Dodge Ram (2002) fuel economy

dustyk

I'm pretty sure that selecting the 360 V* option on the Dodge "Build Your RAM" website that it comes up with the 3.92 axle as a default. I'm also pretty sure that the 3.55 is the option under these conditions.

I've also seen older RAMs with the 360 and, to the best of my sometimes feeble cecollection, they've all been 3.91s. Whether they were all optioned that way, I don't know.

Regards,
Dusty

dustyk

I'm pretty much in agreement with Lariat. Going up or down one available axle ratio will often times not make a big difference in around town driving. Where you're likely to see the difference is highway driving, especially at higher engine speeds.

Dusty

dahuber

FWIW,

My '01 ram QC 4X4 with AT, 5.9, and 3.92 gears gets about 10 city, 13-15 hwy. I normally drive with a pretty light foot, but when you hit the gas this truck will GO! The 3.92 is listed as an option on the dealer sheet, but I took delivery from dealer stock instead of ordering.

Dave Huber

dustyk

There have been comments about this engine being "outdated," etc. and that engine has been around in several forms since 1971. But I know that the 360 engine has a lot of potential. A neighbor races one of these in a Duster body and he is the primary guy to beat at our local track. I remember seeing these 360s years ago in "B" body Chrysler product police cars and they were excellent performers, more so than any Chrysler basher would want to admit.

Obviously, any manufacturer could make more horsepower or torque with any of the current engines in their inventory. The methods of producing more HP out of a engine are no secret, and the 360 could just as easily be refreshed by a change in cylinder head design, cam timing and induction system, or in combination. In reality, that is all GM has done with a couple of their motors. I realize that improvements in three areas isn't going to produce the same results as a new from-the-ground-up design. The 360 block is pretty fat by todays standards, for example.

At first look it seems strange that in the current market of full size trucks that Dodge would've kept the 360 at 245 HP and 335 lbs. ft. of torque. But I think the answer may be found if you look again at the 360 HP and torque ratings.

Without ever seeing HP and torque curves, the 360s torque-to-horsepower ratio signifies that it will obviously be producing a lot of its power at the low end. The fact that Chrysler currently has no car platform to put this engine in, it makes sense to tune this engine for the vehicles that it will be used in: trucks. Trucks generally imply commercial use even though nowadays almost half of all light duty pick ups are used for non-commercial purposes. For Chrysler, being a much smaller company and often financially challenged, the ability to build more engine types and in more variations is probably limited. So, making only one 360-engine variant to satisfy both commercial and non-commercial requirements is a strategy of compromise and is probably borne mostly from simple economics. For some customers and purposes, torque is a useful and primary commodity and this the 360 does admirably well.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Dusty

obyone

back in '71?

dustyk

I think the Duster had the 340 up through 1971, maybe '72. After that they were 360s, I'm pretty sure.

My 1971 Engine Data Book lists a 360LA engine (255 HP) available in Chrysler Newport Royal, Dodge Polara, and Plymouth Fury.

Regards,
Dusty