brulaz wrote:
ib516 wrote:
...
With all due respect, that would be a TERRIBLE engine for a Ram 2500.
130 hp and 300+ lbs/ft of torque lower than the competition? They'd be the laughing stock of the 2500 series truck market. No one can afford to do that. Can you imagine the comparison tests?
Many on here care more about mpg than the average truck buyer. Most people care most about capability when it comes to HD trucks (2500 & 3500), not mpg. 1500 series truck buyers care about mpg, and not so much about capability. The automakers know the market.
To be honest, I think the current Cummins in the RAM 2500 is a poor choice. It just eats up the payload. Great in the 3500 though.
And the same applies to all other 250/2500s. The current big diesels are just too heavy. They should restrict them to the 350/3500s.
The 5L Cummins should be light enough for the RAM 2500 to have a more reasonable payload.
The Ram 2500 diesel has about the same payload as the other two 2500 series diesels. The class max is 10k GVWR which is what the Ram has. GM and Ford aren't much better in their 2500/250 series diesels.
Here are the gasser numbers, but the diesel numbers will be less for all 3 makes; but similar to each other.
The "Ram has low payload" thinking is so last year :) -- unless you are talking 1500 series, then yes, in some configurations, they are low.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59f0d/59f0ded6c67693fcdf5ba427741a392d8b722d61" alt=""