My New 2019

[Wiredawg]

Pretty amazing that the rest of the drivetrain doesn't suffer because of a slamming transmission. My wife would not tolerate that type of aggressive shifting just as she does not tolerate any other agressive driving

I hear ya. It can be avoided, but I think in the OPs case, his driveway presents the condition that exacerbates the problem. I think its just a matter of understanding the design/programming and figuring out how to minimize it OR learn to live with it.

This isn't intended to be argumentative, just trying to help the OP figure out what he can do differently or to accept it. My point is, under certain conditions, mine will do the same thing.

Somewhere through all this, Tom will get there and be a happy Ram newest gen owner. And I think more discussion and different inputs will help understand this situation.

As always, Cheers!

Ron

 

[RVTRKN]

That was T/H no EB.

 

[AH64ID]

That was T/H no EB.

I'll be driving the truck today. I'll mess with mine in and out of TH.

 

[Cummins12V98]

Loved my 68RFE, none of the negatives. Probably because I ran the HE!! out of it right out of the box. Loved the 3.42's, towed in 5th at same rpm's as a 4.10 in 6th around 1,750rpm at 29k combined. ONE negative was getting the load rolling on grade.

Love my AISIN with 4.10's. None of the mentioned issues. To do it again I would have gotten 3.42's and AISIN. I tow 34-35k combined.

Same denominator, I ALWAYS run TH and EB.

 

[JR]

no matter what your opinion is, it didn't change the fact that it would run at 1000 RPM when in drive at lower speeds.

I've never heard of any engine running consistently through the gears 150 rpm above idle. Maybe under perfect conditions - TC locked, no engine load, perfectly flat ground you could make it happen briefly but It would be an anomaly for sure. They sure aren't programed that way. The 68 shift strategy is actually quite good. At low, continuous speeds hauling loaded gravity wagons out of soft fields holds the gear up to 1600-1700 rpm so long as I don't continue to accelerate beyond a certain point. The trans has never gotten hot on me, never slipped, never slammed gears, never shifts too soon or too late. If I could change anything it would be for lower gears for some of the things I do but that isn't the transmissions fault.

 

[kthaxton]

I disagree with most of what you posted. The programing is where the 6.7 gets its HP, not the displacement and longer stroke. Actually, it makes it worse, a shorter stroke adds power, not less. So the bigger displacement helps it overcome the longer stroke. There is a reason that Cummins went to a bigger displacement, it reminds me of the early smog requirements that restricted smaller V8's in the 70's, they went to a larger displacement to try to gain the HP lost. When the 6.7 was introduced, it purpously juiced up the power to stay ahead of the compition. If the Diesel wars, that are still ongoing, weren't effecting the market, the 6.7 introduction would have been a little closer to the 305 HO in the early common rail CTD. Driving a longer stroked engine at a lower RPM is not effecient, and is why I keep it IN THE POWER RANGE of the CTD, so I will keep my practice of keeping the shifting range between 1600 to 1800 RPM, not 1200 to 1400 RPM.

It's hard to decipher from your post, but if you don't already know....a longer stroke adds torque.

 

[Cummins12V98]

I've never heard of any engine running consistently through the gears 150 rpm above idle. Maybe under perfect conditions - TC locked, no engine load, perfectly flat ground you could make it happen briefly but It would be an anomaly for sure. They sure aren't programed that way. The 68 shift strategy is actually quite good. At low, continuous speeds hauling loaded gravity wagons out of soft fields holds the gear up to 1600-1700 rpm so long as I don't continue to accelerate beyond a certain point. The trans has never gotten hot on me, never slipped, never slammed gears, never shifts too soon or too late. If I could change anything it would be for lower gears for some of the things I do but that isn't the transmissions fault.

Not having low enough starting gears is the fault of the 68RFE. Same rear diff with AISIN the truck launches on grade with ease.

 

[SnoKing]

Actually the 6.7 gained more in bore than stroke over the 5.9. Bore increased by .19" and stroke increased by .16". So the 6.7 is a little less under square compared to the 5.9.

5.9 4.02 inches x 4.72 inches

6.7 4.21 inches x 4.88 inches

Over square like the 302 GM Z28 at 4" x 3" is a higher RPM engine than other GM V-8's.
"Aside from its heritage, what really made the 302 cubic-inch engine special was how unique it was. The engine was given an oversquare design, created by the 4.00-inch bore and 3.00-inch stroke. The large bore coupled with the short stroke allowed the engine to rev well into the 7,000 rpm range."

 

[RVTRKN]

It's hard to decipher from your post, but if you don't already know....a longer stroke adds torque.

Yes, that is what gives Diesel more torque, due to the slow burning of fuel that just keeps expanding as it burns slow, compared to gasoline engines that just explodes all at one time and the event is over. But it still takes more effort to push the longer length. I like SnoKing"s decription, it makes since and math supports it, however it still is a longer stroke, then add the potato in the exhaust. Just about every member posting in this thread will swear the CTD can run at the governed max RPM all day long. The 5.9 CTD is a powerfull engine, and 1900 to 2100 RPM is the sweet spot. I haven't found that out yet with my 2019 CTD HO at only 2K miles, I'd like to delete the 6.7 and add more power and torque, but I can't afford the the repairs if needed, beside I live in a county that requires smog inspections.

I've never heard of any engine running consistently through the gears 150 rpm above idle. Maybe under perfect conditions - TC locked, no engine load, perfectly flat ground you could make it happen briefly but It would be an anomaly for sure. They sure aren't programed that way. The 68 shift strategy is actually quite good. At low, continuous speeds hauling loaded gravity wagons out of soft fields holds the gear up to 1600-1700 rpm so long as I don't continue to accelerate beyond a certain point. The trans has never gotten hot on me, never slipped, never slammed gears, never shifts too soon or too late. If I could change anything it would be for lower gears for some of the things I do but that isn't the transmissions fault.

Well the 2014 I drove did, and the 68rfe was clunky could never keep the right gear, to the point I had to paddle shift it all the times, until at a high cruising speed. The engine would ping something terrible, at 1K RPM in 6th, when I didn't expect it. FCA had to eat the costs of repairs then had to pay the owner every penny invested to the owner by judgement. The rear diff was toast at 14K miles and the entire axle rebuilt to include the axle housing. The last straw was the charging system went down during a simple oil change, that was never fixed after throwing several alternators at it. And add insult to injury, I gave my two week notice in the middle of it all. So I will never buy a 68rfe truck, even if it was one in a million issue.

 

[JR]

Did you boycott AAM as well

It sounds like you had some real programming issues that went way beyond a transmission that your dealership /Ram couldn't figure out. Much like Tom is experiencing with his Aisin.

But you are free to flame whatever makes you sleep better, as misguided as it may be

 

[JR]

Not having low enough starting gears is the fault of the 68RFE. Same rear diff with AISIN the truck launches on grade with ease.

But I would like lower gears across the board, not just first. So it really isn't a transmission issue. I don't do alot of freeway towing and when I do it isn't over 70 mph so lower gears would benefit me in most every way, particularly the first 3.

What is the actual difference between the Aisin and 68 1st gear? Something like 13%? Then you have the 6-7% difference in torque the HO has over the SO (comparing 2014), and I would assume tq management is also different. There is definitely more pieces to the puzzle than just a slightly lower 1st gear.

 

[RVTRKN]

JR, a buddy of mine loves his 2014 2500 and knows the issues the company truck had, his does not. Yes I have a issue with 68rfe, but WTH I had to drive the miserable trans every day. Just like I’ll never buy another G56 equipped truck again, that trans cost me a couple grand upgrading it. If I hadn’t bought the 2019, the 07 C&C would have cost me another 5 to 7 grand converting to the NV5600, when the G56 gave up the ghost. My 04.5 was an awesome truck with minimal repairs that were covered under warranty.

 

[kthaxton]

Yes, that is what gives Diesel more torque, due to the slow burning of fuel that just keeps expanding as it burns slow, compared to gasoline engines that just explodes all at one time and the event is over.

I am referring to the increased leverage applied to the crank because of the longer stroke, just like using a cheater bar on a ratchet to get more leverage. This adds torque.

 

[Newsa]

I am referring to the increased leverage applied to the crank because of the longer stroke, just like using a cheater bar on a ratchet to get more leverage. This adds torque.

I was reading this and seeing that Snoking said that the stroke only increased 0.19 in. And my wife asked what i was thinking about. I told her about the stroke and bore increase and she said the bore increase sounded boring.

Less than 0.2 in stroke increase didn't sound like much, but does seem to make a nice increase. Then again it is the programming that takes 250-300 ft lbs away feom my g56 truck

 

[Wayne M.]

I was reading this and seeing that Snoking said that the stroke only increased 0.19 in.

That’s a huge increase in the engine world! That alone without changing the bore makes a whole different engine. Anyone who ever put a Chevy 400 crank in a 350 block would agree.

 

[RVTRKN]

Details, details, details, bottom line, the engine was increased in size and power to overcome the potato in the exhaust.

 

[SnoKing]

That’s a huge increase in the engine world! That alone without changing the bore makes a whole different engine. Anyone who ever put a Chevy 400 crank in a 350 block would agree.

REALLY? And not a very good one because the deck height issue with the longer stroke caused rod angle problem. The small block 400 stroke increase was over twice the bore increase.

Note the difference between the 302 GM small block and the 350 is .48" more stroke. The 350 was still way over square at 4" bore and 3.48" stroke, but not as a high RPM motor as the 4x3" 302.

If Cummins had only increase the stroke it would have been a 6.09L engine. Now if they would have just increased just the bore it would have been a 6.46L engine. So the bore had more to do with making a 6.7L engine than the stroke increase.

BTW the 6.7 is actually 6.679L.

 

[Wayne M.]

REALLY? And not a very good one because the deck height issue with the longer stroke caused rod angle problem. The small block 400 stroke increase was over twice the bore increase.

I never said it was a well engineered combination, but they did run okay for a while. Proves the point of adding “arm”. The GM 302 was built for a purpose and proves the point further by moving power up the RPM range by it’s shorter stroke.

 

[nukegm]

Details, details, details, bottom line, the engine was increased in size and power to overcome the potato in the exhaust.

comrade RV - since i read your post all i can think about is the movie beverly hills cop and the banana in the tailpipe scene. cheers!

 

[TFucili]

Even without changing the stroke, a taller deck height and longer rods enhances torque. Look at a 427 GM truck gasser. The piston pauses longer at TDC.