So apparently Stellantis had a genius idea!!!!

[Frenchy]

According to this post Stellantis thinks it's a great idea to disable the trailer brake controller if the vehicle gets hot while towing! Put a chassis snap on top of that and you gave an excellent vehicle!

https://www.torquenews.com/1084/202...erheating-disables-owners-trailer-brakes-just

Sponsored

 

[Jason B]

I think you misunderstood that

Yes, the engine overheated from uphill towing, but that did not cause the TCM to fail. The TCM failed when it overheated on the descent, trying to slow the vehicle and trailer.
Two separate fails, both from overheating.

 

[Frenchy]

I think you misunderstood that

Yes, the engine overheated from uphill towing, but that did not cause the TCM to fail. The TCM failed when it overheated on the descent, trying to slow the vehicle and trailer.
Two separate fails, both from overheating.

Still counts as the vehicle getting too hot when towing.

 

[Jason B]

Yep, and it's rated for 11,500, but overheating on 7,500.

 

[Friday yet?]

Because… Stellantis.

 

[OCL]

I honestly don't get this trend no thanks to Ford. I love turbocharged engines. Have owned a few and fully understand their advantages, especially when it comes to towing and high elevation. I also fully understand these engines are under a lot of stress when in continuous boost and they generate a boat load of heat! Also, they rarely ever get the fuel efficiency that they claim when they are working (not even working hard but just working). I once had two identical cars for me and my wife but one was turbocharged while the other was a big V6. The V6 ALWAYS got better fuel efficiency. Go figure. If Stellantis wanted bragging rights on a RAM 1500 for towing, why not just put a freakin' big ass HEMI 6.4 V8 in a 1500! It would probably get similar fuel efficiency in the real world. It would have been simpler and would run cooler than a Hurrican TT inline 6.

 

[Cmar]

Ford released the Ranger Super Duty in Australia. Rated to tow 4,500 Kg a full tonne over the standard Ranger 3,500. At the same time they de-rated the 180Kw 3.0 litre V6 diesel from 180 Kw in the normal Ranger to 154 Kw.
All the stupid motoring journalists have been banging on about how could Ford do this, now it's underpowered etc, particularly as the additional chassis drive line, and body work strengthening has added quite a few kilos as well.
They obviously have revealed their engineering ignorance.
Quite simply there is a limit to the amount of stress a turbocharged lightweight V6 block, with narrow main and big end bearings, questionable oil flow, and originally designed to fit in Land rovers, Jaguars, and Range Rovers can take.
And quite wisely Ford decided that towing 4.5 tonne up steep hills or at high speed in a 40deg C Australian summer might be a bit much to expect at the original 180 Kw output in the long term.

 

[Frenchy]

Ford released the Ranger Super Duty in Australia. Rated to tow 4,500 Kg a full tonne over the standard Ranger 3,500. At the same time they de-rated the 180Kw 3.0 litre V6 diesel from 180 Kw in the normal Ranger to 154 Kw.
All the stupid motoring journalists have been banging on about how could Ford do this, now it's underpowered etc, particularly as the additional chassis drive line, and body work strengthening has added quite a few kilos as well.
They obviously have revealed their engineering ignorance.
Quite simply there is a limit to the amount of stress a turbocharged lightweight V6 block, with narrow main and big end bearings, questionable oil flow, and originally designed to fit in Land rovers, Jaguars, and Range Rovers can take.
And quite wisely Ford decided that towing 4.5 tonne up steep hills or at high speed in a 40deg C Australian summer might be a bit much to expect at the original 180 Kw output in the long term.

Something to keep in mind when a engine is sedated in power. It's usually for longevity reasons. For example the 6.7 Diesel that Ford has comes in two different configurations here in North America. You have the consumer lever that has more power available(even though it isn't all there if the truck isn't loaded) and you have the Heavy Duty Commercial version that has less power. Ford found the low power to help the overall longevity for the commercial vehicles. Of course that doesn't stop issues with the after treatment system thanks to operators shutting the vehicles off during a regen. Just something to keep in mind.

Also it doesn't compare to Stelantis engineering a truck to pull 11,500 lbs when it can't do 7,500 lbs safely.

 

[JimG_AZ]

...Also it doesn't compare to Stelantis engineering a truck to pull 11,500 lbs when it can't do 7,500 lbs safely.

Stelantis definitely has some issues to work out, but that was an extreme test. I would not say that the Ram can't tow 7500 lbs safely under normal circumstances. I sure would like to see how the two Ford Ecoboost motors in the F-150 would compare in a similar test.

Stelantis needs to address the brake controller issue ASAP.

 

[JimG_AZ]

...If Stellantis wanted bragging rights on a RAM 1500 for towing, why not just put a freakin' big ass HEMI 6.4 V8 in a 1500! It would probably get similar fuel efficiency in the real world. It would have been simpler and would run cooler than a Hurrican TT inline 6.

Stelantis was in a lot of trouble with the EPA due to fuel economy non-compliance. My guess that the reason we never saw this was due to the EPA.

 

[Langwilliams]

The also removed the oil dipstick in favor of oil level sensors. Wonder how this is work out.

 

[Frenchy]

Stelantis definitely has some issues to work out, but that was an extreme test. I would not say that the Ram can't tow 7500 lbs safely under normal circumstances. I sure would like to see how the two Ford Ecoboost motors in the F-150 would compare in a similar test.

Stelantis needs to address the brake controller issue ASAP.

When I had my Ranger I was able to tow 5,500 lbs easily when the rating was 7,500 lbs. The 2.3 EcoBoost with the 10R80 was a nice combination even for a midsize truck with small displacement. I never got to experience close to capacity, it I suspect it would be fine.

 

[TruckBox]

All manufacturers have their issues - some have basically written off human lives to save a buck - but i will never understand the Chrysler/FCA/Stellantis owner.

The also removed the oil dipstick in favor of oil level sensors. Wonder how this is work out.

At least Stellantis has a great track record for electronics.

/s

 

[JimG_AZ]

When I had my Ranger I was able to tow 5,500 lbs easily when the rating was 7,500 lbs. The 2.3 EcoBoost with the 10R80 was a nice combination even for a midsize truck with small displacement. I never got to experience close to capacity, it I suspect it would be fine.

I did pull a travel trailer that weighed around 5500 lbs too with my Ranger and it did very well. I did pull that trailer up 6% grades but I do not think I pulled an extended one like this. It would be very interesting to see how the Ranger would do pulling a 5500 lbs trailer through that route. It may have been able to handle it, but the turbo would have been spooling too and generating quite a bit of heat.

 

[Frenchy]

I did pull a travel trailer that weighed around 5500 lbs too with my Ranger and it did very well. I did pull that trailer up 6% grades but I do not think I pulled an extended one like this. It would be very interesting to see how the Ranger would do pulling a 5500 lbs trailer through that route. It may have been able to handle it, but the turbo would have been spooling too and generating quite a bit of heat.

That is why the Turbocharger is not only lubricated by oil, but also cooled by the engine coolant and the intercooler helping stabilize intake temps to a degree. I didn't have a travel trailer, but when I towed I went from 9,000 ft up a very steep grade going to 11,000 ft. Thanks to the Powertrain combination the boost was just right and yes the powertrain did get a bit warm, but it wasn't too much for it to handle.

Sponsored