Sorry, sir. You simply cannot aggregate all issues across all engines. The 6.4 truck engine isn't the 5.7. Heck, the 6.4 truck engine isn't even that close the 6.4 car engine. The truck engine is built for truck applications.

 

6.4 still uses mds, and has similar designs like wiring and head design. not that far off from 5.7. it is true that rams are for leasing, an ford for buying. too many people buying "luxury" vehicles and calling them rams. rams market and advertising has too much emphasis on luxury. 6.4 is slow up hills even while unloaded. ford has proven itself with the 6.2.

 

After reading this thread and the "C" word thread I decided to go check out the Ram forums. I got about 90 posts into the "How Many Miles on Your 6.4l" thread and saw wayyyy too many posts saying something like "I have 8,000 miles on mine and it has been flawless except for (insert problem here) but it was covered under warranty".

 

If I am not mistaken the 6.4L truck Hemi is just an outgrowth of the 5.7L Hemi, is it not? Same block architecture, same oiling system, same cooling system design, etc.

The 6.4L Hemi is as much a 5.7L Hemi as the Triton 5.4L was a mod-motor tall-deck version of the 4.6L motors. Sure, they may beef them up a bit with more main bolts or different heads, but at it's core, it's still the same engine with different minor mods attached.

And I can say with absolute certainty that the 5.7L engines do NOT hold up well in the long term, at least in high-stress use such as LEO ops. If you drive your truck like a commuter car, then perhaps all may be well for a while. But use it like a TRUCK, and run her hard, and that Hemi will puke itself eventually.

And it's not just the engines; it's the whole vehicle that does not hold up well long term. I am not impressed with the longevity of any Fiat/Dodge/Chrysler/Ram product.


Date the Hemi; don't marry it.


.

 

I'm sorry, sir. You must have me confused with someone who is loyal to any brand. I'm not. I simply stated that the 6.4 isn't garbage just because you think the 5.7 is. Reliability with one doesn't equal the same in another. Same goes for the 5.9 to 6.7 Cummins, or any other "family" of engines.


As for your lack of impression with the longevity of any Fiat/Dodge/Chrysler/Ram product, thousands of customers can say the same about Ford and GM. It's so subjective as to not have any meaning at all.

 

Well my 2015 Ram is getting new rear end bearings and ring and pinion. Most likely a fluke thing. Either way I will most likely be in a Ford again sometime soon. I am not leaving Dodge because I dont think its a bad truck. I just prefer the Ford products and regret not ordering the truck I wanted when I bought the Ram for immediate gratification.

 

The 6.4L engine is most certainly an outgrowth of the 5.7, and every bit of info I can find says I'm right. Same block bore spacing, same cam drive system, same crank/cam distance, same main-web spacing and size, same crank journal sizing, etc. Most certainly reliability will be similar, sir. Ain't much changed on the 6.4L but some general hot-rodding tricks like more displacement, etc.

It's not just my impression of the stuff that matters; I admitted my experiences were anecdotal. However, Consumer Reports isn't biased; they simply report back raw data tabulated into an easily read format. And it's no secret that Fiat (and the Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Jeep subsidiaries) are ranked at/near the bottom of their reliability studies year after year since the merger. You might discount my experiences, but you cannot avoid the mass market indication of a general overall lack of quality from not just the engine, but most of their vehicles.


If you believe that the 6.4L engine is "better" in some manner than the 5.7L engine, then please tell me what changed to make it more reliable? What did they do to improve the basic design? And if they were able to make the 6.4L engine an improvement, why the hell not do the same to the 5.7L to improve it?



.

 

Sorry, but I haven't done the part-to-part study of the differences between the 5.7 and 6.4. I have better things to do with my time. But I have been a student of most trucks for a couple of decades and your experiences are not supported by what I've read during that time. There has not been wholesale disappointment in the 5.7s. AT ALL. But I have seen tons of 5.7s with 400k. That isn't a unique occurrence. The 6.4 has only been out since 2014 and outside of a bad (but small) batch of wrist pins in early motors, it's been solid as well. And fellas are putting 10 and 12k behind them everyday.

While I appreciate your service as an LEO, I do not think your experience with the 5.7 is very relevant. Outside of racing, LEO vehicles are subjected to probably one of the most extreme set of conditions any vehicle will experience, even worse than towing. Add to that, your agency's probable minimalistic fleet maintenance program (most fleet programs are and every dollar counts, yes?), I dare say any vehicle in those conditions would experience similar down time. There are just so many factors that go into your experience than can account for those issues. Your comparison is apples to oranges.

As for Consumer Reports? I'll just leave it at that.

 

This. My agency has 3 Hemi cars that have had the cams go flat. The 4 v6 cars are electrical nightmares. Two of the hemi cars had three alternators within 12K. One of the v6 cars needed a trans before 12k. Before those we had 3 first generation charger police cars. They were rolling electrical nightmare that ate engine mounts and suspension parts. We aren't buying any more FCA products. It's all ford utility's or Tahoes from now on.

 

We've not had any of the v-6 Chargers, so I cannot comment there. The Hemi Chargers are not holding up well, and it's not just the engines, either. As you state, EL issues, water pumps prematurely failing, blown struts, brakes needing replacement far more than usual ... etc. Our department has a love/hate affair with the Chargers. They sure are fun to drive, but not to own. We thought it might be different with the Durangos; not so much.

Contrast that to the former CVPIs. Like a chunk of granite. Unshakable. You could beat on those things all day long, and still they would last seemingly forever. There's a reason that taxi companies used to buy CVPIs as they came out of service; there was probably a good 200-300k miles left in them after the cops stepped out of them. Sure - they were "slow" against the Chargers and Impalas; who cares? Just how fast do I need to get somewhere? They were "fast enough"; just not stupid fast like the Chargers and Sho-Clones (Turbo Taurus) are now. When I think of a robust, reliable car, it's the Panther platform.


I will note that the data from Consumer Reports would not reflect any data from "LEO" use anyway; it's Joe Consumer that buys and reports there data to CR. So it's not abusive data, but everyday commuter data. And to say that data is not valid is ridiculous. That is mass-market data from all over the States. Not one man's experience or opinion, but truly a broad-based demographic. Like it or not, the Ram trucks are generally going to a much bigger risk in terms of long-term ownership as opposed to the Fords.

But hey ... why let facts and data get in the way of good ol' fashioned mythology and brand-bigoted rhetoric?


.

 

You seem to once again have me confused with being brand loyal. Brand bigoted? What part of my lack of brand loyalty don't you understand? I would have similar stances if you were spewing similar inaccuracies about Ford's 6.2. Why do you think I'm here? To defend FCA? Ha! Get real.

As for CR, get real again. Facts? Data? Have you ever done original research? CR's sampling is far from scientific and far from random, unless you consider CR subscribers as scientific and random. Nevermind their other dubious practices throughout their history.

But none of this has anything to do the the 6.4 Hemi. Just uninformed opinions is all.

 

I do statistical process quality control for a living, so "yes", I understand how data is collected and analyzed. I've even been published in trade magazines regarding oil analysis, and have been employed as a side-job for providing market-based lubricant analysis. I kinda know what I'm talking about here ....

I don't think you personally are brand loyal; I really have not seen any indication of such. I do believe that many folks are brand-bigoted, though. Whether you are or not means little to me.

I started this out with two things:
1) information as to mass market research
2) anecdotal personal observations.

The CR data (of which I am a member) comes from surveys they send out to owners for all manner of products; not just vehicles, but toasters, washers, banking services, phone services, etc. CR simply takes input from their membership and tabulates it into easily managed forms. They have zero brand loyalty and are completely subscribers funded; no product intervention. JDP and others are hogwash IMO. What "dubious practices" exist at CR that you speak of? I've never heard of any such complaint before. What "history" do they have of tainting trials or inducing bias? Fiat, Jeep, Dodge, Ram and Chrysler have been at/near the bottom of the quality reports for several years. Sure, they make good stuff. But the propensity to get a bad one is FAR greater than if you got some other brand.

My personal observations are anecdotal, but they are not, by any means, alone. As you already read, another LEO chimed in with similar experiences. I guess you can just lump us in with the entire CR group of dissatisfied drivers of Fiat operated company products and dismiss us.


What I know for sure is that the 5.7L and the 6.4L Hemi engines are not unique; they are CLOSELY related in design and manufacture. Therefore it is HIGHLY likely that a problem that plagues one will affect the other.
What I know for sure is that I have personally experienced failures of Dodge products as an operator; the experiences I have had are not unique and are echo'ed by others in similar exposures.
What I know for sure is that mass market data shows a clear propensity for Ram trucks (and it's corporate stable mates) to have earned a well-below-average quality record; not just the engines but the entire vehicle.
What I know for sure is that we can just agree to disagree; you keep your version of reality and I'll keep mine.

 

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-new...g-ar45561.html

https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/0...-for-chrysler/

This is enough for me for me to distrust anything CR publishes. Or ever will.

Now as for the Hemi. Since the 5.7 and 6.4 are SO closely related, why haven't we seen any of those issues in the 6.4 that you've observed in your service vehicle? (And there still hasn't been wholesale issues in the 5.7 truck motor.) Of course, you find the occasional issues to which any engine is susceptible, including the Ford engines discussed in this forum. But no serial problems which mirror your anecdotal experience with either the 5.7 or 6.4. And certainly nothing like Ford's 6.0 and 6.4 debacles.

So where's the evidence? The truth is there isn't any and you're making opinionated conjectures. Truck gas engines are reliable and probably the last thing you need to worry about and I wouldn't have the first concern running either of the Big 3's HD gas offerings. The truck OTOH, may be a different story.

But if you have such evidence to make a case for 6.4 unreliability outside of your "anecdotal" experience with a different engine, then post it. Otherwise, you're just trolling and making a spectacle.

 

So you are basing your dis-trust on website links that are ten and six years old? & From competitors to CR?

 

Somewhat. But I was asked to show the historical discrepancies in CR that I mentioned earlier and I did just that. But it points out that CR has at times based ratings on less than all the facts, not to mention that their "facts" only come from their subscribers. The same subscribers that are influenced by CR ratings. It's a self-licking ice cream cone. Not random. Not scientific. Yet people take their ratings as gospel to be applied to the population at large. I am done with this though. Subscribe all you want. Believe what you will. I don't care.

ETA: I didn't fully answer your question. I don't read any competitors to CR, but I would take them with a grain of salt too.

But back to the real point of this discussion: the 6.4 Hemi. I have no love for this engine and have never owned one. But I'm still waiting for someone to identify true and reasoned unreliability with this engine. If you have it, post it so we all can learn. But I don't think anyone can.