New 2025 Ram 1500 with hurricane engine.

[RobertN]

Sad days for those who would like a half-ton with a V8

A "1/2 ton", v8, stick shift, wing windows, rubber floor mat, manual windows etc!

 

[paulsharvey]

A "1/2 ton", v8, stick shift, wing windows, rubber floor mat, manual windows etc!

Honestly, does it matter if it's I-6 or a V-8, or a V6, I just know the 5.7L Hemi is a fuel efficiency, good motor, with good longevity; IF you avoid unnecessary idling. My worry, is I-6TT, what is its flaws? We know the Hemi's. So, maybe it's idling that will kill them, maybe it's going to want new air filters every 5000 miles, maybe it's some kinda computer controlled boost issue, but every motor has its faults. It's just nice to have one that you know it's issues.

With that, I do hope Ram put together a quality machine. Some of those Wagonners should be well over 150k now, if it's been out for 2 or 3 years, so, maybe the faults are I'D. Online, the discussion appears to be turbo issues, cooling failures, and fuel system. Not sure those occur at high rates,

 

[DarkBlack]

Honestly, does it matter if it's I-6 or a V-8, or a V6, I just know the 5.7L Hemi is a fuel efficiency, good motor, with good longevity; IF you avoid unnecessary idling.

Fuel efficiency? Yeah right
My 5.7L returns a very best of 17.5 mpg in the summer with optimal driving, and 15 mpg in the winter.
The 5.7L reliability is good, not great.
My particular year has a notorious bad habit of snapping exhaust manifold studs, along with coil failures, and the dreaded destroyed engine if you wipe out some cam lobes. Some feel it’s excessive idling, but no one knows for sure.
I do like my 5.7, but I’m realistic about its pros/cons. The engine issues have cropped up during the many years of production.. not on the first year or two when it was first produced.

 

[paulsharvey]

Fuel efficiency? Yeah right
My 5.7L returns a very best of 17.5 mpg in the summer with optimal driving, and 15 mpg in the winter.
The 5.7L reliability is good, not great.
My particular year has a notorious bad habit of snapping exhaust manifold studs, along with coil failures, and the dreaded destroyed engine if you wipe out some cam loves.
I do like my 5.7, but I’m realistic about it’s pros/cons, which issues have cropped up during the many years of production.. not on the first year or two when it was first produced.

Cam lobes and lifters is what I meant by excessive idle.

2019 Ram Classic 5.7, crew,, 4x4, 19 to at times 20 mpg. Even if we go to 24 mpg for the TT, that's $3,157 per year vs $2499 per year in fuel, driving 20,000/year. We are talking a fuel savings of less than $750/year.

No, I'm not saying the hemi was "bullet proof", but none of them are; we just know it's limitations, and the Hurricane will have its own, different, limitations.

 

[DarkBlack]

Lotta “stuff” on it.
You wouldn’t know by the shape, there’s a long skinny inline-6 under there
A bit surprised they’re using an aluminum block
Made in their Mexican plant.

 

[Hay Dude]

Good thing the displacement is small so they can pile 500lbs of junk on it.

Man this crap has to end.

 

[Hay Dude]

Fuel efficiency? Yeah right
My 5.7L returns a very best of 17.5 mpg in the summer with optimal driving, and 15 mpg in the winter.
The 5.7L reliability is good, not great.
My particular year has a notorious bad habit of snapping exhaust manifold studs, along with coil failures, and the dreaded destroyed engine if you wipe out some cam lobes. Some feel it’s excessive idling, but no one knows for sure.
I do like my 5.7, but I’m realistic about its pros/cons. The engine issues have cropped up during the many years of production.. not on the first year or two when it was first produced.

Like every Ford engine I ever owned.

 

[ning]

re twin turbos - my recollection is that this engine has one turbo per 3 cylinders, kinda like a twin-turbo v8 where there's one turbo per bank -- it's not a sequential turbo setup.

It's twice as many turbos, but they're smaller and lighter, less inertia. I wouldn't worry about the "twin turbo" aspect of the engine.

I would, however, be concerned about buy a first- (or possibly even second-) year of an engine in production, however - even though they've likely been running it in mules for at least a few years, there's likely been tweaking here and there and it's not a settled configuration till it's sold in volume; it's a rare engine that doesn't have an iffy start.

 

[mrmikey]

Good thing the displacement is small so they can pile 500lbs of junk on it.

Really tho, other than the pulleys and belts on front giving it away you'd be hard pressed to tell it's actually an engine, ridiculous, I wouldn't want to have to work on it for anything other than an oil change. Always blows my mind when you look at an old engine, take an old 225 slant 6, and compare it to that engineering nightmare:

 

[DarkBlack]

Really tho, other than the pulleys and belts on front giving it away you'd be hard pressed to tell it's actually an engine, ridiculous, I wouldn't want to have to work on it for anything other than an oil change. Always blows my mind when you look at an old engine, take an old 225 slant 6, and compare it to that engineering nightmare:

View attachment 1891732

That’s a “performance” 2 barrel version. My ‘68 had a 1 barrel carb.

All this crap they put on isn’t because they want to. It’s all to meet ever tightening government regulations

 

[RobertN]

Really tho, other than the pulleys and belts on front giving it away you'd be hard pressed to tell it's actually an engine, ridiculous, I wouldn't want to have to work on it for anything other than an oil change. Always blows my mind when you look at an old engine, take an old 225 slant 6, and compare it to that engineering nightmare:

View attachment 1891732

I wish we would have got the Hemi 6-Pack in the US. Chrysler Australia made good use of it after the Straight six project to replace the Slant-6 was stopped in the US.

 

[paulsharvey]

It has to be better than the Chevy baby duramax, with what, a rear of engine timing chain and water pump, or something rediccoulus like that, that involves an engine pull between 100-150k miles.

 

[Hay Dude]

It has to be better than the Chevy baby duramax, with what, a rear of engine timing chain and water pump, or something rediccoulus like that, that involves an engine pull between 100-150k miles.

I want one of those, but that is truly a crazy arrangement.

 

[mrmikey]

That’s a “performance” 2 barrel version. My ‘68 had a 1 barrel carb.

My ole Valiant had the one bbl carb also and a seized heat riser valve, (least it didn't rattle) You could always tell an experienced Dodge driver, he had at least one spare ballast resistor in the glove box, as well, you had to turn the radio off if they were forecasting rain.

It’s all to meet ever tightening government regulations

Which never ceases to amaze me, the more crap they add to an engine, the lower the mileage yet it's better for the environment seems awfully counter intuitive to me. Same as diesels having to sit doing absolutely nothing for who knows how long burning fuel to regen all the while the mileage drops.

 

[Hay Dude]

That’s a “performance” 2 barrel version. My ‘68 had a 1 barrel carb.

All this crap they put on isn’t because they want to. It’s all to meet ever tightening government regulations

Crazy. They just sit around and make more regulations.
When will they understand the suffering they cause.

 

[mrmikey]

It has to be better than the Chevy baby duramax, with what, a rear of engine timing chain and water pump, or something rediccoulus like that, that involves an engine pull between 100-150k miles.

That sounds like a nightmare. Almost as bad as the Tacoma (I think it was ) with the starter buried under the intake manifold.

 

[RayIN]

The HO version requires 91 octane.
A drawback to consider

Around me, 93 octane is approx. $1/G higher than 87 octane. Big drawback IMO.

 

[ericm979]

It has to be better than the Chevy baby duramax, with what, a rear of engine timing chain and water pump, or something rediccoulus like that, that involves an engine pull between 100-150k miles.

It's the oil pump drive belt. They replace it by removing the transmission to get into the back of the engine, which stays in place. The 2022 and later have a longer service interval- 200k miles. The belt's the same as the earlier one with 150k mile service intervals.

It's like $350-400 in parts but a lot of labor.

 

[not2old]

That sounds like a nightmare. Almost as bad as the Tacoma (I think it was ) with the starter buried under the intake manifold.

What about the BMW with the starter under the intake manifold that was one piece with the head.

 

[WinterDeere]

Really tho, other than the pulleys and belts on front giving it away you'd be hard pressed to tell it's actually an engine, ridiculous, I wouldn't want to have to work on it for anything other than an oil change. Always blows my mind when you look at an old engine, take an old 225 slant 6, and compare it to that engineering nightmare:

View attachment 1891732

Here's the thing. The old slant-6's made about 0.6 hp/cid, or 145 hp out of the 225 cid variant. The Hurricane you're all griping about makes 2.2 to 2.8 hp/cid, literally 4x more power.

With that sort of difference, to me anyway, looks and longevity become almost completely irrelevant... not that the old ones are known for going longer miles anyway.