Jump to content

the wanderer

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

the wanderer's Achievements


Enthusiast (4/11)



  1. You have the right idea, torque under the curve is far more important than 0 to 60 time under WOT. A truck can feel more sluggish around town than a second truck, even if it's faster under WOT. This is the case with the 2.7. Around town and pulling a trailer, it builds more torque (and far quicker) than the 5.3 does. Only when you mash the pedal does the extra HP from the 5.3 win out. Both are probably fine options, I don't own either of them but if I had to pick it would be the 2.7 every day of the week due to what I want from a truck; great power low down and early on. Trucks that need to rev to high to make power but win 0 to 60's are completely irrelevant to me. I haven't yet driven the updated 2.7 but it will probably beat the 5.3 in normal usage. Very subjective of course, but I've driven the old 2.7 and the current 5.3 and my vote is 2.7; can only imagine what the updated 2.7 feels like.
  2. I mostly agree with you, but one thing to keep in mind (in addition to computer MPG readings being "off"), is that when we're talking 10 mpg, an additional +/- 1 MPG is a difference of 10 percent. So when we talk about half to 1 mpg we don't think it means much but when we convert that to a percentage it can still be somewhat significant especially over long distances.
  3. You claimed Ram was lying. I set you straight on how ET works and that they're not lying. For someone so concerned about me not owning ET you sure seem to give yourself a pass on feeling qualified to argue its merits. Not surprised because logic ain't your strong point. Stick to arguing with GM guys please.
  4. I'm killing myself laughing here. You mentioned ET was a gimmick as it doesn't help with FE. I said yes It's a gimmick, it doesn't help with FE anymore than MDS/AFM/DFM but it does other things (and explained the other things). You then said Ram is lying when they claim it adds 140 lb/ft of torque (it's actually 130). I put you in you place by explaining how the system does in fact add said torque. This is all documented on page 4. Please do stick with talking with real GM owners. It's obvious you're not qualified to talk with anyone else lol.
  5. So you want to make this personal. I guess that's the only option you have left when presented with the overwhelming evidence that you really are wrong and don't know how to admit it. As a member of 3 different ram forums, an owner of said ram, and brother of owner of said ram, I suspect my knowledge of how it works is just a liiiiiiiiitle more accurate than yours. Perhaps a smidge?? Note that I never once claimed it was effective. I said multiple times, "it's a gimmick". Yet you were the one claiming that ET doesn't work the way I said it works and Ram was lying, when in fact (lo and behold, must be that forum knowledge that I've accumulated over the years, just a guess): I was right! We don't see you on other sites because you're what they call: blinded by brand loyalty. The truth and objective facts matter less to you than subjective fuzzy feelings of being in love with the brand itself. I love the new GM trucks (2019+). Almost bought one. In the end I went a different route but that doesn't mean I need to sh|t all over the competition (incorrectly) just to validate my purchase. It'll probably blow your mind when I tell you this, but yeah I'm also on one of the Tundra forums. Trolls these days.
  6. You're projecting your own missunderstanding of how ET works onto Ram, and thinking they're making false claims. They're not. The claim is: up to 140 lb/ft of torque for the first wheel turn or so. It's a short term bump in torque that helps you off the line while the engine is building RPMs, and factually, that increase exists. Writing in bold doesn't make you right, it just makes it funnier when you're wrong.
  7. I couldn't care less what your buddy claims. Etorque does add torque right off the line. A gas engine doesn't provide peak torque at 800 rpms, it provides peak torque somewhere around 4000. So ET comes in for that first turn of the wheel and bumps up the total wheel torque beyond what it would have without it. So at the wheel under initial acceleration, you get more torque with ET than running the standard hemi. That is a fact. DFM/AFM claim to save you gas. No doubt they save a fraction here or there, but like ET, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's all gimmicky. Including AFM/DFM/MDS.
  8. Etorque isn't effective on the freeway. It only helps in the city as it runs the start/stop system and helps the truck launch a tiny bit, apparently it also smooths shifts but my ZF is butter smooth without it so who knows. But yeah, on the freeway it doesn't help because it is never active. In fact you probably do slightly worse as the battery and system adds weight. It's no more or less a gimmick than start/stop and MDS/AFM/DFM. It's simply what we put up with these days to get a solid N/A v8 so if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.
  9. I have gotten as low as 9.4 L/100 km (25 mpg) in my big horn with a regular 5.7 (no etorque) with MDS disabled. Factory tires and oil, since switching to thicker oil and better tires the best I manage now is around 22 to 23. All highway, no city. That's around 63 mph, but no effort required to hit 20 mpg on a regular basis at 65 to 70 mph.
  10. When I bought my current truck, first choice was the Sierra and I test drove and loved them, but the pricing wasn't there. For the same price I paid for my "loaded" Ram BigHorn, GMC dealer would give me the basic work truck with vinyl floors and the neutered 4x4. No thanks. The SLE I wanted was like 10 grand more, I think part of that difference was due to larger incentives and the Ram dealer giving me more on my trade in as well. The comments above on ride and handling differences are spot on. The Ram rides better, no question. It's always composed when it hits bumps, especially in corners or rail road tracks, the GM's I drove would sort of side skip over them in the rear, but the Ram handles it more like a car. And yes the downside to the Ram suspension is towing, they squat quicker (first 500 pounds) due to progressive springs, and they are much harder to dial in a trailer when towing, with the GMs being more forgiving with a somewhat imperfect trailer balance/tongue weight. Some of this can be mitigated with air bags in the Ram, just getting rid of a bit of bounce. Some guys get bounce/sway at 4000 pounds and others tow 9000 pound 5w's with no issues. The new GM interiors are looking great this time around. If price wasn't a factor and I needed a truck tomorrow it would probably be a 2022 SLE duramax. But price is always a factor, and every truck has pros and cons, so this time the Ram won out but I'm not going to stuff myself in a box and never look at another brand. I do have an irrational dislike for Ford though, dunno why. Lot of it is exterior styling, can't stand the back half though the front grill is quite stunning IMHO. Same thing with the Titan, in terms of features and capability it's probably best value, but I cannot stand the goofy Asian styling with (dare I say it, "feminine"?) lines. The new Tundra, not a chance. That thing was hit with the ugly hammer a few too many times. I do get a laugh at the comments about "brand x" rattling at 100K miles and being trashed etc etc. Heard it all before, like a 1000 times, and every forum says the same thing about every other brand. Tribalism at its finest! Some day we're all going to clue in that every brand makes crappy trucks and every brand makes trucks that last 300K+ miles. You win some, you lose some. Quality at this point is mostly perception and maintenance and luck.
  11. Fair enough, but leather seats and sunroof aren't "cost effective" either right? I know there is slim chance of breaking even with diesel prices in my area, but some things are nice to have even though the math doesn't work. I like the way they drive, the torque down low and "always on". It suits my lazy driving style. But yeah, trading in a perfectly good truck for a diesel just to try and save money, that's never going to work out.
  12. Genuinely curious, why not a diesel? The 2nd gen eco diesel has a poor reputation so I wouldn't get that, and the Ford diesel is kind of sad, but I've been reading good things about the 3.0 Duramax. Basically if I cracked up my truck and needed to replace it, the 3.0 is at the top of my list when combined with the updated interior. They make a lot of sense to me and my driving style, which is quite laid back (so I don't need the performance of a v8 though my truck does make me smile from time to time lol) with lots of highway and rural driving and a good amount of towing thrown in.
  13. No doubt you should follow GM's recommendations. But note that there is not a single guy who uses these trucks for work (landscapers etc) who give a seconds thought to "break in". They buy it off the lot one day and it's working hard the next day.
  14. Here in Canada, neither GM nor Ram allow you to get their diesel in the cheap trims. GM is cheapest, at about $55,000 for a Chevy LT diesel, Ram is nuts and you need to get a Rebel or Laramie which is easily north of $60,000 + the price of the diesel yet. I can't just get a work truck with diesel, which is bizarre since more diesels on the road can only help their corporate MPG numbers. To be honest its been a while since I looked at Ford's options, but when I did last, I remember being impressed that it seemed to me I could order any engine with any trim/package I wanted. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I believe they do this best. I'm just not a Ford fan by any stretch but I feel pushed in that direction due to how flexible the options are.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.