2025 Ram 1500 coverage

[zonedout]

Tim, watched your latest video above, some good points there but I'd like to comment on the Hemi vs Hurricane.

The same engineer may have designed those 2 engines, but that doesn't guarantee that the design parameters/requirements are at all the same, nor that he can just make decisions that are independent of what his bosses want him to do. The hemi is a 20 year old engine, Chrysler built that motor just as much as Alan did. Now we have Stellantis in charge 20 years later, the inevitable engineering tradeoffs that are made could completely different. For a start, fuel efficiency and pollution is more important than longevity. We see them making that decision with the oil choices with the hemi over time already.

Secondly, the hemi is still a far simpler motor. Pushrod, cast iron block etc. Let's not underestimate this, that hemi has a completely solid lower end. GM builds essentially the same motor in aluminium and cast iron blocks, the aluminium does light duty stuff like camaro and 1500, the cast iron goes in their heavy duty trucks. These are conscious choices by the designers, cast iron is stronger, it handles heat far better etc.

Then we get into turbos. Not "if" they go, but "when" they go. We get into issues like heat while towing.

Next issue that makes me wary is the use of direct injection. I'm sorry but there is no excuse for the way they did this, Ford figured this out years ago already; multi-injection is what works, you get direct injection for the fuel efficiency and power gains, but port injection to keep everything clean and tidy. Carbon buildup will be a serious issue in these engines over time as Ford discovered. GM has the same problem, just DI.

And finally we have Ford, the original guy in the market, building very powerful turbo engines in the F150 but spending millions to build a N/A 7.3/6.8 for use in their heavy duty trucks. Just another sign that it's not about the peak power numbers, turbos can definitely pull the weight needed for a heavy duty truck, but it simply cannot survive the duty cycle of a typical F250/F350. Ford knows this, that's why there is no turbos in their super duty.

Note that the 5.7 hemi is the only gas engine used in a half ton, that also was used in a heavy duty truck (2500). It was the base engine for years in the 2500. Only difference was some very slight cam tuning and no MDS vs the 1500 5.7. That's some rock solid pedigree. You will not kill the 5.7 by working it hard, as long as it is well maintained.

I'm not going to say the hurricane can't do well in a 1500 use case. But I am going to suggest that the 5.7 will be proven to be more more reliable/indestructible over time vs the hurricane. (Hemi tick issue is not a durability thing, it's just a manufacturing defect from one of their vendors. It's not caused by working the engine too hard, for example.).

I will not be inline (heh) to buy one of these engines anytime soon. Hopefully my truck will be with me for a long time. If I total it and need to replace it, I'll buy a used hemi before a hurricane. And in the future when ram charger is available, that looks like the better choice by far then these hurricane options.

All my 2 cents.

 

[testerdahl]

Good on ya' That's the way to be. Not that'll I be tuning in to watch the horror show of the Hornet.

Damn good video. I think you addressed it all well. I do remember that one comment saying you should have saved money by getting a leftover 23 or a 24. I started laughing, they really don't get how you do this as a business. You are not buying for your needs.

And I see your point, for your business, that it does make sense to buy the mid-model and get the newest features loaded on it. That way, somebody in the market wanting to know what the Rambox is like will tune in. Or the I6 vice the V6. It's why I shrugged my shoulders with TFL and their Taco, it's stripped! It has none of the interesting new features. And you save money by not getting the pano roof because everyone already knows about that one. Good strategy, it's almost like you know what you're doing....lol

I had a similiar thought on the TFL Tacoma. It makes a TON of sense for them to be first, but man did they get a build that sucked. I learned my lesson with the Tundra rushing to get the first one. I should have waited and got the build I wanted.

 

[testerdahl]

Tim, watched your latest video above, some good points there but I'd like to comment on the Hemi vs Hurricane.

The same engineer may have designed those 2 engines, but that doesn't guarantee that the design parameters/requirements are at all the same, nor that he can just make decisions that are independent of what his bosses want him to do. The hemi is a 20 year old engine, Chrysler built that motor just as much as Alan did. Now we have Stellantis in charge 20 years later, the inevitable engineering tradeoffs that are made could completely different. For a start, fuel efficiency and pollution is more important than longevity. We see them making that decision with the oil choices with the hemi over time already.

Secondly, the hemi is still a far simpler motor. Pushrod, cast iron block etc. Let's not underestimate this, that hemi has a completely solid lower end. GM builds essentially the same motor in aluminium and cast iron blocks, the aluminium does light duty stuff like camaro and 1500, the cast iron goes in their heavy duty trucks. These are conscious choices by the designers, cast iron is stronger, it handles heat far better etc.

Then we get into turbos. Not "if" they go, but "when" they go. We get into issues like heat while towing.

Next issue that makes me wary is the use of direct injection. I'm sorry but there is no excuse for the way they did this, Ford figured this out years ago already; multi-injection is what works, you get direct injection for the fuel efficiency and power gains, but port injection to keep everything clean and tidy. Carbon buildup will be a serious issue in these engines over time as Ford discovered. GM has the same problem, just DI.

And finally we have Ford, the original guy in the market, building very powerful turbo engines in the F150 but spending millions to build a N/A 7.3/6.8 for use in their heavy duty trucks. Just another sign that it's not about the peak power numbers, turbos can definitely pull the weight needed for a heavy duty truck, but it simply cannot survive the duty cycle of a typical F250/F350. Ford knows this, that's why there is no turbos in their super duty.

Note that the 5.7 hemi is the only gas engine used in a half ton, that also was used in a heavy duty truck (2500). It was the base engine for years in the 2500. Only difference was some very slight cam tuning and no MDS vs the 1500 5.7. That's some rock solid pedigree. You will not kill the 5.7 by working it hard, as long as it is well maintained.

I'm not going to say the hurricane can't do well in a 1500 use case. But I am going to suggest that the 5.7 will be proven to be more more reliable/indestructible over time vs the hurricane. (Hemi tick issue is not a durability thing, it's just a manufacturing defect from one of their vendors. It's not caused by working the engine too hard, for example.).

I will not be inline (heh) to buy one of these engines anytime soon. Hopefully my truck will be with me for a long time. If I total it and need to replace it, I'll buy a used hemi before a hurricane. And in the future when ram charger is available, that looks like the better choice by far then these hurricane options.

All my 2 cents.

The direct quote from Alan, "the Hurricane surpasses the Hemi in every measurable way they have to test engines." For me, that's quite the statement.

I'll agree with the rest of your comment. Time is going to tell on the long-term reliability and how well it is built. Those are always unknowns.

Funny story, I had one guy suggest you don't know an engines durability until it has been around for 10+ years and has millions of miles of actual driving behind it. I said, "that engine won't be around for 10 years." He about lost it suggesting it confirmed his suspicions about long-term reliability. I responded, "sorry, to clarify, that engine won't be around because a new one will have taken its place by then and then you'll have to wait another 10 years." LOL

Every 7 years there are mostly new engine options. The Hemi was, arguably, way past its refresh mark and I had colleagues ask me when it was going to be replaced going back 5 years ago.

 

[zonedout]

Also, if you're

The direct quote from Alan, "the Hurricane surpasses the Hemi in every measurable way they have to test engines." For me, that's quite the statement.

They all say that. I don't think you'll find a quote from an engineer or company that says "oops my bad, looks like this engine isn't as good as the last one tee hee". I'd like to believe him, but that takes time and history, not marketing.

I'll agree with the rest of your comment. Time is going to tell on the long-term reliability and how well it is built. Those are always unknowns.

Funny story, I had one guy suggest you don't know an engines durability until it has been around for 10+ years and has millions of miles of actual driving behind it. I said, "that engine won't be around for 10 years." He about lost it suggesting it confirmed his suspicions about long-term reliability. I responded, "sorry, to clarify, that engine won't be around because a new one will have taken its place by then and then you'll have to wait another 10 years." LOL

Every 7 years there are mostly new engine options. The Hemi was, arguably, way past its refresh mark and I had colleagues ask me when it was going to be replaced going back 5 years ago.

Those questions come from ignorance though. The hemi was designed and first built 20 years ago, and it is still competitive with the GM and 5.0 offerings today. Ford's 5.0 has gone through numerous updates, same thing with the chevy, and the hemi just had VVT added in 2009 but still the same basic engine. It had MDS right from the start.

What is it missing? From a power, reliability, mpg perspective, it's got it all even after all these years. "Way past its refresh mark" is a little unjustified, because the only place it really shows its age is in emissions. That's the only thing that is killing the engine, there is no way to improve that anymore with this design. The 6.2 is up to, what, 1000+ hp these days in the challenger, stock from the factory, with a warranty? "past its refresh mark" is just not accurate.

I've seen some of your colleagues (well, guys on YT reviewing things anyway) review the new 3.0 and it makes me shake my head. Completely trashing the hemi as "rough" and outdated when 5 years ago the same publication was praising it for being a strong, smooth, powerful towing machine, noting how it made wards 10 best engines several times (six times, to be exact). Just makes me laugh, they have no idea and the only card they have to play is to trash the outgoing to somehow justify their excitement for the incoming. Your reviews have not gone there, so I appreciate that!

It's not as modern as the 5.0 with its DOHC and direct injection etc, but that's a plus. Look at the Ford 7.3 gozilla. It's as simple and old-skool as you can get, just a pushrod with no MDS or direct injection and a massive set of cylinders. THAT's an engine!

Anyway I hate to appear to be arguing the point needlessly so I'll leave it at that. But color me very skeptical of the new inline 6. It needs to earn its place above the hemi, and its far from being there unless the only thing you care about is HP. Those who are elevating it there already in all these "reviews" have no idea whatsoever, it's just way too soon to tell.

 

[testerdahl]

The hemi is a 20 year old engine, Chrysler built that motor just as much as Alan did. Now we have Stellantis in charge 20 years later, the inevitable engineering tradeoffs that are made could completely different. For a start, fuel efficiency and pollution is more important than longevity. We see them making that decision with the oil choices with the hemi over time already.

I wanted to zero in on this comment since I think it is really interesting. What were the testing requirements 20 years ago? The Hemi came out in 2003 when Chrysler was owned by Daimler in 1998. Daimler did an awful job on running the company from the sources I've spoken to that are still around. If you follow development cycles, the Hemi was likely worked on 3 years prior to its release. You could actually argue it was a Chrysler engine in purity, it was tainted by Daimler.

The other conversation is about fuel efficiency and pollution. Bush didn't sign a bill boosting fuel efficiency standards and air quality targets until 2007 that's true. The original CAFE came out in 1970s in response to the Iran oil embargo.

Pollution though was being tackled throughout all this time. This video below is from a long-time Ford Super Duty diesel engineer who talks about how loose the standards were and then how much has improved over the years. I published it 3 years ago and I still think it is one of my hidden gems nobody seemed to watch.

I think it is also interesting you see tradeoffs with new engines. Boy engineers would have a field day arguing this POV. I'll leave it at that. LOL

Light-weight oils continue to be a hot topic on forums and YouTube. There's a TON of hate for how thin they are and I get that hate. I do find it interesting that nobody takes into account how much engine design AND oil has improved in the past decade. It is hard to change long-standing beliefs and I'm not going to even attempt that one. All I'll say is there are millions of trucks running around with lesser weight oils than most of us even considered possible and I'm just not seeing millions of trucks heading to the crusher each year over it. I remember growing up with 10-40 for example and now I can use 0-20 in some applications. When I've talked with Shell about this, they point to how much they have improved oil through better synthetic blends. But if i have them say that on camera, well, I just don't think anyone is going to believe the big bad oil companies.

I wonder what interview you'd like to see that I could do that might help shed more light on these topics?

 

[testerdahl]

Here's another video I did 4 years ago with a Chevy engineer discussing turbos, DI and belts vs chains. Another gem people didn't watch sadly.

 

[testerdahl]

Also, if you're


They all say that. I don't think you'll find a quote from an engineer or company that says "oops my bad, looks like this engine isn't as good as the last one tee hee". I'd like to believe him, but that takes time and history, not marketing.



Those questions come from ignorance though. The hemi was designed and first built 20 years ago, and it is still competitive with the GM and 5.0 offerings today. Ford's 5.0 has gone through numerous updates, same thing with the chevy, and the hemi just had VVT added in 2009 but still the same basic engine. It had MDS right from the start.

What is it missing? From a power, reliability, mpg perspective, it's got it all even after all these years. "Way past its refresh mark" is a little unjustified, because the only place it really shows its age is in emissions. That's the only thing that is killing the engine, there is no way to improve that anymore with this design. The 6.2 is up to, what, 1000+ hp these days in the challenger, stock from the factory, with a warranty? "past its refresh mark" is just not accurate.

I've seen some of your colleagues (well, guys on YT reviewing things anyway) review the new 3.0 and it makes me shake my head. Completely trashing the hemi as "rough" and outdated when 5 years ago the same publication was praising it for being a strong, smooth, powerful towing machine, noting how it made wards 10 best engines several times (six times, to be exact). Just makes me laugh, they have no idea and the only card they have to play is to trash the outgoing to somehow justify their excitement for the incoming. Your reviews have not gone there, so I appreciate that!

It's not as modern as the 5.0 with its DOHC and direct injection etc, but that's a plus. Look at the Ford 7.3 gozilla. It's as simple and old-skool as you can get, just a pushrod with no MDS or direct injection and a massive set of cylinders. THAT's an engine!

Anyway I hate to appear to be arguing the point needlessly so I'll leave it at that. But color me very skeptical of the new inline 6. It needs to earn its place above the hemi, and its far from being there unless the only thing you care about is HP. Those who are elevating it there already in all these "reviews" have no idea whatsoever, it's just way too soon to tell.

I don't see this as arguing btw, but constructive back and forth. For the record, I didn't talk with a single Ram person who was happy the Hemi went away. They all loved that engine, but all of them recognized it was time for something new and they had to meet emissions requirements.

 

[zonedout]

I wanted to zero in on this comment since I think it is really interesting. What were the testing requirements 20 years ago? The Hemi came out in 2003 when Chrysler was owned by Daimler in 1998. Daimler did an awful job on running the company from the sources I've spoken to that are still around. If you follow development cycles, the Hemi was likely worked on 3 years prior to its release. You could actually argue it was a Chrysler engine in purity, it was tainted by Daimler.

This is all true. My point about Chrysler designing the engine was in comparison to Stellantis. So the engineer is the same engineer, but it's a completely different company now vs 20 years ago. They could have completely different goals with this engine, different trade offs, different risks (all engineering is a balance in compromise).

The other conversation is about fuel efficiency and pollution. Bush didn't sign a bill boosting fuel efficiency standards and air quality targets until 2007 that's true. The original CAFE came out in 1970s in response to the Iran oil embargo.

Pollution though was being tackled throughout all this time. This video below is from a long-time Ford Super Duty diesel engineer who talks about how loose the standards were and then how much has improved over the years. I published it 3 years ago and I still think it is one of my hidden gems nobody seemed to watch.

I think it is also interesting you see tradeoffs with new engines. Boy engineers would have a field day arguing this POV. I'll leave it at that. LOL

Light-weight oils continue to be a hot topic on forums and YouTube. There's a TON of hate for how thin they are and I get that hate. I do find it interesting that nobody takes into account how much engine design AND oil has improved in the past decade. It is hard to change long-standing beliefs and I'm not going to even attempt that one. All I'll say is there are millions of trucks running around with lesser weight oils than most of us even considered possible and I'm just not seeing millions of trucks heading to the crusher each year over it. I remember growing up with 10-40 for example and now I can use 0-20 in some applications. When I've talked with Shell about this, they point to how much they have improved oil through better synthetic blends. But if i have them say that on camera, well, I just don't think anyone is going to believe the big bad oil companies.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that basic facts have not changed. Thicker oils still protect more than thinner oils. The clearances in bearings etc have not really changed in 50 years.

Then we have 2 examples which the "thin oil" guys don't like to talk about: how Ford and others tried to use thinner oils and in later years, reverted back to thicker oil. And the second example like how Toyota's global engines have thicker viscosity's recommended in countries other than North America.

We know what is driving the move to thinner oil. It's not because it protects more, we know it protects less. They move to thinner oil only due to fuel efficiency reasons, that's it. Take that away and they'd be recommending thicker oils, they are pushing us closer and closer to the edge of what is reliable simply for fuel efficiency and more and more people will get burnt by this move. CAN a thinner oil do the job? Possibly, but a thicker oil (within reason) will always do that same job better, that is a fact that has not changed in a 100 years despite what shell is trying to tell you.

I wonder what interview you'd like to see that I could do that might help shed more light on these topics?

Not much to be honest. I do enjoy watching them but I have a serious problem excepting them on face value. They will never air their dirty laundry, tell you what they got wrong etc. All of them will praise the new stuff and tow the corporate line. Or they'll leave out critical information that totally changes the story. Like the engineer you interviewed on the GM 2.7 turbo and how good it was and how it decimates the old 2.8 diesel in the canyon in hp/torque yada yada; and yet critically he doesn't tell you that it gets like 8 to 10 mpg less than the baby diesel (unloaded) while still not towing anymore than it. And so on.

One thing that might be interesting though, get Alan's take on the hemi tick. What does he think causes it, what can one do to prevent it, does oil choice matter, does oil interval matter, idle time, camshaft too high in the block, not enough oil being flung from the crank, MDS causing it.... I've heard so much about this, and I have my very firm opinion on what this is, but I'd love to hear him say what he thinks. I doubt you'll get anywhere because he can't even acknowledge it as a "thing" because it might open FCA up to lawsuits. But maybe he something he can add that we haven't heard before?

 

[Fightnfire]

If I'm being 100% honest I struggle with the engineer videos and podcasts, and not just yours, TFL does it too as do others. I just don't know how much value I see in hearing from them. Some aspects are interesting for sure on the why this or why not that but even with that we get fed some bullshit answers occasionally, or they dodge the question altogether. As mentioned above I think of an engineer as a sales person for their brand. It's all good, everything is good.

 

[zonedout]

If I'm being 100% honest I struggle with the engineer videos and podcasts, and not just yours, TFL does it too as do others. I just don't know how much value I see in hearing from them. Some aspects are interesting for sure on the why this or why not that but even with that we get fed some bullshit answers occasionally, or they dodge the question altogether. As mentioned above I think of an engineer as a sales person for their brand. It's all good, everything is good.

Pretty much spot on. They can talk and make all these claims, even if they're 100% genuine and sincere which I believe they mostly try to be; but the real proof is in the real world, and that doesn't always turn out the same way.

 

[zonedout]

Honestly I could write a short novel of questions for Alan on the hemi. If you are interested in interviewing him and can set that up, I'd love to write some better formulated ideas/questions for him which you could take (or leave, lol) as a starting point?

Not trying to blow my own horn here, but I've researched the cr_p out of this engine since buying it 5 years ago and have been actively daily on various forums talking about it. So much to discuss about it, so many terrible videos on YT trying to get their take on the issues (there are at least 4 different noises people have identified as "hemi tick"), but nobody knows, with certainty. Alan would. The question is, would he discuss??

 

[testerdahl]

Honestly I could write a short novel of questions for Alan on the hemi. If you are interested in interviewing him and can set that up, I'd love to write some better formulated ideas/questions for him which you could take (or leave, lol) as a starting point?

Not trying to blow my own horn here, but I've researched the cr_p out of this engine since buying it 5 years ago and have been actively daily on various forums talking about it. So much to discuss about it, so many terrible videos on YT trying to get their take on the issues (there are at least 4 different noises people have identified as "hemi tick"), but nobody knows, with certainty. Alan would. The question is, would he discuss??

I can find out, but like you said above, you'd take him at face value. Even if I did interview him and he answered all your questions, would you believe him? Sounds to me like you wouldn't.

 

[testerdahl]

The clearances in bearings etc have not really changed in 50 years.

Funny Alan told me how much the clearances for items like piston rings have gotten so much tighter in the past 20 years and the new plasma welding they do has really changed engine design. I'm not an engine engineer so I struggle with asking the right questions, but I do like talking with them.

 

[Fightnfire]

Funny Alan told me how much the clearances for items like piston rings have gotten so much tighter in the past 20 years and the new plasma welding they do has really changed engine design. I'm not an engine engineer so I struggle with asking the right questions, but I do like talking with them.

I think there's a lot of truth to that, I've heard the same thing from mechanics that tear into the engines for YT show purposes. I've also heard the same logic about thinner oil, with the tighter clearences thicker oil doesn't get thrown around as well. That is one of the speculated issues with the GM lifter failure. Keep it thin and keep it full.

 

[zonedout]

I can find out, but like you said above, you'd take him at face value. Even if I did interview him and he answered all your questions, would you believe him? Sounds to me like you wouldn't.

It all depends on what he says and doesn't say. If he says "nothing to see here, move along" then yes I can't accept that.

If he says "we have an issue with the camshaft being too high in the block, the oil flung from the cam isn't reaching the lifters and so by design we have a lubrication issue"... if he said something like that I'd say "why would he be lying? This sounds credible and like he is taking ownership of the problem". Just as an example.

I don't think that's the issue, my belief it is a materials issue on an individual lifter and you either get shipped a bum lifter from the factory or you don't.

 

[testerdahl]

It all depends on what he says and doesn't say. If he says "nothing to see here, move along" then yes I can't accept that.

If he says "we have an issue with the camshaft being too high in the block, the oil flung from the cam isn't reaching the lifters and so by design we have a lubrication issue"... if he said something like that I'd say "why would he be lying? This sounds credible and like he is taking ownership of the problem". Just as an example.

I don't think that's the issue, my belief it is a materials issue on an individual lifter and you either get shipped a bum lifter from the factory or you don't.

For my money, it has to be a bum part. Like you said, you've researched the hell out of it and I know guys like you. You dig up every little stone you can find. It is honestly really impressive.

Every once in a while I get a straight answer from an engineer. Typically it is in person.

PR is going to ask for a preliminary list of questions. Type them up and I'll send it over on Monday. It is 5 pm in Michigan and I guarantee you Ram PR is off for the weekend after spending 2+ weeks in Texas.

 

[NMTRUCKER]

Funny Alan told me how much the clearances for items like piston rings have gotten so much tighter in the past 20 years and the new plasma welding they do has really changed engine design. I'm not an engine engineer so I struggle with asking the right questions, but I do like talking with them.

Engine design is complex, time consuming and costly. I worked with GM engineers, physicists, material scientists and bean counters for five years at the GM Pontiac Powertrain Division on one small aspect of an engine. Part of the R&D was a process known as High-Velocity Oxy-fuel which is a process in the same realm as the Plasma Spray process. I was a consultant that had a 5 million dollar grant to help the GM staff with this development project. GM invested 15 million dollars in developing a pilot facility whose initial customer was the Saturn but was eventually used in Corvettes.
The point of this diatribe is that when Tim interviewed the lead engineer for the LZ0 diesel (John Berta) I believed in what he was saying about the changes made to the LM2 and how those changes made the LZ0 a better more efficient engine. The engineers and scientists that I worked with did a lot of fundamental science and didn’t cut corners in coming up with a process that in the end was very stout. They certainly stood behind their work.

 

[zonedout]

For my money, it has to be a bum part. Like you said, you've researched the hell out of it and I know guys like you. You dig up every little stone you can find. It is honestly really impressive.

Every once in a while I get a straight answer from an engineer. Typically it is in person.

PR is going to ask for a preliminary list of questions. Type them up and I'll send it over on Monday. It is 5 pm in Michigan and I guarantee you Ram PR is off for the weekend after spending 2+ weeks in Texas.

I'm currently on page 3 of my questions, stopping for a bit but will definitely get back to you by Monday.

 

[testerdahl]

Ok, video #6. I’ve lost count. Zonked. No more videos until tomorrow if I feel up to it.

Which One You'd Buy? 2025 Ram 1500 Limited vs 2025 Ram 1500 Tungsten

 

[GMT 900]

And another and some responses for @carhaulereastcoast

Okay, title is a bit sharky, but at least it is not photoshopped to have an exhaust look like the Russian Aircraft Carrier Kuznetsov burning heavy "Mazut" oil.