Are the 2016 Ram HD’s Output Figures Bogus?

[45Ricochet]

CLICKY

[Bigfoot_affair]

Once again all the Ram guy's making up some kind of excuse why the truck won't go over a curb. The guy that owns this truck said he had it in 4hi and his foot to the floor...

Clicky

[Cummins12V98]

larry barnhart wrote:
I would think all of us would take off easy to save the equipment when towing a fifthwheel. I always think when towing up a mountain I want the truck to do another mountain and not make this one the last one. I know I am old but walking sucks along any highway.

chevman

I agree, I have always taken off easy then push the go pedal. There is a lot of stress applied right at the start.

[Cummins12V98]

Bedlam wrote:

Bigfoot affair wrote:
With the extra torque in the 2016 maybe the Rams will be able to climb over a curb.

Nope, can't get over curbs

That has more to do with an empty back end with the driven wheels and the heavy front end against the curb. Most the diesel trucks will just spin the rear tires unless you have a little momentum in 2wd or switch to 4wd.

I think that was staged. With the rear on gravel he should have been spinning the wheels.

[ShinerBock]

stro1965 wrote:


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

Looking at the rear gear ratio only is looking at only part of the picture. The current 800 lb-ft Cummins mated with the 68RFE with a 3.42 rear end ratio actually sends more torque to the wheels than a 4.10 rear ratio 2011 650 lb-ft Cummins 3500 dually that used a 68RFE as well .


Ram 2014 2500/3500 6.7L CTD SRW 800 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm with 68RFE with 3.42 rear ratio
1st gear--800lb-ft x 3.23 x 3.42 = 8,837.28 lb-ft
2nd gear--800lb-ft x 1.84 x 3.42 = 5,034.24 lb-ft
3rd gear--800lb-ft x 1.41 x 3.42 = 3,857.76 lb-ft
4th gear--800lb-ft x 1.00 x 3.42 = 2,736.00 lb-ft
5th gear--800lb-ft x 0.82 x 3.42 = 2,243.52 lb-ft
6th gear--800lb-ft x 0.62 x 3.42 = 1,696.32 lb-ft

Ram 2011 3500 6.7L CTD DRW 650 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm with 68RFE with 4.10 rear ratio
1st gear--650lb-ft x 3.23 x 4.10 = 8,607.95 lb-ft
2nd gear--650lb-ft x 1.84 x 4.10 = 4,903.60 lb-ft
3rd gear--650lb-ft x 1.41 x 4.10 = 3,757.65 lb-ft
4th gear--650lb-ft x 1.00 x 4.10 = 2,655.00 lb-ft
5th gear--650lb-ft x 0.82 x 4.10 = 2,185.30 lb-ft
6th gear--650lb-ft x 0.62 x 4.10 = 1,652.30 lb-ft


So looking at the big picture of how much torque is being sent to the rear wheels, if the 3.42 rear ratio is not ideal for towing then you would have to say that the 4.10 rear ratio DRW trucks mated to the 650 lb-ft Cummins from just 4 years ago are even less ideal.

Although Ford's 6R140 transmission is geared with shorter gear ratios in each gear making it send more torque to the rear wheels than even your current truck.

[larry_barnhart]

I would think all of us would take off easy to save the equipment when towing a fifthwheel. I always think when towing up a mountain I want the truck to do another mountain and not make this one the last one. I know I am old but walking sucks along any highway.

chevman

[Bedlam]

Farmerjon wrote:

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?

I'm usually spinning under 2000 rpm at 65 mph in 6th gear on the Aisin. There are still grades I may climb in 4th with my 22k lb GCW, but those are usually twisting as they climb, so I am not taking them at 65 mph.

[Bedlam]

Bigfoot affair wrote:
With the extra torque in the 2016 maybe the Rams will be able to climb over a curb.

Nope, can't get over curbs

That has more to do with an empty back end with the driven wheels and the heavy front end against the curb. Most the diesel trucks will just spin the rear tires unless you have a little momentum in 2wd or switch to 4wd.

[mich800]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

stro1965 wrote:

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?

Actually its good since 5th gear is the same RPM as 6th with 4:10's. With the Aisin's lower starting gear it gets the load rolling well. I towed a combined load of 28-30K for 3.5 years with the 3:42's and 68RFE. It was fine but I always eased into it from a stop until I got the load rolling then I mostly ran 5th at 62.

Saying that I now tow 32K combined with Aisin and 4:10's and that combo is better for sure but the 3:42's and Aiain are a great combo up to some pretty big numbers.

Rear axle ratios are where the whole 1/2 ton to 3/4 ton debate seems to go. Some only see a number and formulate an idea in their mind some performance attribute without looking at the big picture.

Just like today's "1/2" ton trucks are nothing like older generations much the same way the OEM's are not just stuffing granddaddy's old 1:1 transmission and high first gear transmissions into their new trucks.

[Cummins12V98]

My Son has a 15 RAM 3500 SRW Aisin 3:42's. We hooked to his 14K dump trailer that was WELL OVER 14K with a big load of pea gravel. I was amazed how easy it got the load rolling and accelerated to speed.

[Cummins12V98]

stro1965 wrote:

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?

Actually its good since 5th gear is the same RPM as 6th with 4:10's. With the Aisin's lower starting gear it gets the load rolling well. I towed a combined load of 28-30K for 3.5 years with the 3:42's and 68RFE. It was fine but I always eased into it from a stop until I got the load rolling then I mostly ran 5th at 62.

Saying that I now tow 32K combined with Aisin and 4:10's and that combo is better for sure but the 3:42's and Aiain are a great combo up to some pretty big numbers.

[BenK]

It is done via ratios...

Why am noodling 4.88's or even 5.54's for my Suburban update....final ratio to
the axle will be around high 2' or low 3's...in my highest engine/tranny/OD//Xcase to the input shaft of the diff

BenK wrote:
Thanks for the info and links...

Almost exactly what my architecture is, but am going to up the ICE
and change the gearing considerably...just some of my what if noodlings..

Twin screw forced induction with my design inter-cooler (actually a copy
of a super car's), but designed to sit in place of the current intake
runners to my 7.4L.

Buddy (owns speed shop) and his engine builder thinks very doable
and guessing +600Ft/lb continuous...depending on how well the
inter-cooler works

An OD between the 4L80E and Transfer case to get an 8 speed setup

Batteries...am working with some folks on sodium-ion. Projected to be
less than 30% of the cost of Lith-ion. About the same power density
and size. Maybe smaller as it matures and cost should also drop once
it reached commodity levels...plus much more recyclable than Lithium,
which has a limited supply vs salt...plus salt is NOT as potentially
explosive and a fire hazard as Lithium

Rusty after decades away from my design days in Industrial Motor Controls,
but our inverters were some of the first regenerative braking during
those days...

This is the electric motor or it's little brother I want. Knew they
were also working on it's little brother when I found them consulting
on a military job...About the size of a basketball and 100% duty
cycle at 1,500 HP

Electrodynamics 1,500HP traction motor
electrodybnamnics1,500hp 1,500hp tractionmotor

Tractionmotor

Motor diameter: 25 inch
Length: 10.5 inch excluding shaft

Speed RPM.......Continuous HP......DC Bus Voltage

4500...........1500................1200

2400...........750.................600

1200...........375.................300

600............187.................150


All I need now is to win the Lottery... :B

[ktmrfs]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

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

peak HP doesn't necesarily win for acceleration. for similar weight vehicles it's the one with the most area under the torque curve in the rpm range you use, not peak HP. Not peak torque either. simple physics.

A broad flat torque range will beat a narrow high peak torque curve.

[spoon059]

Farmerjon wrote:
You are telling us the lower gears give more pulling power while at the same time defending the 3.42's for towing and wondering why everyone is concerned about speed?

I'm not following your question. We are talking about trucks with a curb weight of 7000+ plus. I don't understand why there are some people on here that think these are racing vehicles, not vehicles designed to haul weight. Ram put 3.42's in the 6.7 for 2500's and as standard for 3500's. I have yet to hear from anyone that couldn't move weight with the 3.42 axle.

If you want to race, you can do much better with $50K than buy a 3/4 or 1 ton truck. This is RV.net, not roadracer.net...

[Bigfoot_affair]

With the extra torque in the 2016 maybe the Rams will be able to climb over a curb.

Nope, can't get over curbs

[Farmerjon]

spoon059 wrote:

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...

You are telling us the lower gears give more pulling power while at the same time defending the 3.42's for towing and wondering why everyone is concerned about speed?