Factory V8

[RedTRex]

I'd still much rather have the 5.7 . . .

Yup

Sponsored

 

[Riccochet]

I'd rather FCA develop a new V8 that doesn't have lifter/cam issues, doesn't snap exhaust manifold bolts.

The Eagle and Apache Hemi's are getting old. They haven't been refreshed in almost 10 years. I don't consider e-torque a refresh. It's more of an after thought bolt on.

 

[WXman]

I'd still much rather have the 5.7 . . .

Why? Same MPG, less power, and oiling issues are primarily found on the 5.7.

 

[RedTRex]

Why? Same MPG, less power, and oiling issues are primarily found on the 5.7.

Less headache and V8 sound

 

[Orange01z28]

How long has it been since you drove a turbo? My old Ford 2015 3.5 Ecoboost had mountains of torque right from the get go. Turbo lag is a thing of the 80's. That said, in my books the perfect engine for the JT would be the 5.7 Hemi. It would probably get similar mileage to the 3.6, have way more power and sound better to boot.

Aren't truck Ecoboosts twin turbo?

 

[NC_Overland]

How long has it been since you drove a turbo? My old Ford 2015 3.5 Ecoboost had mountains of torque right from the get go. Turbo lag is a thing of the 80's. That said, in my books the perfect engine for the JT would be the 5.7 Hemi. It would probably get similar mileage to the 3.6, have way more power and sound better to boot.

This! All of it.

 

[NC_Overland]

Why? Same MPG, less power, and oiling issues are primarily found on the 5.7.

Not the same mpg. The 5.7l does a lot better.

 

[NC_Overland]

I haven’t priced them, but isn’t the 5.7l a lot cheaper than the 6.4l?

 

[Riccochet]

Not the same mpg. The 5.7l does a lot better.

Not really. Not in the 3/4 ton truck. The 5.7 is dogshit. I don't even think it's offered anymore.

More power and torque will always be more efficient.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Actually matching torque and power to the chore is most efficient. More power and more torque than needed is a waste of energy and resources, weight and so on.
The best efficiency comes from an engine that is matched, not too big.
An engine putting out 800 hp and 700 pound/feet of torque is going to use more fuel and run less efficiently than one properly sized.
You may enjoy the power and speed - but it's far from efficient.
It's great for bragging rights, showing off, but a waste if you want to talk efficiency.
There are reasons properly sized engines last longer and use less fuel - too small is bad as well.

 

[NC_Overland]

Not really. Not in the 3/4 ton truck. The 5.7 is dogshit. I don't even think it's offered anymore.

More power and torque will always be more efficient.

This isn’t a 3/4 ton truck. I’d pretty much guarantee that a stock, late model 5.7l would get the same 22 hwy mpg as stock and get within 1-2 mpg of the city mpg (stock 3.6l gladiator to otherwise stock 5.7l gladiator). Look at the mpg of 6.4l gladiators that members have posted. It’s terrible. Not even close to that. I never get good mpg in things I drive and I’ve been shocked at how good of mpg I can get in a stock 4wd 5.7l 1500 Ram. I never get epa figures. I can in those. I don’t come close to them in my gladiator either. I get 16 mpg in mixed driving, mainly hwy and it was the same when mine was bone stock. I can actually get the 22 mpg hwy now that my engine is broken in as long as I don’t go over 75 or take the top off or roof panels out. That even with 33.5” E load A/Ts.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

My wife's Jeep is 4875 pounds based on Edmunds specs, no driver or cargo.
Put the driver in it and it's 5,000 - put me in it and it's 5200.
Grand Cherokees are not light, and yet............
She can get 26 mpg pretty easily. 24-25 putzing around town.

With my JT I routinely do 23+ unless I hit the highway at over 70. I've been known to do 24-25.
I have never owned any vehicle that could touch our two Jeeps in MPG - not a one - unless you count my Eagle.

 

[MotoBrad]

How long has it been since you drove a turbo? My old Ford 2015 3.5 Ecoboost had mountains of torque right from the get go. Turbo lag is a thing of the 80's. That said, in my books the perfect engine for the JT would be the 5.7 Hemi. It would probably get similar mileage to the 3.6, have way more power and sound better to boot.

I've driven ecoboosts, even a Raptor on a test drive, they're pretty impressive. But the added complexity does make them break down sooner than simple V8 engines. They also require premium fuel. There is just more to go wrong in a boosted setup, with the layers of complexity that they bring.

Any boosted application will not match the instant throttle response and down low power of a naturally aspirated engine, its just a fact. I had a Skyline GTS-T, and STi which both had a lot more lag than modern turbos, Ill give you that. I prefer driving my 2001 E39 M5. 5.0L naturally aspirated V8 with 400 hp and torque. There is no comparison with power delivery, the V8 is right there, right now. I've been to countless track days where turbocharged cars get heat soaked and forced into limp mode, where naturally aspirated engines don't build as much heat, and continue to play at 10/10ths. My friend's new M4 turbo couldn't run all day, but my trusty old M5 shredded rubber right to the end.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Throttle response - this is what "Stick shifter" did 8 years ago in a naturally aspirated car - V8 with duel 1050 cfm carbs -

• 1/4 Mile ET:
  7.159
• 1/4 Mile MPH:
  189.140
• 1/8 Mile ET:
  4.590
• 1/8 Mile MPH:
  149.910
• 0-60 Foot ET:
  1.082

 

[jurfie]

I prefer driving my 2001 E39 M5. 5.0L naturally aspirated V8 with 400 hp and torque. There is no comparison with power delivery, the V8 is right there, right now. I've been to countless track days where turbocharged cars get heat soaked and forced into limp mode, where naturally aspirated engines don't build as much heat, and continue to play at 10/10ths. My friend's new M4 turbo couldn't run all day, but my trusty old M5 shredded rubber right to the end.

I still fantasize about buying an E39 M5 one day, just for S&Gs.

Sponsored