Right. They would really need an SRT8/10 version of the truck with a different engine. I can imagine the 6.1L from the Jeep SRT8 would be a treat in the Ram.

Rob

 

Rumor is the new 6.4 gas engine will be the new RAM SRT. Chrysler has said the 6.4 is coming, but it won't be in the HD trucks (not sure why), but a SRT only makes sense if that's the case.

If they do make a Crew Cab SRT, then I'll be buying one for sure.

 

Sorry for the slight thread jack here. Ok, first off I agree with oldjeep that the R/T is not in the same class as the elite factory sport trucks. Dodge made no improvements in power. But, there in lies my point. The R/T is still competitive with some of the greatest sport trucks of all time and yet retains all of the capabilities of the regular Ram (maybe even a little better). Every factory sport truck before it has made compromises for the sake of performance and came with a premium price. The only real compromise with the R/T is fuel economy and its price is substantially lower than say a loaded Laramie.

Now, don't take that as me downing on the Lightning, SRT-10, etc. They were awesome trucks no doubt about it. They were designed for a very specific purpose and they did it very well. All I am saying is that IMO the R/T does the best job of offering a lot of performance for not much money and still is able to haul and tow on par with any other 1/2 ton on the market. That is why I feel the R/T is the best all around sport truck ever. However, I am definitely with old jeep in that I would love to see what an SRT version of the 4th gen Ram could offer.

To illustrate my point I gathered some performance numbers from the two top dog sport trucks, the 2004 SRT-10 and Lightning, as well as the 2005 Silverado SS which I feel is the most fair competitor to the R/T. (Basically just some useless knowledge for y'all.) I wanted to include some other sport truck favorites like the 91 Syclone, 93 Lightning and 93 454 SS but the numbers aren't easy to find and let's face it, that would be more of an aplles to oranges comparison than I am already making. Sorry to be so long winded and for the thread jack.

2004 SRT-10:
0-60 mph 4.9
1/4 mile 13.2@107.0
Braking, 60-0, ft 124
Slalom, mph 61.9
Skidpad, g 0.87
Payload capacity, N/A
Towing Capacity, N/A

2004 F-150 Lightning:
0-60 mph 5.1
1/4 mile, 13.6@102.0
Braking, 60-0, ft 122.9
Slalom, mph 61.5
Skidpad, g 0.86
Payload capacity, 1000 lbs
Towing Capacity, 5000 lbs

2005 RWD Silverado SS:
0-60 mph 6.7
1/4 mile, 15.5@90
Braking, 60-0, ft 128
Slalom, mph Not Tested
Skidpad, g 0.79
Payload capacity, 1400 lbs
Towing Capacity, 8100 lbs

2009 Ram R/T:
0-60 mph 6.1 (listed, Dodge claims sub 6 second times)
1/4 mile, 13.76@97.73 (verified by track slip, run by jdustu)
Braking, 60-0, ft
Slalom, mph Not Tested
Skidpad, g Not Tested
Payload capacity, 1610 lbs (based on 2wd SLT with 5.7 & 3.92s, R/T should be slightly better)
Towing Capacity, 8750 lbs (based on 2wd SLT with 5.7 & 3.92s, R/T should be slightly better)

 

A Syclone is quicker than any of the listed trucks. Not the fastest, just the quickest.

The 454SS was a dog. The engine in that truck was nothing like the 454 from the late 60s. Had good TQ numbers, but HP was in the mid 200s.

 

Yea, the SS454 was a nasty performer. Badass looking truck for it's time, but when you drove it it was a dog.

 

Just for ****s and Giggles....


Output was 280 hp (209 kW) and 350 lb·ft (475 N·m).[1] The Syclone, when new, was capable of accelerating from 0-60 mph in 4.6 seconds and could do a quarter-mile run in 13.4 seconds at 98 mph (158 km/h).Car & Driver tested the Syclone and it ran 0-30 in 1.3 seconds with a 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, the 1/4 mile was 13.06. Car & Driver said is was able to accelerate faster than a Porsche 959, ZR-1 Corvette, Dodge Viper, or Lamborghini Diablo.

 

No doubt, the Syclone was a quick little bugger. I still remember the article where it took on a Ferrari. Problem was it was about as useful as a Ferrari. Even for a compact truck it couldn't haul anything.

I was obsessed with the 454 SS as a high schooler. One test drive told me that was a wasted obsession. That's what happens when you basically take the 454 out of the 3500 dually and throw it in a 1500. It spin the tires for ages but wasn't gonna get you anywhere very quickly. I still wish GM would of done a modern update and thrown an 8.1 liter in a 1500 regular cab. Wouldn't have been good for much, but it woulda been cool back when gas prices were still reasonable.

 

Why didn't Chrysler just offer an R/T package across the board in lieu of the Sport? The Sport has the more "aggressive" exhaust note, the body colored bumpers, and the 20" wheels, it just lacks the color-matched grill (an aftermarket Mopar item), the Challenger style hood (another aftermarket Mopar item), and the 4.10 rear end, which is optional.

 

You're close, but a little off Markguy. A regular cab Sport can be optioned with almost everything that makes an R/T. The 2009 US Sports didn't have the right grille and the 2010 Sports have the wrong grille inserts (Sport has billet, R/T still has black honeycomb). Outside of that you can option a regular cab Sport to look almost exactly like a R/T.

The R/T features you can't get optioned on a Sport are: 4:10 gears, R/T Badge, and the "loose" torque converter. The 2010 R/T was also suppose to get 22" rims, but those haven't been seen since a few test trucks awhile back.

 

My sport came with the colored grille but there again I'm from Canada too. The Challenger hood, in my mind, isnt that greatest looking hood out there and then you have the 4.10 gears.. I thought that maybe dodge would of put the 6.1L Hemi into the R/T but they didnt even do that..