Chassis cab engine ?

[ChrisMcCoy]

I'm assuming the Chassis cab engine internals are same as standard output

-HO engine is mated to Aisin
-Standard engine is mated to 68rfe for pickups and Aisin for chassis cabs
Correct?

My understanding is the HO engine is lower compression allowing more boost. I recently saw video discussing the poor fuel economy of HO engine.

 

[AH64ID]

The C&C internals are not the same as the SO, there are 3 engines used by Ram the HO, SO, and C&C.

 

[Wiredawg]

Just a little C&C trivia: 2013 to 2018, the manual C&Cs had an SO C&C Cummins Engine (320HP/650TQ) and Aisin C&Cs had an HO C&C Cummins Engine (325HP/750TQ). I found the Ram specs for C&C trucks and referenced the Aisin engine as HO. 2018_Ram_Chassis Cab Specifications V2.xls [Read-Only] [Compatibility Mode] (ramtruck.ca)

MY 2018+ Cummins engines: Another interesting tidbit is Cummins' max HP/TQ on the 6.7L ISB is 360/800 for ALL applications other than for Ram.

 

[AH64ID]

Just a little C&C trivia: 2013 to 2018, the manual C&Cs had an SO C&C Cummins Engine (320HP/650TQ) and Aisin C&Cs had an HO C&C Cummins Engine (325HP/750TQ). I found the Ram specs for C&C trucks and referenced the Aisin engine as HO. 2018_Ram_Chassis Cab Specifications V2.xls [Read-Only] [Compatibility Mode] (ramtruck.ca)

Then there is also the research we did with our ESN’s that showed a bunch of internal part differences between your C&C HO and my P/U HO.

 

[Wiredawg]

Then there is also the research we did with our ESN’s that showed a bunch of internal part differences between your C&C HO and my P/U HO.

Yep! I actually had quite the lively post here on the TDR about it, quoting Robert Patton's tech info on this subject. Different cams, fueling program, and turbo.

FYI. I think Cummins might not be supporting their online APP... haven't been able to get it to work for some time.

 

[AH64ID]

MY 2018+ Cummins engines: Another interesting tidbit is Cummins' max HP/TQ on the 6.7L ISB is 360/800 for ALL applications other than for Ram.

Too bad we can’t get QSB specs in a P/U. 550/1250!!

 

[Wiredawg]

Too bad we can’t get QSB specs in a P/U. 550/1250!!

I just looked up QSB 6.7L... Wow! It would be so cool if Cummins/Ram did that... scarey cool!

 

[AH64ID]

I just looked up QSB 6.7L... Wow! It would be so cool if Cummins/Ram did that... scarey cool!

The marine side has a couple things going for them that we don’t in wheeled vehicle land, cooling and a more constant rpm/load.

Would be cool thou.

My 05 was pretty close to QSB 5.9 480 HO specs, which works since I used those pistons, but it had a much smaller turbo due to street use vs marine use. IIRC the HO 5.9 480 QSB uses a HX55, which would suck as a single in a pickup.

 

[ChrisMcCoy]

The C&C internals are not the same as the SO, there are 3 engines used by Ram the HO, SO, and C&C.

Thanks. A little surprised to hear its not more than different curves. This also makes me question the durability of each related to duty cycle. I'll keep this in mind when I make my next purchase.

 

[bcbender]

I wouldn't loose any sleep about the durability of the engine types,.. they will all last way longer than your interest level or perhaps the vehicle given proper service. Just get what you like and enjoy.

 

[AH64ID]

I wouldn't loose any sleep about the durability of the engine types,.. they will all last way longer than your interest level or perhaps the vehicle given proper service. Just get what you like and enjoy.

Exactly, none of the modern 6.7's have a bad reputation. They all pull like a freight train and last forever.

C&C's have an average higher GVW/GCW than p/u's and the internal differences are to support that load. It's nothing crazy, but the engineers must have felt it was warranted.

 

[Imjustdave]

Anyone have a list of actual differences? and maybe a reason.

I have always wondered how much of the pickup TQ/HP is really available VS computer controlled to save parts VS the CC tuning. Dyno numbers are one thing but real life usability is what really matters.

One thing I never seen mentioned is braking.. as in if a CC truck that is usually heavier also has to stop and if one drives it like an idiot always racing to the next stop light braking also has to deal with this, so even if the CC is less TQ/HP I doubt it really matters in real life.

 

[NIsaacs]

Anyone have a list of actual differences? and maybe a reason.

I have always wondered how much of the pickup TQ/HP is really available VS computer controlled to save parts VS the CC tuning. Dyno numbers are one thing but real life usability is what really matters.

One thing I never seen mentioned is braking.. as in if a CC truck that is usually heavier also has to stop and if one drives it like an idiot always racing to the next stop light braking also has to deal with this, so even if the CC is less TQ/HP I doubt it really matters in real life.

Yes, low horsepower/torque will still get the job done over the HO Pickup's, just not as fast. One big difference is all C/C get the Aisin transmission since '07. Brakes are probably the same for a 3500 pickup or 3500 C/C since the standard tire is 17's. They are bigger on the 19.5 tired 4500/5500. In the past, the C/C was always rated less GCW than the HO pickups, however, that gap is about the same now. I am comparing Max tow duallys here v/s C/C duallys, no SRW's.

 

[AH64ID]

When you look at torque to the rear wheels the C/C isn’t lacking, but it still does come in behind the HO PU. I won’t include gearing for torque multiplication, and we have torque management in the lower gears. These figures assume 4th gear and peak engine output.



SO w/ 3.73’s: 3170 lb/Ft
SO w/ 4.10’s: 3485 lb/Ft
HO w/ 3.73’s: 4010 lb/Ft
HO w/ 4.10’s: 4408 lb/Ft
CC w/ 4.10’s: 3280 lb/Ft
CC w/ 4.44’s: 3552 lb/Ft
CC w/ 4.88’w: 3904 lb/Ft

Brakes are the same on all HD p/u’s and C/C 3500’s at F: 14.17x1.54 & R: 14.09x1.34.

C&C 4500/5500 use the same brakes F&R: 15.35x1.54.