• Will the 2019 Ram 1500 Get Jeep’s New 3.0L Diesel V6 with 442 Lb-ft of Torque?


    2018 jeep wrangler rubicon
    All-new 2018 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon

    Jeep announces the specifications for the upgraded 3.0L turbo-diesel V6 that is coming to the new Jeep Wrangler JL in 2019. The latest generation of the Wrangler makes its debut this week at the 2017 Los Angeles Auto Show. Jeep will initially offer two engines in the Wrangler: a 2.0L turbocharged gasoline four-cylinder and a naturally aspirated 3.6L Pentastar V6. The juicy piece of the news that could be very relevant to the pickup truck guys and gals is the upgrades 3.0L V6 EcoDiesel that now make more power than before. The new turbo-diesel will be coming to the Jeep Wrangler in about a year from now.

    Here is the scoop. The announced output rating for the new engine is: 260 horsepower and 442 lb-ft of torque. This is 20 more horses and 22 more lb-ft of torque than the original 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The new engine will offer Engine Stop-Start (ESS) as standard, and it will be mated to a new/upgraded 8-speed automatic transmission.

    How did FCA and Jeep get the additional power? Minimizing internal engine friction is the name of the game. Jeep says, the upgrades include the following.

    • new turbocharger with a low-friction bearing.
    • low friction pistons (for improved fuel economy and reduced emissions)
    • new injector nozzles
    • new piston “bowl” design
    • new glow plug design with integrated combustion pressure sensor to optimize combustion
    2019 ram 1500 prototype spy
    2019 Ram 1500 prototype

    Jeep did not elaborate on the amount or percentage of fuel efficiency or emissions improvements. However, clearly the horsepower has increased by between 7-8% over the preview version of the engine.

    Jeep says the latest version of the EcoDiesel V6 is produced by FCA-owned V.M. Motori and adapted by FCA US engineers to meet the NAFTA region’s regulatory requirements. Considering the recent US EPA emissions investigation, the next version of the EcoDiesel will be closely scrutinized for compliance to all applicable emissions regulations.

    The 8-speed automatic transmission has been updated to handle the additional torque, according to Jeep. The 7th and 8th gears are overdrive ratios that should offer improved highway efficiency and decreased noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH).

    This news comes at a time of intensifying competition in the half-ton diesel-powered pickup truck segment. Ford announced that the F-150 will be offered with an optional 3.0L turbo-diesel V6 and a 10-speed automatic transmission next year. Although. the power output for the Ford’s engine has not been released as of this writing. FCA US is putting their foot down with 260 hp and 442 lb-ft of torque. How will Ford respond?

    Ford’s 3.0L turbo-diesel in the Land Rover and Range Rover SUVs is currently rated at 254 hp and 443 lb-ft of torque.


    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    132 thoughts on “Will the 2019 Ram 1500 Get Jeep’s New 3.0L Diesel V6 with 442 Lb-ft of Torque?

        1. Audi still has it beat litre for litre. The 2.9L Turbo gas engine from Audi makes 442Ft-Lbs at 1900-5000rpm. That is an equivalent 442/2.9×3.0 = 457Ft-Lbs and 465Hp to back it up. With a better power curve. 1900-5000 peak power. 152.3 torque per litre. I am betting we will see turbo gas motors beat this next week during the Los Angeles show

          1. No, Mercedes has Audi beat. Nearly 400 hp out of 2.0 liters
            But, new gas engines emit more unhealthy particulates than diesel, and regulators will require the same equipment to clean them up.

            Its coming. Don’t doubt it.

        2. ID rather have a well built gas turbo.

          The Genesis 3.3T puts out 365hp and 370 ft-lb.

          No DEF, cheaper fuel, easier maintenance etc.

          Diesel engine were built so Exon could sell their waste. For most drivers a Tgas would be better.

          Reliability is easier to control on a gas without all the new emissions crap.

          Diesels we’re good for 3 reasons:
          1. Big heavy reinforced solid/heavy engine blocks made them reliable.
          2. They drank oil like it was going out of business
          3. Turbos have them torque

          We should drop diesels and build gas turbos with heavy duty engine blocks that use 12qrts of oil and we’d all be better off!

          1. We haven’t seen a turbo gas engine that can consistently deliver reliable power for big mileage yet. The 3.5/2.7 Ecoboost is still plagued with design issues and reliability problems. Ford should ditch the cheap valvetrain components for starters. Cheap stretch-prone timing chains, cheap TC guides/Tensioners/cam phasers, cheap valve guides/lash adjusters/etc. Everything about the way a good Cummins or Duramax is designed to last hundreds of thousands of miles. The EB is designed to last at least until the powertrain warranty is up.

      1. I love it zombiera. Ford has been living in your head rent free for years. You can’t even write a single poorly written post without bringing Ford into it. I love it!

          1. They were at altitude. Use some logic. I dont remember MFG’s having to report engine outputs for every 1000 feet of elevation gain up to 14,000 ft.

            1. Jay. Zombiera wants to use the spike in that torque graph as evidence. But it was a sudden spike that was likely torque converter flash. The pulls were also made from 2000 rpm. All of the diesels tested makes peak torque below 2000 RPM. So what he claims is nonsense.

            2. Doesnt matter if they were all at altitude. Maybe Ford is more conservative in their high altitude tuning, or maybe they use a smaller turbo that has to be back off earlier, you dont know. doesnt mean they fudge their numbers.

            3. No one cares about wrong graph. On 2017 Ike test, ford was the slowest and with worst fuel economy pulling 22,800 lbs.

              2017Ram3500Crew 4×4 10:28.86 2.9Mpg
              2017FordF-350Crew4×4 10:31.88 2.6Mpg

            4. Oh, so first you say Ford has less torque and referenced TFL’s graph. You did not read the graph and I pointed out it proved you wrong, again. Now you say TFL’s graph is wrong. Now that’s funny!

            5. Whether or not they met their claims they still performed below the (lower rated) completion- at least in the test referenced.

            6. Sparky, remember that all the pulls were made after each engine makes peak torque. So I don’t give value in these graphs. The only part that works IMO is the HP pull.

            7. Zombiera, you made no point. You tried and failed. Now you are trying to back peddle………….again.

            8. Jimmy-I question the validity of the dyno’s in general-there seems to be a good deal of inconsistency dyno to dyno and even pull to pull. I really don’t have a good feel for how accurate they may or may not be however. I would not be surprised to see the Ford come in much closer to the other in a subsequent dyno comparison. It does seem in looking at multiple tests that Ford tends to be a little more optimistic in their numbers.

            9. I agree sparky. Every dyno is different. Chassis Dyno’s especially. The only thing they are good for is tuning and exact day comparisons. When they did the runs they also corrected for altitude. I have to question that on a turbo engine since they make their own atmosphere. I would be interested in how the factory’s tune for high altitude. They must spin the turbos faster to make the same boost levels at sea level. It is very possible they detune for high elevation.

            10. Exactly. Ford’s factory dyno and numbers doesn’t mean anything. They test it in laboratory, with enhanced conditions and when they go up the Ike, they failed behind GM and RAM with worse factory dyno numbers and on top of that, Ford had worse mileage 2.6 Mpg. GM 2.8 Mpg and RAM 2.9Mpg
              So either Ford’s dyno is broken, very optimistic, or their calculations are optimistic. In other words, Ford is fudging the numbers. Only TFL we trust.

            11. You are clearly an idiot zombiera. Maybe we can trust Fords Dyno’s when the ecoboost engines completely kicks the dog snot out of that pos ecocheater ram and the hemi that on paper makes more HP than the Ford ecoboost. Because it is all over the internet on TFL truck. What about the powerwagon getting schooled by a raptor and a mid sized truck in the element it was designed for. Rock crawling. And the Raptor was not designed for that intent.

          2. dyno’s are useless. The TFL Duramax run was obviously strange at best. Then go look at the recent PUTC dyno runs on these diesels. The Duramax was easily the tops, Ford was behind, and Ram was pathetic. I don’t believe anything that comes off of a dyno.

        1. They got caught with the superchargered mustang years ago advertising a horsepower output that was higher then actual and had to release a revision. Maybe know more about the topic?

          1. It was not the terminator mustangs. It was the 2000 model year. They had a recall to fix them. Cadillac had a similar issue with their V8. I don’t recall them doing a recall for that though.

            FYI, the terminators tended to have a higher output than what was advertised. Same as the F150 Lightning’s.

        2. They used to have a reputation for fudging the numbers in the past. Back when the Ram 1500 first began offering the 3.6 Pentastar with best in class towing, Ford magically found enough tow rating to get back on top without changing anything. Edmunds tested it out and the F150’s transmission overheated and the went into limp mode.

          Recently, it was made public that the power ratings of the 2.3L Ecoboost Mustang were only possible when running 93 Octane. This is also likely to be true with the Ford 3.5EB and 2.7EB, hence why Ford stuck that warning in the owners manual that the engine’s performance would degrade unless you ran 91+ octane while towing or driving aggressively (91 recommended, 87 ok if you drive like a granny?).

          Then there was that surprising HD diesel comparison this year. The 2017 Superduty had a 27,900 lb tow rating while the GMC only had a 22,700 lb tow rating, yet the GMC pulled a 19,500 lb trailer up a mountain faster, braked better, maintained speed while descending a hill better, etc. Shouldn’t a truck rated to tow 5,200 lbs more be able to ascend and descend hills better, especially when it’s only pulling 70% of it’s rated ability? TFLT found similar results this year.

          1. Remember the Superduty excelled at towing 30,000lbs compared to the Ram. It was not a 15 second spread of time but over a minute faster.

    1. In reality this engine makes sense for a jeep. The low hp is fine because the chassis can’t really handle much anyway. For crawling and overlanding it would be ideal, especially if they offer it with the manual transmission.

      If you plan to run sand or mud, the higher hp pentastar is going to be the route to take

      1. I have to differ on you on this one. Sure the low end torque is right on, but….. think of the exhaust emissions system. A DPF, SCR, DOC, system under that Jeep and wait till you need to do a regen on the trail.

          1. So you are on the trail and you have to get to a highway to do a 45 minute regen. Who would buy something like that? Turbo gas motors are giving better torque at low rpm now with almost identical fuel mileage for less maintenance costs.

            Diesel used to be good when they polluted the air when sold new, now give it ten years when people fail to maintain them and they will pollute the air once again to ridiculous amounts of pollution.

            1. Regen takes a few minutes. Without gauges most wouldn’t even know when it is happening. Turbo gas gives almost as much torque down low but requires significantly more fuel.

              367k transporting TTs with my 14 ED. No smoke. Had I picked a gasser first I’d be broke from fuel costs second I’d already be on my second motor. Both gas & diesel have there place despite out of control government.

            2. Vern, a few minutes for regen is inaccurate. It takes several minutes just to dose enough fuel into the exhaust to get the DPF to over 1000F. Once the DPF is heated up it takes more than 30 minutes bake the soot off the filters. That is a manual regen. If you happen to be driving and a regen occurs at highway speeds it takes around 15 miles to complete. Most people don’t know it’s occuring because it happens in the back ground. But it won’t happen during low speeds like in a trail. You would have to stop and perform a parked regen if the DPF soot load gets to high.

            3. Its very rare that an operator would have to do anything so far as a regen. Its not likely at all that one would need to leave the trail for a highway to support a regen.

            4. Sparky, it is pretty common for utility trucks and work trucks that don’t see much highway use over slow driving and idling. Spending a day on trails I could easily see the need for a parked regen.

      2. Too much weight over the front axle. Not to mention modern Jeeps already have a crowded engine bay with a gas engine let alone a V6 diesel.

      1. @Jim
        Been offering them for years in the Jeep range in Australia. SUV has been popular( reliability issues have now drastically killed demand) . Wrangler is very much a niche product here . Yes they do sell the 6.4 Hemi as well as the diesel

    2. Why do people think they need 442 ft lb of torque in a jeep to have a great off road vehicle. A friend had several old jeeps, 1963 and older, all with their original motors and we would rock climb and go over fallen trees, etc with no problems. I don’t know what the torque ratings were of those small 4 cyl engines but it was nowhere near 442 ft lb. and they had all the power you needed to have a lot of fun. And these trails were much narrower and rougher than cliffhanger 2!

      1. My argo has 30hp and I dragged a 1000Lb log 2 miles through the bush with it with tracks. Just has to be geared right to rock crawl. That much torque will only help the jeep if it is towing at highway speeds, not a likely scenario for most owners as the short wheelbase makes for poor towing dynamics.

        1. it def doesnt need to be 442 ft-lbs, but it will sure tow nice right up to its max capcacity of 6xxx lbs.

          Regardless, the diesel people will be down at the dealerships so fast with blank checks begging them to take their money. Then they will be on here bragging about the gas mileage.

      2. Just because it is awesome. You’re right of course; with appropriate gearing and a little skill you can do very well with much less power and torque-and probably have fewer broken parts when you are done!

      3. You don’t need 442 lb-ft to rock crawl. But if you want to drive it on 37s and go down the interstate with no fuss and not feeling wheezy up hills, then the diesel is king. Surely there’s more to enjoying a Jeep than just crawling over rocks at walking pace.

    3. What a huge breath of fresh air to see the Jeep on TFL Truck, that big red picture of a Jeep on TFL Truck. Wonder if that is going to stick? At least the B1 will have some competition even when the B1 beats up on it, it will be a mashup with dignity for the ICE engines.

      Here is the Bollinger suspension link, motor is at the hub so it allows greater suspension travel as axles are limited due to the yokes breaking if you exceed the allowable degrees in travel. They make fun of the old axle still being used by current industry.

        1. Nice renderings. Just study how portal axle drive shaft is sealed especially at the front, when steering. It looks like maintenance and reliability nightmare.

        2. Rambro – – –

          Video: “CV shafts are always working at the limits of travel…” ??????

          This is utter nonsense! Gee, I’d like to know what these guys are smoking in the back room to generate flowery Bollinger fantasies. Smacks of unemployed hippies left over from the 1970’s…(^_^)…

          R: “They make fun of the old axle still being used by current industry.”

          The Jeep’s Solid Live Axles (SLA’s) are used for a reason, Rambro. Ever see a Wrangler slam down on ledges, logs, and boulders during rock crawling? Yokes typically don’t break. Toughness on the trail is vital! NO commercially available independent suspension (IS) would survive that punishment for long.
          Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbzSgS7sJU

          And what about the extreme ARTICULATION needed? An SLA takes advantage of the entire width of a vehicle to gain traction at weird angles. No IS in a Wrangler-sized vehicle can get an RTI over 400. See the list* (below) of RTI measurements on various vehicles: are there any IRS vehicles with RTI over 400? Has Robert Bollinger even dared to measure RTI? — It’s certainly not on his Spec sheet! (15-inches of ground clearance is irrelevant by comparison: 6-inch lifted Wranglers have a comparable number.)

          So IF (actually, BIG “IF”) —

          The B1** is not a real pickup truck;
          And it’s not a real Jeep-type vehicle for demanding, reliable off-roading;
          And its good-weather (standard configuration) range is only 120 miles;
          And it suffers from “cold battery syndrome” with (reduced range/power) in Winter;
          And it can’t even haul or tow 6000 lbs for all of those 120 miles;
          And its recharge time to 80% capacity (96 miles) is 45 minutes, but takes 7 hours otherwise;
          And it can’t be trusted in deep water fording with stream rocks that can damage hub-motor seals, causing leaks that short motors out;
          And it will be (guaranteed!) outrageously expensive…..

          THEN: Why in the world would a sensible truck or Jeep aficionado ever buy such an automotive disaster for general purpose use ???

          (As I said before, this may be a good around-the-farm vehicle, — with little trips to a NEARBY town for fencing wire, some lumber, or groceries…(^_^))

          —————
          * http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/rti.htm
          ** https://bollingermotors.com/Bollinger_B1_SpecSheet_20170725.pdf
          —————

          =======================

        1. Rambro – – –

          R: “The B1 will be at the LA Auto show as well.”

          So will pimples, flatulence, and restrooms…(^_^)..

          ==================

          1. LOL Bernie, are you saying pimples farts and restrooms don’t exist. I enjoy all them except the pimples.

            BTW, I think TFL linked the Jeeps with TFL Truck and TFL car, same comments on both sites so maybe they split the decision to put Jeeps here and leave them on TFL car.

    4. Bollinger is a conspiracy!
      Those videos are all C.G.I.
      Electric sucks, man.
      Ohhhhhhh, I shouldn’t have eaten those hot dogs.

    5. Jeep needs to add a trail button to the diesel wrangler to disable emissions systems when off-road. Or have Volkswagen program the engines.

        1. Just delete the damn thing, gain your reliability and mpg back. Gdi gas motors are still spewing NOx without exhaust treatment systems so to hell with it.

          1. If you are planning to get ecodiesel, try to google:

            2014-2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Power and MPG Upgrades
            How to Add 37 hp, 46 lb-ft of Torque, and 2.66 mpg With the Stinger System by Banks Power.

            Very nice article at truck trend I read a long time ago.

            1. Banks makes a high quality product but is very expensive. Just completely get rid of the emissions crap and your mileage will go up mote than that for less money

            2. Well known issue on the ecodiesel, resulting in catastrophic failure. If that was fixed then these would be great motors that I would happily own. Just curious if you knew if it has been fixed?

            3. Me too. I hope they fire the fella who tight that nut, change the torque specs, or design,so it won’t slip.
              Maybe second generation will solve this issue.

            4. Slipping cam gear-while this has and does ococur it does not seem to be all that common. This design and resulting failure is not unique to this engine-I have seen the same failure on a Mazda gas engine. Bottom line, while it is a problem it is not so prevalent as to be a major concern for a buyer.

            5. The cam gear slipping isn’t the only issue. Ecodiesels are dropping like likes with blown crank bearings. Then FCA switched to Rotella T6 from 5W30, but T6 isn’t a low ash engine oil, so now emissions systems are failing left and right. Plugged EGR’s, injector failures, plugged DPF’s, oil cooler failures, etc. The Ram Ecodiesel is a mess.

            6. I don’t know about that. I would say ,that aftermarket, or low quality diesel fuel is to blame.
              Europe doesn’t have those problems, with the same engine, or any diesel engine.

    6. Ram needed this bump in power on the 3.0 to compete with ford and their 17100 lb GCWR with the new Lion diesel. I had 255-260 hp in my head for the Ford, but more than 442 ft-lbs. Ford also needs to make it so they dont cut power after 90 seconds like the Ram ED currently does.

      This tells me they are stretching the torque curve out a little farther to pick up the extra power. I really hope they are using an upgraded turbo and not just a tune. If its a tune, its no different than just slapping a tune on the current Ecodiesel.

      1. The article does say a new turbo with different bearings. So it is hard to confirm if the turbo is a new design or just reworked with different bearings. I would like to know what they are doing to lower the friction on the pistons. Are they reducing the skirt size? If so that can limit piston durability.

        1. Oh yeah, I missed that. It may be a Garrett GTD turbo then. The current Ecodiesel uses a GTB2056 with journal bearings but Garrett has been putting out newer gen VNT turbos with ball bearings. Most have been on the Audi/BMW/Mercedes TDI’s. That could be sweet.

          1. Hopefully Garrett has had some breakthroughs with roller bearings because from what I have heard, they are more failure prone. A bushed bearing seems to be the most robust system.

      2. I read this long time ago , when Banks tuned VM Motori, Banks 630T version of this engine for military use, sometimes in 2012.

        “The 630T has the potential to make more than 600 hp in race trim. —Matt Trainham, Banks Powertrain Engineer”

    7. I wonder what the tuners will come up with? The tuning software available for even the I4 Diesel in the Colorado are getting great gains while maintaining emissions, but in full disclosure, I haven’t put in the research to see if emission output is altered. I am thinking Jeep product, specifically Scrambler, imagine the over landing enthusiasts tuning for a modest bump in HP/ TQ while maintaining stock fuel economy or achieving greater fuel economy. Could be fun to follow.

      1. They are flogging the ever living crap out of the duramax turbo as far as I can tell. Either that or they are running them very rich. The tuners I have seen have 5 levels of tune and only suggest towing on level 1 or 2 because the others are too turned up. Its a pretty tiny turbo they use on that engine, GTB1752.

        What I have seen with the current Ecodiesel is that it does not have enough turbo to make much more power. GTB2056 is good for about 250 hp and the stock Ram isnt too far below that. There isnt a lot of room to max safe gains with a tune.

        This is why I was hoping the new Ecodiesel had a new turbo with a lot of room in it. I think the engine could be a lot more powerful if not constrained by the turbo.

    8. ford should of waited to release the f150 diesel until they could an integrated exhaust manifold into the cylinder head (making it water cooled, see VW) which allows them to run leaner

      1. I thought the leaner you ran a diesel, the cooler the EGT’s were? Its when you start dumping fuel and running rich that the EGT’s go through the roof.

        And why would you want to water cool the exhaust gasses. The hotter the gases enter the turbine, the more power you can extract. This is one reason why you see Garrett & Borg Warner trying to make better, higher temp resistant alloys on their race turbos. Its also why jet engine companies make these super top secret cermanic titanium blah blah alloys that can withstand super high temps. The hotter they run it, the more efficient it is.

        1. I’m with you on this jay. A benefit I can see is less cooling needed for the EGR cooler. But I would rather have it enter the turbo hot and use a EGR cooler myself.

          1. Almost forgot. My understanding is high EGT’s is what damages the exhaust valves. The turbos can withstand higher temps to some degree but exhaust valves are the biggest issue I can see.

            1. If you cool your exhaust too much then any possibility of a passive regen is gone, fuel economy goes down as it dumps more fuel into exhaust to heat it back up more frequently

            2. I wonder how much soot builds up when you cool the exhaust manifold. Emissions diesels have a nasty habit of building up this nasty sticky soot in the intake aft the EGR valve and pre turbo. And they are already hot.

        2. you can’t lean them out too much or the NOx goes up. the turbo VW got like 20% better mpg on the highway? Some CAT gensets use water cooled exhaust manifolds (not inside the head) as well, i believe they try and run them lean as well.

            1. That’s kind of the issue. To control NOX you have to reduce combustion temps. You do that, you rob power and FE. So you add EGR to keep cylinder pressures up and help cool the temps in the chamber. But with higher emissions regulations you have to ad SCR. So you can reduce some EGR but then you throw in more DEF fluid.

          1. didnt mention the water cooled exhaust VW is gas*. and with the water cooled there is a tradeoff with loses in thermal efficiency and gains from running lean.

            1. Shouldn’t impact the thermal efficiency as it is cooled after the combustion chamber-unless it is going through a turbo next. It would increase the amount of cooling equipment though.

      2. I don’t see how water cooling your exhaust manifolds is going to help with anything. It definitely does not allow it to run leaner. Diesels already run incredible lean when not under load-there really is not thing to be gained in that direction. The heads/valves are going to be the weak link as it pertains to heat-cooled exhaust manifolds do not help in that regard.

    9. FCA is working on a very powerful TT 3.0 liter gas inline six. Near 5.7 Hemi power.

      That would fit into any of their products

      Still have to convince me that these engines will hold up.

      1. That much power in a physically smaller engine is likely to have its consequences as to durability. However, the Ford engines seem to be holding up. I think we start doing a lot of towing/hauling with these small, turboed gas engines you will start to see a difference in durability when compared to the larger displacement NA engines-and I think the FE advantages will quickly disappear.

        1. The Ecoboost motors have been out for nearly 8 years now so I am sure there are a bunch out there that have seen heavy use for a lot of miles. I dont think its so much an issue.

          Plus, turbocharging doesnt necessarily add additional stress to the engine until extreme levels of power are reached. According to Maximum Boost, the more stressful part of the engines cycle is during the compression and exhaust strokes, not the power stroke. This is because the force of the explosion counteracts the tug of the crankshaft pulling down on the rod and piston. The net force is therefore lower than the compression and exhaust stroked where the piston is basically just being launched back and forth by the crank.

          Increasing the RPM’s is actually what dramatically increases the stress on a motor. This is where the Ecoboosts, other GTDI motors, and diesels get a lot benefit. By having a lot of low end torque they can keep engine speeds down.

          As far as fuel efficiency goes, it seems the ecoboosts do just as well or better than their V8 counterparts with the exception of GM. Nissan, Ram, Toyota, etc all do no better.

          1. Yes, 8 years and Ford admits, there is a problem with First generation of Ecoboost without the port injection by building a Revised Second Generation of Ecoboost with Direct and Port Injection.
            2.7 is constantly under boost, so has terrible Mpg. Turbo gasoline engine has a place, but needs to be done properly by someone else than Ford. I would consider 4.5L I6 turbo gasoline from FCA. They have much more expertise from racing than Ford.

            1. One of the you tube articles I saw about 3.5tt over heating recommended that people force a downshift to control engine overheating. His claim was that it was only under boost that the tt had a heat problem.

              That makes sense to me.

              Maybe a larger more efficient inter cooler would help that. Because, like you said, running at low rpm can reduce stress on the engine. Seems there is always a trade off.

              I love manual transmissions. But I have heard one of the problems with them is that there is no give in the drive line so jerky motions can damage parts.

              Also crank bearings will wear faster on a improperly run manual trans engine. You really cant lug a auto trans engine. You can a manual.

              I guess the clutch can actually cause side thrust wesr on crank bearings that you won’t see on a auto.

              I hate to say it. But I hope they get the fuel cell worked out before I am forced to tow with a ICE at 5000rpm. 😂😂😂

            2. Except on Fuelly it gets 3 MPG better than the hemi, and 2 better than the GM V8’s and 3.5 Ecoboost.

              Yeah its so terrible.

            3. You would trust fuelly if it leaned towards fiat products. FYI, ecoboost has always outperformed and out mpg ram gas trucks. So your screwed either way.

            4. Why would I be screwed. My HEMI will run long time after you replace ecoboost with turbos.
              223,000 kms and I didn’t replace even spark plugs.
              I don’t have to drill intercooler either.

            5. You would understand ,if you had ecoboost. Even All1 fixed the intercooler problem and engine choking with drilling 1/16 hole in it.

            6. I know plenty of ecoboost owners and they never had to do that. Many of them have twice the miles on their engines than you do.

            7. “Maybe a larger more efficient inter cooler would help that. Because, like you said, running at low rpm can reduce stress on the engine. Seems there is always a trade off.”

              The tradeoff with a bigger intercooler is that you’re much more likely to have water condense in the intercooler, which can end up getting sucked into the engine, causing misfires and other problems.

          2. The force of expansion due to combustion (the “power” stroke) is absolutely much higher than that of compression or exhaust strokes-if it where not the engine would not be making any net power. During expansion there is very little “tug” from the crankshaft-it would be de-accelerating were it not for the push from the piston, subjected to combustion expansion.
            High RPM’s do most definitely add a good deal of stress.
            The greater the power density, the great the stress on the engine, this increased exponentially with power density.
            Turboed engines are more efficient when they are lightly worked-you have the efficiency of a smaller engine doing the work at low boost. When called upon to create the power of larger engines-higher boost- they will not be as efficient as a NA engine, all things being equal. There is a cross-over point as load/boost increases.

    10. Well it looks like the eco dsl gets a little bump in hp and tq. So I suspect that same thing for the next new half tons. Nothing really stands out for this hp and tq increase.

    Leave a Reply

    Top