Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Dodge Ram (2002) UNVEILED!



  • truktpctruktpc Posts: 2
    If the new Ram 1500 came with the 5.7L Hemi I would drive down to the nearest dealer today and trade my Ford F150. I love the truck. I am excited about buying it but most everything I have read about the old 5.9L has not been good. As soon as the hemi is available I am buying. Another thing that put Dodge at a disadvantage is the options/packages available on the RAM 1500. Ford offers packages and options in almost every combination imaginable. I would have had a dodge now had it not been for the restrictive nature of the option/packages. Why couldn't I get the SLT Plus in a 4.7L? It seems to me dodge production managers have put themselves at a disadvantage to the other manufacturers. I will wait for the 5.7L and hope I can get the SLT plus with it.
  • brando69brando69 Posts: 47
    I did a search on the net and found various articles on the new 5.7L Hemi engine. It will be out this summer for the Ram 2500 and 3500. The 5.7l HEMI V-8 will produce 305 to 335hp, 340 to 365lbs of torque. A Motor Trend article said that the new HEMI V-8 is one of the strongest V-8's ever built. In 2003, you will be able to get the 5.9L Hemi in the Ram 1500. I want the new Ram 1500 Quad Cab but I sure would like to have that Hemi motor. I may wait a year and save my money.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    dodge press materials state the hemi (at least in the '03 heavy duties) will have 345 hp/365 lb/ft. not exactly sure what the hemi will produce in the half ton, however i'm sure it will be very close to the heavy duty numbers...
  • Shoot me an email

    Randall Noe will take good care of you.

    Demetriusk! Let me know how your deal goes. Where are you traveling from to get the truck? When will it be ready? Keep us all updated. 1200 miles on mine and all is well. Just tagged it this morning.
  • Karen will soon start a new club for us under "owners clubs"
  • twinscrewtwinscrew Posts: 53
    What did you guys drive just a few short years ago when 240 hp was more than most big blocks were packing? The 4.7 will out run most folk's skill level as is. What are you going to tie on to that you can't drag past the legal (or sensible) speed limit in short order? This whole "I would buy a Dodge if it had a bigger motor" argument is comical to me. It's a truck. If you want to go fast, buy a little car with a big motor. Even with a bigger motor, a truck isn't going to win any races. It's just going to stop a more gas stations. So what if it takes you an extra few seconds to get going fast enough to get a ticket. Someone enlighten me.

    From the dark,
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380

    it has absolutely nothing to do with beating the neighbor kids camaro to the next stop light. i like driving a vehicle that is relaxed with plenty of reserve punch, even at highway speeds. for example, my 4x4 s-crew seems to travel effortlessly at 80 mph on the interstate and thus "rarely" kicks out of overdrive to make it up any hill. that is what i appreciate about having a bigger motor with more low end grunt and high end hp. my leased 97 4x4 regular cab ram would kick down on virtually every hill, and that drove me nuts!!! maybe it's just me, but i'd much rather have a serene drive than one filled with annoying up and down engine rpms/noise. that is why if i was even thinking about a dodge, i would have to wait for the hemi...
  • lamarjlamarj Posts: 21
    My Quad kicked into high gear when pulling hills frequently on my return trip from Texas to Alabama. I set the cruise at 80 and let er rip. The shifts did not bother me. I rode the same interstates the night before on a tractor/trailer pulling a full load. My 55 yr old, 120lb Mom was at the wheel. She had the cruise of the Freightliner set to 65. It kicked into high gear constantly on hills. It didn't bother her, it doesn't bother me.

    I like the looks of the Screw. It is a handsome truck. My local dealers are really proud of them too.$$$

    I am with Twinscrew on this one. At 37 years old, I laugh at the Ford and Chevy owners that pull up beside me over the past week at traffic lights, gun their engines, then drag race (alone) to the next light. This is racing country (Nascar) and folks like engines that are fast 0-60+. I like racing, but not my truck. It has plenty of power. More than I need.

    I have a friend that jsut spent $12 large more than I did for a Chevy HD 2500 Diesel, Allison tranny etc. It will pull the bumper off of my truck. It never downshifts. He could clear a forest with the truck and a chain. He could move mobile homes with it. There are lots of them around here. Instead, he drives it to work 5 times a week. Did I mention he paid $12G more?
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380

    like mother, like son, eh...?
  • toyotas1toyotas1 Posts: 134
    that the Ram 1500 will get the Hemi in January 2003 after the HD launch this fall.....
  • penrosepenrose Posts: 31
    I agree with twinscrew. The truth is that as long as someone is willing to make a morepowerful engine, people will feel the need to compare and shop for more horsepower. My grandfather drove a 6 cylinder 150hp Ford truck for almost 30 years, and he thought it was fast. Just think, in 10 years we can complain about the unacceptable 350hp engines waiting for the new 400hp before we buy.
  • lamarjlamarj Posts: 21
    You got it!

    Most people, when I tell them my parents are truck drivers, visualize my Mother as sort of a razor stubbled Babe Ruth looking, big, fat, sweaty, bee-acch. She actually joined my Dad after all of the kids were out of the nest 17 years ago. She is a little bitty, quite attractive lady who, if you saw her on the street, you would never think she drives to California once a week in a tractor/trailer.

    By the way, my Dad, Ford to the core since before birth, calls me two to three times a week now. Topic? My new Quad. He has the FEVER. He will be stopping at Randall Noe for himself soon, I'm sure..
  • xyz71xyz71 Posts: 179
    I agree with you - a few tears ago 200HP was more than enough - now 245 HP is considered slow.

    I think you need to compare HP and MPG. I am sure any manufacture could build a truck engine that puts out 500 HP, but would get 3 MPG - and I would also think they could build an engine that gets 25 MPG, but then it would only have 150 HP.

    The thing that I like to see is when a company builds an engine that gets more HP and ALSO gets better MPG.

    I don't think anyone will question the Hemi delivering in the HP department - but will they also deliver an engine that gets 15 MPG or better?
  • pushplaypushplay Posts: 52
    email is still bothering people.All of us who have the 4.7 know we have more than enough power or would not have bought them. Sure the 5.7 will have more HP, but few will truly need it and those who do should go with the 2500 or 3500 Cummins. I had a Chevy 5.3 and like this 4.7 a lot better so far. The 5.3 had a little more power at high speeds, but not enough for the mileage and cost.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    i say why not get the bigger engine when the gas mileage penalty is nill. for example, my 4x4 5.4l screw gets the same gas mileage as the 4.7l 4x4 quad on the highway, and is actually rated better in town (pushplay - don't try to compare a 2wd to 4wd). why wouldn't i get the more powerful motor if i don't have to shell out anymore money in the long run! like i said, the extra hp/torque ain't for racin', it is for relaxed, serene driving. these trucks aren't exactly light ya know and all the power you can get is well worth it.
  • truktpctruktpc Posts: 2
    For all of you out there trucks are not just trucks anymore. IF YOU STILL THINK SO, no wonder you are still talking about your mothers and grandmother driving them. YOU ARE BEHIND THE POWER CURVE. Limited slip differential, 4wd ABS, leather interior, entertainment systems, hydrofrom bodies, 20 inch wheels, dual power heated seats, and remote entry just to name a few things. My truck is my family sedan plus a little bit more. NO I do not want an SUV either. They are cars with a truck's body and the standards have changed on evaluating their performance. I bought my first truck, Ford F150 because it drove like a car. It is comical to me when I hear it is only a truck. To me truck does not mean the same as it did ten years ago.
    Most options/accessories are not used on any vehicle most of the time but when I need/want it the most I hope to have the ability to use it at the appropriate moment. I may not need the power of the 5.7L hemi all the time but when I need it the most for just that special occasion or moment I will have the means available. If you want the 4.7L or 5.9L go for it. Did you know that the 4.7L is not available with the SLT plus package? Why the heck not?
  • pushplaypushplay Posts: 52
    people would not try and advise on an engine unless they have personally driven one. E-mail you are commenting on the 4.7 which you personally have not been around the last I knew.
    I seen somewhere somebody said they were going to set up an all Ram site. Please hurry so we can cut out the bs from poeple like e-mail.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    i did drive a 4.7l 4x4 equipped dakota quad over a year ago. it seemed to have enough grunt in that truck. but that truck is significantly less portly than the ram quad. interestingly enough, the 4.7l DAKOTA quad 4x4 automatic gets no better gas mileage than a full size 4x4 s-crew or ram quad...wonder why that is?

    btw, pushplay, who is spreading BS. at least my posts are informative. anyone can get on here and repeatedly write "it's good to know the mayor". i would like to know what value there is in that statement...?
  • lamarjlamarj Posts: 21
    I repeatedly read information from people who drive the 4.7 daily and those who are shopping and doing test drives. They are very happy with the power, speed, and handling of the 4.7. Check out Brando's recent post on the other Dodge string. Admittedly, the gas mileage sucks. You can find 100's of cars and a bunch of "trucks" that can outperform the Quad in this area. If MPG is what dazzles you, buy one of those.

    I read the articles in Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. They all mention the need for more "grunt". I then see that same term used in other newspaper articles when describing the 4.7 performance. Now I see it all over Edmunds. Lot's of folks are reading each others opinion and passing it off as fact without checking into it first hand. I do not trust the magazines. They get heavy advertising dollars from the same companies who they praise/criticize. Something is fundamentally wrong with that deal. I began to think I was driving an underpowered truck after reading all of the misguided information from postings on Edmunds. It is not so, though. It may not be the fastest, or have the most ponies, but it has plenty of power and speed for the reasons most people buy a 1500 series truck.
  • xyz71xyz71 Posts: 179
    I thought Dodge "owned" or at least held 51% of one of the car magazines.
  • pushplaypushplay Posts: 52
    think so xyz71. If they did you would not see anything negative about their products.
  • pushplaypushplay Posts: 52
    about a truck you do not own or have driven is being informative. GEESE
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    not one with the 4.7l. several months ago i drove a 5.9l equipped quad and was underwhelmed. i can't image the 4.7l in a 4x4 quad performing any better than the 5.9l since it has less ponies and lb/ft. the 45rfe automatic behind the 4.7l might be able to mask the power/torque difference abit, but overall i see no reason to dispute consistent statements saying "4.7l needs more grunt". that is just the way it is. i'll say it again, i'd never buy a dodge 4x4 quad with the 4.7l engine, too much truck for too little engine. bring on the hemi!!!
  • brando69brando69 Posts: 47
    Here's a link to info on the Hemi engine. It may be worth the wait.
  • indydriverindydriver Posts: 620
    If you are buying a pickup for street use and occasional light duty hauling (in the bed), no doubt the 4.7 will be just fine. If you go 4x4, intend to do any serious off-road work or tow anything, more torque the better.
  • Does anyone know why the payload on the 2002 Dodge Quad 4x4 is only 1520 lbs compared to the F150 SC 4x4 which is 2670 lbs ?. Am I reading something wrong?
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380
    here is the info i found. it is based on comparing a 4x4 4.7l quad swb to a 4x4 4.6l ford s-crew.

    dodge ford
    max payload 1517 1495
    max tow capa 4200 6200

    i couldn't really determine why there is such a large difference in tow capacity.
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    Wouldn't "the dealer price" for the vehicle be the invoice price minus the 3% holdback? That's roughly $800 below invoice. With a $1500 rebate it wouldn't be difficult to find one for $1500 below invoice. That seems to be a pretty substantial difference. Not to mention a 100K powertrain warranty through 3/31/02. That's worth maybe another $1000 if you keep it long term.
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    I had the same problems when trying to buy a Ram. They don't seem to actually have them in many of the combinations they advertise. ABS is rare, side airbags seem non-existant. And god help you if you want a Regular cab with 20" wheels, or on any Ram that isn't $34,000 and loaded to the hilt. Sure, the brochure says it's available, but it's not. We did a search and found ONE black or red one in the COUNTRY, and they wanted $700 to ship it to us, so I passed. And if you special order, you risk losing a $1500 rebate and 100K powertrain warranty.

    I wound up with a Black Silverado reg cab Z71 sportside. Slapped on some American racing wheels and better tires (they come with crummy Firestones) Very sharp truck. But more expensive than the Ram I wanted. But I just couldn't find a ram except in quad cab. I must say, the Silverado is much faster than the Rams, but hey, let's be real, these are trucks, not sports cars. The Ram 4.7 is more than adequate for 2wd and regular cabs, and probably acceptable if you get the 3.92 axle on 4x4 quad cabs.
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    I don't have kids so I never use my truck's back seat except for storage and dogs. But I'm curious. Why do so many truck buyers worry so much about how comfortable seating is in the back? Sure, you want it to be reasonable back there, but is an inch or three really that important to you as the person who is driving and paying for it? I would think the typical user only rarely has anyone back there at all, with a majority of them hauling only children most of the time, and adults maybe on short trips like out to eat, not on cross-country treks. And since your teenager with the long legs or friends aren't offering to chip in on your payments, why are you so concerned about their comfort? It's not like you're asking them to ride in the back of a Porsche 911 or 944. Now that is torture.

    I find it interesting that children today are coddled in comfort to a degree that would have been automatically considered absurd in the 60's and 70's when I was a kid. I rode accross the USA and back at age 10 in the tiny 3rd row seat of a station wagon. My brothers' odorific body eminations bothered me a lot more than any perceived lack of leg room. My point is that most kids below 13 probably couldn't care less about leg room, seeing as their legs don't touch the floor anyway, and I never minded sitting in the back of my friend's small cars as a teenager. It just wasn't a factor at that age.

    I see a lot of $35,000+ SUV's and $30,000 plus pickups out there that are basically $20,000 pickups with a bit more sheet metal and maybe an extra $500 seat. In case you weren't aware, profit margins are much higher on crew cabs and SUV's than pickups or sedans. That rear seat comfort may well be costing you big time.

    I suggest putting a tip jar on the back of your seat for your passengers to show their gratitude to you for considering their comfort. Or, if you want rear seat comfort, buy an old BMW 740il, not a pickup truck. You can play ping pong in that back of that.

    By all means, if you regularly transport average or tall people, go for the extra space, but if your rear seat rarely sees anything besides the rear end of a 4 y/o, why not look at the other more important attributes of the vehicle?

    I can understand needing a basic amount of room back there, say the diiference in a Ram and a Dakota...but worrying about differences between full size trucks...I just find that funny.
This discussion has been closed.