 |
|
09-26-2013, 09:15 AM
|
#15
|
|
Senior Member
Texas Boomers Club
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cypress, Texas USA
Posts: 8,854
|
I believe Ram's marketing strategy, as I mentioned on another thread, is to offer a towing rating close to the 5.7L Hemi while offering equivalent or better fuel mileage than the 25 MPG EPA highway rating of the 3.6L Pentastar V6. Ram's marketing philosophy if that if you want to tow heavy, they offer Cummins-powered 2500 and 3500 trucks for that purpose.
Rusty
|
|
|
 |
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
|
09-26-2013, 09:47 AM
|
#16
|
|
Senior Member
Monaco Owners Club Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Clovis, CA, USA
Posts: 13,149
|
What kind of prices are they showing?
Seems to me the price of pickups is WAY too high. Especially for a retired guy.
__________________
2004 Monaco La Palma 36DBD, W22, 8.1, 7.1 MPG
2000 LEXUS RX300 FWD 22MPG 4020 LBS
Criticism is easier than Craftsmanship
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2013, 04:34 PM
|
#17
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyWren
Well, maybe not a new Ford, but back in the day Ford had a 5.7L engine (350 cc). L'il Bro had a '92 F-150 with 5.7L engine. Gas hog, but reliable. Just nit-picking...  |
It is actually a 5.8L 351. Chevy had the 5.7L 350.
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2013, 04:38 PM
|
#18
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 288
|
OF all the diesel announcements that have me excited the Cummins/Titan should be interesting to watch.
UD
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2013, 08:55 PM
|
#19
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever we are
Posts: 4,288
|
Hey, Smokey--
Back in the day they hadn't invented litres in the US--it was all cubic inches. And I thought the engines that size were 351s in the 150s and 350s in work trucks. Same engine, but different designations depending on what chassis they were in? Not nit-picking, just wondering if I was dreaming...
Joe
__________________
'16 40QBH Phaeton
'21 Sahara HA toad
'15 38RSSA Mobile Suites--traded
'05 36TK3 Mobile Suites--retired but not forgotten
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2013, 09:07 PM
|
#20
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 71
|
Hey they missed the Tundra with a 5.7L-V8.
|
|
|
|
|
09-26-2013, 09:11 PM
|
#21
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: China Grove, NC
Posts: 70
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyWren
Well, maybe not a new Ford, but back in the day Ford had a 5.7L engine (350 cc). L'il Bro had a '92 F-150 with 5.7L engine. Gas hog, but reliable. Just nit-picking... |
5.8L and it was 351ci.
|
|
|
|
|
09-27-2013, 09:30 AM
|
#22
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingnut60
Hey, Smokey--
Back in the day they hadn't invented litres in the US--it was all cubic inches. And I thought the engines that size were 351s in the 150s and 350s in work trucks. Same engine, but different designations depending on what chassis they were in? Not nit-picking, just wondering if I was dreaming...
Joe
|
350CI was a GM engine. Ford makes a F350 chassis though.
|
|
|
|
|
09-27-2013, 09:48 AM
|
#23
|
|
Senior Member
Texas Boomers Club
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cypress, Texas USA
Posts: 8,854
|
If you REALLY want to confuse yourself, the Windsor block 351 Ford had a 4.000" bore and a 3.500" stroke. Ford also built an FE-series engine that had the same 4.000" bore and 3.500" stroke, but they called it a 352. Go figure.....
Rusty
|
|
|
|
|
09-27-2013, 09:50 AM
|
#24
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,657
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Dave
OF all the diesel announcements that have me excited the Cummins/Titan should be interesting to watch.
UD
|
Unless they rebuild the Titan into something stronger then the Cummins is a waste of time. The Cummins won't deliver the mpg's that the VM will, that's why Ram went with the VM. Of course it's an in house motor too, so that helps. But I read an article from a Ram spokesman and his main comment was that the Cummins didn't take the Ram 1500 in the direction they were headed.
I still don't see the appeal of a Titan/Cummins combo. The Titan is the worst selling full size truck on the market.
|
|
|
|
|
09-27-2013, 12:25 PM
|
#25
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 288
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumminsfan
Unless they rebuild the Titan into something stronger then the Cummins is a waste of time. The Cummins won't deliver the mpg's that the VM will, that's why Ram went with the VM. Of course it's an in house motor too, so that helps. But I read an article from a Ram spokesman and his main comment was that the Cummins didn't take the Ram 1500 in the direction they were headed.
I still don't see the appeal of a Titan/Cummins combo. The Titan is the worst selling full size truck on the market.
|
When the Titan debuted it brought many many firsts to the market and was the clear winner in 04 outpulling, out-featuring, and out comforting the domestics
Its hard to get trucks today "optioned" as well as the titan was in 04.
It took a long time for the domestics to catch it's feature set and equal its performance.
Titan suffers from simply being old now.
The cummins will outperform the VM, and...its a cummins.
Uncle Dave
|
|
|
|
|
09-28-2013, 08:11 PM
|
#26
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever we are
Posts: 4,288
|
Rusty,
The FE series was what I was thinking about, not the Windsors. FE was the Y-block design and seem to remember that it had 1 cu in difference in terminology depending on if it was in a truck or a car??
Getting too old to accurately remember what I worked on as a teenager...
Joe
__________________
'16 40QBH Phaeton
'21 Sahara HA toad
'15 38RSSA Mobile Suites--traded
'05 36TK3 Mobile Suites--retired but not forgotten
|
|
|
|
|
09-28-2013, 09:48 PM
|
#27
|
|
Senior Member
Texas Boomers Club
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cypress, Texas USA
Posts: 8,854
|
The FE displacements were 332, 352, 361 (truck engine), 390, 406, 410 (Mercury engine), 427 and 428 cubic inches. The FE was a deep skirt block like the smaller Y-block 239, 256 (Mercury engine), 272, 292 and 312 cubic inch engines which was the engine with the Y-8 (Y-block) fender emblems.
Rusty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
