2025 1500 RamCharger. Is it an EV?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

CaptStumpy

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2023
Posts
14
Reaction score
5
Location
01824
the ramcharger was a whitesheet design, there was no template for what engine to use. having a v6 pentastar is like having a v6 for your generac. You can't use the wide powerband because its going to run at the RPM where horsepower is greatest.
 

CaptStumpy

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2023
Posts
14
Reaction score
5
Location
01824
still seems dumb. why not put the v6 into something that can use the power and then go into your car engine factory and ask them for more?
 

crash68

ACME product engineer
Staff member
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
11,001
Reaction score
17,434
Ram Year
2015
Engine
3.0 EcoDiesel
engine horsepower really does not need to be huge in this application, so long as the battery inverter is getting a steady supply of current. I think a smaller hurricane or world engine would be better than the V6 pentastar.
The generator in the Ramcharger is stated to be 131kW, that takes about 1.5 to 2 times that amount in an ICE engine HP to deliver the rated output. The Pentastar will most likely be tuned for the rpm operation range for spinning the generator.
As others have pointed out, using the Pentastar makes sense as it's already developed and in production. This lowers cost and keeps the overall part inventory count lower.
 

Yardbird

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Posts
420
Reaction score
907
Location
Western NC
Ram Year
2018
Engine
3.6
I wonder what RPM the V6 will run at since they make very little power at 2k and below?
 

crash68

ACME product engineer
Staff member
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
11,001
Reaction score
17,434
Ram Year
2015
Engine
3.0 EcoDiesel
I wonder what RPM the V6 will run at since they make very little power at 2k and below?
It will most likely be variable depending on the load. It will also be tuned differently from the version that's mated to a transmission. Potentially they could make the engine have a near-zero emissions output. Taking one step further eventually switching to burning hydrogen, then it will be zero emissions.
 

Riccochet

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
1,860
Reaction score
1,745
Location
Somewhere around Charlotte
Ram Year
2020 2500 Laramie Longhorn
Engine
6.4
It will most likely be variable depending on the load. It will also be tuned differently from the version that's mated to a transmission. Potentially they could make the engine have a near-zero emissions output. Taking one step further eventually switching to burning hydrogen, then it will be zero emissions.
Be kinda cool if they did put a small CVT transmission on it. Then it could spin the generator at variable RPM's while maintaining constant engine RPM.
 

Docwagon1776

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Posts
2,443
Reaction score
4,230
Location
Midwest
Ram Year
2012, 2021
Engine
5.7, 6.4
still seems dumb. why not put the v6 into something that can use the power and then go into your car engine factory and ask them for more?

How much hp do you expect it to take to generate enough electricity to keep this truck rolling?
 

GrangerMotors

Member
Preferred Vendor
Joined
Nov 29, 2023
Posts
67
Reaction score
33
Location
Granger, Iowa
Ram Year
2022
Engine
5.7
I'm cautiously optimistic about this design. A lot depends on how they price this. If a Big Horn is 70K+, that is a mistake. But if they price it reasonably, I think there is an audience this can appeal to, because you can fill up and keep going. 150 miles of range should take care of most people's daily commute as well.

My hunch is the top end trim touches 100K+ on this truck.
 

NCRaineman

Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2018
Posts
833
Reaction score
1,137
Location
NC
Ram Year
2019 1500 Classic
Engine
Hemi 5.7
My hunch is the top end trim touches 100K+ on this truck.
Price will probably kill what demand for it there is. This thing is claimed to be 600+hp. It's a top level performance trim, along with being a hybrid. Gross and wanton extravagance. Given electric torque is available from 0 RPM they could have made it 400hp and had plenty of capability. Unless the generator and battery setup is adding a thousand pounds to the curb weight, in which case the extra power will be needed in order to have satisfactory performance.
 

dafish

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2023
Posts
18
Reaction score
9
Location
Illinois
Ram Year
25 Ramcharger & '01 Dak
Engine
3.6+ 4.7
Ignoring the nonsense statements from Stumpy, a few topics came up worthy of discussion. I offer:

".....Given electric torque is available from 0 RPM they could have made it 400hp and had plenty of capability. Unless the generator and battery setup is adding a thousand pounds to the curb weight, in which case the extra power will be needed in order to have satisfactory performance."

I tend to agree. The lead engineer pretty much acknowledged they're reusing as much REV design as they can, so... And since less EV HP would have meant less battery, and thus less cost and weight... Still, that battery capacity ends up getting used when we do truck like things.

BTW, added to what baseline weight? I've modeled Ramcharger (RC) weight relative to REV and RC will pretty much match REV with the base battery. I'd have to go back and look, but as I recall we're talking around ~ 750lbs of battery weight over a similarly built ICE (Tried to give you two answers).

"How much hp do you expect it to take to generate enough electricity to keep this truck rolling?"
Great question, (and tactfully done) as it helps us understand what power we need and for how long. I've modeled a bit and come up with these rough power demands:

75-78mph unloaded:
50hp
75 mph moderate load:
100hp
65-70mph heavy:
100hp
Extended Towing - Steep Mountains:
300hp average, brief peaks to 350hp.


".....The generator in the Ramcharger is stated to be 131kW, that takes about 1.5 to 2 times that amount in an ICE engine HP to deliver the rated output."

I expect that to be on the high side. The standard HP to KW factor is ~1.34HP per KW, and while we don't know conversion losses I assume conversion losses will be within 5% of drivetrain losses of an ICE. That said, the sophistication they use in generation management could put the 5% either above or below. if we assume 15% loss we'd be 1.34/.85=1.58HP IRL per KW demanded. That said I use 1.34 knowing conversion losses are outstanding.


..I wonder what RPM the V6 will run at since they make very little power at 2k and below?
I mean sorta, for a few reasons, but for general modeling purpose we can say gas ICE engines make ~13hp/L/1K RPM. A bigger issue is full throttle demand at very low RPM creates a lot of cylinder pressure on gasoline engines, so they won't run too hard too low. Which as we'll see isn't gonna happen anyway (gimme a moment).

RC will certainly have a number of operating modes. EV only mode and a range extend mode are certainties. The latter implies some degree of battery discharge to some minimal state before it fires up and delivers power to the bus with drivetrain excess going to the batteries.

Before we can dig much into this we need to acknowledge RAM engineers will likely be looking for operation in at least few states, and at low BSFC. They will also want to minimize NVH (noise, vibration, harshness).

We could throw darts at that all day, but as SWAG's:

1) Let's assume they take something like 3500RPM as a target: 3.6*13*3.5= ~ 163HP, 122 KW. At full throttle. But will NVH be met at full throttle? It's likely to be where best BSFC is to be found, but...

2) OK, lets look at 3K rpm and 50% throttle: ~70hp and 52KW.

There is no way in hell they do #2, right? That's basically running the engine full time, and they not only won't want to they'll want to operate the engine in higher BSFC ranges.

So 3), 75% throttle, 3K RPM i~100HP, ~ 78.5KW

OK maybe, but that might still get noisy, likely in the ballpark though and if we back out conversion losses it's hard to see much lower RPM (NVH) or much less throttle (N and BSFC).

So what do I think they'll do?

I think we'll see algorithms electing, largely based on average load/battery state, somewhere along the lines of #3 as a driving minimum and #1 while under larger loads like towing at speed.

I also hope to see a mode enabling a manual recharge. Given same one could fully charge before a mountain. If so we can get a SWAG of around 40 minutes of constant 300HP delivery (likely more like 30-35) minutes, but still plenty).

Disclaimer: Conversion losses are hard to predict here, and some of above math is just using good rules of thumb for estimating power output (for NA engines, although it's easy to correct for boost). It would be prudent to assume a 10% loss to above!!

Anyway, this #1 through #3 part should give us some crude idea's of the operating range of the engine (to say nothing of ending the "the engines too big" nonsense).

Again I expect the algorithm to manage them and make then user transparent. In fact, I expect an infinite amount of said modes. (#1 and #3 are just so we've targets to consider what ranges we're operating within).

BTW, I also hope/sorta expect they will give us two other "modes" within the ranges:

A) "Silent", basically a mode for emulating a portable generator. Here I'd expect it to have a low RPM /low-load state. Lets take 30% load and 2kRPM and expect it to deliver ~21KW (thus meeting 120/240V output demand and putting some mild power back into the battery.

B) Manual "an over-ride" whereupon those with adequate understanding can select the generator output wanted/needed.

Finally, I've also wondered if there might be some form of option to allow engine start and warm-up before load. Goodness knows I'd rather not see it go to directly to #1 output from a -10F engine. Sure, some commercial generators do just that, but that don't make it good for the engine!

Above are mans opinions, but at least I've done some rough math first. Your thoughts?
 

crash68

ACME product engineer
Staff member
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
11,001
Reaction score
17,434
Ram Year
2015
Engine
3.0 EcoDiesel
Given electric torque is available from 0 RPM they could have made it 400hp and had plenty of capability.
One needs to ignore the horsepower rating of electric motors as they don't exactly relate to ICE horsepower. The HP rating disparity come from the fact that the full torque rating starts pretty much at 0 rpms(horsepower is a calculation). The auto manufacturers put a HP number out there for marketing purposes.
 

Docwagon1776

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Posts
2,443
Reaction score
4,230
Location
Midwest
Ram Year
2012, 2021
Engine
5.7, 6.4
"How much hp do you expect it to take to generate enough electricity to keep this truck rolling?"
Great question, (and tactfully done) as it helps us understand what power we need and for how long. I've modeled a bit and come up with these rough power demands:

75-78mph unloaded:
50hp
75 mph moderate load:
100hp
65-70mph heavy:
100hp
Extended Towing - Steep Mountains:
300hp average, brief peaks to 350hp.

Then it seems like for an off the shelf solution, the pentastar would be a solid base to build on, given it's a 300-ish hp engine. The 2.0 Hurricane is 270, so going with your assumptions would potentially fall short. I've no idea how you've arrived at your numbers and won't disupte them (and can't, fwiw).

I don't know that a forced induction motor brings enough to the table for an intermittant power source to be worth it. A NA motor tuned for a narrow powerband may (or may not) be the best, but I bet it's the best compromise between bean counters and engineers for now. Not exactly the same thing, but I always enjoyed the stories of internal wars at GM over the Corvette and what compromises were made in the name of off the shelf vs more expensive, but better, unique parts.
 

Atticus

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
15
Reaction score
12
Location
Newhall, CA
Ram Year
2014
Engine
ED
dafish - I enjoy reading your posts and largely agree with your points and back-of-napkin calculations. The whole discussion about NVH and what rpm's to run the V6 at for given loads and demands is undoubtedly one of the big pieces of work that the engineers are working on. That and what kind of owner control and over-ride capabilities that may be offered. The Volt had some really interesting "features" where you could run the ICE engine preemptively if you knew a big grade was coming, etc. I'm sure we'll see a few weird/different/new with the new Ramcharger.

The devil is in the details but if Ram does a good job with this, I think there's a big market for them. First off, the pick-up truck market IS already a BIG segment of the vehicle market.... regardless of how many of these people really "need" a truck. (This is a different argument - lol!) So, no one can deny that there's a BIG segment to target. Then, factor in what MANY studies have shown as the biggest inhibitor in EV sales - Range Anxiety. The Ramcharger hits that head-on. Then if you look at the population of truck owners usage habits (which Ram no doubt did), a VERY high percentage of prospective owners drive <150 miles per day "normally". As such, in *most* of the usage, the Ram can be completely in EV mode. Assuming that these customers have a means to conveniently charge overnight on whatever frequency is needed (every night, every two nights, etc.), then maybe it's a pretty good package.

The downside is that there is and ICE engine to maintain but the more you can run purely in EV mode and charging "externally", then the maintenance frequency of the ICE can be extended as well.

I think we all agree that price is going to be a drawback almost any way you cut it.
 

Docwagon1776

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Posts
2,443
Reaction score
4,230
Location
Midwest
Ram Year
2012, 2021
Engine
5.7, 6.4
Would NVH not be easier to manage given the lack of a direct connection to the drive train? I would think that would make it easier to isolate.
 

dafish

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2023
Posts
18
Reaction score
9
Location
Illinois
Ram Year
25 Ramcharger & '01 Dak
Engine
3.6+ 4.7
Thank you gentlemen!

Price - Indeed a concern!

I don't recall at this moment how I did it, but I did some calculations on another forum and concluded RC should be similar to less expensive than an similar trim level REV. Batteries are expensive, an engine and gen-set not so much...

Now if I'm correct RC will outsell REV considerably, and so market demand may give us another ADM problem.

Range anxiety: Agreed. I've even met EV owners, who really outa have a handle on this, get all twisted around and start mismanaging things as a result. Goodness knows I travel with mine. It does require forethought, but it's clear one either lives with anxiety or advance plans and moves on. Mind you I consider 500 miles sort of the limit of how far I'll take mine (one way).

But then more than that and I'm looking for an airplace anyway.

NA vs FI: The twist turbo fans oft overlook is that forced induction engines, in a lab, are more efficient. As produced and delivered, they are not when tasked with delivering boosted level of HP. So yea, an Ecoboost (example) will deliver nice MPG numbers in a lab. On the interstate in real life? Generally only comparable to a reasonable NA engine. While towing or otherwise working hard? Nope, see ya in another life fuel.

For gasoline engines, when I screw with this, I use these BSFC numbers:
NA or Boosted not towing or aggresivly used: .45
FI towing lightly, managed by those that know how? .50
FI towing heavy/working hard = just gotta let it eat? 55

If we assume an NA gas can now be optimized for intermittent use, maybe even run without throttle plates (let the gen-set control RPM by adding or removing load. Like a contant velocity prop does on a airplane), we really should expect to see better BSFC. Zero wasted rev's too, so..

atb, -d
 

Atticus

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
15
Reaction score
12
Location
Newhall, CA
Ram Year
2014
Engine
ED
I think the whole FI vs NA discussion is largely moot with respect to the Ramcharger. Honestly, it was probably one of the easier decisions.... heavily weighted by what do we already have that can reasonably fit the needs for this new offering. The existing V6 checks off a lot of boxes! Oversimplified, a turbo motor can give you a more polarized dual personality but this wide range of power isn't the highest priority when we're mated to a generator. In fact, the requirements are almost opposite. Instead of a broad range of power, the requirements would change to the best efficiency possible at a given RPM. Now, if you want to take a clean sheet of paper and design the best possible powerplant for THIS (generator) application, I'm guessing you might end up with a small-ish (displacement) motor with FI.... either gas or diesel but this determination may be heavily weighted by politics and public opinion yadda, yadda, yadda. (Tastes great! No, less filling!) We might as well start talking politics or religion!

Docwagon - yes, that's a very good point. The means to reduce NVH just got a whole lot fewer constraints! No alternator, power steering pump, AC compressor, transmission, etc. I would expect that we could potentially see some really good stuff here! LOL, like I said, the devil is in the details. The "bones" about this truck have many of us excited but the implementation will make or break it. As a friend of mine used to say, "There are more paths to hell than there are to heaven!"
 
Last edited:

dafish

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2023
Posts
18
Reaction score
9
Location
Illinois
Ram Year
25 Ramcharger & '01 Dak
Engine
3.6+ 4.7
A few other thoughts.

We know the gen-set is rated to 130KW, brief peaks to 190KW.

1) 130KW would be ~3700 rpm at 100% throttle
2) 190KW should they allow the engine to deliver same for a brief period it would be ~5500RPM (again at 100%)
3) All this is as we should expect, for once they knew the power delivery parameters they needed they simply selected the closet proven NA match (Pentastar) and matched the gen-set design to same.
 

Mb7640

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Posts
536
Reaction score
531
Location
Fountian hills az
Ram Year
2021
Engine
5.7
I don't think they've released the type, but I too find it hard to believe they're converting to AC. For now I assume (and you know what they say) it'd DC.

To be more clear, and let me apologize for not being more clear, the energy conversion of ICE to DC energy has no chance of generating energy as cheaply as our utility grid. Even when marked up (understandably) by DC fast charging stations. As a rough rule of thumb I find DC fast charging to be ~70% of the cost of gasoline. Home charging varies too much per person, but for my neighbors it would be around 25% of the cost of gasoline (mine is free).

Net: While the Pentastar will not be quite as energy efficient (my opinion) as a standard truck with the same engine would be:
1) Who wants to drive that truck?
2) It will be relatively in that range, for the 3.6 will get to operate in a more ideal operating load for it's efficiency (presumably).
3) And of course who cares how doggy the 3.6 would feel, that's why we have batteries and EDM motors.

But charging it back up from gasoline? There is just no such thing as a free lunch. I do think it will do better than a 3.5 ecoboost day to day though so it's not an awful idea, just one hard to cost justify. Running from a home charge you'd almost have no gasoline cost, so there is an ROI to be found (depending on your cost and ability to charge).

Hopefully I've been more clear. In not I'll try to better.

atb,

-d
I do see what you are saying and that makes sense. In my case if electric goes man stream I can not install a home charger where I live since I own a townhouse. I'm sure the Hoa rules would have to change or i could install one illegally which could be a option also. This could be a decent solution. Only time will tell
 

Atticus

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2023
Posts
15
Reaction score
12
Location
Newhall, CA
Ram Year
2014
Engine
ED
In my case if electric goes man stream I can not install a home charger where I live since I own a townhouse.
MANY kudos to you for home ownership! It is so increasingly difficult these days with prices as well as interest rates rising so quickly the last couple of years. I'm an old geezer and it was quite a bit easier to own a home back in "my day", lol. Too often I take for granted the fact that I have my own home (and solar) and I've found it all too easy to get on my high horse proclaiming the virtues of EV cars - though frankly I have not purchased one yet! When we built this new home (and workshop), I specifically designed the shop (85' x 42') to be perpendicular to the house in order to have a South-facing roof, ideal for solar. As I am recently retired, one of my objective was to eliminate/mitigate any recurring costs - chief among them was utility costs (whose costs also seem to be going out of control). As such, this new house is all electric (no gas bills) and we installed 63 solar panels. We've only been moved in for about 3 months, but it is clear that I somewhat grossly underestimated the efficiency of the house and I have even more excess electricity than I was planning for. So not only is nightly charging viable, it is completely free.

But, back to your case... I think I would say that the EV value/convenience proposition erodes significantly if you cannot charge from home nightly. This is where I would place your energy - convincing the HOA to change their rules, doing something under the radar, or moving. I suppose another alternative would be if you had a job where you could charge at work.
 
Top