Comments on: Tundra v. Ram — Part I: Mechanicals

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:28:03 +0000

Hemi Power: Sure most here can reply for me, but own an ‘06 F150 5.4L XLT Screw 3.73LS.
http://i208.photobucket.com/al.....150web.jpg
*****
Now I admit, my truck ain’t the fastest on the roads (not why I purchased it), but tows very well here at 5280ft, rides very nice, carries the family no problem and has been problem free.

By: Hemi Power

Hemi Power — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:21:59 +0000

Justin, I understand why you call BS. Believe me, I was shocked too when I saw the rating. I think you are probably right that the dyno was broken. But until I get it tested again (I hope to very soon), I am going to stand by these numbers. Yes I am familiar with the parasitic loss, and that makes me even more skeptical about the results. Just out of curiosity, what kind of truck do you have, and what is the engine?

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:17:11 +0000

Hemi Power: I know the numbers the SRT-10 & 5.7L Hemi put down, but remember those are flywheel numbers, not the actual numbers put to the ground. There’s a thing called parasitic loss, below is a link for review. So sure my truck puts down 300hp/365lb-ft, but that’s not what truly gets to the wheels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_loss
****
And I’ve run Shell, Mobil, Conoco/Phillips 66 and BP 87 octane in my truck, and the best for performance that I’ve found is BP. Well, other than running 100 Octane from the local Sunoco station or the E85 they offer. The E85 does drop the mileage by 2-5mpgs, but you do notice a slight difference/increase in power (seat of the pants).
****
Now if you have the 5.7L from an ‘03 Ram Qcab, your power numbers at the flywheel from Dodge 345hp/375lb-ft. The new 2009+ Ram produces 390hp/407lb-ft. So personally, if your truck is stock with the 345hp/375lb-ft, I see no way possible that the dyno results showed you produced 383hp/404lb-ft. That would mean from the motor to the wheels you actually gained power by 38hp/29lb-ft, which without modifications, is practically impossible and why I called your original post BS.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:39:52 +0000

That’s one of the reasons why I use shell as for my gas. Another is that it keeps it clean in the engine compartment.

By: Hemi Power

Hemi Power — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:25:11 +0000

The Ram SRT-10 produces 500hp and 525 lb/ft of torque, not 383hp and 404 lb/ft. My truck has the 5.7L Hemi, and I don’t have a membership to any website like photo bucket, so I can’t post the dyno or track results. Sorry if this doesn’t help at all, and I totally understand if you can’t believe me, but these are the results that I got from the dyno. Maybe it WAS broken like you say. As for the 0-60mph times, I have to admit that my brother used a stop watch and timed me. We did 10 runs on a 1/2 mile of flat,smooth,open road, and each run, the time was between 5.3 and 5.8 seconds. I would not be surprised if that was the reason for the quick run times. I will say that the truck was running on the Shell nitrogen enriched gasoline, so that may have enhanced the trucks preformance. I am sorry, but this is all the help I can be.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:29:19 +0000

Hemi besides being bias in your thoughts, by chance you know where your parts are made at? How does it feel like being owned by the govt.? By chance are you sure your truck will be around in 5 years???

By: Admin (Jason)

Admin (Jason) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:21:55 +0000

Justin – Good call.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:58:53 +0000

Just noticed you didn’t clarify the 5.7L HEMI, but just HEMI. After a little research, the only stock Ram that could produce the #’s you provided is the SRT10 V10 QCab, which uses a Viper motor, which that motor is not a HEMI. So if you do have a stock 2003 Ram HEMI, largest being the 5.7L in the Ram, I call BS. If it is the SRT10, I can potentially see those numbers, but again, that motor is not a HEMI. So is it a HEMI or the V10?

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:39:22 +0000

Hemi Power: I am not a Dodge Ram fan, nor a Toyota Tundra fan. But I must call BS on your dyno numbers. Unless the dyno you used is broken, there is no way a “stock” 2003 Ram QCab 5.7L HEMI produces 383hp/404lb-ft. If this is true, please scan a copy of your dyno results, post a pic to someplace like photobucket, and provide all us a url/link to the results. Also, please do the same for your track slip displaying 5.3-5.8 0-60 times on this truck. On second thought, you could actially post these numbers, but we wouldn’t know your truck is “stock” form and these sheets might not display the make/model vehicle tested. But anyways, thanks for the laugh this morning. The only item regarding specs provided I can see as plausable, are your city mpgs (11-13). Not even your highway mpgs (18-20) are realistic, when for 2003, the Ram HEMI has continuously shown to be the worst in fuel mileage compared to other full size trucks.
****
So I’m glad your proud of your truck, hey if my truck did what you state in stock form, I’d be proud too. But I must simply laugh and state “no”, “none”, “nada” stock full size truck with a gas motor is putting down those dyno #’s “stock”. Thanks for the good morning humor.

By: Hemi Power

Hemi Power — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:58:51 +0000

I have a 2003 Ram 1500 Quad cab w/ Hemi. I got it tested at the Dyno in 2006, and the ratings are 383 horsepower and 404 lb/ft of torque. No modifications, all stock. The truck does 0-60mph between 5.3-5.8 seconds. I have towed a 1000lb trailer with a 6600lb tractor on it on a 678 mile trip, and I averaged 11-13mpg city, and 18-20mpg highway. I fly by Tundras left and right (no load of any kind) and have never had any problems what so ever. The truck has 42,000 miles on it, and the biggest problem I have ever had is a flat tire. Like some people mentioned in previous posts, the Tundra has copied off the Ram for multiple things, and I still cannot compete. The 2009 Ram was redesigned, and now officially beats the Tundra (It already did in my eyes). 390hp and 407lb/ft of torque are incredible. I used to have a 1993 F-150 XLT. 4.9L I6 with 145hp and 163lb/ft of torque. LOL! Ford may have the highest tow and payload ratings now, but that is only because they have better suspension and transmission than the Dodge. If Dodge could improve on these two things, I would be the top truck for sure! In short, Toyota and Nissan suck, Dodge rocks, Ford and GM are Ok, but not quite with the dodge.