Are the 2016 Ram HD’s Output Figures Bogus?

[45Ricochet]

CLICKY

[spoon059]

stro1965 wrote:
3.42 doesn't seem ideal for towing to me, but what do I know?

Have you had any problems with the 3.42's yet? Sure sounded stupid low to me too but its rates to 17K towing. In the 3500 the rear axle can get you to 19K with the 3.73 and 22K with the 4.10. If you hop up to the Aisin transmission those numbers jump up to 30K.

I'd argue that Ram knows what they are doing. They aren't building Formula 1 cars, they are building trucks. Not sure why we care so much about speed on RV.net...

[Farmerjon]

Just tripped across another thread and read this " it has 4.44 gears, but with the 19.5's it's not twisting that Cummins more than 2k rpm @ 65 mph."
Is that about right?

[Farmerjon]

Bedlam wrote:
The CTD is a longer stroke than the PSD and requires less RPM to make its power. This was the hardest part for me to get used to after running a PSD for 10 years. My CTD runs with 4.44 gears and my PSD had 3.73 ratios. Since I rarely drive over 65 mph, I don't need tall gears and am happy with my current combination.

4.44 gears are pretty low which would give you higher revs than 3.73 gears.
What RPMS are you turning at 65?

[Bedlam]

The CTD is a longer stroke than the PSD and requires less RPM to make its power. This was the hardest part for me to get used to after running a PSD for 10 years. My CTD runs with 4.44 gears and my PSD had 3.73 ratios. Since I rarely drive over 65 mph, I don't need tall gears and am happy with my current combination.

[stro1965]

spoon059 wrote:

stro1965 wrote:
My 3.73 geared 2012 F250 certainly was faster than my 3.42 geared 2015 3500. I love the Ram but wish there were some other gearing options.

I'm not certain, but I believe the Ram is geared for towing/hauling power, not racing.

3.42 doesn't seem ideal for towing to me, but what do I know?

[FishOnOne]

45Ricochet wrote:
So I take it you all feel they are bogus :R one way or another :W
Just me but the higher torque will always pull better, the higher HP will always be faster, especially unloaded.
Let me ask what a OTR driver prefers, more pulling power or faster times? Or both :B
I'd like the see what MPG you guys from Texas get driving slower. Faster is always lower MPG from my experience. My previous 5.9 Cummins would drop down to single digit driving at 75+ MPH loaded at 23K or so in the mountain region.
Someone mentioned J2807, isn't Ford going to use it in 2016 either? Thought they were gearing up for this with the aluminum weight loss :H

Last week one of the contractors at work (electrician) was asking me how I liked my truck and what kind of fuel economy I was making. He just traded his 06 Dodge 2WD DRW 5.9 manual tranny on a '15 Super Duty 6.7 PSD. He said he could make 22mpg with that Dodge DRW.

I wouldn't say the RAM's number's are bogus, but I would say it appears they hit the max on the HP rating. I wouldn't be surprised if the '17 Power Strokes will be boasting more than 440HP and torque will most likely be 1,000 ft/lbs.

[45Ricochet]

So I take it you all feel they are bogus :R one way or another :W
Just me but the higher torque will always pull better, the higher HP will always be faster, especially unloaded.
Let me ask what a OTR driver prefers, more pulling power or faster times? Or both :B
I'd like the see what MPG you guys from Texas get driving slower. Faster is always lower MPG from my experience. My previous 5.9 Cummins would drop down to single digit driving at 75+ MPH loaded at 23K or so in the mountain region.
Someone mentioned J2807, isn't Ford going to use it in 2016 either? Thought they were gearing up for this with the aluminum weight loss :H

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

BTW... Shiner I made a trip to the deer camp last weekend (I10) and made a solid 20 mpg.

Just got back from my trip to fill feeders at the deer lease. I hauled 26 50lb bags of corn and 16 50lb of protein (2,100 lbs total) down there. I had the cruise set 78 mph (speed limit is 75 mph) for about 95% of the way accept for the short period of time it is 70 mph on 410 where I was doing 73 mph and the stop signs to get to my house.

This is what I hauled down there 2,100 lbs.


My average speed is getting there is lower then my speed coming back because this includes having my truck running for 10 minutes doing 0 mph while I was getting the corn loaded up at the feed store along with idling at the drive through at Whataburger and a piss stop.


That is why I questioned how fast you were going with your average speed of 52 mph when you posted your 20 mpg reading. I had A LOT of idle time along with city driving through Pearsall being stopped at lights on this trip and still posted a 63 mph average speed.


This was my mileage coming back with 2,100 lbs less and only one piss stop and another drive through stop at Whataburger for the passengers. It is hard to read, but total miles is 145.1 with an average speed of 70 mph(which is far from your 52 mph average) at 17.5 mpg.




All these are just lie-o-meter stats though since I have not needed to fill up yet.

Thanks for the update... I know if I had your tires on my truck my mileage would probably drop. Anyways my son and I made another trip today as well with only 250lbs of corn and my drive to the deer camp I was at ~21mpg and coming back my truck went into regen and we stopped at San Felipe state park to visit my parents and drove thru the park as well. When I pulled into my driveway my fuel economy was at 19.8 mpg and average speed was ~50mph.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

spoon059 wrote:
Again... when did these become drag racing trucks and when did we get away from TOWING?

This test is not about drag racing trucks. It's about who has the best performance. You know, things like towing, hauling, braking, and fuel mileage. All of the things that are important to us that tow trailers. This test clearly showed who "had" the most HP and it wasn't the truck that "claimed" to have the most HP. Ram claimed to have the least amount of HP and they came in last place; just like they should have.

In partnership with the Canadian Truck King Challenge, we tested each of the big three HD pickup trucks for 2015. To be clear, it wasn’t an empty parking lot test that consisted of deciding which truck has the best cup holders. We loaded roughly 4,000 lbs of shingles into the bed of each truck the first day, while the second day consisted of pulling 15,000-pound fifth wheels and a full day of driving. We also had fuel economy loggers hooked into the ODB II port for the entirety of the testing to see exactly how much diesel it takes to get the job done.

But the real fun took place at the drag strip. Yes, you read that right: drag strip! We sent each of these trucks down the drag strip, trailers in tow, to get the real story on acceleration. And the results may surprise you, so read on to see how each truck fared.

Link to test

[spoon059]

Again... when did these become drag racing trucks and when did we get away from TOWING?

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
"The PSD was able to accelerate faster but the CTD holds the speed better on hills when both were loaded to the same GCW"

If you want a ZIPPY Diesel for just driving around then get the Ford. If you want a truck to hook up to a nice load and do a great job getting you up AND down the mountain get the BIG "C".

As far as I am concerned my 10K truck gets up and moves very well! Just does not "SOUND" like it!

As far as tearing things up take a look under a 13-15 RAM 3500 the components are massive. They are torque managed so they can't hurt themselves.

Hu? That's not what the facts show. Look at the trailer towing times.

But the truck still felt the least confident, not helped by the Cummins diesel under the hood. Here is where the numbers game begins to unravel. Despite being rated at 850 lb-ft of torque, the Ram feels lethargic. With and without weight, it will refuse to hurry despite what your right foot is doing. Throttle response is lackluster and even the brakes feel the squishiest of the three. Add on top of that a transmission that doesn’t seem to respond with any haste when asked to do anything and the Ram 3500 easily falls behind.
The data we collected doesn’t help either.

At the end of the second day, the Ram had the worst fuel economy average of the three, sitting at 10.5 MPG. Keep in mind that number consists of towing, hauling and runs on the drag strip, but all three trucks went through the same scenarios, so it is fair to compare the numbers. Running on our first empty highway leg, the Ram achieved an average of 15.9 MPG.

And how did it fare on the strip? The truck’s fastest quarter-mile run was clocked at 16.927 seconds when running empty and 23.581 with the 15,000-lb trailer attached. This was consistently the slowest of the three and it felt like it.

[Bedlam]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
If you want a ZIPPY Diesel for just driving around then get the Ford. If you want a truck to hook up to a nice load and do a great job getting you up AND down the mountain get the BIG "C".

I was comparing a diesel from 2005 to a 2015 because I owned both and both show the same horsepower under different standards. If I were to compare a 2015 6.7 PSD to the 2015 6.7 CTD, you may not like my opinion since engine performance was only one parameter when I selected my Ram over the Ford.

BTW: The Ford's exhaust brake in 2005 is still impressive today. The VGT's do a good job slowing the PSD or CTD powered trucks.

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

BTW... Shiner I made a trip to the deer camp last weekend (I10) and made a solid 20 mpg.

Just got back from my trip to fill feeders at the deer lease. I hauled 26 50lb bags of corn and 16 50lb of protein (2,100 lbs total) down there. I had the cruise set 78 mph (speed limit is 75 mph) for about 95% of the way accept for the short period of time it is 70 mph on 410 where I was doing 73 mph and the stop signs to get to my house.

This is what I hauled down there 2,100 lbs.


My average speed is getting there is lower then my speed coming back because this includes having my truck running for 10 minutes doing 0 mph while I was getting the corn loaded up at the feed store along with idling at the drive through at Whataburger and a piss stop.


That is why I questioned how fast you were going with your average speed of 52 mph when you posted your 20 mpg reading. I had A LOT of idle time along with city driving through Pearsall being stopped at lights on this trip and still posted a 63 mph average speed.


This was my mileage coming back with 2,100 lbs less and only one piss stop and another drive through stop at Whataburger for the passengers. It is hard to read, but total miles is 145.1 with an average speed of 70 mph(which is far from your 52 mph average) at 17.5 mpg.




All these are just lie-o-meter stats though since I have not needed to fill up yet.

[Cummins12V98]

"The PSD was able to accelerate faster but the CTD holds the speed better on hills when both were loaded to the same GCW"

If you want a ZIPPY Diesel for just driving around then get the Ford. If you want a truck to hook up to a nice load and do a great job getting you up AND down the mountain get the BIG "C".

As far as I am concerned my 10K truck gets up and moves very well! Just does not "SOUND" like it!

As far as tearing things up take a look under a 13-15 RAM 3500 the components are massive. They are torque managed so they can't hurt themselves.

[Pooter]

I just laugh at all the jacked up diesels with straight pipes doing stoplight racing around here. Don't think a used diesel will ever be in my future. They surely must be tearing up trannies, u-joints, and tires.