personal experience is another. I have personal experience with the 6.2 vs. 6.4 and I am happy with my choice and I reminded of that every time I have to tow the horses to shows.