Dodge/Ram 6.4 Gas Engine

[Buglemintoday]

Yeah, but in cold start up, the throttle body would build up carbon. It was a known problem on the first Ecoboosts.

"Because the fuel is no longer entering past the intake valve, the fuel cannot act as a cleaning agent (as it does with port injection). Thus, some early model EcoBoosts experienced idling problems as carbon built up on the intake valve, most noticeable upon a cold start (where the very rich mixture needed for a cold start would wash down the cylinder walls, decreasing burn efficiency and increasing emissions and carbon buildup). Once the engines were brought to operating temperature, the problem would disappear, and thus made it very baffling for many owners."

http://www.americanmuscle.com/f150-d...on-engine.html

My '14 Ecoboost ran better on 91oct then the 87oct. There was never a fuel ping but the owners manual says to run 91 octane when towing...so there must have been some sort of difference

[2014FusionM]

Yeah, but in cold start up, the throttle body would build up carbon. It was a known problem on the first Ecoboosts.

"Because the fuel is no longer entering past the intake valve, the fuel cannot act as a cleaning agent (as it does with port injection). Thus, some early model EcoBoosts experienced idling problems as carbon built up on the intake valve, most noticeable upon a cold start (where the very rich mixture needed for a cold start would wash down the cylinder walls, decreasing burn efficiency and increasing emissions and carbon buildup). Once the engines were brought to operating temperature, the problem would disappear, and thus made it very baffling for many owners."

http://www.americanmuscle.com/f150-d...on-engine.html

Even if it was from the Carbon build up from the turbo, changing fuel octanes would do nothing to fix it.... regular (87), mid grade (89), and premium (93) all have the same detergents in them regulated by the government. Octane just, in simple terms, tells you how big the boom will be. with regular you get less of a boom because there is less octane and you get more of a boom with 93 because there is more octane. with the computers on cars today they adjust for the type of gas that you put in your car and you will see no significant changes from going from 87-93.

When you car calls for 87 and you put something more in it all the gas does not actually all get burned, making you have worse emissions and poor fuel economy. You can run a corvette on 87 octane when driving highways and in town and the car would be perfectly fine but if you take it out on the track you would want to put the 93 octane in for performance reasons because that is what the car is made to run on.

My cousin did his thesis on this for his master for petroleum engineering and I helped proof read some of the 150 pages...

[SaltwaterSlick]

My cousin did his thesis on this for his master for petroleum engineering and I helped proof read some of the 150 pages...

Yea, that's kinda like sayin' you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

For your information, the higher the octane rating in gasoline, the LOWER the volatility is, thus slower, but longer burn. It works just like gun powder... If you light the powder from a firecracker with a match, it sort of flashes almost instantly... and if you light off the powder from a big bore rifle, it burns at a slower more controlled rate... the exact same thing happens in an internal combustion engine. "Regular" 87 octane gas burns faster, not slower. Therefore, it burns up and releases it's energy over a shorter stroke of the piston, thus less "power" is generated as compared to a premium 91 or higher octane rated gasoline. The higher the octane number, the slower the gasoline burns allowing it to "push" the piston across a longer stroke. Therefore, ANY internal combustion engine that is multi-cylinder can benefit from the use of high octane gasoline especially if it is directly fuel injected. A carburated engine may not as the fuel mixture is "pulled" into the engine by the piston and not atomized directly into the cylinder. Adding the turbo to an engine increases the volume of oxygen in the cylinders that is available to mix with the atomized gasoline, thus allowing more of the gasoline to burn... and the chemical reaction of oxidation is a "burn" not a "boom" or explosion. It is a very well controlled "burn".

[WItoTX]

Even if it was from the Carbon build up from the turbo, changing fuel octanes would do nothing to fix it.... regular (87), mid grade (89), and premium (93) all have the same detergents in them regulated by the government. Octane just, in simple terms, tells you how big the boom will be. with regular you get less of a boom because there is less octane and you get more of a boom with 93 because there is more octane. with the computers on cars today they adjust for the type of gas that you put in your car and you will see no significant changes from going from 87-93.

When you car calls for 87 and you put something more in it all the gas does not actually all get burned, making you have worse emissions and poor fuel economy. You can run a corvette on 87 octane when driving highways and in town and the car would be perfectly fine but if you take it out on the track you would want to put the 93 octane in for performance reasons because that is what the car is made to run on.

My cousin did his thesis on this for his master for petroleum engineering and I helped proof read some of the 150 pages...

My point was more towards the carbon build up on the throttle body than using a different octane. Carbon build up is from cold starts. This is why new trucks have both Port and Direct injection.

[2014FusionM]

Yea, that's kinda like sayin' you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

For your information, the higher the octane rating in gasoline, the LOWER the volatility is, thus slower, but longer burn. It works just like gun powder... If you light the powder from a firecracker with a match, it sort of flashes almost instantly... and if you light off the powder from a big bore rifle, it burns at a slower more controlled rate... the exact same thing happens in an internal combustion engine. "Regular" 87 octane gas burns faster, not slower. Therefore, it burns up and releases it's energy over a shorter stroke of the piston, thus less "power" is generated as compared to a premium 91 or higher octane rated gasoline. The higher the octane number, the slower the gasoline burns allowing it to "push" the piston across a longer stroke. Therefore, ANY internal combustion engine that is multi-cylinder can benefit from the use of high octane gasoline especially if it is directly fuel injected. A carburated engine may not as the fuel mixture is "pulled" into the engine by the piston and not atomized directly into the cylinder. Adding the turbo to an engine increases the volume of oxygen in the cylinders that is available to mix with the atomized gasoline, thus allowing more of the gasoline to burn... and the chemical reaction of oxidation is a "burn" not a "boom" or explosion. It is a very well controlled "burn".

Sorry to jack the thread.

When I said boom I meant the push you get out of it and the area of the cylinder from the combustion. When I typed this up this morning it made sense in my head but I can see where it could have been confusing reading it from a different point of view. There has been plenty of studies that show a higher octane has no effect on a car that does not require it.

[SaltwaterSlick]

My point was more towards the carbon build up on the throttle body than using a different octane. Carbon build up is from cold starts. This is why new trucks have both Port and Direct injection.

So are you saying that carbon build up is no longer an issue for these Eco-Boost engines? Everyone I've talked to has advised me to use a higher grade of gasoline in my '13 Eco-Boost and have the throttle body serviced/cleaned every other time I get my oil changed... The first one took a dump on me right after 100,000 miles from a carbon build up... I will say that I don't understand why since it's nothing but a venturi of sorts and not really exposed to the combustion process is it?

[Bucksaw]

Why not go with a diesel? You will break even if you keep it long enough.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me, at current fuel prices, it would take over 120K miles for me to break even on a diesel vs. a 6.4, and I don't keep them long enough for that at this point in my life. I probably wont ever buy a diesel unless I get to the point I need one, or I start making enough money that cost doesn't matter.

Not saying it wasn't feasible to have a diesel pay for itself, but the reality of it paying for itself for ME is slim to none right now. Maybe someday it will change, but that was MY reasoning.

[Bucksaw]

I traded in my 2012 2500 diesel that I could not keep out of the shop. Finally after the 6th O2 sensor and replacing injectors at 48k miles I was done. Loved the truck, just not the problems.
April I traded it in on the 6.4 and have no regrets. Truck has tons of power and gets along the same as my diesel as far as mileage. I get anywhere from 15-17mpg if I keep my foot out of it. But I didn't buy it for the mileage.
Keep in mind you need to run mid grade or premium in it. If not you can really tell a difference.
I got the bumper to bumper 100k warranty with it for $1500.
I got mine at Bluebonnet Chrysler in New Braunfels. They made me a hell of a deal, and gave me way more than I would have ever thought on my trade.
Mine has the off-road package as well with the Bilsteins. Smooth ride for a 2500.

I saw in the manual that 89 octane was recommended, but 87 was minimum. Is the power difference that noticeable with mid-grade? I never tried it because of 25-30 cent per gallon difference. Is there a fuel mileage difference with mid-grade?

[hogslayer78]

I saw in the manual that 89 octane was recommended, but 87 was minimum. Is the power difference that noticeable with mid-grade? I never tried it because of 25-30 cent per gallon difference. Is there a fuel mileage difference with mid-grade?

I have ran 87 in mine since new and I'm right at 40,000 miles. I would like to hear from someone that has ran both and can honestly say there is a difference. It needs to be a .30 a gallon difference.

[captainsling]

I saw in the manual that 89 octane was recommended, but 87 was minimum. Is the power difference that noticeable with mid-grade? I never tried it because of 25-30 cent per gallon difference. Is there a fuel mileage difference with mid-grade?

I have noticed lower octane fuel seems to make my truck idle extremely rough, and less throttle response. Average is also lower on mileage by about a mile on average.

[Gary Roberson]

Does anyone know why Chrysler Fiat is divorcing from "Dodge" in the truck lines to "Ram"? Not a trick question, just rather obvious that they are trying to get away from Dodge.
Adios,
Gary

[Bucksaw]

Been running mid-grade in my truck for the last few tanks. averaging about 1mpg more on 89 octane than on 87. I have also noticed the truck runs better, and responds better. I noticed a little hesitation at certain points in the RPM range and a good bit of knock on cold startups with the 87, but haven't noticed any using the 89. Considering the cost of fuel is $.25/gal more for 89, I was skeptical, but given the aparant increase in mpg, I calculate the 89 octane to cost me $.004 (yes, 4/10 of a cent) more per mile than the 87. Just thought Ide share.

Now, I don't know how accurate the information is, but I heard the 2017 6.4 Hemis were calling for premium grade fuel. Anyone know if that is the case?

[DaveC]

Now, I don't know how accurate the information is, but I heard the 2017 6.4 Hemis were calling for premium grade fuel. Anyone know if that is the case?

Ouch, mid grade is one thing, premium $$ is another .

My wife's 1500 5.7 runs smooth as butter on 87.

I ran few tanks of 89 in it to see if there was a noticeable difference, but here sporadic driving habits are too hard to judge MPG's on.

[canny]

Several of my family members that are in the livestock industry have switched from diesels to the 6.4 (2 of them are 2500s and 1 is a 3500). They have loved them. When I talked to them about it they said they don't miss their diesels at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rubi513]

Several of my family members that are in the livestock industry have switched from diesels to the 6.4 (2 of them are 2500s and 1 is a 3500). They have loved them. When I talked to them about it they said they don't miss their diesels at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know 2 guys that went gas after having owned previous diesels. One went with the 6.4, the other 6.2. Both regret it...
Different strokes for different folks I guess...