1 Ton SRW Challenge

ShinerBock wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:


Rediculas thinking the AISIN has anything to do with acceleration because of harsh 1-2 shifts. HARSH is a subjective term. If you want a trans that slips easily from gear to gear then the others may be for you. Simply put firm shifts cause less wear. REAL answer is the inline 6 is not a screamer and the 3.42's ARE going to net slower acceleration.

The Aisin is a slow(yet firm) shifting transmission. It wants to lock the TC in gear and holds it for too long. This and the high stall speed of the torque converter has a lot to do with how slow it accelerates. This is why the 68RFE trucks out accelerates the Aisins even though they have less power. It is a work horse, not a stallion.

It's shift strategy is not the best either and struggles to put you in the right gear for the situation just as PUTC stated in the towing section. The same can be somewhat said for the 68RFE, but at least with the 68RFE a good tuner can alleviate that problem.

You keep saying this, I have owned BOTH and the AISIN runs like a built auto. I like the solid predictable non flaring shifts. ONLY thing I would change is to lock out the low 1st gear when running BobTail.

Not sure why you call it a "slow shifting" transmission??? I can floor it and it hits 3K or very close to it gear after gear. Nice n solid!!! NO slop.

Maybe some of the difference in acceleration times could be due to the tire sizes which affect the overall gearing. The shorter tires on the Chevy accounted for a 4.5% advantage over the Ford and 2.6% over the Ram. Not making excuses, the other two could have specified smaller tires too.

kirkl wrote:


They probably get their info from this site as the reccomendations on here are you need a dually to pull a 4000lb trailer now adays.

Nah, 4,000 lbs is still in SRW 1 ton territory around here. Now if you were towing a 4,001 lb trailer then you better add another set of wheels to that 1 ton or you will be tarred and feathered. :B

RTCastillo wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:
I only had to read the first line... Price. No truck today is worth 70 grand to me. Especially when you can buy a low mileage off lease vehicle with a factory warranty for about half of what a new one cost. I believe in letting the first owner/leasee take the depreciation hit. I'm not proud. Bought my last 2 vehicles that way.

One quick observations I've seen so far. Some RVers are over-truck for their trailer. Not my business really. And then again, they must have been able to afford it: the truck, higher maintenance and gas.

Almost tempted myself as first time RVer.

They probably get their info from this site as the reccomendations on here are you need a dually to pull a 4000lb trailer now adays.

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Now that we got that out of the way......


I wasn't too surprised in the Ram being the slowest especially being hooked up to a slow shifting Aisin, but I am surprised it having the lowest fuel economy. The newest Duramax seems to be very fuel efficient. I would have to say GM's newest HD offering is beating the competition in just about every test even fuel mileage, but that is to be expected with a all new truck versus a competition that is almost 10 years old. Although the Ford was just recently updated. No doubts they will just keep leap frogging each other with every new iteration which is a plus for us.

To be fair about the Aisin, even the 68RFE does not shift that great in stock form, but at least you can tune the 68RFE to shift much better and quicker.

Did the ram perform a regen during the test? If so all fuel economy tests are apples to oranges.

That is my thought. . . That would tank the MPG's

RTCastillo wrote:
One quick observations I've seen so far. Some RVers are over-truck for their trailer. Not my business really. And then again, they must have been able to afford it: the truck, higher maintenance and gas.
Almost tempted myself as first time RVer.

I may be over trucked, as I could get by with a 3500 SRW truck. But I've been on the under trucked side before, never again. There is no such thing as to much truck!

ksss wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:
I only had to read the first line... Price. No truck today is worth 70 grand to me. Especially when you can buy a low mileage off lease vehicle with a factory warranty for about half of what a new one cost. I believe in letting the first owner/leasee take the depreciation hit. I'm not proud. Bought my last 2 vehicles that way.

Is it also correct to say that many are willing to pay 70K or more for a new pickup? Can it be said that people's personal spending habits and choices are just that individual choices that have zero relevance to the discussion at hand? Should the topic come up about the dollars and sense of buying new verse used come up, you will no doubt be the topic leader. However inserting your buying used over new philosophy into every discussion is wearing itself out.

Seems revelant to me. When the cost of admission reaches a certain point, the clientele declines. I'm tickled that people want to spend that much jack for a depreciating item. Keeps the economy going and the banks happy. In my case, I can think of at least a dozen ways to better invest my money and I do.

RTCastillo wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:
I only had to read the first line... Price. No truck today is worth 70 grand to me. Especially when you can buy a low mileage off lease vehicle with a factory warranty for about half of what a new one cost. I believe in letting the first owner/leasee take the depreciation hit. I'm not proud. Bought my last 2 vehicles that way.

One quick observations I've seen so far. Some RVers are over-truck for their trailer. Not my business really. And then again, they must have been able to afford it: the truck, higher maintenance and gas.

Almost tempted myself as first time RVer.

Oddly, I see a lot that are 'under trucked'. Wife and I stopped at Arby's on the way home and 2 large, I mean LARGE pull behind's were in the side parking lot, both being hitched to Ford 150's. Even said to the wife it looks as though the 'tail is wagging the dog'. I've always had a 1 ton pickup but I use mine for more than RV'ing. It's a farm truck too.

Cummins12V98 wrote:


Rediculas thinking the AISIN has anything to do with acceleration because of harsh 1-2 shifts. HARSH is a subjective term. If you want a trans that slips easily from gear to gear then the others may be for you. Simply put firm shifts cause less wear. REAL answer is the inline 6 is not a screamer and the 3.42's ARE going to net slower acceleration.

The Aisin is a slow(yet firm) shifting transmission. It wants to lock the TC in gear and holds it for too long. This and the high stall speed of the torque converter has a lot to do with how slow it accelerates. This is why the 68RFE trucks out accelerates the Aisins even though they have less power. It is a work horse, not a stallion.

It's shift strategy is not the best either and struggles to put you in the right gear for the situation just as PUTC stated in the towing section. The same can be somewhat said for the 68RFE, but at least with the 68RFE a good tuner can alleviate that problem.

I thought the comments about the Ford being the worst in towing stability/comfort were interesting. My BIL just went from a 2015 F350 to a 2018, both Powerstrokes. Towing the same trailers and loads, he thinks the 2015 was a much more stable tow vehicle. His theory is that the new truck weighs less with the aluminum but I don't know if that's the difference or not. I haven't towed anything with it, but going down the highway empty it feels more solid than his old rig.

As far as the test goes that's about how I would have guessed it. The Ram is obviously going to be the slowest and most "trucky" of the three. I'm good with that. :B