28,500 lbs Ford vs Ram 1 ton DRW

The trucks averaged 41 mph up the hill.

The top of the hill gets steeper and the trucks would have been going below 41 mph which puts them above 41 mph on the majority of the hill.

It is quite likely that 45 mph is speed the trucks pulled the lower section:

45 mph puts the Ram in 3rd gear at 2600 rpm.
45 mph is not a comfortable speed for the Powerstroke / TorqShift with 4.1 rear end to be maxed out at. 3rd gear puts the Powerstroke at 3000 rpm. (Not a good place to be.... inefficient) Alternately the Ford could be in 4th at 2266 rpm. It is very reasonable to think that at 2266 rpm the Powerstroke puts down the same power as the Cummins does at 2600 rpm.

It's interesting to see how a single pull can be tailored to favor one truck over another. Had the trailer been a little heavier both trucks would have been pulling in third and the Ford would be at a higher rpm where it would make use of its higher power.

Had the trailer been lighter the both trucks would have been in 4th gear where again the Ford would have the advantage.

Ford with 4.10 final in 3rd gear gives an overall gear ratio of 6.23.
With 3.55 gears the TorqShift yields an overall gear ratio of 5.40 in 3rd gear

The Aisin with 4.10 gears yield an overall gear ratio of 5.49 in third gear.









At the top of the hill if the trucks slowed

Threebigfords wrote:
"I don't need a long bed truck but do need the back seat room. My Mega Cab turns as sharp as a crew cab 450. I drive a 5500 for a daily driver and 19.5's suck."



That would be incorrect. Despite the Megacab standard bed having a foot less length in wheelbase than the F450, it still gives up almost two and a half feet in turning diameter to the F450 Crewcab Longbed dually, and all that rear seat legroom in the Megacab only add up to less than a half inch difference from the new F450's. 44" for the Ram, 43.6" for the Ford.

See I'm the opposite, I can't see giving up the tighter turning and a full 8' bed for less than a half inch extra of rear seat leg room. But that's why there's more than one make of truck for sale right?


As far as the 19.5's sucking...I'm still on the fence on that. I love the capacity, love the treadwear. I've got 62k on my Michelins, and looks like I'll get over 80k before I need to think about replacing them. I typically got about 50k out of my E rated 18" Toyo's on my F350's.

At 16 ply, they do ride stiffer than an E rated tire, but they are also **** tough. Just wish there were more options in tread patterns and sizes.

The way I'm reading it the 450 pick up has a 25.2' radius and the mega cab has a 25.3'. That' not 2.5 feet. I very rarely put my back seat in the riding position. It stays in the flat floor position.

"I don't need a long bed truck but do need the back seat room. My Mega Cab turns as sharp as a crew cab 450. I drive a 5500 for a daily driver and 19.5's suck."



That would be incorrect. Despite the Megacab standard bed having a foot less length in wheelbase than the F450, it still gives up almost two and a half feet in turning diameter to the F450 Crewcab Longbed dually, and all that rear seat legroom in the Megacab only add up to less than a half inch difference from the new F450's. 44" for the Ram, 43.6" for the Ford.

See I'm the opposite, I can't see giving up the tighter turning and a full 8' bed for less than a half inch extra of rear seat leg room. But that's why there's more than one make of truck for sale right?


As far as the 19.5's sucking...I'm still on the fence on that. I love the capacity, love the treadwear. I've got 62k on my Michelins, and looks like I'll get over 80k before I need to think about replacing them. I typically got about 50k out of my E rated 18" Toyo's on my F350's.

At 16 ply, they do ride stiffer than an E rated tire, but they are also **** tough. Just wish there were more options in tread patterns and sizes.

transamz9 wrote:

mich800 wrote:

blofgren wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I looked at the numbers a little closer. If the Cummins averaged an rpm where it made 355 hp (that is about the average power that the Cummins produces throughout its rpm range), the Ram had to be 80% efficient at getting the engine's power to the pavement.

The average power that the Powerstroke makes between 1800 and 2800 rpm is 385 hp.

If the Ford was able to run at an rpm where it averaged 385 hp it would have been 72% effecient at putting its power to the pavement. 80/72 = 1.11. You'd expect the Ram to have gotten about 11% better fuel economy. It got 12.5 percent better fuel economy.


Edit: the average hp the Cummins makes from 1800 to 2800 is actually 352 Hp compared to the 355 I used above. That means the Ram could have been 81% efficient at putting its power to the pavement. 81/72=1.125 meaning you'd expect the Ram to get 12.5 % better fuel economy.

I find this very interesting.

Or could it be that the 6.7L Powerstroke simply doesn't put out the HP that Ford claims it does? It certainly is looking that way.

I would be more inclined to think it is either computer, transmission gear ratios, or overall drivetrain losses compared to the Ram. The drag race is a good indicator of peak HP but much more comes into play over a 10 minute plus test. So short term the Ford has shown it has higher HP. But over this test they both put down virtually identical average HP.

I actually think that the drag race just shows that Ford doesn't manage their torque as much as ram on the low end.

Yes they are both putting the same power to the pavement. No matter how you look at it some things don't quite add up:

The Ford could be holding gears much longer and running at low rpm (low hp) for long periods up the hill. If this is the case it is surprising that the Ram gets better fuel economy.

The Ford crankshaft power could be what Ford claims but then their driveline is very inefficient as compared to the Ram.

Ford could be lying about their horsepower but then it is surprising that it kicked butt in the drag race.

Bottom line is: as fantastic as the Powerstroke/TorqShift is, the Cummins/Aisin appears to be better.


Edit: There is one more possibility that makes sense. If the Ford spent a significant time at the high end of its rpm scale .... say 3000 rpm, where it could not quite make the jump from third to fourth. It was using 355 Hp but couldn't rev any higher nor quite make the jump from 3rd to 4th. Revving above peak HP it runs very inefficient. Although it may be rather unlikely that this scenario played out, this is one scenario that would explain everything. This spot in the gears is at about 45 mph.

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

blofgren wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Excellent video:

If I were in the market for a DRW truck it would be the Medium Duty F450 King Ranch, LED lights and chrome package. They're a jewel!

Why a 450 instead of a 350?

Under rated towing capacity, wide track front end, and 19.5" tires... plus they just look dam good. :B

They certainly are nice; I just can't get over the "rope light" headlights, though....

Agree the 19.5's are nice but they are not needed for capacity.

What I really don't like on the DRW Ford are the hips. Looks like they took the last two styles and stuck them on a regular long bed.

Funny people talk about turning radius. Really have never felt I need a tighter turning radius.

I on the other hand can't stand the hips on the ram with the long swooping fenders that prevents access to the bed from the side. Hopefully their next gen goes back to the previous style fenders that look much better and allow side bed access.

As for the F450 you must not like a real medium duty truck or your just envious. I'm certain if ram offered them they would be the best option to have and we would be seeing pictures of the 19.5" tires on a weekly basis as part of your marketing campaign.

Ram hips are impractical at best. And not the best looking IMO.
First. No dually should have fender flares that are the entire bedside. They need to be bolt on. Be like molding bumpers into the fenders so you have to replace the whole front clip if you bang up a bumper. Dumb idea.
The 3rd gen mega cabs and the super dutys with the smaller bolt on fenders are the best.

Ford nailed it on their new duallies looks wise IMO. And as well, the Ram would be smart to compete in the 450 pickup market. They have the truck. Not too hard to retro a pickup bed on it and sell more....

Not sure I understand why anyone wouldn’t want a tighter turn radius on a truck. That kind of comment just doesn’t make sense.

And the style of any vehicle is purely subjective. To me, the fenders on the Ford look like a complete after thought. They don’t add anything to the lines of the truck.

There probably is an advantage if you hit the fenders as the replacements basically press on instead of having to replace bed panels (which I went through when I hit a deer).

The height of the bed on these new trucks makes it impractical for me to try to reach in and get anything out of it. Seems to me you would have to be abnormally talk to reach into any 4x4 truck.

I’d bet if the bed style was reversed and Ford had the styled fenders Fish would think it’s a jewel. And then Cummins would find fault with them.

Threebigfords wrote:
The turning radius of the F450 is one of those things that you don't know your missing until you've driven one for awhile. I'm so sold on it, I doubt I could go back to a SRW truck now even if I didn't need the capacity of a dually.

Being able to whip into parking spots without the typical 3 point turns of my previous trucks, negotiating tight jobsite driveways and making U turns are all so much easier when you knock a bunch of distance off the turning radius.

My cousin loves his two new 2017 F350 CCLB SRW trucks in his driveway, but all he can do is laugh when we both have to squeeze into a tight jobsite, and he's left making multipoint turns while I just crank wheel a little more to make the turn.

I actually have to pay attention when making a tight U-turn with my 16ft dump trailer that I don't jacknife the trailer going FORWARDS! I can actually get the trailers frame to make contact with the corner of the bumper at full lock when turning a full circle.


As far as the 19.5's go....I could take them or leave them, they look awesome for a factory wheel, the tires can carry amazing amounts of weight, right now I'm running a 265/70/19.5 Michelin that's an H rated tire good for 5510/5205lbs. Thats over 20k lbs of capacity on the rear axle....more than 4000 lbs over what the Dana S130 is rated for! Shouldn't have any trouble with the weight police here!

The big downside to the 19.5's is tire choices. If you like to put aftermarket tires and wheels on your truck, get the F350 and suffer with the larger turning radius.

I don't need a long bed truck but do need the back seat room. My Mega Cab turns as sharp as a crew cab 450. I drive a 5500 for a daily driver and 19.5's suck.

The turning radius of the F450 is one of those things that you don't know your missing until you've driven one for awhile. I'm so sold on it, I doubt I could go back to a SRW truck now even if I didn't need the capacity of a dually.

Being able to whip into parking spots without the typical 3 point turns of my previous trucks, negotiating tight jobsite driveways and making U turns are all so much easier when you knock a bunch of distance off the turning radius.

My cousin loves his two new 2017 F350 CCLB SRW trucks in his driveway, but all he can do is laugh when we both have to squeeze into a tight jobsite, and he's left making multipoint turns while I just crank wheel a little more to make the turn.

I actually have to pay attention when making a tight U-turn with my 16ft dump trailer that I don't jacknife the trailer going FORWARDS! I can actually get the trailers frame to make contact with the corner of the bumper at full lock when turning a full circle.


As far as the 19.5's go....I could take them or leave them, they look awesome for a factory wheel, the tires can carry amazing amounts of weight, right now I'm running a 265/70/19.5 Michelin that's an H rated tire good for 5510/5205lbs. Thats over 20k lbs of capacity on the rear axle....more than 4000 lbs over what the Dana S130 is rated for! Shouldn't have any trouble with the weight police here!

The big downside to the 19.5's is tire choices. If you like to put aftermarket tires and wheels on your truck, get the F350 and suffer with the larger turning radius.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

blofgren wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Excellent video:

If I were in the market for a DRW truck it would be the Medium Duty F450 King Ranch, LED lights and chrome package. They're a jewel!

Why a 450 instead of a 350?

Under rated towing capacity, wide track front end, and 19.5" tires... plus they just look dam good. :B

They certainly are nice; I just can't get over the "rope light" headlights, though....

Agree the 19.5's are nice but they are not needed for capacity.

What I really don't like on the DRW Ford are the hips. Looks like they took the last two styles and stuck them on a regular long bed.

Funny people talk about turning radius. Really have never felt I need a tighter turning radius.

I on the other hand can't stand the hips on the ram with the long swooping fenders that prevents access to the bed from the side. Hopefully their next gen goes back to the previous style fenders that look much better and allow side bed access.

As for the F450 you must not like a real medium duty truck or your just envious. I'm certain if ram offered them they would be the best option to have and we would be seeing pictures of the 19.5" tires on a weekly basis as part of your marketing campaign.

ib516 wrote:
I wonder if the Ford has some electronics/programming limiting it's power. It has to have. There's no way a truck that makes 65 more hp should be the same time as one with less. Must be a computer hold back issue for coolant temp, EGT, or durability or transmission or something.....?

That's where the TFL guys really drop the ball. I know they are trying to edit the footage down and make it entertaining for the average guy to watch, but for me, a bit more detail on how each truck performed (lowest speed achieved, highest speed achieved, how it did on the steepest part) would be helpful in interpreting the results. Instead, we just get some random shots while uphill and the final time.

My impression watching the site is they are not as “ cluey” as they could be but that being said they have generally fairly knowledgeable people commenting on the site a breath of fresh air compared too other Pickup sites.