Are the 2016 Ram HD’s Output Figures Bogus?

Cummins12V98 wrote:
"The PSD was able to accelerate faster but the CTD holds the speed better on hills when both were loaded to the same GCW"

If you want a ZIPPY Diesel for just driving around then get the Ford. If you want a truck to hook up to a nice load and do a great job getting you up AND down the mountain get the BIG "C".

As far as I am concerned my 10K truck gets up and moves very well! Just does not "SOUND" like it!

As far as tearing things up take a look under a 13-15 RAM 3500 the components are massive. They are torque managed so they can't hurt themselves.

Hu? That's not what the facts show. Look at the trailer towing times.

But the truck still felt the least confident, not helped by the Cummins diesel under the hood. Here is where the numbers game begins to unravel. Despite being rated at 850 lb-ft of torque, the Ram feels lethargic. With and without weight, it will refuse to hurry despite what your right foot is doing. Throttle response is lackluster and even the brakes feel the squishiest of the three. Add on top of that a transmission that doesn’t seem to respond with any haste when asked to do anything and the Ram 3500 easily falls behind.
The data we collected doesn’t help either.

At the end of the second day, the Ram had the worst fuel economy average of the three, sitting at 10.5 MPG. Keep in mind that number consists of towing, hauling and runs on the drag strip, but all three trucks went through the same scenarios, so it is fair to compare the numbers. Running on our first empty highway leg, the Ram achieved an average of 15.9 MPG.

And how did it fare on the strip? The truck’s fastest quarter-mile run was clocked at 16.927 seconds when running empty and 23.581 with the 15,000-lb trailer attached. This was consistently the slowest of the three and it felt like it.