Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This got brought up again and I thought I would pull it out and give it a title before it gets loss.
- This is completely an unnecessary cost for most folks.
I wonder about the ECU part.
A turbo for "turbo-normalization" would be interesting.

Yes but sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get the job done....
We have 3 PM vans. All are 3500 series one with 400k+one with 325k and a 2014 with 580k. All of these vans have to work for a living. We run 12 ply tires and all 3 vans have 3.6 turbo engines. They run great and don't really have many problems... Other then the one rides ruff since we installed the airbags. I had a set on a ford transit and it rode great just hated the van. Couldn't keep rearends under it....
They don't but the ones off the jeeps work good. Better mileage and power. Still not a diesel truck but not 80k
So you have a 3.6l turbo Promaster? or was the turbo a misprint?
Turbo off jeep....
I also seen one with a turbo off a ford eco boost
Well, that's a first on this forum.
 

·
Registered
2017 2500 HiTop 159 Cargo Van white.
Joined
·
352 Posts
A turbo would come in handy for high altitude towing. You start to notice the power drop off after about 6000 feet. The trans may not be up to the task of more HP/Torque at sea level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
Yeah, turbo torque should place engine above transmission rating.

FCA doing a 2.0L turbo seems a safer bet. Not much more power, but torque at lower RPMs and not as affected by elevation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I mentioned "turbo normalizer" because that's the only thing I would consider for the van. The ECU would always think it's operating at sea level regardless of the altitude.

I don't know what psi @Surplus autoparts is running or if he did anything to the ECU.

I was hoping @Kip-on-truckin would add one since I believe he showed some interest in the idea of adding one, IIRC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Maybe it is just me, but I have never found the promaster to not have enough power, my regular weight is 7700 pounds and it moves just fine, I've only been to 7000 feet, but it seemed ok there too.

Perhaps it is perspective, I have a Citroen C3 as a rental car in Italy for week with a monstrous 68hp and a 0-60 of 13.3 seconds. The promaster seems like a rocketship by comparison even loaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
.....cut....
Perhaps it is perspective, I have a Citroen C3 as a rental car in Italy for week with a monstrous 68hp and a 0-60 of 13.3 seconds. The promaster seems like a rocketship by comparison even loaded.
I agree 100% with one’s perspective playing a major role. As recent as 2006 the Fiat Ducato was available with a 2.0L “petrol” engine rated at 108 HP at 5,700 RPM, and 124 lb-ft at 3,700 RPM according to Wikipedia. That puts it in same power range as Ford 4-cylinder Transit sold in Mexico during same time period if I recall correctly. The engine was a 2.3L similar to the one used on Ranger pickups of that time. Anyway, one can get spoiled by excessive power, but can also learn to make do with much less. In the 1980s petrol Ducato made much less power than that from small OHV 4-cylinder engines.

Having said that, more power can be a lot of fun, although not as challenging as driving with too little.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,398 Posts
I got around fine in my 1959 VW with 32 hp for quite a few years. I wish I had that car now. I think KOV has a 16 hp french car still! My Honda Metropolitan has maybe 4.8 hp! My 188 hp diesel Promaster is fine too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Yeah, our non-turbo 1981 diesel VW had 50HP and we got along OK. We replaced it with a 2006 VW turbo-diesel with 100HP, which feels like a dragster by comparison. A turbo-gas PM sounds interesting, but that's all. We already have a dragster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
I pm’d the autoparts OP for a bit, then never heard back from him. Never got enough detail out of him. There are many turbo and blower kits for jeeps, but what remains unknown for me is how a kit would integrate with the transmission, and the rest of the van. I like power as much as anyone, but I simply cant compromise durability for it.
 

·
Registered
2017 2500 HiTop 159 Cargo Van white.
Joined
·
352 Posts
Towing our travel trailer (3500#) over Vail Pass and then on thru the Eisenhower Tunnel (11,186 feet) was a bit of a stretch at 34mph with the motor screaming.
A turbo would have made things feel far more normal.
Luckily As I get older I'm a little more relaxed than my younger years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
Towing our travel trailer (3500#) over Vail Pass and then on thru the Eisenhower Tunnel (11,186 feet) was a bit of a stretch at 34mph with the motor screaming.
A turbo would have made things feel far more normal.
Luckily As I get older I'm a little more relaxed than my younger years.
What RPM do you consider screaming?

I’m curious because 6,000 RPM (close to max power) works out to 34 MPH in 1st gear. Second gear would be just over 4,000 RPMs at 34 MPH.

I’ve done that Eisenhower Tunnel climb with my V10 van (not towing) and kept it at 60 MPH in drive at just under 3,000 RPMs — only locked out overdrive.

Anyway, just curious if you were in 1st or 2nd gear.
 

·
Registered
2017 2500 HiTop 159 Cargo Van white.
Joined
·
352 Posts
What RPM do you consider screaming?

I’m curious because 6,000 RPM (close to max power) works out to 34 MPH in 1st gear. Second gear would be just over 4,000 RPMs at 34 MPH.

I’ve done that Eisenhower Tunnel climb with my V10 van (not towing) and kept it at 60 MPH in drive at just under 3,000 RPMs — only locked out overdrive.

Anyway, just curious if you were in 1st or 2nd gear.
I would have been in second gear. It is a fairly long climb when loaded up and towing a 3500# trailer, first gear at 6000? would have been a bit irresponsible on my part. No need to just try and destroy the motor.
We just tucked into the truck lane and took it easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
I would have been in second gear. It is a fairly long climb when loaded up and towing a 3500# trailer, first gear at 6000? would have been a bit irresponsible on my part. No need to just try and destroy the motor.
We just tucked into the truck lane and took it easy.
Thanks, that’s great to know.

Climbs don’t get any worse than that, and if a ProMaster camper without a trailer could hold 40+ MPH, that’s plenty for me. Without a trailer 3rd gear may have been possible so not bad at all.

The upper 8 miles should take 8 minutes at 60 MPH, the posted speed limit. If able to hold 40 MPH it would take 12 minutes, or 4 minutes longer.

My time isn’t worth much, but even if it was, how many times would I need to climb up to the Eisenhower Tunnel to save enough time to install turbos? I’m not going to live that long.

I’d need other reasons to want more power, and for me the PM already has plenty. However, like you, I would not rev engine to 6,400 RPM to get the full 280 HP, so it’s not a meaningful or useful number for me. The 260 lb-ft at 4,400 RPM which is 218 HP (at sea level) is closer to reality I would actually use. And at 10,000 ft elevation, it should be more like 130 to 140 HP. Still good enough.


P.S. — Now that I think about it, the FCA 2.0L turbo 4-cylinder would pull a lot stronger for me on that highway at 10,000 ft elevation than the V6 based on self imposed RPM limits. Again, not that I need or want that much power if it means a turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
It's interesting that most seem to associate adding a turbo to an increase in hp. What if the turbo's only purpose was to maintain 280 hp regardless of the altitude?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
It's interesting that most seem to associate adding a turbo to an increase in hp. What if the turbo's only purpose was to maintain 280 hp regardless of the altitude?
Phil, you’re 100% correct on technical aspect, but I took that into account, and expect most others do also.

Unless you live or travel in the Rockies on a regular basis, and also tow, how often are you going to benefit from that extra turbo power? If someone got 50% extra power once a year for a few minutes, is it worth it?

I rarely drive (percentage wise) over a few thousand feet in elevation, so at 3.5 to 4.0 percent increase per 1,000, extra power is not going to help much or often enough.

A regular OEM turbo engine installation with the correct transmission would be a completely different upgrade because the extra low-RPM torque could be used all the time. To me the cost-benefit and risk-benefit of adding a turbo to a PM Pentastar isn’t very good. If I lived at 8,000 feet, maybe I’d feel differently, but I doubt even then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Maybe a little nitrous oxide is called for, get some extra oxygen in there at high altitudes! :devilish:

While I'm not serious, it could be done, one of the original applications of nitrous in engines was to compensate for altitude in early aircraft. All warranty bets are off when they see the NOS bottle in a Promaster Van :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I usually dismiss cost because humans with vehicles will spend $$$ on stuff that don't matter :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I usually dismiss cost because humans with vehicles will spend $$$ on stuff that don't matter :)
“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol, and wild women. The other half I wasted.” - W.C. Fields

You can replace gambling, alcohol, and wild women with vehicles and describe a lot of people.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top