New RAM HD 1000 lb-ft

ksss wrote:
Because Ram had to continue to increase chassis strength several times doesn't mean GM needs to. Maybe GM built their chassis with increases in mind and Ram didn't, I don't know and neither do you. If you want to move the goal posts that is fine and discuss longevity that is fine as well. The point I am making is that from a performance standpoint, the GM HD's have proved year after year regardless of what the engine ratings are they are at least competitive if they don't win outright, which they usually do. You may not think those Ike runs have value and that is fine, but it is the only venue that compares these trucks in a uniform way. I know they don't take everything into account, but I am not sure how chassis durability could ever be incorporated into them. I would imagine if they did and Ram lost that segment we would be talking about some other unmeasured segment.

No one moved the goal post - I stated from the get-go there's more tow ratings than performance.

You're the one hanging onto the idea that since GM has the most powerful engine, that obviously implies better towing capacity.

I've grossed 160k hauling B-trains in the BC rockies. I guarantee that combo would absolutely get destroyed on the Ike run. Does that mean a Pete 379 has poor towing performance?

I expect the new Ram to come in DEAD LAST in the next Ike run. Why? Because the Powerstroke and Duramax has consistently dynoed more, plus GM is getting the 9-speed. But that's my point, it doesn't mean the Ram has worse "towing performance".