ram 1500 Turbo 3.6 pentastar setup for towing

[tobe1424]

I've seen plenty of 3.6 turbo kits for the challengers and jeeps. However, I see nothing for the ram. I'm guessing because for the ram it's hemi or nothing. I have to admit, I was never a fan of a v6 1/2 ton truck. Yet, the 3.6 dohc with the 8speed feels like a nifty modern setup. I often tow my 24 ft center console boat to my nearby ramp and it's impressive. it's about 10 miles.

Anyways, ford's twin turbo f150/explorer seems to be a hit. I was thinking, why not slap a turbo on the 3.6(150K mi.) I am just looking to match v8 power. Aside from some of the known fatal flaws of this engine(oil filter housing leak, rocker arms, etc) is there any other reason why you strongly advise not to turbo the engine vs going the turbo route?

2013 ram 1500 3.6 quad cab 2wd

 

[ramffml]

I wouldn't do that. The 3.6 doesn't do well with turbos, neither does the 5.7 for that matter, not when everything else is still stock. It's one thing to boost it (very lightly!) for daily driving, but I would never tow with a stock boosted 3.6/5.7.

I don't know much about Ford's setup. But looking at the GM 2.7 (for example), they literally chose the turbo as the very first step of that engine. Then they built the engine around that turbo. It was designed from the get go to have that turbo and to be turbo charged. Everything from where the oil cooler sits (the turbo gets the freshest/coolest oil right off the filter), to the block (cylinders lined with extremely hard material), to how the water pump can continue to run at high/variable speed when the truck is idling at a stoplight to keep that turbo cool etc, you will not kill that engine by working it hard. GM tried, they put it through the same tests that they put the 5.3 and 6.2 through and apparently the 2.7 is stronger. Not more powerful, but stronger.

The point being, turbo's can work if the engine is designed for it, but when you take a N/A designed engine and boost it when everything else is still stock, you will break things quickly. I believe in the 5.7 it's the rings that are a major problem, they need more gap than stock otherwise they break, not too familiar with the 3.6 issues though.

Just my pair of pennies.

 

[tobe1424]

Makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[crash68]

Someone supercharged the 3.6 for towing, did a write up about it here:

2015 Pentastar V6 Towing [SUPERCHARGER SUCCESS!]

My wife recently inherited a 2015 RAM 1500 3.6L V6 2WD with 3.21 rear end (9k miles). We also have a 22ft 4600lb travel trailer. When it is fully loaded with cargo and people - we are right at the sticker limits of towing and GVWR. Legal, but barely. As anyone can guess, this is fine at sea...

www.ramforum.com

 

[RocknSnowRyan]

RIPP makes a supercharger for the 3.6 ram

 

[HunterCat]

I wouldn't do that. The 3.6 doesn't do well with turbos, neither does the 5.7 for that matter, not when everything else is still stock. It's one thing to boost it (very lightly!) for daily driving, but I would never tow with a stock boosted 3.6/5.7.

I don't know much about Ford's setup. But looking at the GM 2.7 (for example), they literally chose the turbo as the very first step of that engine. Then they built the engine around that turbo. It was designed from the get go to have that turbo and to be turbo charged. Everything from where the oil cooler sits (the turbo gets the freshest/coolest oil right off the filter), to the block (cylinders lined with extremely hard material), to how the water pump can continue to run at high/variable speed when the truck is idling at a stoplight to keep that turbo cool etc, you will not kill that engine by working it hard. GM tried, they put it through the same tests that they put the 5.3 and 6.2 through and apparently the 2.7 is stronger. Not more powerful, but stronger.

The point being, turbo's can work if the engine is designed for it, but when you take a N/A designed engine and boost it when everything else is still stock, you will break things quickly. I believe in the 5.7 it's the rings that are a major problem, they need more gap than stock otherwise they break, not too familiar with the 3.6 issues though.

Just my pair of pennies.

I fully agree with you that it's not a good idea to turbocharge the 3.6 or any NA engine that hasn't been designed for it from the get go.

I don't want to derail this thread but I have to comment on your praise (I think) of GM's 2.7. GM, of all people, have not discovered how to defeat the laws of physics. Going beyond the obvious reliability shortcomings of a tiny engine producing insane power, the 2.7 is an overly complicated **** that isn't going to last long. It has AFM (and all the known problems associated with it) that allows the engine to run on 2 cyl. It has electro magnetic sliding camshafts to provide various power profiles and an electronic water pump due to special cooling needs which you alluded to. When these engines fail (and it won't take long), the repair bills are going to be spectacular IF you can find someone competent enough to fix it correctly.

I keep my vehicles for a long time so I wouldn't touch a truck with that engine with a 100ft pole. Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[ramffml]

I fully agree with you that it's not a good idea to turbocharge the 3.6 or any NA engine that hasn't been designed for it from the get go.

I don't want to derail this thread but I have to comment on your praise (I think) of GM's 2.7. GM, of all people, have not discovered how to defeat the laws of physics. Going beyond the obvious reliability shortcomings of a tiny engine producing insane power, the 2.7 is an overly complicated **** that isn't going to last long. It has AFM (and all the known problems associated with it) that allows the engine to run on 2 cyl. It has electro magnetic sliding camshafts to provide various power profiles and an electronic water pump due to special cooling needs which you alluded to. When these engines fail (and it won't take long), the repair bills are going to be spectacular IF you can find someone competent enough to fix it correctly.

I keep my vehicles for a long time so I wouldn't touch a truck with that engine with a 100ft pole. Sorry for the thread drift.

The 2.7 is doing far better at this point than the 5.3 and 6.2 in the GM trucks. From what I can see, the reliability goes to the 3.0 diesel and 2.7, then the v8's are after that. They are eating through lifters worse than the hemi right now.

The 2.7 is a little more complicated and I agree there is much to be concerned about with a small engine making big power. Only time will tell, but GM has tested this engine and found it stronger than the v8's under the same tests. The v8's have VVT (sliding cams) as well, electronic water pump isn't anymore complex than an electric vs mechanical fan, and neither is a turbo if you consider diesels have been running them for decades.

I would probably bet on the 2.7 or the 3.0 if I had to go GM. But yeah, I greatly prefer a simpler v8 as long as it's more reliable, that's why I bought a hemi (though that was before I knew anything about the lifter issues).