What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

3.0 twin turbo Hurricane motor

I think the point is a big horse lasts longer than a little horse under the same load.
 
gimmie11s said:
Seems you've never towed with one.

That little 3.5 would put a vortec 454 to shame. Ive owned both and towed back to back with the same trailer.
Click to expand...
Yeah its amazing what they can squeeze out of an engine half the size. 100 more HP and TQ. Gearing in the trans is likely night and day too. However I'd still have the 454 for ease of working on and reliability.
 
Firebird said:
I also had a 3.5 ecoboost F150, and it was one stupid quick truck! However, I didn't tow with it, mainly because I can't stand towing with a half ton, suspensions and tires are too soft
Click to expand...

Jonny raved about his when he was only hauling a kayak 35 miles to Lake Mojave, then he got his little TT and headed north with us. Said he could literally see the fuel gauge dropping on grades and almost the whole drive north is grades, was fumes into Ely from Alamo….130 miles. Maybe it has a tiny tank.
To be fair, my Pop’s 6.0 Chevy 3/4 does only a touch better in towing range with it’s bitty tank. His trailer is three times the size though and he locks it out of overdrive. But, he can do the speed limit all the way to Ely..;-)))
 
Last edited:
gimmie11s said:
Seems you've never towed with one.

That little 3.5 would put a vortec 454 to shame. Ive owned both and towed back to back with the same trailer.
Click to expand...
I have towed with one in a lincoln navigator it was not bad for power with the load but man did it ever drink the fuel when towing!
 
It's going to be a great engine in light duty applications. There is no replacement for displacement in towing and HD applications. Look at the turbo V6 in the new Tundra that replaced the legacy V8. Everyone was hoping for big towing numbers when it came out. Hardly any increase in capacity at all from the old motor.
 
techman said:
It's going to be a great engine in light duty applications. There is no replacement for displacement in towing and HD applications. Look at the turbo V6 in the new Tundra that replaced the legacy V8. Everyone was hoping for big towing numbers when it came out. Hardly any increase in capacity at all from the old motor.
Click to expand...
And what i hear from people i know who bought them they are not all they are cracked up to be unfortunately plus the new Toyotas are UGLY!
 
As much as I enjoy the idea of the 454, those trucks were dogs compared to anything today. If you're complaining about fuel economy in *anything* today, nostalgia blinded you to the milage then. You just don't have the massive dual tanks anymore, which sucks. If I could change anything about the PW it'd be a 50 gallon tank. But, they make these cool things called gas cans that you can store liquid, such as gas, in and keep in the truck for when you need to refuel before the next stop. Not as convenient, obviously, but I'll deal with carrying cans for all the other features the PW gives me.

While we're on stupid old trucks that we think are cool, I'd *still* like to have a 454SS. I know exactly how dumb they are and exactly how fast they aren't...but the cool factor is still there for us late Gen Xers.
 
Docwagon1776 said:
As much as I enjoy the idea of the 454, those trucks were dogs compared to anything today. If you're complaining about fuel economy in *anything* today, nostalgia blinded you to the milage then. You just don't have the massive dual tanks anymore, which sucks. If I could change anything about the PW it'd be a 50 gallon tank. But, they make these cool things called gas cans that you can store liquid, such as gas, in and keep in the truck for when you need to refuel before the next stop. Not as convenient, obviously, but I'll deal with carrying cans for all the other features the PW gives me.

While we're on stupid old trucks that we think are cool, I'd *still* like to have a 454SS. I know exactly how dumb they are and exactly how fast they aren't...but the cool factor is still there for us late Gen Xers.
Click to expand...

I sure miss my 496 in my Avalanche 2500. That was a stupid simple lump of iron that you couldn't kill. But, yes, it required a dumb amount of oil and gas to keep it spinning.

new Toyotas are UGLY!
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Firebird said:
I also had a 3.5 ecoboost F150, and it was one stupid quick truck! However, I didn't tow with it, mainly because I can't stand towing with a half ton, suspensions and tires are too soft
Click to expand...

Totally agree there. The powertrain was a BEAST, but rest of the truck too soft for some heavy weight. For sure
 
gimmie11s said:
Seems you've never towed with one.

That little 3.5 would put a vortec 454 to shame. Ive owned both and towed back to back with the same trailer.
Click to expand...
I towed a 26' boat 1100 miles with the 2016 3.5 ecoboost. It weighed in at 8k lbs. but big profile and managed 8mpg with a tail wind at 70mph. It didn't have the torque that the V8's had until you got up to 4k and built max boost. I pulled it with my 03 Silverado 1500 180 miles to my cottage got the same mileage with more hills and traveling 75mph. Towing with my hemi 2500 I get 11 mpg. That little 3.5 managed 22mpg empty on the way down on that 1100 miles cruising at 80mph where my 2500 only managed 15mpg on the same route.


Went from Corning NY to Ocala FL for both trips with the 2500 and the ecoboost.
 

Attachments

  • 20190503_164457.jpg
    20190503_164457.jpg
    656.7 KB · Views: 13
chas0218 said:
I towed a 26' boat 1100 miles with the 2016 3.5 ecoboost. It weighed in at 8k lbs. but big profile and managed 8mpg with a tail wind at 70mph. It didn't have the torque that the V8's had until you got up to 4k and built max boost. I pulled it with my 03 Silverado 1500 180 miles to my cottage got the same mileage with more hills and traveling 75mph. Towing with my hemi 2500 I get 11 mpg. That little 3.5 managed 22mpg empty on the way down on that 1100 miles cruising at 80mph where my 2500 only managed 15mpg on the same route.


Went from Corning NY to Ocala FL for both trips with the 2500 and the ecoboost.
Click to expand...
My 3.5 ecoboost struggled to get 18mpg unloaded at 70mph
 
chas0218 said:
I towed a 26' boat 1100 miles with the 2016 3.5 ecoboost. It weighed in at 8k lbs. but big profile and managed 8mpg with a tail wind at 70mph. It didn't have the torque that the V8's had until you got up to 4k and built max boost. I pulled it with my 03 Silverado 1500 180 miles to my cottage got the same mileage with more hills and traveling 75mph. Towing with my hemi 2500 I get 11 mpg. That little 3.5 managed 22mpg empty on the way down on that 1100 miles cruising at 80mph where my 2500 only managed 15mpg on the same route.


Went from Corning NY to Ocala FL for both trips with the 2500 and the ecoboost.
Click to expand...

They get great mpg unloaded. Not great while working. And since most folks use them faaaaaar more unloaded than loaded, it's a great option.

Same thing will be true with the hurricane.
 
jetrinka said:
LOL the words RENTAL and ECOBOOST combine to make one very likely heavily abused truck :D
Click to expand...

Yes, but this one was NEW… 26 miles when I picked it up.

It may have needed a breakin, which it got while I had it, but the mileage was not impressive.
 
We have a Lincoln aviator with the ecoboost. it gets the same mileage as my 2500 6.4. We live in the foothills, so the turbos are usually spinning. It's fun to drive, thats for sure - but the MPG is incredibly disappointing.
 
Firebird said:
My 3.5 ecoboost struggled to get 18mpg unloaded at 70mph
Click to expand...
That was on the evic readout so take it for what it's worth. We didn't really care what the hand calculated was but we made it the 1100 miles with 2 fill ups. and the 2nd one was just to stop and stretch our legs. I think it had a 33 or 35 gallon tank.
 
WXman said:
MPG will be equal when unloaded, and worse when loaded vs. a V8 gas engine. We've seen this over and over and over again with tiny displacement turbo-charged engines. Heck, Ford has even been sued over it multiple times. There will be ZERO fuel economy benefit to the Hurricane engine family.

Not to mention that the Hurricane has direct injection, forced induction, next gen EGR systems, etc. etc. that make it far more complicated than a Hemi. I've even read that there's no dipstick as lots of European engines are going that way and rely on a sensor to read oil level. Personally I would HATE that. I want to physically SEE that the oil level is correct.

Also, this is a light duty engine. I doubt that we will ever see it in HD pickup trucks. In the LONG distance future we might see it in a totally different form (similar to how the 6.4L truck Hemi and the "392" Hemi are totally different engines at totally different power levels) but that will be many years from now.

If you want a Hurricane in a Ram truck you'll have to buy a 2025 Ram 1500.
Click to expand...

Don’t forget it takes 91 octane for the HO....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top