[Ironside]

Hopefully the title of the thread doesn't attract the wrath of 6.4L owners!

I was just thinking of ways to get my 6.1L to feel like it has more of a spring in it's step at the low end of the spectrum like the 392 has (which would greatly improve the fun that could be had when daily driving the car)

All the websites that advertise cams for the 6.1L seem to indicate that you'll be putting down anywhere from 440-460rwhp with a few other basic supporting mods... Can this be accurate??? Sounds like a LOT of HP!

I'm wondering if anyone here has/had a cammed 6.1L who has driven (or purchased) a 392; how do they compare?

I'm not trying to out-do the 392 in the 1/4 mile, I just want to capture some of that "ass-on-fire-moves-with-a-sense-of-purpose" feeling the 392 has!

I also can't afford to upgrade to the 2011 so I need to mod my way to satisfaction!

Discuss.

 

[wings67]

I remember reading on other forums about the "FRI Patriot cam". It won't give alot of power gains on top, maybe 20 hp, but it's supposed to produce a lot of low end torque on the 6.1 It's also supposed to run well without tuning.

 

[Redfish]

Subscribed - I want the same thing. The 6.1 takes off after 3K RPM (especially with a Predator), but it could do with some more power from the 2-3K range. Hopefully someone with experience will chime in with good suggestions.

 

[Knownman]

Subscribe me please. If I knew how to link back I'd send you to my post asking about the best head and cam package for my buck.
It's gotten some nudges but isn't really rolling. I'm contemplating ceiling in a cam and replacing the springs in my heads. I though I read somewhere about a tool for doing this in the car.
Any one else know?

 

[SRT8U]

IS your car Auto or Manual?

If Auto a converter will do a world of good for the kick in the pants feel, and coupled with a good heads/cam combo you will have some extra power on tap as well.

 

[randycat99]

Ironically, I don't think it would be all that hard for the 6.1 to match the 6.4 on the low end, because it's not like the 6.4 really delivers that much more in the 2000's end of the powerband. Maybe it is another 15-20 ft-lbs down low? Where the 6.4 really delivers the KO is a huge bloom of midrange torque...another 60-70 ft-lbs in a wide hump centered between 3000-6000 rpm. That might be a harder curve shape to duplicate using a cam without taking a hit from considerable compromises at the extremes (low end and pk hp).

Just my 2 cts, though...not like a build engines for a living (that is not sarcasm, either).

 

[Ironside]

My car is a 6-speed.

I finally got to test drive the 392 IE the other day and what stuck out the most is how easily it accelerated in certain gears and at RPM where the 6.1L would just "hang" momentarily before MOVING.

For example, driving under normal conditions you shift into second, then third... Right after you shift and RPM is pretty low you need to accelerate: 6.1L the best course of action is to downshift into 2nd so your RPM is high enough to zip you out of there... 392 you can just step on the gas (and not even THAT hard) and the car SURGES FORWARD!

I want some of THAT action in my car! Is this even possible?

Surely SOMEONE on Challengertalk had to have cammed their engine and lived to tell about it??

I would HAPPILY sacrifice a little top end (that would almost never get used) in order to fill the torque hole that makes these cars feel like a land barge until you floor it!!

 

[raVenX]

If you look at the two intake manifolds for the 5.7L and 6.1L one thing that stands out is that the 6.1L manifold is a lot taller. The 5.7L has a lot of low end torque whereas the 6.1L gets it in the top end. Enter the 392. It has an active runner manifold, i.e., it has long and short runner and switches between them. This basically gives you the low end torque that the 5.7L has with its short runners but also delivers on the top end, like the 6.1L with its long runners.

I think with heads, a cam, and some tuning you might get to 400-425 rwhp and that's just a hair shy of what the 392 lays down stock. Even if you were to get equal to what a 392 lays down horsepower wise, the 392, with its active runners, will trounce you on the bottom end.

Maybe change your rear end gear ratio for a more seat-of-pants method of what you want to accomplish -- that or a 100 hp shot of nitrous.

 

[bluejs75]

Here's an idea. Wait a couple years for the next best thing to come along from Dodge. Then you won't care what the 392 WAS and you'll have more money to play with to boot.

 

[BayouTiger]

If you look at the two intake manifolds for the 5.7L and 6.1L one thing that stands out is that the 6.1L manifold is a lot taller. The 5.7L has a lot of low end torque whereas the 6.1L gets it in the top end. Enter the 392. It has an active runner manifold, i.e., it has long and short runner and switches between them. This basically gives you the low end torque that the 5.7L has with its short runners but also delivers on the top end, like the 6.1L with its long runners.

I think with heads, a cam, and some tuning you might get to 400-425 rwhp and that's just a hair shy of what the 392 lays down stock. Even if you were to get equal to what a 392 lays down horsepower wise, the 392, with its active runners, will trounce you on the bottom end.

Maybe change your rear end gear ratio for a more seat-of-pants method of what you want to accomplish -- that or a 100 hp shot of nitrous.

^^^^^What he said^^^^^

The runner length makes a difference in low end torque. Be careful with the cam, most of the ones out there will give you LESS low end as they are designed for max top end.

 

[wings67]

This basically gives you the low end torque that the 5.7L has with its short runners but also delivers on the top end, like the 6.1L with its long runners.

I thought long runners = more low end torque, and short runners = more top end ??? or maybe I'm mixing it up with the exhaust/header idea.

 

[higshemi]

Or you could purchase an aftermarket converter... That will help you launch... Seen more than a few 6.1's hit low 12's full weight with just a tune and a converter.

 

[BayouTiger]

I thought long runners = more low end torque, and short runners = more top end ??? or maybe I'm mixing it up with the exhaust/header idea.

I think that is correct.

 

[BayouTiger]

I thought long runners = more low end torque, and short runners = more top end ??? or maybe I'm mixing it up with the exhaust/header idea.

I think that is correct. I think the VVT has more to do with the issue with the 5.7/6.4 vs 6.1

 

[toofart (AKA Moron)]

gives you the low end torque that the 5.7L has with its short runners but also delivers on the top end, like the 6.1L with its long runners.

FWIW, long runners deliver more low-end torque and short runners deliver more high-rpm horsepower.

The 5.7 has good low-end because of the VVT. If the 5.7 had an active intake manifold (like on the trucks) it would be an absolute monster. Now that the 6.1 is out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if Dodge slaps this RAM-only feature on a future 5.7 revision.

 

[Heminator]

Right - with active intake manifold and VVT and 22 more cubes, the 392 will always have a midrange TQ edge on the 6.1.

You can hot-rod the 6.1 with CAI, LTs, high flow cats, exhaust, cam, heads, CMR tune and probably get it to run with (or even exceed) a 392 up top. But you won't ever have the low-end TQ unless you add a blower. That will give you the huge shove in the back with another 100-130 lb-ft of TQ down low.

 

[Valkyrie9901]

The RAM trucks have the 2-runner intake on the 5.7.......It sure makes a diff......JB.

 

[wings67]

ironic that the 6.1 has the long runners (I measured them at close to 15 inches) and it's lacking a bit in the low end.

VVT would definitely make a difference though. My Pontiac Vibe with the 1.8L I4 has VVT, and that thing is definitely torquey and quick off the line, especially for such a small engine. Can't imagine what VVT would be like with a huge 6.4 V8 lol

 

[DBDLIVES]

Here is a dyno graph showing the differance in the 6.1L and the 6.4L. You be the judge if just a cam in the 6.1L will get you to the 6.4L area.

 

[higshemi]

Judging by the dyno graph, its hard to imagine a cam only will make up the differance. But when you look at 1/4 times. Its quite reasonable that a cammed 6.1 will run low to mid 12's all day given decent air (1000 and under) So Yes, IMO a cammed 6.1 will given you enough ummph to give a decent race.