hard on fuel

I don't have the Hemi or the Cummins.. so maybe I can be more objective...

We tow a 28' trailer (6,000#) with a 99 ram.. 5.9 gas/auto/3.55... it's "ok", but not that good... We took a trip in a 2003 ram 3500 with the Hemi, pulling a 7,000# trailer and weren't very impressed.. not that much different form our truck but a little better on grades..

We've been on 2 trips each riding in a 2001 ford 250 and 2002 ram 2500, both with deisel/auto/4 door, both pulling 5th wheel trailers over 12,000# and we were VERY impressed... Yeah, they were more expensive trucks than ours, but they both averaged about 12 or 13 MPG towing, as opposed to our 8 MPG, and they shortened the trip because they cruised up grades that we struggled up in our truck, and made merging on to the freeway a breeze instead of an ordeal... And, those diesels will be humming along for years after our gasser is recycled into a honda.. YMMV

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis
Loading thread data ...

diesels are stinking junk sounding things. only farmers drive deisels. they soundlike they are ready to fall apart when you start them up.

Reply to
Hemi Dude

well it looks like geekboy doesn't now what he is taking about and doesnt know much about trucks in general. He uses big words that he must have read in a Dodge OWNERS MAGAZINE AND NOW ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE THINKS HES A MECHANICAL GENIOUS. I have owned trucks from the big 3 Dodge Ford and Chevy.... my opinion the Chevy trucks are the best all around, yes I admit that the styling is getting a littledated but I still think they have the other two beat. Ford, I have nothing aginst but my opinion if you are gonna buy a big truck look a like just buy the f-250 and have it over with, I like the new Ford body style better than the last feminine looking 1997 to 2004 trucks. BUT THATS NOT SAYING MUCH. But as far as fuel economy goes the bulky Ford is nick n tuck with the Dodge. Chevy= better performance, fuel economy and bang for your buck in my opinion. I have a Hemi and its claim of 345 hp....is a joke.....I bet if you put it on a dyno it wouldn't hit 150 hp. Poor fuel economy with sucky performance.. I think the Dodge designers need to go back to school.

Reply to
Hemi Dude

uhh...common sense here bud. any truck will spin the tires on a wet road. it doesnt take a dragster of a truck to do that!

Reply to
Hemi Dude

I have a 2001 Ram 5.9L and a 2004 Durango Hemi 5.7L. The Durango will run circles around my Ram. When I pull my 5000lb trailer again, the difference is night and day. The Hemi is far stronger than the 5.9L. It depends on what people compare it to. It's not a CTD.

Reply to
miles

No shit? You missed the point but that's okay.

Reply to
Roy

All that by 18 years old, amazing. Oh, it's genius.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

And it's also not the Hemi of the muscle car days, just has the name.. if folks are expecting this engine to perform like the real hemi did, they're going to be real disappointed.. YMMV

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

welcome to the 80's...

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Reply to
mac davis

Well, my supposedly "weak" hemi stomps all over my last truck, a 295 HP Sierra Z71 Ext cab with 3.73 gears. The ram weighs about 400 pounds more, and beats it by at least .25 seconds in a drag race. Launching it is very difficult, as the rear bounces around, or it smokes the hell out of the tires. The GM trucks have the trans and computer set up so that wheelspin is pretty difficult. Just punch it and go..

It's much stronger than the GM 5.3, and they aren't bad. I would take a

5.3 over the 5.9 Dodge any day, and I owned three vehicles with them.

You must not have driven an F150 yet, now that's on the weak side.

Most Hemis dyno at about 260-275 at the rear wheels, and that means 345 hp is about right. If the Hemi had the Nissan Titan's trans set up, you would be amazed..

The only real thing I liked more on the Sierra was the gas mileage, and that's still not a big deal..

BDK

Reply to
BDK

Wait a second. I had a F-150 and it was damn quick. It did say Lightning on the front fenders though.

So the hemi has 20 more HP that the 05 Cummins 610

What rear gears are in the hemi?

Roy

Reply to
Roy

Well, now THAT'S a little different. A neighbor bought a new 04 F150 almost the day they came out and it's slow. The 5.4 is not all that great. We traded trucks one morning and he really liked mine. I liked his too, it was just..slow.

HP, yeah, but a lot less torque and torque is what makes the wheels go round... I had a 79 Trans Am with the Olds 403 in it. Stock, it was weak, but after a cam kit, headers, intake, heads (ported 455 ones), and a recurved distributor, it was a "torque junkie's" dream car. it had throttle response unlike anything I have ever had before or since. Another insane thing was the gears it had, stock it had a 2.41 Posi! After the engine work, I could smoke the tires as long as I wanted to, and after I found a disc braked rear from another car with 3.23, it was amazing, as long as you were very light footed, or the tires spun. Mileage wasn't bad, 14 around town and almost 20 on the highway. It was a VERY scary car to drive when it was raining, I got it out of shape a couple of times just by getting on the gas a touch too much. Some of it was the 70 sized tires, but the speed it ran on the top end of the drag strip showed it was doing fine in the power department. But that throttle hit...my mother drove it once and it scared the crap out of her!

I stupidly sold it and still miss it. It was totally reliable except for a mysterious case of "vapor lock" (Hot weather surging and popping) that turned out to be a corked up fuel line. When they started putting injector cleaner in the gas, it solved it after a year + of trying to cure it, and a lot of $$$$.

3.92 mandatory, if you have 20" wheels. If you have 17" wheels, you get 3.55 standard and 3.92 optional. I wish 4.10's were available, I would have gotten them, the mileage wouldn't really have changed much, if at all. I was shocked how much difference there was from 3.55 to 3.92.

BDK

Reply to
BDK

They are a little anemic. But they seem to last.

That was the point I was trying to make further down in this thread. That the torque prduced by my 05 610 with 4:10's requires a light touch of go pedal on dry roads and in the wet a very, very light touch.

I know the feeling, the cars we never should have sold. I guess for me it would be a toss up. Many, many years ago a 69 Camaro, with a 427 in it. Had

4:33's in it, the torque was about unmanageble. Made for a hell of a street racer though. Recently, a vette Z06. I guess the Z06 was more practical in that you could do more with it, but for pure rush, I'd have to go with the Camaro.

Agreed. Worrying about mileage when you are driveing a truck, I have never been able to follow.

I suppose you could look around at a different tire wheel combo to change the hieght and get about the same affect. Or there is always the aftermarket for a gear change.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

Unless they blow a spark plug out of the head. I don't really understand what's going on to make it do that.

I haven't driven one since '00 or maybe 99, and there was enough turbo lag that spinning them accidentally wasn't much of a risk.

The FIRST car I ever drove, at 14 (around the block) was a 69 or 70 Hurst Olds. My mom's car was being worked on, and they gave it to us as a loner for a week. My dad told me to move it out of the driveway and park it along the curb, but I went around the block in it and then down to the end of the street and back to the house. I wanted that car really bad. When I was 16, my dad was very sick, so I didn't nag him about a car, but after he died, I found car after car I wanted, including my idiot cousin's 70 Roadrunner, that appeared to be better than showroom new at three years old. He was getting married, so he sold it. Without telling me it was going up for sale, even though he knew how badly I wanted it. One morning, this kid I went to school with comes into the parking lot, and I had a bad feeling. I asked him if he bought it from a little guy on so and so street, and he did. It had 15K on it, and was perfect.

I had saved enough money to buy anything I really wanted, but my mom had to sign the papers and she kept waiting too long, and they kept getting snatched up. I finally ordered a new 74 Roadrunner and I really wish I would have kept it. I stupidly traded it in on a 77 Dodge Power Wagon, the biggest POS ever built. Funny thing is, as much of a bastard as it was, I miss it too! I see one like it on Ebay once in a while and almost bought one about 6 months ago. I could have swung it. It probably needed a trans, but the engine looked ok and it had zero rust. I kick myself for not buying it, just as a "toy".

A friend of mine put about 1500 bucks into his Late 90's 318 Ram to get about 1.5 MPG, and a little more power for it. It's still a slug.

Yeah, but short wheels would sure be ugly..

BDK

Reply to
BDK

Normally I would agree. Before my my Ram, my 2000- Dak suddenly dropped from 18 to 12 highway. When I inquired about it here, I got falmmed because "It's a damn truck! What did you expect!" I expect that something was wrong, which there was. My Ram is doing the same thing now, 19 to 13 on the highway. I know less bout diesels, this being my first one. I'm learning tho.

Reply to
Twix

That was a problem that was corrected in the 03-04 truck. As I understand it the added more threads to the head .

Nothing wrong with haveing a few toy's. As long as you remember they are only toy's and nothing more. I know a number of people that will buy a toy and become so anal about it that it ceases to be fun for them. Probably 'cause they couldn't afford it or bought to high.

Some people just dump money into it without thinking about what the want to accomplish. Falling for the latest and greatest mod. Or the best marketing job or bs performance claim. K$N come to mind here.

Yup, they would be ugly. Looks like ya gotta go with the r&p change. Have fun!

Roy

Reply to
Roy

I trimmed it so people wouldn't bitch

You can get slammed any time for anything here. What was the solution to the dak's problem?

Regards the Ram Is that mt/towing? What year? What trans, rear's.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

Okay I found the year,03 but little else. Is it constantly low at 13? or is it up and down? Are you using the overhead trip thingy or is that by the tankfull? More info?

Roy

Reply to
Roy

It must have been a very weak thread to pop on a non turbo/SC engine. But having seen the dreaded Pinto pointy bolts facing the fuel tank setup myself, nothing Ford does should shock me much.

Yep, I had a friend who bought a 71 Cutlass and threw shovel loads of $$$ into what was at best an only semi desirable car. Finally he got rid of it when offered a more than sane price by someone who had an identical car.

You too,,

BDK

Reply to
BDK

In regards to the dak, the problem was a clogged fuel filter (in the tank) and damaged pump as a result of a malicious act. Someone dumped a few gallons worth of gravel down the fill pipe with about a dozen raw eggs.

It took a jeep mechanic to think to check the tank for "contamination." According do Dodge dealers, nothing wrong on the computer. I asked a Jeep dealer to check fuel pressure at the rail on the engine block with a mechanical gauge because 5 Dodge dealers refused to do it. Sure enough, pressure was low.

Reply to
Twix

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.