When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
When you buy a Dodge you aren't just buying the engine .... ... I'm not sure there is enough 6.4s out there to make a decision either good or bad. The rest of the package is enough to scare me away.
So you are basing your dis-trust on website links that are ten and six years old? & From competitors to CR?
I believe when comparing Ford/Ram, I would compare the two over last 5 years. I think Ford is the best overall, but Ram has surely upped their game over the recent years for reliability and such.
I don't put any faith in the counter-point websites from essentially a decade ago.
Here's what one needs to know about CR.
- They are not funded by advertising; they are subscriber funded. Their loyalty is to the reader, because there is no paid advertiser to please or disgruntle.
- The web links you posted are paid for by advertisers; where do you think their loyalty is?
- As for the former CR "recommendations" being based on "untested" cars, I can say this ... Why test a new car every year that has no "updates" or is not "new" except for model year designation? For example, if a 2007 Camry and 2009 Camry are the "same" (both XV40 models) except for minor trim revisions, etc, they are not going to "test" a car every year. They don't have the time/money to test every single model in the entire automotive market. They take aggregate scoring and carry over from year to year. It would be the same for a 2014 F150 and 2016 F150. 2006 Fusion vs. 2008 Fusion. Etc ... Minor model changes do not affect CR ratings. Why test something that does not change in a major way?
- As for reliability, they ALWAYS admit when data is "insufficient". If you've ever seen their annual auto issue in detail, they clearly admit when data is scarce. And scarce data can hurt just as much as help; it's a risk either way. Their reliability data comes direct from the consumer. We are asked to contribute to the raw data format in surveys. I supposed it's your opinion that there is a mass conspiracy of all Toyota owners to "up rate" their vehicles and all Ram/Dodge/Jeep owners to "down rate" theirs? Or maybe you believe that CR manipulates the data and flat lies about it? I suppose they do this to dishwashers, TVs, lawnmowers, coffee makers, tires, etc? They just take subscriber money (with no advertising influence) and pick winners/loser based on one person's bias?
Get real ....
When I refer to reliability data in CR, I'm not paying much attention to their "recommendations" of current tests anyway. I go directly to the back of the issue and look at the cumulative data for repair history, as reported directly by subscribers. THAT is what will convince anyone that a Ram/Dodge/Jeep is a risk. Then look at the Toyota models overall; historically for years of "above average" reliability, both by model and by brand.
Several years ago, CR updated many of their testing and disclosure policies. If you have not paid any attention since 2010, you're about 7 years behind the times.
Mass market data shows Ram trucks are a risk.
Personal experiences at our SO shows that the Hemi engine design is a risk.
Okay i looked for some info on 5.7 vs 6.4 hemi.....here is a little from sae.org:
Complementing the 6.7-L Cummins turbodiesel in Ram Trucks’ 2014 heavy-duty lineup is Chrysler's 6.4-L Hemi V8 that will be available from the 2500 models through the 5500 chassis cab. The engine delivers SAE-certified 410 hp (306 kW) at 5600 rpm and 429 lb·ft (582 N·m) at 4000 rpm—best-in-class output among gasoline-powered pickups, the company claims.
“There’s strong customer demand for increased capability without having to step into that diesel,” said Kevin Mets, Head of Engineering for Ram Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks.
Mets' team also spent a great deal of development effort on the heavy-duty trucks' chassis systems—both front and rear suspension, in particular. A key goal was to improve ride and handling without sacrificing the durability and capability demanded of such work vehicles.
6.4-L Hemi developed for truck duty
Though it debuted in the 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 (and is used in other Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep SRT8 models), the 6.4-L was originally designed as a truck engine, according to Mets. Its components were optimized to satisfy tough durability and market requirements.
“An active runner intake system [helps to] provide that low-end torque that is required in a heavy-duty truck, but without sacrificing that high-end power,” Mets said. “If you look at the torque curves between this engine and our competition as well as the 5.7-L Hemi, the 6.4-L generates as much torque as the others but at 800 to 1000 rpm less.”
Another truck-specific feature is an optional dual-alternator setup for chassis-cab applications. This marks the first time Chrysler has offered a gasoline application in the 4500 and 5500 chassis cabs, according to Mets.
“Designed as a truck engine, we were able to do things like packaging an optional dual alternator; so straight out of the factory, a dual alternator with 380-A [220 and 160 A] output…which is very significant for those electric applications [customers] put on the back of a chassis cab,” he said.
The 6.4-L Hemi shares the basic iron block/aluminum heads architecture of the 5.7-L Hemi, as well as its manufacturing process. It also borrows Chrysler’s fuel-saving cylinder-deactivation system, which shuts down four cylinders when in steady-state operation. This is Chrysler’s first application of cylinder deactivation to the heavy-duty pickup truck and chassis-cab markets, according to Gary Rogers, Chief Engineer for Engines.
While fuel-economy figures for the 6.4-L trucks are not yet available, engineers placed a great deal of emphasis during development on features to improve fuel economy, Rogers said.
“We’ve put a lot of hardware in the engine for that purpose, like the cylinder deactivation, the cooled EGR [exhaust gas recirculation], the active intake, variable valve timing, and the active thermostat—those are all fuel-economy features,” he said.
To better manage high temperatures and improve durability, engineers specified “premium" materials for the 6.4-L application, Mets shared. These include stainless steel exhaust manifolds, steel gaskets, and fasteners as well as sodium-filled exhaust valves and an upgraded valve-seat material.
“We also have a robust high-volume oil cooler and oil jets for cooling the pistons. These are all key things to keep this engine running at a good temperature for long engine durability and longevity,” he said.
The big Hemi is mated to the 66RFE six-speed automatic transmission. It will have the same five-year, 100,000-mi (161,000-km) warranty as the Cummins turbodiesel. “That’s how confident we are in this engine,” said Mets.
I don't put any faith in the counter-point websites from essentially a decade ago.
Here's what one needs to know about CR.
- They are not funded by advertising; they are subscriber funded. Their loyalty is to the reader, because there is no paid advertiser to please or disgruntle.
- The web links you posted are paid for by advertisers; where do you think their loyalty is?
- As for the former CR "recommendations" being based on "untested" cars, I can say this ... Why test a new car every year that has no "updates" or is not "new" except for model year designation? For example, if a 2007 Camry and 2009 Camry are the "same" (both XV40 models) except for minor trim revisions, etc, they are not going to "test" a car every year. They don't have the time/money to test every single model in the entire automotive market. They take aggregate scoring and carry over from year to year. It would be the same for a 2014 F150 and 2016 F150. 2006 Fusion vs. 2008 Fusion. Etc ... Minor model changes do not affect CR ratings. Why test something that does not change in a major way?
- As for reliability, they ALWAYS admit when data is "insufficient". If you've ever seen their annual auto issue in detail, they clearly admit when data is scarce. And scarce data can hurt just as much as help; it's a risk either way. Their reliability data comes direct from the consumer. We are asked to contribute to the raw data format in surveys. I supposed it's your opinion that there is a mass conspiracy of all Toyota owners to "up rate" their vehicles and all Ram/Dodge/Jeep owners to "down rate" theirs? Or maybe you believe that CR manipulates the data and flat lies about it? I suppose they do this to dishwashers, TVs, lawnmowers, coffee makers, tires, etc? They just take subscriber money (with no advertising influence) and pick winners/loser based on one person's bias?
Get real ....
When I refer to reliability data in CR, I'm not paying much attention to their "recommendations" of current tests anyway. I go directly to the back of the issue and look at the cumulative data for repair history, as reported directly by subscribers. THAT is what will convince anyone that a Ram/Dodge/Jeep is a risk. Then look at the Toyota models overall; historically for years of "above average" reliability, both by model and by brand.
Several years ago, CR updated many of their testing and disclosure policies. If you have not paid any attention since 2010, you're about 7 years behind the times.
Mass market data shows Ram trucks are a risk.
Personal experiences at our SO shows that the Hemi engine design is a risk.
Do with your money what you want.
.
I'm having trouble copying and pasting the links I want on my tablet here in Holland, but the below link links to the original CNN Money article about the Toyota rankings. Not exactly what I'd call biased or subject to advertisers' dollars. My previous link was just easier to post. But 10 years old or not, it still shows recommendations without facts.
My problems is less with CR, but more so with folks who propagate it as gospel to be followed, or allow to be inferred as results from the population at large. Is it a tool to help inform decision making? Of course. Is it all that and a bag of chips? Not even close. But could you imagine a long time subscriber being critical of CR? Talk about being brand loyal.
Once again though, you have failed to show risk with the 6.4, while continuing to derail. I haven't discounted your experience with the 5.7 in the LEO application at all. But I do continue to challenge your inference that the 6.4 is "risky" based on those experiences. The 6.4 has been on the street since late 2013 and we haven't seen the issues that your inferences imply. In fact, I haven't seen those issues in the 5.7 truck applications.
So again, if you can show reliability issues with the 6.4, post it. As to date, you have added zero relevant information to this thread about the 6.4.
Wow.....a guy that owns his own fence and gate company I met him when he built a fence for me recently..... He lives down the street and had a 6.4 Ram 2500.....so just now I was outside watching people take a giant dead tree down for me.....I look down the street and what do I see in his driveway......
I just saw him going down the road in the new ford and the ram was right behind him so I guess he kept the ram for a company truck. The new ford is a long bed
Well someday you will bump into him and quiz him on the move to Ford. At least I would take his opinion of the 6.4 seriously, and not so much the case if he had a new chevy in the driveway.
Though it debuted in the 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 (and is used in other Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep SRT8 models), the 6.4-L was originally designed as a truck engine, according to Mets. Its components were optimized to satisfy tough durability and market requirements.
“An active runner intake system [helps to] provide that low-end torque that is required in a heavy-duty truck, but without sacrificing that high-end power,” Mets said. “If you look at the torque curves between this engine and our competition as well as the 5.7-L Hemi, the 6.4-L generates as much torque as the others but at 800 to 1000 rpm less.”
... The 6.4-L Hemi shares the basic iron block/aluminum heads architecture of the 5.7-L Hemi, as well as its manufacturing process. It also borrows Chrysler’s fuel-saving cylinder-deactivation system, which shuts down four cylinders when in steady-state operation. This is Chrysler’s first application of cylinder deactivation to the heavy-duty pickup truck and chassis-cab markets, according to Gary Rogers, Chief Engineer for Engines.
... “We’ve put a lot of hardware in the engine for that purpose, like the cylinder deactivation, the cooled EGR [exhaust gas recirculation], the active intake, variable valve timing, and the active thermostat—those are all fuel-economy features,” he said.
“We also have a robust high-volume oil cooler and oil jets for cooling the pistons. These are all key things to keep this engine running at a good temperature for long engine durability and longevity,” he said.
That info came from "Kevin Mets", who's a Ram truck company engineer. That info above wasn't my quote; it came from him.
Obviously, as I claimed, the 6.4L engine shares the same basic design features. Same block/head architecture. It is an outgrowth of the 5.7L engine.
Has the same cam drive as our 5.7L engines.
Has the same cylinder deactivation features; just like the 5.7L engine.
Has the same variable cam timing; like out 5.7L LEO engines.
Has upgraded oil cooling (for truck use), just like the cooler in our 5.7L LEO engine packages.
In short, the features that increase performance (variable cam drive timing, etc), the features that increase fuel economy (cylinder deactivation), the features that increase cooling capacity (larger coolers and more of them), all are shared between the truck 6.4L and the LEO 5.7L hemi engines. Yup - the truck 6.4L is just a bigger version of the 5.7L LEO hemi engine. The 6.4L is essentially the same as the 5.7L engine that we, and MANY other LEO agencies, have problems with including cams wearing flat, CDS systems malfunctioning, and failed coolant and lube systems.
I don't have actual failure data for the 6.4L engine. What I have is the ability to draw logical conclusions based upon mass market info (CR data), personal experience (5.7L engine in LEO service), and general similarities in design and manufacture (as stated by a Chrysler engineering rep). I will agree to state that I don't have actual failure data, if you'll agree that the PREPONDERANCE of information would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the 6.4L and 5.7L engines are extremely similar, and therefore any failure method that affects one is highly likely to affect the other.
Or, more simply put, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and craps like a duck, well it must be a Chrysler product ...
You can ignore the obvious if you want; that won't make it go away.
That info came from "Kevin Mets", who's a Ram truck company engineer. That info above wasn't my quote; it came from him.
Obviously, as I claimed, the 6.4L engine shares the same basic design features. Same block/head architecture. It is an outgrowth of the 5.7L engine.
Has the same cam drive as our 5.7L engines.
Has the same cylinder deactivation features; just like the 5.7L engine.
Has the same variable cam timing; like out 5.7L LEO engines.
Has upgraded oil cooling (for truck use), just like the cooler in our 5.7L LEO engine packages.
In short, the features that increase performance (variable cam drive timing, etc), the features that increase fuel economy (cylinder deactivation), the features that increase cooling capacity (larger coolers and more of them), all are shared between the truck 6.4L and the LEO 5.7L hemi engines. Yup - the truck 6.4L is just a bigger version of the 5.7L LEO hemi engine. The 6.4L is essentially the same as the 5.7L engine that we, and MANY other LEO agencies, have problems with including cams wearing flat, CDS systems malfunctioning, and failed coolant and lube systems.
I don't have actual failure data for the 6.4L engine. What I have is the ability to draw logical conclusions based upon mass market info (CR data), personal experience (5.7L engine in LEO service), and general similarities in design and manufacture (as stated by a Chrysler engineering rep). I will agree to state that I don't have actual failure data, if you'll agree that the PREPONDERANCE of information would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the 6.4L and 5.7L engines are extremely similar, and therefore any failure method that affects one is highly likely to affect the other.
Or, more simply put, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and craps like a duck, well it must be a Chrysler product ...
You can ignore the obvious if you want; that won't make it go away.
.
Why didn't you quote the "premium materials for better durability" part of the engineer's description? Did that not fit your narrative as well?
It appears I'm not the Brand-Bigot, and I'm not the one who ignores the obvious.
I'll give you that an uninformed person may draw a conclusion that if they've had a bad experience with the 5.7, then the 6.4 must be crap too. But that's not how it works in the real world, and that's why I give the 6.4 the benefit of the doubt until it shows it's unreliable.
But it hasn't shown to be unreliable, through it's fourth year of production. Regardless of how bad you think the 5.7 is, your "logical conclusions" don't pan out. Hmm, maybe because they're not that logical.
Since this thread I have been looking at all the newer Rams that I see, and I sure see a lot of the 6.4's.
As do I and the same can be said for Ford and Chevy as well for seeing more gas versions. I have said I will be switching back to Ford in a few months. It really depends on whether my Ram performs the way I want it too. We will see. We pick up our new tt in a few weeks. Dry weight of 8500. I will see if a 6.2 with 4.30 is in my future or not. Still unsure whether this jump really makes sense to go from the Ram 6.4 with 4.10 gears to the 6.2 Ford with 4.30.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
