New Dodge 5.7 Hemi

dave40 · October 2002

Muscular engine will pull a range of trucks and cars

October 17, 2000

BY LAWRENCE ULRICH
DETROIT FREE PRESS AUTO CRITIC

It was a '50s engine, a '60s legend. But Chrysler's fabled Hemi engine -- which put it firmly atop the NASCAR, drag racing and muscle car heap -- was extinct after 1971, done in by emissions standards and soaring insurance costs.

More than three decades later, the Hemi makes an impressive comeback in the new Dodge Ram Heavy Duty pickups. Still as thunderously powerful as a Jimi Hendrix riff, but spiffed up to answer modern fuel economy and emissions concerns, Hemi engines will eventually power a range of Dodge, Chrysler and Jeep sport-utilities and pickups and even a few cars, including upcoming rear-wheel-drive replacements for the Dodge Intrepid and Chrysler 300M sedans.

It's called a Hemi for the hemispherical shape of the combustion chamber inside an engine's cylinders, where fuel and air are ignited by a spark to create power. The roomy design allows larger valves, which let the engine gulp more air to create awesome power and torque.

That notorious punch is a hallmark of the new 5.7-liter Hemi Magnum, which produces a best-in-class 345 horsepower and 375 pound-feet of torque. Consider an optional pair of Cummins turbo diesels -- including a high-output version with 555 pound-feet of torque -- and Dodge finally has a fearsome rival to the traditional work-truck powerhouses from Ford and Chevy.

Originally set to debut in the light-duty Ram 1500 for 2002, industry experts say the Hemi was delayed by engineering tweaks to ensure long-term durability.

Now that it's here, the Saltillo, Mexico-built engine will make its way into some versions of the standard Ram, perhaps by late in the '03 model year.

The next-generation Dodge Intrepid -- whose name may be switched to Charger -- and 300M should get a Hemi engine in roughly late 2004. After that, the Dodge Durango, Dakota and Jeep Grand Cherokee are in line for the powerplant.

Chrysler began experimenting with the Hemi layout even before World War II, but didn't offer its first Hemi until 1951, in cars like the New Yorker and Imperial. Dodge began using the Red Ram Hemi in 1953 and dropped it into a heavy-duty truck a year later.

But the legend really took off in 1964, when a radical high-performance Hemi sent Richard Petty to his first win at the Daytona 500 stock car race and his first NASCAR championship.

The strikingly similar street Hemi debuted two years later in a wide range of models including the Dodge Coronet 500 and Plymouth Belvedere. Advertised with 425 horsepower, the 426-cubic-inch monster may actually have produced closer to 500.

Gather any group of muscle car fans, and several will boast they once owned an original production Hemi. But in truth, with the optional 426 Hemi adding $700-$1,100 to the price of roughly $3,000 cars, few customers were willing to ante up. Just 10,904 Hemi-powered cars were produced over six years. That kind of rarity makes any genuine Hemi a coveted collectors' item, from the Dodge Super Bee to the Plymouth Superbird.

Chrysler retired the Hemi after 1971, in race and street forms. Muscle-car insurance premiums were soaring, and the fledgling Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency were instituting the first emissions standards. The rules sounded a death knell for high-performance cars. But Hemi engines, whether from Chrysler or aftermarket manufacturers, have continued to dominate drag racing for 30 years.

Even by muscle-car standards, the Hemi was notoriously fuel-thirsty and polluting. That made it seem an unlikely starting point for a modern powerplant, says Bob Lee, who directs rear-drive engine development for Chrysler Group.

Lee and other engineers began working to revive the Hemi in 1997, but met with skepticism from some peers, who were convinced it was an engineering dead-end.

"We've been there, we know what it does, it's dirty," is how Lee sums up opponents' views, adding, "but we have to be open to what new technology can do."

Two spark plugs per cylinder and a direct ignition system can now ensure fast, complete combustion, allowing the new engine to meet all emissions standards. Sophisticated software allowed engineers to precisely analyze what's going on inside a Hemi's cylinders, something that was impossible in the '50s.

Dodge tested the Hemi for the equivalent of 11 million consumer miles, far longer than for most engines.

The result is an engine that is smaller and lighter than the one it replaces, a 5.9-liter V8, but produces 40 percent more power and gets 8-10 percent better fuel economy. While the newfound power is welcome, the Hemi's sound is nearly as impressive, a husky rumble that strikes the perfect balance between smoothness and statement.

The Hemi bestows the heavy-duty Ram with class-leading power, but the standard Ram soldiers on with its outdated 5.9-liter V8 (along with a smaller 4.7-liter engine) that now stands out as the weak link in an otherwise excellent truck.

Chrysler execs won't confirm when the Hemi will be introduced in the standard-duty Ram, but they acknowledge it can't come soon enough.

"We know people want it, and the dealers are screaming for it," said Bob Hegbloom, Dodge truck brand manager.

emale · October 2002

according to car-truck.com dodge will open up hemi 1/2 ton ordering on dec 3rd...

dustyk · October 2002

...........shape is closely the same as the last hemi engine Chrysler produced, the 426. Because that engine incorporated a flat roof section and steeper sides it was not a true hemispherical shape either. Because they were not 100% symetrical, earlier Chrysler hemis (aka 331cid, etc.) were not a true hemispherical shape as well.

I know of no automotive engine produced that has been referred to as "hemi" that utilized a completely symetrical, completely pure half spherical shape.

Dusty

dave40 · October 2002

Chrysler Group will also revive the glory days of the Dodge
Rebellion and the fabled Hemi, when it displays the Kenne Bell
Supercharged Hemi Ram with its massive Blowzilla 2.2-liter twin-
screw supercharger and intercooler, 16 plug aluminum heads, and
Optimizer II electronic engine management system. With 500
horsepower, the Dodge Hemi Ram turns up the tempo on sport trucks.

Jason5 · October 2002

I suspect some of the difference you noticed are the result of accomodating the optional side curtain airbags.... Don't want the airbags to deploy in a side impact and skewer us with our dry cleaning now do we...

chambem · October 2002

I suspect you are exactly correct regarding the elimination of the pax grab handle and the placement of the cloths hangars. Conjurs up some potentially humorous (though potentially painful) images :=)

About 2000 miles now and this "beast" is running great. One other comparison to my '99 RAM 2500: the auto trans is much smoother in the 03. I just hope it can handle the torque over time.

emale · October 2002

hey chambem,

keep us up to date on your hemi!! we are all interested...

Jason5 · October 2002

Perhaps there is a cartoonist among us who could conjure up some quality (read: sick) humor! Don't pay any attention to emale, he's living vicariously through you since he was recruited by "the Dark Side".. He'll be back.. But I digress Chambem--what's your gas mileage been? Impressions on ride and handling now that you've had her for a bit?

Jason5 · October 2002

DustyK--I'm very interested in your covert information on power increases for the 4.7. I suspected (hoped and prayed feverishly)they would need to do this in order to cover the gaping chasm between the output of the 5.7 and 4.7. Frankly I'm of the opinion that when they released the 1500 last year--it ought to have had the 3.7 AND a 260HP/325LB-FT 4.7 with a 5 speed auto as it's only option. Let the damned 5.9 die a timely death! Keep us appraised. I doubt we'll see the application of the Hemi architecture to the 4.7--more' the pity...
Chambem--you have a 2003 2500...what style and trim level?

c01 · October 2002

It appears the decision makers at Daimler have had a positive influence on the bottom line at Chrysler, has anyone noticed any improvements in product quality?http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0210/29/b01-620802.htm

Jason5 · October 2002

Feeling lonesome again? Needing to stir up some excitment? In case you weren't aware the history of your postings is listed in your profile. As always it suggests a desire to inflame and irritate.. Go elsewhere...

emale · October 2002

jason,

car-truck.com is saying that the HO 4.7l will become availabe in the ram for '03. however, i must admit that i'd hate to pony up for premuim fuel in a thirsty truck!!

dustyk · October 2002

..........well, I related my "inside information" source some time ago in another thread. However, I've been asked not to be so revealing in the future. I do not want to get anybody in trouble, especially someone I know rather well and consider a friend.

I agree, if nothing else from a purely marketing standpoint, the Dodge truck line needs (or needed) more incremental horsepower options. As previously noted, Chrysler is not in the same position as their North American truck competition. They are much more cash restricted and have less of the market to recover investment as quickly (remember the stock holders, now!).

I can understand Chrysler's position here. They are doing it a little bit at a time while staying in budget. Keep in mind that the 4.7 engine was the first completely new vee engine platform in 42 years for them. The 3.7 V6 is a derivative of the 4.7, fairly easy to do. The 5.7 hemi is again, all new. These design projects are expensive and, if done right, require a significant amount of testing -- meaning time. Chrysler has made it public that the 5.7 block will be increased in displacement in future product, so it looks as if they are working to resolve the power gaps.

Dodge is apparently trying to capture more of the heavy truck market in the US and Canada, thereby driving the need for more horsepower. There is rumor that Dodge will or is considering re-entering the US medium truck market (I think their last year was in the mid-70s). I've been told they are planning to build a RAM 4500 series off of their existing hydroformed RAM light-duty frame, which can take the platform to just a little over 12,000 GVW -- as a stop-gap until they determine a clear direction. I've seen pictures of a RAM stake body that incorporated a long bed frame. With the 5.7 gas, Cummins diesel, new automatic transmissions coming, all they need is off-the-shelf manual gearboxes and heavy axle assemblies. These are readily available and one rumor is that Dodge has signed a preliminary contract with Eaton.

Regarding a conversion of the 4.7 to "hemi" configuration. The 4.7 engine is a polyspherical combustion chamber, meaning that except for one flat bulkhead, it would be a "hemi." As a hybrid, polysherical chambers offer some advantages. As I recall this design offers increased torque over a wedge chamber with some emphasis on high scavenging efficiencies, especially at lower piston speeds. My memory about this design is a little cloudy, but Chrysler made some "Commando" engines (I think) in the sixties that were excellent performers.

Regards,
Dusty

emale · October 2002

now if only the 4.7l weren't such a relative gas hog for its size...although i understand chrysler has made some engineering changes to said engine to increase its efficiency by around 15 percent. but exactly when those revisions make it into the production engines is not known...

dustyk · October 2002

Emale, I can't agree with you that the 4.7 is a gas hog. The EPA ratings are very close to comparably equiped competition. I'm not seeing empirical evidence that those with similar size engines in GMs or Fords are getting much, if any better in actual use. I know some that are getting less, as a matter of fact. My neighbor next to me is only getting 1 mpg better than me with her V6 Blazer, and her back-and-forth to work trip is 22 miles. Mine is only 2.3 miles.

Dusty

Jason5 · October 2002

Emale--Where did you find that tidbit on car-truck? I check in their daily and don't recall seeing a notice of the H.O.'s availability. DustyK may disagree with me, but the 4.7 ought to be capable of making that output on regular fuel. Although I recall that premium is recommended for the H.O.'s application in the Grand Cherokee. I recall the article on car-truck about the "experimental" methods to boast fuel mileage and power relative to cost on the 4.7. Perhaps those will emerge.
DustyK--I believe you were responding to my post--not Chambems--in either event; my appreciation for the information. I am able to "appreciate" Chrysler's position in the market and their need to assuage stockholders. As a consumer and a Chrysler "fan"...I find myself ever mindful of feeling as though they "almost got it right"... Case in point, my Intrepid, I waited for the 2000 model year on the promise of addressing some road noise issues. With the Ram; you see my point. I'm not complaining about the product, rather I'd like for them to "get it right" at release. And by "get it right" I mean--offer the most competitive, technologically "advanced" version from the start. I guess I'm suggesting that "wouldn't it be nice" if the Hemi, the 5 speed, and the up-rated 4.7 would have been available immediately.. It has become the Chrysler M.O., it seems to me, that you wait for the 2nd or 3rd model year to see what improvements and additions are made. Certainly that doesn't mean I don't care for the products and wouldn't buy them--I do, I have and I"ll continue.

emale · October 2002

dusty,

i can't remember the details exactly, but there was a recent test of the avalanche (5.3l), supercrew (4.6l) and quad cab (4.7l) in consumer reports. all were 4x4 vehicles. and the dodge came in dead last mpg wise. i know the window stickers suggest there is only a 1 or 2 mpg difference between the trucks...but real world reports seem to suggest the 4.7l is still a gas hog compared especially to chevies 4.8l and 5.3l engines... i think the 4.7l is a great engine...just too thirsty!

lariat1 · October 2002

Most companies release new products in stages all the time. Chrysler is no dufferent. They do it on purpose to keep people buying new vehicles. If you think about it if they built the "perfect" truck you would never buy another new truck.
Ford used this approach with the F-150 in 96. First you could only get the new 4.6l then the next year the 5.4 was available. They did it again when the SD trucks were released. The 99 v-10 had around 245 hp then the next year magically it got 260, I think now it may be even higher. In 99 when GM introduced the 5.3 it had 265 hp now it has 280.
Basically when the new trucks come out there is a certain number of people that will buy it no matter what, then the next year when there are more improvements they will trade their 1yo truck in for the newer version, also buy continually upgrading thier product it provides incentive to upgrade to a newer version of the same vehicle.

emale · October 2002

one good reason to wait another year for the hemi is cylinder deactivation. sometime during model year '04 the hemi is supposed to gain this gas mileage saver...!

ramforceone · October 2002

Just Curious.... Why is everyone beating down the 5.9 litre Magnum? With thirty years of dependability, it's probably the best engine that DC ever made. I've read that the new Hemi is cheaper to build....Hmmmmm. Is having 2 spark plugs kinda like having to 2 light switches turning on the same light bulb. It also recommended that mid-grade fuel be used. I know that the 5.9 is a gas hog but look at other offerings from the competition and it's not like they get much better... maybe 1 or 2 mpgs. If the new hemi gets it's max HP @ 5400RPMs that can't be great for gas milege.
Also, all the folks out there with these new hemi's lets have some feedback. I read some of these comments from people who have test drove the new hemis and rave how fast they are (with 17" tires and 4.10 gears) off the line.

emale · October 2002

ramforceone,

my 2002 5.4l s-crew 5.4l beats the pants off the old 360 cube. but, i did drive a heavy duty hemi powered truck recently (3.73 rear gears) and it was even faster than my half ton. one area where the hemi has the old 360 cube beat to hell is the smoothness with which it operates. you can't even tell it's running at idle it's that smooth. every 5.9l i've ever been in had a lumpy idle. the hemi is also connected to an ultra smooth new tranny. making it even that much more desirable.

as for the 360 being the best dodge has ever made...well that's highly debateable. it is a good engine but nothing like the 426 hemi or even the new hemi. i think you should check out this article about the new hemi...

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5415&sid=181&n=157

ramforceone · October 2002

emale,
Thanks for the interesting article. No doubt the new hemi looks like it will be a winner, however I have always been one to let these new engines get some of their "bugs" ironed out first before jumping in to something new. I used to have a 98 k1500 Z71 with a 5.7l engine also another good engine and a great truck, debated on waiting for the new-at-the-time ('99) 5.3l engine that was plagued with piston slap problems etc. I currently have an 02 QC with the 5.9l engine and other than being thirsty for fuel, ( but what fullsize truck isn't?) I'm very pleased with this truck.

dustyk · October 2002

Emale, dead last is an ambiguous term. What defines a "gas hog" and is one or two mpg the difference? If the 4.7 is less efficient in the RAM 4x4 by one or two MPG, okay that's one thing. But I think your term "gas hog" is an exaggeration based on this engine in one vehicle platform.

The people I talk to with Dakotas are reporting mpg numbers much more consistent with the EPA ratings. And some real world friends with V6 S-10s and Rangers are not getting much more than I am with my 4.7. Some less. Heck, my daughter's '98 Explorer 3.8 has never broken 18 mpg, and my Dakota outweighs the Explorer by nearly 200 lbs.

Secondly, three tested vehicles in Consumers' Reports is not necessarily real world. "Real world" in the true sense is what several hundred 'real' people get in day-to-day driving.

It is unfortunate that the 4.7 appears to be a long break-in engine. People that I've talked to -- almost to the person -- have said that after eight or nine thousand miles they saw a jump in gas mileage. Of course, Chrysler could've reduced the internal friction more, I suppose, by lowering the piston ring tension down to two pounds. And then Dodge owners could be enjoying things like high-speed oil consumption and piston slap, too.

Dusty

emale · October 2002

dusty,

if i have the time, i'll try to find that article. it was a couple months ago. but, that said, just about any dodge board i've ever visited has a number of folks complaining about 4.7l gas mileage as well as 5.9l gas mileage. and tests of the 4.7l in the dakota, durango and grand cherokee have netted similar low gas mileage results, especially so in the 4x4 vehicles.

so...even though i can't quantify it appropriately, i've read enough "stuff" to discern that owners of the 4.7l engine are complaining much more about gas mileage vs chevy owners.

here is a car and driver link that you might find interesting...in this 450 mile test...a 4.7l quad averaged 12 mpg while a 4.8l chevy extended cab averaged 15 mpg. that to me is somewhat of a considerable difference. you can read it for yourself here:

http://caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2002/april/200204_comparo_iron.xml?&page=1

Jason5 · October 2002

Yes, yes, yes....I'm feeling my creative juices flowing after a night of "culture" in NYC. In any event... DustyK, since my Ph.D. is NOT in automotive engineering I'm curious about a number of things. Emale hinted at this in his posts. I've always found it curious that, although their displacements are similar, the 4.7 Magnum and 4.8 Vortec have considerable variation in power and gas mileage. I understand that the 4.7 has superior torque and the tuning is mostly in the area of horsepower--but what are you thoughts on the mileage differences. Like Emale, I've talked with folks who seem to get better mileage with their 4.8 Vortecs. It can't be a simple matter of OHC vs. OHV design... Perhaps it's partially explained by the friction issue you mention. I do notice that the 5 sp. for 2003 has increased city mileage by 1mpg on most models. Guess I've always wondered why the 4.7 isn't closer in HP to the 285 listed for the 4.8 Vortec--despite the torque advantage..

mledtje · October 2002

My buddy Steve had a Dakota w/5.9L engine. Empty, he got 12-13 mpg. My 6.0L 2500 Silverado gets 14-16 loaded to 7500#. It's never empty, so I can't comment on empty mileage other than it has to be better than that.

The 5.2 and 5.9 are durable engines, but the best engine they ever made? My vote would go for the 383 Roadrunner engine. Hemi strength 4 bolt bottom end coupled with 440 6Pak heads made a very powerful, tough engine that would pull well past 7000 rpm reliably. Never got the press of the 440 or 426, but they got my vote for best engine. Now we just have to wait and see where the 5.7 Hemi fits into the list of best engines.

Mike L

lariat1 · October 2002

If someone is getting 12-13 mpg all the time with thier 360 they are either trying to drag race at every light or thier engine needs to be fixed. I have a 01 Ram 4x4 w/360 and I get 16-18 on the highway and 11-13 towing a 5000# boat, and I dont live in the flatlands normally when I am towing my boat I have to climb over 2 mountain ranges minimum. The only time I get 13-13 mpg all the time is when it is -20F or colder, something about extended idling and thick differential lube destroys gas mileage.

emale · October 2002

jason,

here is a link that talks about the HO 4.7l in the ram. apparently that engine will be available but is currently on hold status...

the story is clear at the bottom of the article.

http://car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b102202.htm

on a passing note...it will be quite interesting to see how the hemi does mpg wise when the epa tests it in the 1500. so far can't really figure out what the mileage is because car manu aren't required to and therefore do not post mpg numbers on heavy duty trucks.

lariat1 · October 2002

I was looking at a picture of the new Hemi engine and noticed that there is no crank driven fan. Did they finally get smart and install electric fans or was this just a missprint.

emale · November 2002

anyone check out this new edmunds road test?

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/77826/article.html

it seems to also validate the 4.7l's thirstiness...

dustyk · November 2002

All these reports you tell us about regarding 4.7 fuel consumption are anecdotal. Nothing about them tells us how or the conditions in which the vehicle was driven. The recent Edmunds road test that you posted is just so ridiculous. As eager as you want to promote something so negative about the 4.7, how many reports have you heard that have the gas mileage so low? Nobody...and I mean nobody...has told me that they are getting anything less than 13mpg on a 4.7 RAM, and that includes 4x4s. I've talked to "real people" about their 4.7 mileage, too. In Dakotas the lowest that's been reported to me is 15 mpg. Most are reporting between 16-18. In RAMs, between 13 and 17.

Despite your insistence, the Edmunds road test, or anyone else's for that matter, does not validate your claim about the 4.7. Nowhere in the text of the Edmund's article does it explain or even claim that they tested the RAM for gas mileage. Nor does it explain anything about the test criteria even if it did. It appears to me from this article that the fuel mileage reported was the result of casual driving. It could've been in the hills of central Pennsylvania for all we know, stretched over a three week period and with more than one driver.

The fact remains that THE ONLY consistently applied test for fuel consumption that can be used to compare different makes and models is the EPA certified process. If the 4.7 is such a "gas hog" as you claim, how do you explain the then apparent disparage between these anecdotal reports and the EPA certified mileage? Are you going to suggest a conspiracy?

Another fact is that the first and most impacting variable in fuel consumption is the driver. I just went 291.6 miles on 15.16 gallons of gas. This was mixed driving, better than 50% highway miles with less than 30 miles of expressway roads. This, supposedly, on a "thirsty" 4.7! My neighbor has a 2002 Club Cab with a 4.7 (5sp) and says he gets consistent 17mpg mixed, 22 on the highway.

There is a noticeable quality in your posts. You are quick to point to examples where the reported fuel mileage is low in the EPA range for the 4.7, but silent when anyone reports reasonable mpg. Why? The same for the 360, another supposed "gas hog." There's been a few in here that say they get 15mpg and upwards. I suspect when these reports of comparatively good mileage are posted you're going to say that these must be all anomalies.

Dusty

emale · November 2002

easy dusty, don't get your panties in a twist.

i have nothing against the 4.7l. i think it's a good engine. however, in relative terms its gas mileage stinks (relative to its horsepower and torque ratings and when compared to more powerful engines from the competition). if you wanna quote the epa here it is. last time i looked, a dakota 4x4 4.7l quad cab automatic was rated 17 mpg on the highway. my significantly more powerful...larger and torquier 5.4l 4x4 supercrew is also rated 17! you were talking about guys getting 20 mpg with their dakotas. my dads extended cab gmc with 5.3l is getting around 23-24 mpg on the highway.

as for the old 360, i leased a 97 4x4 ram regular cab back in '97 and that truck never exceeded 15 mpg in any type of driving. and i live where it is almost completely flat.

some guys over at pickuptruck.com are also saying their trucks are getting horrendous gas mileage. not all of them, mind you, but quite a few.

from my standpiont based on what i've read, i'll standby my assertion that the 4.7l is thirsty. that has been backed up by test after test of vehicles equipped with that engine...even comparo tests where the vehicle equipped with that engine is almost always dead last in mpg.

i will say nothing further on this subject since it seems to raise the ire of a few around here...

dave40 · November 2002

http://www.airaid.com/whats_new.html

obyone · November 2002

I hope you don't believe everything you read. Like flowmasters giving an additional 30 HP to go with the 15 HP from the airaid. LMAO!!

Between the two you'll be lucky to have any gains...maybe even some loss of lowend torque....

dustyk · November 2002

...that when I rented the RAM Quad and Ford SuperCrew I found less than a 1/2 MPG between the two.

As far as 5.3 GMs getting 23-24 mpg highway, this is an engine that I've heard more disgruntled comments about gas mileage than any other! Our fleet of company 1500 conventional cabs with that engine never attained much over 10 mpg according to our fleet manager. And having spent a week in one last year -- and paying for half the gas -- I can tell you that that one truck didn't get 15 mpg for a nearly 300 mile trip!

Amazing!

akjbmw · November 2002

It requires patience.
I can see a flat-land scenario with 50mph max speed, obeyed. An egg, raw, under your foot on the gas pedal. Letting it coast to the next stop without ever touching the brake 'cause you can see it coming. No other vehicles around to impede you activity.
Should yield really good mileage.
Once past the experimental challenge of seeing what it will do, I don't have the patience to maintain this behavior so I don't get the mileage I would expect from that exercise.
With external controls (speed limits and cars in the way) in Yellowstone National Park two weeks ago I got 19.6 on my truck. The rest of the time I feel good to see 17's (bad weather with reduced speeds).
So. It's a what's possible vs. my reality. I want my cake (mileage) and want to eat it too (performance). Mostly, I want a truck that won't break and not be there when I need it. Therefor, I read the "stuff" that is posted and sort out the parts that I can average into a package for "consideration" when making choices for my next truck.
I commented before about opinions and backsides. Always keep this in mind when reading anywhere.
Now, where did I leave that Halon bottle???

scotthemi · November 2002

Well, after much internal debate, I ordered a 2003 Ram 2500 QC 4x4 with the Hemi. I'm extremely excited about this, so the next 60 days or so are going to be hard to get through while I wait on this thing to get here.

I've been reading these boards for quite some time now, but have never posted. What I need help with is this: I remember reading a while back that there is a way of tracking your order once you get the vehicle order number from the dealer. Is this true? and can someone tell me where (website) I can track this? Thanks in advance for any help.

dave40 · November 2002

http://www.dodgeram.org/buying_info/Order_status.htm

scotthemi · November 2002

I appreciate the info.

dave40 · November 2002

http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b110502.htm

dave40 · November 2002

http://dodgetrucks.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?photo=3303

dave40 · November 2002

IF CHEVY MADE A ¾ TON CORVETTE
(Drivers Report on 2003 Dodge 2500)
From: U.S.T.F. Commander BIG DAVE 40

Well folks, its now in my driveway! After an 6-week delivery wait my new DODGE 2500 with the Sport Paint Package (basic black) is glistening outside my door as I write. I take fingers to keys, now that my hands have stopped shaking, to tell you about one hell of a ragged pure-power mother trucker thats really no holds barred.
This thing feels more like a jet plane accelerating. The 345 h.p. (16 plug) Hemi is brutal! Hit the juice and be sure to have a Chiropractor handy. Even with the super comfortable, all-ways adjustable leather interior, the G force pushes your body imprint into the seat in a fearsome rush of power and an exhaust growl that speaks in a language like no other on the road.
I decided on two-wheel drive to get the rack and pinion steering and am deeply satisfied with my choice. This thing really feels like youre spreading soft butter on the road. It sticks perfectly with ultimate control and the true feeling of a sports car from a ¾ ton truck! These folks have got it all together. The Mercedes tranny just pulses through from stop through drive to a step-down that feels like some added rockets have just been fired!
My dear cousin, no name mentioned (the State either) took it to 105 on a very safe, out of traffic road and it was hardly breathing. Fully loaded, means just that. With every option youd expect you then find a sound system volume adjustment under the steering wheel. Little things mean a lot. The cab is perfectly laid-out for Caddy-comfort. Truth be told, if you got in blindfolded youd never realize you were in a truck. Heres a power-packed workhorse that Ill use in my business every day and it feels like a serious sports machine put together for Continental road races. Yeah Dodge!!!
Take a tip. Take a test drive. I believe youll have to give this truck a #10. I do.

PS ..... I did a 0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds with a full tank of gas 35 gallons .......

wait to she breaks in .........

emale · November 2002

uhhh, glad you like your new dodge truck. my experience with a regular cab heavy duty 4x4 wasn't quite as thrilling as your's, but it was still a decent drive. btw, the 5-45rfe tranny is not a mercedes tranny. it is a chrysler tranny...!

rudedog1 · November 2002

0-60mph in 5.9seconds..... was that downhill with a 100mph tailwind and rocket boooooosters
I didnt know these trucks were faster than the 380hp Ford F-150 Lightning....

bc01cls · November 2002

Not to brag but on a recent trip I set my cruise to 73 and over 1,000 miles of highway, computer reported 19.4 mpg. No too shabby for a 5,000# beast. Incidentally 14.5-15.5 around town..... this thing coasts great.

emale · November 2002

must be a 2wd truck...?

hersbird · November 2002

Checked with Dave Smith, can currently order a 1500 regular cab, 2wd, with the Hemi and auto, with about every other option allowed on the ST (not much, 3.92 gear, limited slip, 4 wheel abs, cruise, tilt, cloth, carpet, and chrome wheels) for $18,500 after all rebates! That's sure isn't too shabby! I remember all these articles on what offers the most HP per dollar, I don't think you can beat 345 hp for under $20,000 new from the factory. They said they can lock in the current $2000 rebate and the $500 farm bureau rebate as well. Man o man, I really need to sell my Dakota first but this is just so tempting... Basically the invoice price of the 5.7 hemi is only $700 more then a 4.7. Even on a ST regualr cab where the v-6 is standard, it only costs $1,200 more then the v-6. Now why doesn't Chevy offer the 345 hp 6.0 going into the new SS, in the basic Silverado for an additional $1000-$1,500? I might consider that as well, but you just can't beat the possibilities of a new $18,500 Ram with 345 hp!

bc01cls · November 2002

Yes, it is the 2wd QuadCab. Still "porky" at 4,956 lbs!!!

dustyk · November 2002

It's funny how over the years I've heard so many guys say that their truck was better just because it weighed more. Of course, there never was a technical reason given, just that "more weight means more metal," the implication being that the lighter truck wasn't going to be as rugged, I guess. Now the Chevy and Ford guys need to find something else to nitpick the RAM for.

I found out the other day that my barber just bought a new RAM 1500 quad 4x4 with the 4.7 (287) engine. He said that his first four tanks of gas he's averaged just over 16 MPG. That's no highway driving, either.

Must be another one of those anomalies!!

Regards,
Dusty

emale · November 2002

4x4 quad with 4.7l getting 16 mpg city driving only...that is truly amazing and an amazing anamoly!!

dusty, i'll bet your new dakota quad doesn't even get that, does it!

New Dodge 5.7 Hemi

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles