King of the beasts test (RAM 3500 vs F450)

NC Hauler wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Turtle n Peps wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks testing a 3500 against a 450 is goofy?

Hears an idea, why not test a 3500 against an F350? :h

No....no your not. Ford's advertising magazine knew the F-350 couldn't out tow the Ram so they had to bring in a ringer. They pulled the same garbage when they tested a 2015 Ford F-350 not in production truck against the 2014 GM and Ram 3500 trucks.

PT.com is a joke IMO

Don

The Ram truck was a 2013 that competed against the 2015 Ford that isn't in production yet.

So that's even worse then isn't it?

Ford really needs to update their frame.

Both the RAM and Chevy are on hydroformed and fully boxed frames (the RAM is on 3rd gen, first one in 2007). While Ford's frame design dates back to the first "Superduty", still C-channel at the back.

As for the test, I hope they rate more than just the 0-40 / 60 times. Any chipped truck can run circles around these trucks, but that doesn't mean the weight can be controlled safely.

45Ricochet wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Turtle n Peps wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks testing a 3500 against a 450 is goofy?

Hears an idea, why not test a 3500 against an F350? :h

No....no your not. Ford's advertising magazine knew the F-350 couldn't out tow the Ram so they had to bring in a ringer. They pulled the same garbage when they tested a 2015 Ford F-350 not in production truck against the 2014 GM and Ram 3500 trucks.

PT.com is a joke IMO

Don

Don, Don, Don
They are pulling like 26k lbs :E
They (PT.com) will not go over the ratings so the F350 DRW wouldn't cut the mustard. Either did the Chevy.
To have a test each competitor needed to have the correct ratings, plain and simple. Ford didn't cheat, either did GM. Ram did :B
This 2013 HD Ram is by no means a 3500 truck any longer. A better test would have been the 3500 SRW Ram vs the other guys DRW's 3500's.
I'm pretty certain you won't be calling them a JOKE come Monday buddy.
Mark is doing a fine job replacing the other blue guy employed at Ford now.

Rick Rick Rick :W
You made my point only I had wished the Ford fan club would have.

When PT.com tested the "1/2" ton trucks they used the highest rated trucks for all three brands and the F-150 supper duper tow and payload is more 3/4 then 1/2 ton. The only thing 1/2 ton about it is the badge! So why didn't PT.com use a Ram 2500 with a Hemi and 4:10 gears? Why because it would have won, but when the Ford is at a disadvantage they jump up to a F-450. Load the Ram at to lowest GVWR and go from there. The fact that the GM is not in this test shows the test is BS plan and simple!

Sorry but that rag has no creds with me. I'm 100% sure they could give a rats backside either.

Maybe if Mike would answer my questions honestly I may change my opinion, but he has not and I suspect he never will!

And BTW, as I said before the EB IS proving to be a great engine! I said if it proves itself I would come on and say so. Does it meet the hype Ford said it was, no but the bugs are mostly worked out and if I didn't work for Chrysler and was not screwed over by Ford's local dealer network I would most likely look at one. I owned Fords and liked them, just could not get them fixed when repairs where needed, sorry Ford.

I switched to Chrysler before I worked for them and have never felt the need to sue them over any of our vehicles! Can't say the same for Ford.

Don

Both trucks are 14K GVWR, so it matters not that one is a 3500 and one is a 450. Those numbers have been pretty meaningless for years. I just think it's cool that new trucks are so powerful and have such high tow ratings that the guys who test them for the magazines have to get a class A CDL to legally pull those trailers. :)

Guys I get it they are testing apples to apples. Just seems real shaddy that now they want to have a level playing field. Does the F-450 use the same tune, gears and transmission? I don't know and sorry I don't trust any marketing guy to tell us the truth. That goes for any of them! I am not the only guy asking this.

If it is a 450 pickup, it will have the same turbo and 400/800 tuning that 250-350 pickups have. If it is a 450 cab and chassis, it will have a different turbo and 300/660 rating. Nothing to try to fool anybody with there!

RoyJ wrote:
Ford really needs to update their frame.

Both the RAM and Chevy are on hydroformed and fully boxed frames (the RAM is on 3rd gen, first one in 2007). While Ford's frame design dates back to the first "Superduty", still C-channel at the back.

Guess we better write a letter to KW, Peterbilt, Navistar, Caterpillar, and other Class 8 truck mfgs and tell them that they are doing it all wrong. :W

Seriously though. Who says a C channel is always inferior? I don't think it's that cut and dry.

BTW - I drive a Ram with boxed frame but have had several Fords too.

Well, very thick c-channels make perfect sense for class 8 trucks. There are a million different reasons to build a class 8 vehicle, but there aren't so many sales (unlike light trucks) so it's difficult to really get any economies of scale for mass manufacturing. So the entire industry has coalesced around the 34" or 36" (I keep forgetting which) wide frame. They use C-channels for accessibility reasons as well. They need to be able to upfit all sorts of bodies, axles, mounting systems, suspensions, and other things that are not proprietary to a specific company. That's why all the Cab and Chassis trucks also adhere to a 34" or 36" wide frame from the cab rearwards. It also seems like RAM's chassis cab frame is C-channel as well, again to appease the up-fitters. I'm sure if the entire industry could agree to move to a boxed frame, they would. But there are issues with such a change, many of the body/chassis mod manufacturers would have to re-tool and re-engineer lots of components that they haven't had to really re-engineer for. Again there isn't a huge mass of these specialized items being sold to begin with as well, so it takes many years for them to make enough money off their capital investments. Then there's the whole standard on what to agree on for accessibility to running stuff inside the rails like wiring and access holes/panels. It'd just get messy so I believe the industry just stays c-channel to make life easier for the OEM's and upfitters.

Engineers love to stiffen the frame. The stiffer the frame, then the finer they can tweak the suspension to perform the way they intended.

Wiley75 wrote:


Guess we better write a letter to KW, Peterbilt, Navistar, Caterpillar, and other Class 8 truck mfgs and tell them that they are doing it all

typical ford response.


Hydroforming creates a stronger, lighter frame that allows for increased payload and towing while not comprising structural integrity.

why do you think fords nearly always weigh the most when compared against the other big 2?

Those box frames are fun to put on the 5th wheel hitch and goose neck ball too.