I don't know what kind of ram you have so I'll ask, is it a RC, LB, 2X or
4X4, QC? This all will have an effect. My brother has a 2003 Ram with the
3.7L auto configuration. And I have a 92 Dakota with a 3.9L, both are long
wheelbase. His a LB, RC mine a SB, CC. I was really impressed by his
motor in that full-size. He routinely pulled 20+" enclosed trailers full of
DJ equipment (Not a few speakers, a full blown setup) and had no issues. I
think you seem to be having a hard time adjusting to the motors design (High
RPMs) and it being in a big truck. Comparing a compact with a 3L V6 just
isn't fair. I never compared my Dakota to my gfs old Turbo DSM, because
they were two totally different types of vehicles. I usually hate when
others say this but it's a truck, not a pocket rocket. And when you get a
V6 full-size feel free to use the RPMs they gave you. It won't blow up
prematurely unless you make it.
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:36:21 -0500
From: Terrible Tom <SilverEightynine@aol.com>
Subject: Re: DML: Lackluster performance (Was: Can't Rev past 3400)
Matt Brenneke wrote:
>This OT mini-review brought to you by the number 13 and the letter P.
>
>David talking about not being able to get past 3400rpms reminded me of
>something I've been wanting to comment on for a while now. When I
>first bought my new Dakota (see sig) I was underwhelmed (to say the
>least) in it's acceleration and overall feeling of power, or lack
>there of. I had been driving a '93 Dodge Shadow with a 3.0L
>mitshubishi V6 and 5-speed manual for the last 6 years, and I guess I
>had just grown accustomed to it's driving style. When I pressed the
>gas pedal in that thing, no matter what gear I was in or where the
>rpms were, it responded accordingly. Even at 197,000 miles just before
>I sold it. Of course, it was all spent by 3200rpms or so.
>
>When I press the gas in my truck, the new 3.7L V6 magnum just sits
>there putting along unless I'm at or above 3000rpm. I find myself
>frequently running up to 4500rpm or higher just so I don't get run off
>the road on interstate onramps.
I think I've said this once before - keep in mind the nature of the
engine you have in that truck. The 3.7L is a variant of the 4.7L V8.
Both of those engines are overhead cam engines, not over head valve
engines. Granted your Shadow also had an overhead cam engine (the 3.0L)
After having driven chryslers with the 4.7L, witnessed and heard
others using 4.7's, and having compared them to the performance of the
older 3.9/318/360 magnums, the overhead cam engines are content to
handle higher RPM's. Having an engine that finds its power band in the
upper RPS levels won't necessarily "burn it our well before its time".
Imports have proved that well, with their higher revving small
displacement 4 and 6 cyl engines. Also... The Ford 4.0L SOHC engine is
right at home revving right up to 5500 rpm (has a 7K redline)
I will concede that I have never driven a 3.7L powered truck yet, so I
can't speak from experience as to its performance or lack thereof. Its
a much different motor than the mitsu 3.0L and it's also in a much
heavier vehicle.
>Now that I have 7000 miles on the
>truck in the last 3 months it's gotten a little better, but I can't
>tell if it's the truck improving or me getting used to there being
>nothing there.
>
>For those of you looking for a new Dak, I'd suggest getting the V8
>unless you like to a) not go anywhere or b) run your engine at high
>rpms constantly and therefore burn it out well before it's time. I
>know I'll be trading this thing for a v8 when it's worth more than I
>owe.
(grabs flack helmet and dives for foxhole,
as he sees another impending V6-vs-V8 flame war on the horizon)
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 11:38:58 EDT