Spy shots are circulating that show a current-generation Ram 1500 pickup with something missing under the hood.
The picture on the side of the milk carton contains at least two cylinders, as this unusual Ram variant has dispensed with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ familiar V6 and V8 engines. Yup, this Ram packs an inline-four.
Sitting low in the tall vehicle’s engine bay, partially obscured by a towering radiator, the four-cylinder engine can’t hide its tell-tale characteristics. Clearly, the vehicle is a test mule, but for what?
That’s what the speculation machine is trying to figure out. FCA is feverishly readying the next-generation Ram 1500 for a January 2018 production deadline, but the upcoming full-size model might not be the engine’s destination.
With Ford preparing a U.S.-market Ranger for 2019, and with General Motors already reaping the rewards of offering two midsize pickups, FCA could finally be bowing to market demand. Is this engine bound for a baby Ram model? So far, no such model has been confirmed, though it makes sense that FCA would pursue one if big returns were all but guaranteed.
A turbocharged 2.0-liter “Hurricane” four should appear in the 2018 Jeep Wrangler, rumored to make in the area of 300 horsepower. That’s enough to move a full-size truck, especially a slightly lighter one that is expected to adopt a 48-volt mild hybrid system. Then again, it could be a wholly new diesel engine.
We’re left waiting to see what becomes of this intriguing development.
[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]
Balderdash and poppycock.
I am really getting tired of wildly speculative rumor articles.
In our next installment there will be a spy shot of said 4 cyl Ram with Bigfoot driving.
Word has it that he passed the driving test in only three tries. He then went to the local barbershop for a full body shave, bought some new suits, and got elected to a high US office.
Just sayin!
As long as he was natural born ;)
Maybe a new updated 2.8 diesel?
It’s a much cheaper engine than the 3 litre VM diesel.
There has been whispers for quite some time now concerning turbo engines in the Ram. Most centre around V6’s. i.e. Ecoboost fighters. I can see Ram offering a fleet spec normally aspirated V6, a turbo 4 banger next, then a Turbo V6. A diesel will stay in the lineup and kill the 5.7 V8. The 6.4 could be offered in some trims. Some say that the 5.7 is going to die. No need to keep it with the 6.4 around.
Rams are driven by BigGut, not BigFoot.
If you look closely at the picture, you can see Bigfoot’s reflection in the chrome side mirror. Some of you may call “Blobsquatch” but it is obviously Bigfoot. And those aren’t 4-cylinder engine knocks you’re hearing. That’s how Bigfoots talk to one another.
That Ram pictured above looks like any other Ram. How can you tell it has a 4-banger?
Can’t you see the ‘tell tale characteristics’? Me neither.
Probably the “alt-right” at work again, no doubt.
Or, maybe the picture above (which looks suspiciously like a factory press release photo) isn’t the picture the article is referring to. No! That can’t possibly be it!
If only they had provided a link to the original article showing the pics. Oh well.
If it was the MSM they would be saying its a GM truck with a V12.
It makes perfect sense why Ram was putting Hemi badges on V6’s. Alt-right getting us ready for BIG CHANGES AHEAD ;)
“Or, maybe the picture above (which looks suspiciously like a factory press release photo) isn’t the picture the article is referring to.”
Exactly my point. Your smrt
The original pics from “Trucktrend” are kind of blurry and don’t really show the engine well. Of course with the acoustic / appearance covers used these days, it’s difficult to identify anything.
I know GM used to frequently use “powertrain mules” where engrs could develop engine/trans packages without having to build them into the new (expensive, low volume proto tooling) chassis.
Do you see the engine?
FC is coming out with a 4 in the new wrangler. There’s also rumours about a diesel wrangler. I know some test mules have 6ers, but Do we know that there’s no 4 cyl diesel variant?
Maybe the Hurricane will be in a full sizer?
Or maybe there’s a 4 cyl diesel that puts out decent torque?
Or maybe I’m getting old and don’t have a problem waiting to see what happens.
A nice big 3.0L 4 cylinder turbo diesel would probably work out great!
Yep it would be great to see a baby diesel engine in a mid-size Dodge truck. While I love me some turbo 4 gas goodness I don’t think a full-size truck is the best place to put one.
Full size trucks in Brazil came with turbocharged I-4 diesels for decades. See Ford F-1000 as an example.
I doubt Americans would put up with an I-4 in a full size truck. But, everyone (bafo) said they’d never buy a twin turbo V-6 in a full-size, or a truck with an aluminum body.
Full size Ford trucks, in south America, came with the “Pinto” 2.3l 4cyl for a while.
Didn’t Isuzu 1-ton delivery vans use GM’s Iron Duke for a while? A long, long time ago.
Are you sh!tting me? That engine couldn’t even move a Pinto. Not missing the 30 sec. 0-60 times of the Malaise Era at all.
I doubt there are many highways that require folks to merge at ~75 MPH in 200 feet in Brazil either. Driving requirements vary.
Jeebus, how sad.
Oh but 28 it has four cams and six turboz and bends time and space in order to generate enough power to barely move a 5,000lb object!
Wait. Are you talking to yourself in the third person?
(because vogo approves)
Oh yeah, Jimmy played pretty good.
youtube.com/watch?v=Apa0nG1OfUc
Durability testing for Jeep or another vehicle? adding it to the Ram? All three?
My bet’s on all three.
I would guess it’s testing for the next Wrangler. Or possibly a Euro market RAM?
I’m thinking Wrangler and next-gen chally/charger/mystery cuda
Euro market Ram?
If any market gets a 1/2 ton Ram diesel it would be Australia.
@Big Al from Oz
Only some of RAM’s problems here. Not RHD, FCA electrical and mechanical issues etc.
I think it is a test mule for a 4 Cylinder engine and that is that.
I’m telling you, by 2020 the Ram 1500 engine offerings will be a turbo-4, turbo-6, a pricey 6.4L V8 option, and *maybe* an equally pricey diesel I4 or V6.
And (if they happen) the next Challenger and Charger is going turbo-4, two tunes of a turbo-6, and Hellcat V8.
The 5.7 and naturally-aspirated 3.6 don’t have a future.
I hope that Charger is Giulia based. Hopefully they slot a Giulia based Avenger under it. Faux stitched Rubbermaid™ interior and all.
Reuse previous product names?
The marketing team that brought you the Chrysler 200 might differ…then again, I think they’re all working at a call center in Peoria right now.
I’m really going to miss NA engines.
@ajla – I made a post earlier on the tread about this. I suspect NA V6 for fleets, turbo 4, turbo V6, diesel and 6.4 for the brodozer “loud pipes annoy lives” crowd.
Me thinks the 5.7 is a goner.
The numbers mentioned in the article put the Huricane 4 around the same power/torque as the old Magnum V8, and above the Pentastar V6.
A 4 won’t satisfy the urban cowboy crowd, but it’s plenty for a work/fleet truck.
Cool, it’s a RAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM I can walk in my VW. I approve.
(Probably testing it for another application…my guess would be the upcoming Wrangler)
The “Hurricane” four, eh? I wonder when we’ll be seeing spy shots of the Ramcharger test mule.
Maybe they can use the MultiAir 1.4T and squeeze 35 mpg out of it. Don’t ask about towing.
Ugh. This is probably the reality. MultiAir variant.
“Don’t ask about towing.”
That is already FCA’s motto in relation to the 1500.
The more cylinders is better thing baffles me. More cylinders might be smoother, depending on implementation, but really the cylinder count in and of itself is largely meaningless. 200hp is 200hp, and that used to be considered PLENTY for a full-size truck. Still is in most of the world. How fast do you need to go in a basic truck?
I think the demand is less speed than payload and towing capacity.
I know my F250 with the 4.10 rear is … plenty fast enough unloaded with the 300HP 5.4, and still quite tolerable with a serious payload and trailer.
(And there’s emotional resonance, but that one can’t be debated.
If I had to buy a truck now with my own money it’d be the F150 with the 3.5EB…)
Two reasons:
1. More cylinders = better for the big loads trucks are designed for.
1a. 8 cylinders are a nice sweet spot as they don’t require additional balancing like a 6 or 10.
1b. More cylinders for a given displacement = more available area for cooling and bearing loads… again key
1c. Generally better NVH even outside of the inherent balance of a crossplane 8 cylinder
2. Changing traffic requirements. Cars are just a lot faster than they used to be. An Ecoboost F150 is as fast as a 10 year old 350Z. Both of which would give a 20 year old 911 type car a healthy stoplight scare. Cars are simply increasingly faster in the US, which is scary considering the decline in driver training.
So yea, it makes total sense.
You haven’t a clue. 200 hp is NOT 200 HP! Not when one’s with a V8, one’s with a V6, and never mind *4 cylinder* 200 HP!!
Yes medium-duty (26,000 lbs) trucks used to get by just fine with considerably less than 200 hp, even as late as the mid ’90s.
Without comparing torque and torque curve, “HP” figures are totally meaningless. “Torque” is easier for translate, since that’s all the dyno directly spits out.
“HP” is an equation loosely based on torque, and doesn’t translate well, as far as what *work* it can actually do.
HP is not “an equation loosely based on torque.” It’s torque*rpm*constant. If you have less torque, you have to rev higher to get the same power. Most truck engines are not high revvers, because it’s cheapest to build them that way, but there’s no reason an engine can’t do good work at higher revs.
And fewer cylinders don’t necessarily mean higher revs. The revviest truck engine out there today is Ford’s naturally aspirated V6. A turbo four would develop more torque down low and need fewer revs.
“More cylinders = better for the big loads trucks are designed for.”
Someone should tell the heavy truck makers. Pretty much every heavy truck engine is an inline six. There used to be V8s, but they’re gone. The main reason is because the inline six configuration is smoother than others, with which these big engines can actually be important to maintenance costs.
“8 cylinders are a nice sweet spot as they don’t require additional balancing like a 6 or 10.”
The only inherently balanced configurations in common use are the inline 6 and the V-12. An 8 does require additional balancing.
“1b. More cylinders for a given displacement = more available area for cooling and bearing loads… again key”
This is just bullsh!t.
dal20402 – agreed. Torque is a factor but number of cylinders is no longer an issue. I’ve driven a F150 EB3.5 and it is NOT a revver. Revving high means you pass its HP and torque peak. Bore and stroke also come into play when it comes to RPM and torque. My 5.4 litre F150 does its job at lower rpm than a comparable Chevy 5.3.
200 hp is 200 hp.
horse power = a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second.
Correct, but misleadimg in how you view proper work engines to hair dresser engines.
Its how and when the power is delivered.
This sepetates low torque high revving engines from proper truck engines, like diesels.
Are you saying that hair dressing isn’t work? I am appalled. Appalled and shocked. Appalled, shocked and just sad, really. Sad for humanity.
VoGo – one doesn’t ask hair advice from someone with alopecia.
Big Alopecia?
But is there a production 4 cylinder that’s up to the task? Turbo of course, but even at 300+ HP?
Current diesel pickup engines embarrass 18 wheeler diesels of just a few decades ago, but are they up to the (80,000 lbs) task? Why not? On paper they sure are.
~300 hp and ~300 lbs of torque is about what current base engines in trucks make, or a bit better.
Not shocked, and I’m sure Ford has a 2.3L EcoBoost F-150 mule around too.
Gotta have a big grille to cool that four-cylinder!
# of cylinders has nothing to do with it. the size of the radiator (thus grille) depends on the power output of the engine and the vehicle’s intended usage. There’s reasons a 400 hp Peterbilt 348 has a much larger radiator than a 400 hp Mustang.
You can’t have only 300HP in a full size truck!
I mean, sure, my SuperDuty has 300HP, but reasons!
Sigivald,
The VM 2.8 has 200hp and 365ftlb of torque in our Coloradoes. The 2.8 Colorado diesel are in fact VM.
With current technology it shouldn’t be hard to realise 250 hp and well over 400ftlb of torque. More than enough for any half ton.
I gotta say, I’m pretty impressed. Not w/the 4cyl story, but that I clicked on a truck story and the reader comments weren’t oddly focused on penis size. Are we finally making progress?
BoogerROTN = LOL
Penis size – the pickup truck equivalent to Godwin’s law ;)
It’s a cummins 4 cylinder turbo.. For the ram and the wrangler and the wrangler pickup and the Durango and the jeep grand cherokee and the grand wagoneer 1500
mikeg216 – I highly doubt it. FCA has its own line of diesels. If they could replace the Cummins 6.7 without killing sales, they’d do it in a heart beat.
Don’t all those indestructible Toyota Hiluxs have a 4cyl?
The Australian double cab 4×4 turbo diesel Hilux still only weights 4575lbs. The Australian 4×2 single cab turbo diesel Hilux 4×2 weighs 3902lbs. The MY16 Ram 1500 weighs in between 4,516 to 5,663 lbs depending on configuration. For contrast the current Chevy Colorado weighs in between 3,930 to 4,520 lbs. I don’t see this working very well for Chrysler owners with a small gas I4.
http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/specifications/sr5-4×4-double-cab-pick-up-28l-turbo-diesel-manual
http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/specifications/sr-4×2-extra-cab-pick-up-28l-turbo-diesel-manual
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/pdf/specsheet/ram_1500_dimensions.pdf
Now that they’ve discontinued the Chrysler 200 and the Dodge Dart they need to do something with those leftover TigerShark 4-cylinder engines. I can hardly wait for the upcoming Ram Abarth 1500.
I think you’ve nailed it.
It will be like a baby SRT.