Forum Discussion
brulaz wrote:
The 5000# tow rating for the F150 was probably because they had a truck without the tow package and all the extra cooling stuff that comes with it. Tow packages are pretty standard on dealer lots.
Still they loaded up all the trucks with a 7000# trailer, probably without a WDH so they exceeded the hitch receiver ratings, and the Ford would be 2000# over it's tow rating, and the RAM would be over its GVWR. (Also when they threw the 1000# in the bed the RAM would be over loaded). For a one-shot test, no biggie, the trucks took the abuse without issues.
But these folks clearly do not tow/haul much. There was no discussion of payload, no mention of the Ford's lack of tow package. Maybe that's because they clearly think of them as "grocery-getters". And I would agree.
Otherwise, I thought the article was OK. Their appreciation of the RAM EcoD's "quickness" must have a lot to do with the torque and HP coming in at low RPMs, and that nice 8 spd tranny.
Personally, the RAM EcoD is not for me: not enough payload and HP. But it sounds like a nice truck for most people. The new F150s look nice, and you can get them with the HD payload, but the towing mileage will be no better than a V8. The Chevy ... meh.
What they did is probably what 90% of truck owners would do. Ignore ratings and just load it up and go. Walking around any CG it's pretty obvious that 1/2 the people that towed their trailer there have know idea how to setup their WD for their overloaded tow vehicle.
so the tests they did towing are IMO inline with what goes on in the real world.Taco wrote:
That article only makes me think the ecodiesel is even more pointless. A few grand cost premium for it. Much slower than the competition. Costs no less in fuel to operate than the much much more powerful 2.7 ecoboost, 900 lbs of payload on the ram. A CAR magazine may like it but it ain't much of a TRUCK.
Add in the fact that it has all the same huge repair liabilities of the much more powerful 1 ton diesels without anywhere near the power.
Sounds like a loser to me.
Not sure how the truck that was the worst at everything, got the nod. It's appalling slow loaded and towing accelerating makes it a laugh on a site about towing. The mileage premium only covers the cost of diesel, and not the maintenance I might add. You'll never see the diesel "premium" back, not ever. Pointless, and other than reading a bunch of car guys validating their previous articles, the only useful part is the test data, and it speaks loud and clear. 2000# payload available too for a few hundred buck on the Ferd.
The chevy was just a typical lazy throttled wallowy chevy. Nothing changes but the weather.
The F150 with the upcoming 10 speed should be a pretty cool combo as well.boocoodinkydow wrote:
The Ed takes a lot of criticism for it's anemic weight & tow ratings & rightfully so. Many have the opinion that it will surely turn into a pumpkin if you put 901# in the bed. For those good conservative individuals that go strictly by the label in the door jam, God bless you; there's surely going to be a special place in heaven for you. It may come as a surprise that there are some of us that don't always obey traffic laws, occasionally don't abide by prescription labels, fudge a bit on our income tax and sometimes use our trucks beyond their advertised limitations. While ram is hampered by a slightly smaller axle diameter & only 5 lugs rather than 6-8, the primary differential in ratings is due to the fact chrysler opted to use sae system prior to other brands following suit. Bad choice on chrysler's part. If I haven't rustled feathers thus far, let me step it up a notch. You're totally naive if you don't realize that these ratings are set by exponentially cautious bureaucratic pencil pushing safety officials & an army of liability lawyers rather than untethered engineers who are aware of the true capabilities!! I've lived long enough to understand when it feels right & when it doesn't & there is where my limitations are set. My sticker warns not to exceed 890#. I've actually made two 40 mile trips through some mountainous tn back roads with over 2300#. The air suspension leveled the load perfectly & the only time I could tell I had a load was when braking. i took a before & after measurement & found a load deflection of only 1 3/8". Another occasion I hauled 1850# for 450 miles @ interstate speeds. It's a truck, use it like one. For those that feel it's true capabilities are rivaled by a minivan, buy a minivan!! Ok weight police, take your best shot!
It's all relative isn't it? So where does that place the others with their 50% higher ratings? The logic that some "believers" use is baffling. Consider that the MAKERS of the truck put those stickers on. And the F150 can be optioned to 2000# payload without penalty. Give your head a shake.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
The math just does not come out on the 1/4 mile time with this truck. A 16.6 time in a truck with 240HP and weighs as much as it does should clock the 1/4 at low 17's; not mid 16's. The 0 to 60 times are way off too for some reason. Someone is cheating somewhere or this truck is an anomaly among anomalies. :h
The towing and passing numbers paint the more accurate picture of horsepower. (It isn't a race car right?haha) Getting to 60 is very much about usable horsepower and gearing. 420ft/lbs and an 8 speed trans are a pretty damn good combo for low speed launch. It does seem as though all the numbers are rather optimistic, across the board in this article.Hybridhunter wrote:
Taco wrote:
That article only makes me think the ecodiesel is even more pointless. A few grand cost premium for it. Much slower than the competition. Costs no less in fuel to operate than the much much more powerful 2.7 ecoboost, 900 lbs of payload on the ram. A CAR magazine may like it but it ain't much of a TRUCK.
Add in the fact that it has all the same huge repair liabilities of the much more powerful 1 ton diesels without anywhere near the power.
Sounds like a loser to me.
Not sure how the truck that was the worst at everything, got the nod. It's appalling slow loaded and towing accelerating makes it a laugh on a site about towing. The mileage premium only covers the cost of diesel, and not the maintenance I might add. You'll never see the diesel "premium" back, not ever. Pointless, and other than reading a bunch of car guys validating their previous articles, the only useful part is the test data, and it speaks loud and clear. 2000# payload available too for a few hundred buck on the Ferd.
The chevy was just a typical lazy throttled wallowy chevy. Nothing changes but the weather.
The F150 with the upcoming 10 speed should be a pretty cool combo as well.
I see.goducks10 wrote:
brulaz wrote:
The 5000# tow rating for the F150 was probably because they had a truck without the tow package and all the extra cooling stuff that comes with it. Tow packages are pretty standard on dealer lots.
Still they loaded up all the trucks with a 7000# trailer, probably without a WDH so they exceeded the hitch receiver ratings, and the Ford would be 2000# over it's tow rating, and the RAM would be over its GVWR. (Also when they threw the 1000# in the bed the RAM would be over loaded). For a one-shot test, no biggie, the trucks took the abuse without issues.
But these folks clearly do not tow/haul much. There was no discussion of payload, no mention of the Ford's lack of tow package. Maybe that's because they clearly think of them as "grocery-getters". And I would agree.
Otherwise, I thought the article was OK. Their appreciation of the RAM EcoD's "quickness" must have a lot to do with the torque and HP coming in at low RPMs, and that nice 8 spd tranny.
Personally, the RAM EcoD is not for me: not enough payload and HP. But it sounds like a nice truck for most people. The new F150s look nice, and you can get them with the HD payload, but the towing mileage will be no better than a V8. The Chevy ... meh.
What they did is probably what 90% of truck owners would do. Ignore ratings and just load it up and go. Walking around any CG it's pretty obvious that 1/2 the people that towed their trailer there have know idea how to setup their WD for their overloaded tow vehicle.
so the tests they did towing are IMO inline with what goes on in the real world.
Yep and the guys in the bigger trucks never tow over 65mph with ST tires. What world do you live in?CKNSLS wrote:
...
Yep and the guys in the bigger trucks never tow over 65mph with ST tires. What world do you live in?
An imperfect one.
But I try not to worry about it.:)- Hybrid,
I paid 2.73 for gas yesterday. Diesel is 3.35 right down the street. They will be paying me to store the stuff next week. Lol.
The 2.7 will be getting 9 mpg towing with my camper and trailer. They never come off my truck. Because it is a truck. Not a Cadillac. ;) - I just kinda get a laugh that they are comparing the next to base engine in a Ford to the super premium motor in the Ram. Lol journalism at its best.
