WHY? 4-6-8

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

I find it interesting that the 5.3 is apparently way faster but the 6.2 got slower... GM still hasn't gotten their sh!t together.

OnTheReel · February 23, 2019

10 minutes ago, M1ck3y said:

I find it interesting that the 5.3 is apparently way faster but the 6.2 got slower... GM still hasn't gotten their sh!t together.

I suspect the ten speed might slow it down a bit in certain circumstances. Certainly in theory it should smoke the K2. But Car & Driver tested a 19 HC 6.2 and it had the exact 0-60 (5.4) that the 2014 did with a 6 speed. Motorweek got a Denali to do it in 5.7. Both of these trucks had the 3.23 though. I believe some of the earlier tests of the K2 had a 3.42 read end. At any rate it’s still faster than a pickup needs to be.

Even the 2.7 is said to do 60 in 7 seconds. Not long ago that would have been the fastest truck since the Syclone or SRT Ram. Think we’re all getting spoiled.

Edited February 23, 2019 by OnTheReel

CmackR56 · February 23, 2019

I test drove a 2018 6.2 and the 2019 5.3 back to back and then swapped back again. The engines felt pretty much identical.

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

Just now, CmackR56 said:

I test drove a 2018 6.2 and the 2019 5.3 back to back and then swapped back again. The engines felt pretty much identical.

I know my 17 took 7-10,000 kms to feel like it was 6.2. Stepped on it one morning, couldn't stop grinning the rest of the day.

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

Glad you shared that. Hate to think they shaved 450 pounds, went to a 10 spd and got slower. That being said, I would have thought losing that much weight would have had more of an improvement with acceleration.

Anyone know the top speed of the 19's? Looks like it did the 1/4mile .1 quicker at 100mph. 100 the limit? Looks like the ecoboost goes 5.1 and 13.7. Unfortunate gm didn't update the engine a little bit...

Edited February 23, 2019 by M1ck3y

OnTheReel · February 23, 2019

Well, for what it’s worth, that’s the Raptor’s 3.5 in those C&D figures, not the standard 3.5 that 99% of F150s would have. You can only get it if you spend 70k on the Limited (or a Raptor). I think the 6.2 is a bit more reasonable as an LTZ 6.2 could be had for 20k less than the Limited. Plus, I think if the HC they tested had NHT, the margin would be even smaller.

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

Completely different engine tech, but its embarrassing that an engine with1.2 litres less displacement, isn't far behind. Guess gm should be thankful ford didn't make a new gen 6.2...

Edited February 23, 2019 by M1ck3y

magnum74 · February 23, 2019

One of the most common comments I've heard about the 19's here is better throttle response. I'm waiting to see REAL empirical data on these trucks compared to the others brands and not SOTP or TFL mash ups. There's been one legitimate tests with 19' crew 4x4's (professional drivers, data collecting) and the 6.2 beat an Ecoboost and destroyed a 5.7/3.92 Ram. In fact, I won't be surprised if the Ram 5.7 is more comparable to the 5.3.

M1ck3y · February 23, 2019

Well, I can tell you now. Car and driver always has the fastest times for gm trucks... anywhere... Unless you count some guy driving down a hill with his g-tech; claiming 4.6 seconds 60mph. Motortrend always has the slowest times. I think everyone else just copies and pastes.

OnTheReel · February 23, 2019

22 minutes ago, magnum74 said:

In fact, I won't be surprised if the Ram 5.7 is more comparable to the 5.3.

I’d say it is, much to FCA’s embarrassment. It’s 0-60 is only 2/10ths of a second faster than a 5.3 TrailBoss. And that’s with it’s 3.92 & 40 more horses against a lifted truck probably on Duratracs.

Why every magazine has given such slack to the Ram for its abysmal fuel economy and performance is baffling to me. That interior must really be great!

cltsig · February 23, 2019

FWIW, I drove a 19 5.3 and right after a 19 6.2. The 5.3 had plenty of power but what stood out to me was how responsive the 6.2 was to throttle input. It didn’t matter how fast you were going - when you needed power in the 6.2, the transmission responded with the right downshifts and the right amount of power. Very linear. When I drove the 5.3 I noticed it was hesitant to kick down and when it did, it was too much all at once. Like 2 gears down and 100 hp in half a second. Day to day driving for most folks it is probably fine but I’m a bit of a tranny snob and I preferred the 6.2. My .02.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cltsig · February 23, 2019

I’ll add to the above. HP and torque-wise, the 5.3 is more than adequate. Put that 10-speed tranny in the 5.3 and tuned like it is in the 6.2 would be a sweet combo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CmackR56 · February 23, 2019

2 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

I’d say it is, much to FCA’s embarrassment. It’s 0-60 is only 2/10ths of a second faster than a 5.3 TrailBoss. And that’s with it’s 3.92 & 40 more horses against a lifted truck probably on Duratracs.

Why every magazine has given such slack to the Ram for its abysmal fuel economy and performance is baffling to me. That interior must really be great!

Having test driven a 5.7 Hemi in the past week, I don't think it's much, if any quicker than the 2019 5.3 DFM engines. I'll admit I was impressed at first, having only driven my 18 5.3 but then I drove a 19 5.3 and all of a sudden that hemi wasn't so impressive anymore.

qwank · February 23, 2019

6 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I wouldn’t be too sure. I read recently the collector car market is turning Asian. Maybe Ford had the right idea, turbo engines. The fast and furious crowd loves tuner turbo engines. Mustang and Camaro have turbo 4s now. Makes sense an Asian cars lover needs a full sized pick up they go turbo engine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm a fan of the turbo Camaro, If this 2.7 makes it into them in the next couple of years I may buy one if the 1LE package is still offered.

CadillacLuke24 · February 23, 2019

6 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

I’d say it is, much to FCA’s embarrassment. It’s 0-60 is only 2/10ths of a second faster than a 5.3 TrailBoss. And that’s with it’s 3.92 & 40 more horses against a lifted truck probably on Duratracs.

Why every magazine has given such slack to the Ram for its abysmal fuel economy and performance is baffling to me. That interior must really be great!

They probably use the touch screen for, uh, special types of "entertainment"