Great breakdown of tow vehicle towing capacity by make/model

DW-gray wrote:
I suppose some could read it as a bias, but I don't.

Probably just me. Sometimes I think I spend too much time on here. :)

rjstractor wrote:

DW-gray wrote:
I have to ask, how do you come to believe the author is biased against Ford when in fact all the chart's data comes from the manufacturer's published data?

Maybe I'm off-base, but I was referring to the statement about the rear axle ratios, as well as a statement in the article about frame flex. The rear axle ratio issue we covered at length, and the frame flex issue is basically irrelevant to towing capacity. I took that to be a bias against Ford. To be, statements like this that point out a perceived disadvantage or weakness that has no real bearing on the topic at hand indicate a bias. We see it all the time here on this forum. :)

I suppose some could read it as a bias, but I don't. Just data and information is being shared. If you read the data and the discussed email with a Ford rep on the one-ton review page, it shows that Ford derates conventional towing capacity a lot. All the info from the Ford reps appear to lean toward a frame problem, as I read it. Which, BTW, I read that Ford is beefing up the frames in 2017 models. By contrast, on the same page, Ram does not derate conventional towing. That's my observation. I haven't noticed anywhere that the author recommends or belittles any brand.

cbshoestring wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

cbshoestring wrote:
Most interesting part to me was found in question #1 and answer #1.

A 2500 HD Diesel with 1200# of available payload (after subtracting driver & Passenger).

This is why I always laugh when the "get a 25/3500 HD diesel, if you want to haul that much weight" crowd speaks up.

Those 15/25/35 numbers USE to be a good indication of how much payload capacity a truck had---not anymore. Too many options, too many variations of engines/tranny/rear-end, etc, etc, etc...

My 1500 has more payload than that 2500.

Do NOT buy a truck based upon the advertised generic numbers...

DOOR STICKER, DOOR STICKER, DOOR STICKER

By the way....my RAM 1500 has 3.73 rear-end, how come it isn't offered on the 2500/3500? Maybe as rjstractor said...it ain't needed.

Unless you changed the gears in your 1500 Ram then you don't have 3.73s. You have 3.21, 3.55 or 3.92. Only the 2500-3500 gassers have the 3.73. Also you don't have more payload than a 2500 CTD. The most you have is a couple 100lbs less than 2000lbs. Most 2500 CTDs are right at 2000lbs.
I'd be interested to see your door sticker. From looking at Rams towing guide I just don't see any 1500 Tradesman 5.7 Hemi's with much more than 1710lbs. That's less than 2500 CTDs.

You are CORRECT...I have 3.92 gears ($50 option according to the sticker)...don't know why I was thinking 3.73 :S

You are INCORRECT about my statement concerning payload...:)

The question asked in the article mentioned a HD 2500 with 1200# of available payload after accounting for the driver and passenger. When I subtract myself and DW I still have 1300# of available payload (stickered at 1668#) . Therefore, I do in fact have more available payload than the HD 2500 mentioned in the article. Might not be more than the standard CTD's, but more than that 2500 HD mentioned.

The point being......check the door. Do NOT assume a 3500 hauls more than a 2500, which hauls more than a 1500. Should they? YES!!! However, with available options...the 15/25/35 numbers are not as cut and dry as it would appear. They are a starting point, but the door tells the tale.

Payload is a single thing to look at, and it happens to not mean a lot with diesel 3/4 tons (although I'd also point out that few have less than 2000 lbs of available "payload"). Fact is a current model 3/4 ton (gas or diesel) is identical to the SRW 3500 models aside from the rear suspension, which tends to run a little softer or lack an overload spring. The payload ratings on those trucks rare artificially low due to a high curb weight and a 10k GVWR class limit.

The typical 6500 lb RAWR on them is a more accurate indicator of what the trucks can handle, and even that's probably conservative. I would bet your truck's RAWR is more like 4000-4500 lbs. If you want to compare the two, that's a more accurate data point to look at. Or tow the same trailer back to back - the difference in towing/hauling capability is substantial.

DW-gray wrote:
I have to ask, how do you come to believe the author is biased against Ford when in fact all the chart's data comes from the manufacturer's published data?

Maybe I'm off-base, but I was referring to the statement about the rear axle ratios, as well as a statement in the article about frame flex. The rear axle ratio issue we covered at length, and the frame flex issue is basically irrelevant to towing capacity. I took that to be a bias against Ford. To be, statements like this that point out a perceived disadvantage or weakness that has no real bearing on the topic at hand indicate a bias. We see it all the time here on this forum. :)

rjstractor wrote:

patriotgrunt wrote:
You're right but Ford does not offer 3.42. Ford Super Duty diesels have 3.31 and 3.55 for 3/4 ton trucks. The 1 ton has a 3.73 option for diesels. Clearly the 3.55 offers even better gearing when compared to GM's Allison with 3.73s after looking at the overall gear ratios.

Yes, my error for not researching. I actually got the 3.42 ratio from the OP's link, more the reason to discount the info on that page. Reading that site, the author's bias against Ford is pretty obvious. Bias of that sort has no place in a legitimate publication. Having said that, even the 3.31 ratio compares pretty well to the GM/3.73 combo.

Okay, I think I see the mistake here. The site's statement did not clearly point out that the 3.55 and 3.42 ratios where to be compared with the truck's one-ton counterpart-not to be compared within the three-quarter tons. You are correct, the towing capacities between the three-quarter tons are not that much different, although Ford has the fifth wheel lead per RV Tow Check.

Apparently, the statement has recently been changed and now reads:
"FACT: When comparing with Ford's and Ram's one-ton trucks, their three-quarter ton truck's awesome diesel engine and transmission power combination is robbed by rear end gear ratios of 3.55 and 3.42, respectively."

I have to ask, how do you come to believe the author is biased against Ford when in fact all the chart's data comes from the manufacturer's published data? The towing capacities provided by RV Tow Check show the realistic towing capacity and it is what it is, is it not?

patriotgrunt wrote:
You're right but Ford does not offer 3.42. Ford Super Duty diesels have 3.31 and 3.55 for 3/4 ton trucks. The 1 ton has a 3.73 option for diesels. Clearly the 3.55 offers even better gearing when compared to GM's Allison with 3.73s after looking at the overall gear ratios.

Yes, my error for not researching. I actually got the 3.42 ratio from the OP's link, more the reason to discount the info on that page. Reading that site, the author's bias against Ford is pretty obvious. Bias of that sort has no place in a legitimate publication. Having said that, even the 3.31 ratio compares pretty well to the GM/3.73 combo.

rjstractor wrote:

DW-gray wrote:
Can you provide some links to supporting documentation that proves "The Ford with a 3.42 rear axle actually has slightly better gearing for towing than a GM with a 3.73 rear axle due to transmission gearing"?

Has not the rear end gear ratio always been the final torque factor in transferring torque from the engine and transmission? No matter what the gearing is in the transmission, will it not work harder when applying torque to a 3.42 than a 3.73 when towing or hauling the same amount of weight? Will the engine not run a higher RPM when the transmission has to be in a lower gear to tow or haul with a 3.42, with the same amount of weight, than if the rear end is a 3.73?

What matters is the final drive ratio, which is the gear ratio in the transmission multiplied by the rear axle ratio. A 10:1 ratio in the transmission and a 3:1 ratio in the rear axle is a 30:1 reduction. That's why there are heavy OTR trucks with axle ratios in the 2.90:1 range, the transmission ratios in the 9 to 18 speeds allow for that.

All I did was do a Google search for the ratios in each gear of both the Ford and GM transmissions:

GM- 1 2 3 4 5 6 R
3.10 1.81 1.41 1.00 0.71 0.61 (06+) 4.49

Ford-1 2 3 4 5 6
3,91 2.32 1.52 1.15 0.86 0.67 3.13

As you can see the Ford transmission has lower (numerically higher) ratios in each of its six gears except reverse. Doing the math, the Ford actually has better gearing for pulling with a 3.42 axle ratio in the first 2 gears and very close in the top 4 gears compared to the GM with a 3.73 axle.

Basically I was calling out an "expert" publication for only looking at one piece of the puzzle and condemning Ford for not offering the same axle ratio as GM, and not looking at the whole picture. FWIW, I'm not particular to any brand.

Sorry about the formatting of the ratios, it didn't look that way when I typed it. :)

You're right but Ford does not offer 3.42. Ford Super Duty diesels have 3.31 and 3.55 for 3/4 ton trucks. The 1 ton has a 3.73 option for diesels. Clearly the 3.55 offers even better gearing when compared to GM's Allison with 3.73s after looking at the overall gear ratios.

They lost me a 3/4 diesel

DW-gray wrote:
Can you provide some links to supporting documentation that proves "The Ford with a 3.42 rear axle actually has slightly better gearing for towing than a GM with a 3.73 rear axle due to transmission gearing"?

Has not the rear end gear ratio always been the final torque factor in transferring torque from the engine and transmission? No matter what the gearing is in the transmission, will it not work harder when applying torque to a 3.42 than a 3.73 when towing or hauling the same amount of weight? Will the engine not run a higher RPM when the transmission has to be in a lower gear to tow or haul with a 3.42, with the same amount of weight, than if the rear end is a 3.73?

What matters is the final drive ratio, which is the gear ratio in the transmission multiplied by the rear axle ratio. A 10:1 ratio in the transmission and a 3:1 ratio in the rear axle is a 30:1 reduction. That's why there are heavy OTR trucks with axle ratios in the 2.90:1 range, the transmission ratios in the 9 to 18 speeds allow for that.

All I did was do a Google search for the ratios in each gear of both the Ford and GM transmissions:

GM- 1 2 3 4 5 6 R
3.10 1.81 1.41 1.00 0.71 0.61 (06+) 4.49

Ford-1 2 3 4 5 6
3,91 2.32 1.52 1.15 0.86 0.67 3.13

As you can see the Ford transmission has lower (numerically higher) ratios in each of its six gears except reverse. Doing the math, the Ford actually has better gearing for pulling with a 3.42 axle ratio in the first 2 gears and very close in the top 4 gears compared to the GM with a 3.73 axle.

Basically I was calling out an "expert" publication for only looking at one piece of the puzzle and condemning Ford for not offering the same axle ratio as GM, and not looking at the whole picture. FWIW, I'm not particular to any brand.

Sorry about the formatting of the ratios, it didn't look that way when I typed it. :)

Gdetrailer wrote:

BenK wrote:
Am always in amazement when folks prefer to believe non-OEM sites for specifications

How's about these specification sites? Just a few minutes searching and
note that there are tons and tons more form each OEM...and even more
from non-OEM sites

Dodge Towing Guide


RAM Technical Specifications


SUPER DUTY PICKUP Specifications


2016 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2500HD SPECIFICATIONS


Bottom line, again, folks only want to hear...what they want to hear/read...

Ben,

I can't say about the other manufacturers, but Fords guide is ONLY a "Guide" and has nothing to do with the ACTUAL towing capacity of each vehicle. Using those guides will often result in one ending up with too much trailer or cargo and not enough vehicle payload.

The actual payload tends to vary, A LOT depending on what options, cab size, 4x4 vs 4x2, bed length and even trim level.. All the options add weight to the vehicle which in turn reduces the available capacity.

Ford CLEARLY POSTS all the needed info on the drivers door post, the max cargo weight rating is pretty much the limit of what one should use and it IS spelled out on the drivers door. One should not rely on a generic printed guide since the guide does not take into account all the option configurations that the vehicle may or may not have.

Some of the cargo ratings also depend on certain payload options or packages, some trucks on the lots may or may not have ALL the proper combination of those packages and therefore be rather short on cargo capacity.

Additionally F350s have multiple GVWR options from 10,000 lb up to 15,000 lbs..

Choosing a F350 at 10,000 lbs GVWR level will net you pretty much no more cargo capacity than a F250 which is only available in a 10,000 GVWR, but you will pay an extra $1,000-$2,000 for the F350 10K GVWR..

:h :h :h
Well no doubt the F350, with a 10,000# GVWR has all the same components as those with much higher GVWR, the GVWR is used to save on registration fees, or other crazy licensing rules.