V6 or V8?

ramffml said:

Try the v6 first. If you like how it drives, it should work well for your needs.

If I was in your position I'd also give the GM twins a look, with the 2.7 turbo. It will keep up with the hemi for daily driving and feel much stronger than the v6 in the Ram. It's built like a tank too (overkill) so don't worry about the 4 cylinder part of that. It's one of two engines GM tried to kill in their testing, but couldn't. Might be a little more money than what you want to spend though.

Click to expand...

Sad thing is the fuel mileage is no better than a 5.3

slickracer said:

Sad thing is the fuel mileage is no better than a 5.3

Click to expand...

It's better than the 5.3 in the city in normal usage. Also if you look at fuelly reports (actual data from real owners) you'll see the 2.7 does better than the 2 GM v8's.

Again keep in mind it's a base engine. It was designed by GM to replace their v6, NOT their v8's. It's not a premium engine and it shouldn't be judged like one. It's a cheap engine to build, puts out very solid power, and gets decent mileage in the city. It beats their old v6 in every metric, which was all GM was trying to do.

ramffml said:

It's better than the 5.3 in the city in normal usage. Also if you look at fuelly reports (actual data from real owners) you'll see the 2.7 does better than the 2 GM v8's.

Again keep in mind it's a base engine. It was designed by GM to replace their v6, NOT their v8's. It's not a premium engine and it shouldn't be judged like one. It's a cheap engine to build, puts out very solid power, and gets decent mileage in the city. It beats their old v6 in every metric, which was all GM was trying to do.

Click to expand...

Hmm.. Watching the ads on TV, and them touting the 2.7 is purposely misleading. They depict a red decked out Silverado doing off and on road things while the announcer mesmerizes the public viewer about the vehicle's "goodies" whilst making it a point to hawk the 2.7. I'm sure that the micro print at the bottom of the screen tells the real truth, but they know that nobody will or can even read the disclaimer.

I've said it many times.... I can buy a heck of a lot of fuel for the difference veiled in some fairy tale world advertisement that tells the consuming public about how wonderful the twinky engine is in terms of fuel mileage, and the dependability of the less frugal engine. I said in an earlier post that time will tell. Will the 2.7 REALLY make 200 thousand miles with the same dependability of the venerable 5.3? We shall see.... but I won't bet on it.

I suppose the concept of having one's cake and eating it too will continue to permeate advertisement.... It's a shame that folks so easily lose sight of the image of a sales person hawking magic elixirs out of a horse drawn wagon from the 19th century.
"Free" is a fantasy.

FLFBSManiac said:

Hello Ram Fans,
Dumb question from an old guy…
I’m going to buy a Ram Crew Cab 1500 4x4 for an everyday driver. Grocery getter and tool hauler for playing handyman to my 5 adult daughters.
Any hauling / towing will be light.
I am l looking at 2014 thru 2018 Rams. Am I a fool to consider a V6?
Had to retire early due to health (60)
and $$ is an obstacle. So I’m looking for advice on which engine the forum would recommend.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

I am also a Old Fart and have the V6.
Mainly a daily driver and no hauling other then picking up lumber and stuff for the kids,,
So no heavy hauling no trailers
I get 20 to 22 mpg hand calculated !

Sherman Bird said:

Hmm.. Watching the ads on TV, and them touting the 2.7 is purposely misleading. They depict a red decked out Silverado doing off and on road things while the announcer mesmerizes the public viewer about the vehicle's "goodies" whilst making it a point to hawk the 2.7. I'm sure that the micro print at the bottom of the screen tells the real truth, but they know that nobody will or can even read the disclaimer.

I've said it many times.... I can buy a heck of a lot of fuel for the difference veiled in some fairy tale world advertisement that tells the consuming public about how wonderful the twinky engine is in terms of fuel mileage, and the dependability of the less frugal engine. I said in an earlier post that time will tell. Will the 2.7 REALLY make 200 thousand miles with the same dependability of the venerable 5.3? We shall see.... but I won't bet on it.

I suppose the concept of having one's cake and eating it too will continue to permeate advertisement.... It's a shame that folks so easily lose sight of the image of a sales person hawking magic elixirs out of a horse drawn wagon from the 19th century.
"Free" is a fantasy.

Click to expand...

I agree. There's no free lunch in physics. There has to be a cost associated with squeezing big horsepower numbers out of a 4 cylinder to the extent that they rival the naturally aspirated 8 cylinders. That cost is dependability and longevity. This used to be common sense but I recall people immediately latching on to Ford's EcoBoost when it was first introduced as if it was the second coming. The sheen has worn off since then yet it seems like consumers haven't learned anything.

The only argument that can be made that high horsepower "twinky" engines are on par with the V8's in terms of reliability is that the latest V8's aren't made as well as they could be because of other priorities and that neither have good long-term dependability. When you consider what manufacturer's have been doing in the name of fuel economy alone, there may be something to that. Consider how MDS, Start/Stop etc in the Chevy and RAM V8's has impacted those engines.

Sherman Bird said:

Hmm.. Watching the ads on TV, and them touting the 2.7 is purposely misleading. They depict a red decked out Silverado doing off and on road things while the announcer mesmerizes the public viewer about the vehicle's "goodies" whilst making it a point to hawk the 2.7. I'm sure that the micro print at the bottom of the screen tells the real truth, but they know that nobody will or can even read the disclaimer.

I've said it many times.... I can buy a heck of a lot of fuel for the difference veiled in some fairy tale world advertisement that tells the consuming public about how wonderful the twinky engine is in terms of fuel mileage, and the dependability of the less frugal engine. I said in an earlier post that time will tell. Will the 2.7 REALLY make 200 thousand miles with the same dependability of the venerable 5.3? We shall see.... but I won't bet on it.

I suppose the concept of having one's cake and eating it too will continue to permeate advertisement.... It's a shame that folks so easily lose sight of the image of a sales person hawking magic elixirs out of a horse drawn wagon from the 19th century.
"Free" is a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Why don't you spend 10 minutes researching the engine instead of forming incorrect opinions based on what you think it is, and "marketing"? It's a shame people ignorant on the design and details of the engine feel the need to drop their opinion like it means anything. "Free" is a fantasy, "Willful ignorance" is a reality.

Fuelly reports from actual owners MPG:
2.7 = 18 - 20 mpg
5.3 = 15 - 18 mpg

Here is a good overview directly from the GM engineer himself. Start at 8:30 if you just want to see details on how they tested it and the results:

Always remember 80% of what’s posted on any forum is only approximately 20% accurate. Lots of people proclaim knowledge of everything ,however , only my wife does truly possess these powers .

ramffml said:

I'm sure you do lol.

Click to expand...

You dont have to believe me, but the simple fact is the 2.7 is garbage, More and more issues are popping up with them. You can claim that motor is the future for GM if you want. And It could be, If GM's future is going bankrupt again over lawsuits

NightmareRCSB said:

You dont have to believe me, but the simple fact is the 2.7 is garbage, More and more issues are popping up with them. You can claim that motor is the future for GM if you want. And It could be, If GM's future is going bankrupt again over lawsuits

Click to expand...

Welcome to ramforum, but you really need to work harder on your trolling.

ramffml said:

Welcome to ramforum, but you really need to work harder on your trolling.

Click to expand...

Trolling? Good one, You've had how much actual experience with the 2019-up 2.7 L3B's? The only one Trolling is the one trying to spout B.S. and glorify GM's reject engine that they couldnt even be man enough to call a 4 cylinder in their ads.

NightmareRCSB said:

Trolling? Good one, You've had how much actual experience with the 2019-up 2.7 L3B's? The only one Trolling is the one trying to spout B.S. and glorify GM's reject engine that they couldnt even be man enough to call a 4 cylinder in their ads.

Click to expand...

Post this on a gm site ,this is a ram truck forum .

Daw14 said:

Post this on a gm site ,this is a ram truck forum .

Click to expand...

I know that, apparently though ramffl wanted to use this Forum to glorify GM's engine

NightmareRCSB said:

Trolling? Good one, You've had how much actual experience with the 2019-up 2.7 L3B's? The only one Trolling is the one trying to spout B.S. and glorify GM's reject engine that they couldnt even be man enough to call a 4 cylinder in their ads.

Click to expand...

You can't even read/interpret my posts, I have zero expectation that whatever you are posting is anywhere close to useful or accurate. Sorry man, it is what it is.

You're certainly off to an amazing start on this forum!

I like waffles

HunterCat said:

I agree. There's no free lunch in physics. There has to be a cost associated with squeezing big horsepower numbers out of a 4 cylinder to the extent that they rival the naturally aspirated 8 cylinders. That cost is dependability and longevity. This used to be common sense but I recall people immediately latching on to Ford's EcoBoost when it was first introduced as if it was the second coming. The sheen has worn off since then yet it seems like consumers haven't learned anything.

The only argument that can be made that high horsepower "twinky" engines are on par with the V8's in terms of reliability is that the latest V8's aren't made as well as they could be because of other priorities and that neither have good long-term dependability. When you consider what manufacturer's have been doing in the name of fuel economy alone, there may be something to that. Consider how MDS, Start/Stop etc in the Chevy and RAM V8's has impacted those engines.

Click to expand...

Remember the "Northstar" engine? It had so many firsts in manufacturing processes. The high pressure casting of aluminum "pellets" made it's debut in the form of cylinder head and block castings. Those engines seeped/leaked coolant and oil profusely, had head gasket problems, and threads pulled out of the blocks. GM's answer to the problem? Make pills to put into the cooling system to clog the seepage pathways with ginger, pepper, almond shell, and a couple of other ingredients. The pills worked, but, goodness....talk about painting a road apple (excrement)?

Remember the 1984 Turbo 2.3 Liter Ford engines? The Volvo Turbo B23 engines? Those were VERY durable, long term reliable engines. They got good Gas mileage too. 30 years have elapsed. Why is it so darned difficult to make a decent high horsepower small displacement engine today, when they did it 3 decades ago?

I've had several Chevys over the years, and never had a problem with them burning any oil. The last one being a 2012 Silverado with the 5.3, one before that was a 2500HD with the 6.0 gasser, and again no issues with it.

ramffml said:

You can't even read/interpret my posts, I have zero expectation that whatever you are posting is anywhere close to useful or accurate. Sorry man, it is what it is.

You're certainly off to an amazing start on this forum!

Click to expand...

Wanna try again? Werent you Touting that the 2.7 is a "tank", how it was engineered so well? How its an amazing worktruck engine? When all three of those statements are opinions, when in reality that motor is seeing more and more issues? Like on stock tune their failing to maintain proper AFR's, blowing headgaskets, throwing timing belts? And I could care less what you think on my start on this forum, I'm not here to make friends, Im here for information, not someones opinion on a Non-Ram truck

BuschLatte420 said:

I like waffles

Click to expand...

Specially when the stripper you brought home the night before cooks em' for you in the morning and your wifes bath robe

Almost forgot to add value to this thread.

Here we go, V6 in Ram's are for dude that drink bud light.

DILLIGAF said:

Specially when the stripper you brought home the night before cooks em' for you in the morning and your wifes bath robe

Almost forgot to add value to this thread.

Here we go, V6 in Ram's are for dude that drink bud light.

Click to expand...

As long as the waffles are square she good to me!

NightmareRCSB said:

Wanna try again? Werent you Touting that the 2.7 is a "tank", how it was engineered so well? How its an amazing worktruck engine? When all three of those statements are opinions, when in reality that motor is seeing more and more issues? Like on stock tune their failing to maintain proper AFR's, blowing headgaskets, throwing timing chains? And I could care less what you think on my start on this forum, I'm not here to make friends, Im here for information, not someones opinion on a Non-Ram truck

Click to expand...

In this thread I posted a video of a GM engineer who goes into detail on how they lined the cylinders with material harder than Compacted Graphite Iron, fully forged bottom end, how the turbo is fed clean oil, how the engine minimizes turbo lag (larger cylinders and physical placement of the turbo right beside the exhaust manifold), electric water pump to keep the turbos cooled when RPMs drop off a cliff but turbo is still hot (towing and pulling up to a stop light) etc etc. The video shows the state of lifters, cam, cylinder walls etc after running constant wide open throttle pulls for 24 hours a day for a couple of weeks. So yes that engine can take a beating.

What you posted is nonsense. An opinion with no facts, and on top of it all you're a new poster whose first and second posts were to trash this engine with nothing more than "believe me, I know a guy... " type of assertions.

I also happen to be on several other truck forums, GM included. There are 0 issues with it beyond a few "one off" glitches that happen to every thing on this planet engineered by mankind.

So you're not believable in the slightest. Shocker, eh?

If you're here for information than grow up and stop picking fights like an offended fangirl. You may not agree with my opinion, but you're certainly not here "just for information".