Jump to content

Thoughts About New Ram Trucks?

GMC-AT

By GMC-AT
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

That's fine for what is not a real truck either. A 5.3 Chev or 5.0 liter F150 regular cab isn't much different... and a Tremor would outrun it. I spend enough time at the local track to watch these trucks run real world and the Hemi Rams are always the slowest thing out there for the large engine trucks.

 

Sent from my potato

 

Regular cabs aren't real trucks? lol there goes your credibility.

 

The 5.7 will destroy the common V8 options on GM and Ford trucks. The 6.2 is probably a better motor but GM is continuing their stupid top trim only scheme for selling it. Until GM gets their head out of their ass and offers it across the line the 6.2 is not relevant to this discussion.

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted

Regular cabs aren't real trucks? lol there goes your credibility.

 

The 5.7 will destroy the common V8 options on GM and Ford trucks. The 6.2 is probably a better motor but GM is continuing their stupid top trim only scheme for selling it. Until GM gets their head out of their ass and offers it across the line the 6.2 is not relevant to this discussion.

Credibility... lol... like you have any here. No a regular cab 6.5' bed pickup is not a real truck. It's a toy... period.

 

Sent from my potato

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

Credibility... lol... like you have any here. No a regular cab 6.5' bed pickup is not a real truck. It's a toy... period.

 

Sent from my potato

 

You do realize that prior to 15 or so years ago half ton crews didn't even exist?

 

 

And the majority of the crew buyers today don't even use them as trucks. As you said- it's a SUV with a bed.

 

So in your world, regular cabs are toys and crew cabs are just butch SUVs. Where does that leave us? The extended cab? lol

j-ten-ner Senior Enthusiast

j-ten-ner

Posted
Posted

I think RAM made a good move with this generation of trucks (and the boxy design before that).

They look like a truck, they sound like a truck and they drive like a truck.

If I need a work horse one day I'd consider one of those.

 

post-107777-0-56937100-1444657317_thumb.jpg

 

They should have stick with the design idea instead of just "bloating" up the next generations.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

post-107777-0-56937100-1444657317_thumb.jpg

post-107777-0-56937100-1444657317_thumb.jpg

post-107777-0-56937100-1444657317_thumb.jpg

Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted

You do realize that prior to 15 or so years ago half ton crews didn't even exist?

 

 

And the majority of the crew buyers today don't even use them as trucks. As you said- it's a SUV with a bed.

 

So in your world, regular cabs are toys and crew cabs are just butch SUVs. Where does that leave us? The extended cab? lol

No you are correct. But you do realize that 2500 crews built 15 years ago or more has less legal capability than a new half ton right? Gm made oodles of 7200 gvwr 3/4 ton trucks that were built lighter duty than half tons now. It wasn't until they started badging an 8600 lb gvwr 3/4 ton in 01 as a half ton that they got in the game. I don't buy crew cabs basically... but with a 6.5' bed that Gm wouldn't build until this body style as an actual half ton they are kind of useless .. and most of the time my 6.5' bed is too small. Either way I like the length for stability towing a trailer.... You won't get that as a regular cab anymore unless you buy the 8 foot bed that is a capable truck nobody wants anymore.

 

Sent from my potato

Daly Senior Enthusiast

Daly

Posted
Posted

Not all trucks are bought to tow… Some of us like the idea of safely putting stuff in the bed, instead of buying a trailer to haul stuff around… Not everyone needs to haul 9000lbs on a regular basis, and just because a truck can't tow 9000lbs, doesn't mean it's not a real truck.This notion of "they aren't real trucks" is just stupid…

 

It's a pretty simple formula for a truck, if it was built from factory with a large exposed place to put things, it's a real truck…

 

If towing is all that makes a truck then I guess the only real truck out there is a 3500 or bigger…

 

The lady down the road that has a little regular cab short box Ranger she uses to do the gardens around the house, has a real truck.

The family that has a crew cab 5" bed beside me, that uses it to haul the kids dirt bikes and camping gear, has a real truck.

My Extended cab short box, that I use to get reno material and take old material to the dump in, is a real truck.

None of these truck tow anything, so they must not be real trucks…

SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted

Heck, a new V6 is tow rated 7200 and a 95 5.7 chevy is rated 7500. And the new engine is quicker and faster!

 

Times change.

vonshep Enthusiast

vonshep

Posted
Posted

I just traded in my 13 reg cab ram with the 5.7 and the 355 rear it was a rocket it was much quicker than the 15 Silverado ltz with the 5.3 and towed like a dream .Now to why I didn't go with a ram when I needed a 4 door they come mostly with the 3.21 rear and a 8 speed lower tow rating and a lot of the people I know with the 8 speed have had issues with them needing multiple valve body replacements Also even though my truck was only 2 years old it had a lot of rust on the frame ram just paints the frame rails instead of undercoating them any scratch starts rusting immediately and I hate the dial shifter on the 15s.I wouldn't even consider the fords because I not sold on the aluminum body yet and turbos are great until the blow then bend over .I must admit as a life long mopar guy the chevy is growing on me

crafferty Senior Enthusiast

crafferty

Posted
Posted

Honestly I am a GM fan boy when it comes to trucks and will continue to buy as long as the quality and features are on par or better than the rest. But honestly thr big these days are killing it with the new trucks and I would be proud to own any of them. Each truck has its draw backs but thats just life. For me I'd get a Ram with the diesel engine, Ford I would purchase a Eco-boost and make sure the truck had the panoramic sunroof. GM I have to have the 6.2L.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

mdrew Enthusiast

mdrew

Posted
Posted

Just go drive one. Bad and downright incorrect "advice" in the majority of posts made in this thread.

 

They have tighter steering, tighter brakes, and have very quick acceleration. You can get the 8 speed with 3.92 or 3.21 gears, and the tranny actually shifts well, unlike the confused GM 8 speed. My friend's 2014 with the 8 speed and 3.92s feels much quicker than my 6.2 Denali. His Ram is MUCH funner to drive.

 

Thats the good. The not so good is general ride quality. They ride stiff, the seats feel like a park bench, and I just can't get used to the steering wheel.

 

Interior of the Ram is more luxurious with more features. U connect is flaky. Keyless entry is a great feature (that I miss dearly).

 

I love the telescopic steering column and mag ride of my Denali. If the Ram had better seats, the GM steering wheel and column, and a better ride - I'd own one.

Exhausted Enthusiast

Exhausted

Posted
Posted

I like you have been a GM guy for years. In 2012 I bought my first Ram and in 2013 I bought my 2nd because I liked the updates and wanted 4wd. I unfortunately got a 6 speed and not the 8 speed otherwise I would still be driving it because I never any problems or issues with it except mpg, I averaged about 14.5. I was going to get a 2015 Ram sport but I decided to go back to GM and I told my wife yesterday I miss my Ram and I got a shut the F up look so there you go... I will be driving my 2015 Silverado for a little while.

Ram is supposed to have a complete update in 2017 so maybe I'll have look at them again then...

Hozer Enthusiast

Hozer

Posted
Posted

If I needed a 2500 or 3500, I'd seriously consider a RAM based on price vs GM and Ford.

 

Many people told me I could get a 1500 RAM much cheaper than a GM or Ford but, that really only seemed to hold up on the 'work truck' packages. With mid level trim and the options I wanted on a 4x4 crew cab with 6 1/2 foot box, pricing as pretty close between the three.

 

In the 1500, I like the GM look better and was able to get the configuration I wanted for a very good price. I know the RAM has more horsepower but its power I don't actually need. The RAM gets better fuel economy, either with the new Eco-Diesel or with the 5.7L and 8 speed transmission so I do wish for that but, its not enough of a difference that I'd trade for.

atsbob Enthusiast

atsbob

Posted
Posted

I bought a new Ram with the eco diesel and this was my first ram. Have been with GM all my life but wanted better pulling and fuel millage and I am very happy. It pulls my 5400 Lb enclosed trailer with ease as my 2010 5.3 struggled on hills. My fuel millage with my trailer behind is getting the same millage as my 5.3 was empty around the city.

 

BUT the Ram is ugly compared to the GM In my humble opinion. the ram also does not have blind side awareness like the GM has and that is much more important than a lot of the crap a new vehicle comes with like the adjustable peddles, The Ram also does not have power fold trailer mirrors and that in its self drives me nuts..

 

The four corner air suspension on the Ram is great and the only thing I wish I had that I don't is the Ram Box.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,913
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Smitty462
    Newest Member
    Smitty462
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 534 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...