OK, If GM Was NOT an Option ..??

[mwlewis558]

1 hour ago, lonewanderer812 said:

I was looking at possibly an f250 with the 7.3 but after the glowing reviews for the 3.0 duramax I decided to stick with a GM 1500.

That F250 with the 7.3 Godzilla is one BAD MFer. If I was needing to buy a truck right now I would be seriously looking at one of those. I have a friend that got one with the Tremor package and it has a crazy amount of power for a 3/4 ton truck and V8. 

[pokismoki]

9 hours ago, Low Elevation said:

I like the look of the new Tundras and their new power train. They will get a serious look next time around for me. 

they aren't bad looking, it looks like a Silverado clone to me, I would like to see the Tundra get a bench seat I just hate the center consol divider , the rest of the driveline sounds interesting even with independant rear diff, not sure what its tow rating is... but no more noisy leafsping klunks should keep people happy 

[Ion]

Easy answer, cuz we bought it already. 2022 Ram 1500 Laramie.  My wife and I both like trucks and can afford it, so she traded in the Trax for a Ram.  It's better in nearly every way. More reliable, better sound system (Harman Kardon), plenty of space, cooled seats, etc. It's a CCSB which is a bummer, but that is what she wanted.

 

I get better fuel economy in my double cab Silverado with the 6'6" bed and am far faster, but the Ram is the etorque and launches so hard that I get whiplash. Either way, here is the better truck to kill miles in, even if the hybrid motor only gets 15mpg highway. 

 

 

[L87Powered]

F-150 Lightning electric. When you drive one, you will understand why. 

[TNTSilverado]

6 hours ago, Ion said:

Easy answer, cuz we bought it already. 2022 Ram 1500 Laramie.  My wife and I both like trucks and can afford it, so she traded in the Trax for a Ram.  It's better in nearly every way. More reliable, better sound system (Harman Kardon), plenty of space, cooled seats, etc. It's a CCSB which is a bummer, but that is what she wanted.

 

I get better fuel economy in my double cab Silverado with the 6'6" bed and am far faster, but the Ram is the etorque and launches so hard that I get whiplash. Either way, here is the better truck to kill miles in, even if the hybrid motor only gets 15mpg highway. 

 

 

15 mpg!!  I can drive my 6.2L like a muscle car and muster 15 mpgs!  That's not very good man. And I know how you feel. Buddy has gone through 2 of them. He averages around 17 mpgs and thinks the new eTorque is a gimmick. Doesn't help one bit with FE. He does praise the interior and ride though. I have driven it a few times. Hemi doesn't match a 6.2L.  Is very comparable to my step-dads 5.3L/10 speed combo. The doors feel like tin cans when you open and close them (cheap). Now the interior is nice and I thought it was just as quiet as my Silverado. I don't have a problem with my seats like others have complained about but the Ram has very comfortable seats. Now with GM's new interior, refresh, I think they took the next step in interior, exterior, and all around performance. Could they have done more with their engines. Hell yes, and should have, but it is what it is!  To each their own. 

[KARNUT]

Ram hemi get mid 20s per gallon, the TRX gets 14 per car and driver. They’re ranking has GM in at number 6. The Ram 1500 at number 1 and the TRX at number 2. You can search and find numbers to fit what ever propaganda your pushing. I get to ride in everything that’s out there. Recently I got a ride in the TRX it’s a little higher than the Denali. There’s no comparison to anything out there. It’s mine blowing for the money. I’m a Chevy enthusiast, old ones. They need to step it up. 

[TNTSilverado]

13 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

Ram hemi get mid 20s per gallon, the TRX gets 14 per car and driver. They’re ranking has GM in at number 6. The Ram 1500 at number 1 and the TRX at number 2. You can search and find numbers to fit what ever propaganda your pushing. I get to ride in everything that’s out there. Recently I got a ride in the TRX it’s a little higher than the Denali. There’s no comparison to anything out there. It’s mine blowing for the money. I’m a Chevy enthusiast, old ones. They need to step it up. 

My buddies doesn't get anywhere close to mid 20's!  I don't know what Ram you are driving. My uncle has a fully loaded black Laramie and he averages 18.  So please tell me your SECRET, they would love to know. 

[the wanderer]

33 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

My buddies doesn't get anywhere close to mid 20's!  I don't know what Ram you are driving. My uncle has a fully loaded black Laramie and he averages 18.  So please tell me your SECRET, they would love to know. 

 

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.

 

 

[KARNUT]

25 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

My buddies doesn't get anywhere close to mid 20's!  I don't know what Ram you are driving. My uncle has a fully loaded black Laramie and he averages 18.  So please tell me your SECRET, they would love to know. 

My brother has 3. His son has a Raptor and the shop Forman has the TRX. The lead salesman has a Raptor he traded in an 19 Chevy. Not to mention the dozen or so shop techs that like nothing better than to talk trucks at lunch break. Not to forget the hundreds of customers who’s brains I pick about their trucks during my 40 or so years before I retired. And after. So I have a pretty good knowledge about how trucks are doing other than magazines with a lack of bias. I get better than 15 MPGs  in my 02 Avalanche with a 373 gear. And of course car and driver magazine among other test rags results. So depending on the final drive it isn’t hard to imagine in the 20s for MPGs. I like results without bias. 

[the wanderer]

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.

[TNTSilverado]

I’m not being biased??  I’m stating facts from 2 people who own the trucks. A life long GM guy who has recently switched over to Ram because of the interior and air ride suspension. But he can’t get better fuel economy than his 700 hp Chevy avalanche. That’s not biased that’s pure FACTS.  And my uncle who is wealthier than wealthy buys a new truck every 2 years and pays cash loves the Ram except for the Fuel Economy. He was a life long Ford guy. 

I also know trucks. I love to read reviews on them and listen to peoples perspective on them. I also have a father who is a retired mechanic. You say biased. I say just educated! 

[TNTSilverado]

1 hour ago, the wanderer said:

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.

ETORQUE is a gimmick. Auto start/stop  or DFM/AFM don’t claim 140 ft lbs more TQ!!!! My buddy says it is no different pulling his 22 ft interceptor boat with the new ETorque compared to the regular Hemi.  He leases them and he said he will go back to regular Hemi next time unless GM had a better lease deal. He uses the lease as a right off for his business. 

[the wanderer]

15 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

ETORQUE is a gimmick. Auto start/stop  or DFM/AFM don’t claim 140 ft lbs more TQ!!!! My buddy says it is no different pulling his 22 ft interceptor boat with the new ETorque compared to the regular Hemi.  He leases them and he said he will go back to regular Hemi next time unless GM had a better lease deal. He uses the lease as a right off for his business. 

 

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.

 

[TNTSilverado]

24 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

 

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.

 

Haha. He and I could careless what you claim. Ram does claim “140” ft lbs but when it doesn’t help one bit pulling his boat. Then you and Ram claiming the TQ are the ones with the foot in the mouth. Those are the facts. 
 

You are missing the point of what I claimed and what he was told the eTQ was for 140 ft lbs of TQ Is quite a bit and if it ain’t helping. Yes that’s a gimmick. 
 

now do I think AFM/DFM/MDS is a gimmick. Hell yes, but they are not claiming HP/TQ increases. Big difference. 

[the wanderer]

22 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

Haha. He and I could careless what you claim. Ram does claim “140” ft lbs but when it doesn’t help one bit pulling his boat. Then you and Ram claiming the TQ are the ones with the foot in the mouth. Those are the facts. 
 

You are missing the point of what I claimed and what he was told the eTQ was for 140 ft lbs of TQ Is quite a bit and if it ain’t helping. Yes that’s a gimmick. 
 

now do I think AFM/DFM/MDS is a gimmick. Hell yes, but they are not claiming HP/TQ increases. Big difference. 

 

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.