From Tundra to which 3/4 ton

[katoom400]

In the market for a new hd truck, coming from a tundra 5.7, pulling power was never the problem, but payload was once we hooked up the Outback 250rs, filled the 8' bed with firewood, grill, coolers, 4-5 bikes, 2-3 kayaks, 4-5 people, and 50lb dog...

want to stay with a gas motor and don't want to spend much more than 35k, seems from the pricing I'm getting locally for each of the big 3, that the Chevy is the most expensive in the 3/4 ton gas powered arena. Stopped by a dealer today and they wanted 45k for a LT CC. Seems like the Ram and Ford are a bit less expensive.

I've been looking hard at the ram with the 6.4, but still considering the 5.7

I don't need leather...navigation and all that other crap. My Tundra grade truck has served me well for the last 5 years and never once did I wish I had more pulling power, leather or fancy this or that...

I know there is going to be someone who says "go diesel" but I really have not want or need for the oil burner given it is my daily driver 95% of the time with no load on it. the 8k price of admission really kills it for diesel also...can't afford it right now...and you only really get half of that back on resale...8k buys a lot of gasoline!

would love to hear from anyone who went from a Tundra (or any other 1/2 ton) into a 3/4 ton Ford or Ram gaser, and how much better the 3/4 tows compared to the 1/2 ton. I have no brand loyalty and think they are all pretty good these days.


Any input is greatly appreciated

[ib516]

katoom400 wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
IIRC the Power Wagon only has 1430lbs payload with an 8510lb GVWR.

what what what? same as my Tundra?

'Tis true. Low payload due to low GVWR due to softer springs for better axle articulation. Made more for off roading than towing & hauling. The tow rating is only around 10k IIRC.

[Bedlam]

The Power Wagon is more of a play truck than a work truck. It's like Ford's Raptor verses their 150HD.

[katoom400]

goducks10 wrote:
IIRC the Power Wagon only has 1430lbs payload with an 8510lb GVWR.

what what what? same as my Tundra?

[kmfvfr]

Playing devils advocate here....How much overweight are we talking with the current combination? If you haven't weighed the trailer with all the items in the box, people, etc for worst case scenario, you may not be extremely overloaded. If it were me and it was 3-400 lbs and I towed the combination 10 times a year, I would keep the Tundra. My trailer is similiar in size/weight, and I have had the pickup box filled with wood, generator, etc, and towed up 13 mile long hills gaining 6,000 ft in elevation multiple times in 105 degree heat with no issues. Just a thought....

[goducks10]

IIRC the Power Wagon only has 1430lbs payload with an 8510lb GVWR.

[katoom400]

spoon059 wrote:

katoom400 wrote:
power was boring when I stomped on it compared to my tundra with 4.30's, but I wasn't expecting much out of the good ole 6.0.

The 6.0 has quite a bit lower HP and TQ than your Tundra. I'm fairly certain it didn't have 4.30 gears in the rear either. Not sure what the trans ratios work out to be between the two, but the Tundra definitely will have more power. That being said, the GM 6.0 should have PLENTY of power to move whatever you are towing... just a bit less than you are used to.

Still waiting for Toyota to man up and offer an 8200 lbs GVWR or higher... That 5.7 is plenty of engine for it.

sorry, I should have clarified, the chevy had 3.73 gears and my Tundra 4.30 it will be interesting to test drive the ram tonight with the 5.7 and 4.56 gearing...but I'm scared about it's thirst for fuel.

[spoon059]

katoom400 wrote:
power was boring when I stomped on it compared to my tundra with 4.30's, but I wasn't expecting much out of the good ole 6.0.

The 6.0 has quite a bit lower HP and TQ than your Tundra. I'm fairly certain it didn't have 4.30 gears in the rear either. Not sure what the trans ratios work out to be between the two, but the Tundra definitely will have more power. That being said, the GM 6.0 should have PLENTY of power to move whatever you are towing... just a bit less than you are used to.

Still waiting for Toyota to man up and offer an 8200 lbs GVWR or higher... That 5.7 is plenty of engine for it.

[katoom400]

katoom400 wrote:
A 2013 power wagon just turned up locally for 34k, with only 6k miles on it.

going to look at it tonight but scared of fuel mileage with the 4.56 gears! If I'm not mistaken the overall payload/tow capacities are a bit lower for the power wagons as well. probably due to softer suspension??

also going to look at a 2012 silverado 2500hd 6.0 at lunch time...$28k

test drove the chevy, I was really not impressed. it drove nice and overall was a nice truck, but something just feels "old" about the interior, reminded me of my 2000 sierra 1500 interior which was modern 14 years ago, sorta felt like I went back in time in the 2012....

power was boring when I stomped on it compared to my tundra with 4.30's, but I wasn't expecting much out of the good ole 6.0.

Overall still a nice driving HD truck but didn't knock my socks off, it had 26k miles on it, and the wanted $35k for it...of course they only wanted to give me 10k for my tundra...going to have to sell it privately.

[PFitt]

Was just on Chevy build your own site 15' 2500HD LT CC GAS 4 x 4 trailer eq. tow mirrors brake controller 45,525 sticker rebates and friends and family discounts should bring that down 37-38000 range also check for 14' left overs around here they are giving big rebates order a new Chevy CC just the way you want and you can come here and watch it being built!! I work at Flint Truck ASM. we can build you a great truck!

[katoom400]

A 2013 power wagon just turned up locally for 34k, with only 6k miles on it.

going to look at it tonight but scared of fuel mileage with the 4.56 gears! If I'm not mistaken the overall payload/tow capacities are a bit lower for the power wagons as well. probably due to softer suspension??

also going to look at a 2012 silverado 2500hd 6.0 at lunch time...$28k

[ib516]

jalichty wrote:
The owner's manual on my 2012 Ram said 650 ft. pounds of torque. Based on my experience, I would think that was right. The Ram really bogged down when I was trying to pull my FW and boat together, like I had done with my old, 2003, D/A combo. Really had to get on the accelerator and put it in first gear to get going. No easing it out like with the D/A combo that I had, or the new one that I bought after nine months.

If it had an auto trans and it was a 2012, it was rated 350hp/800tq.

[jalichty]

The owner's manual on my 2012 Ram said 650 ft. pounds of torque. Based on my experience, I would think that was right. The Ram really bogged down when I was trying to pull my FW and boat together, like I had done with my old, 2003, D/A combo. Really had to get on the accelerator and put it in first gear to get going. No easing it out like with the D/A combo that I had, or the new one that I bought after nine months.

[katoom400]

normal_dave wrote:
The 2015 model, 2500 series I was hinting at in Georgia, "cough" sorta near the town of Bremen, "ahem" had the 3.73s...(btw, looks like 3 identically equipped at the sale price)
window sticker 2500 tradesman

The 1500 I mentioned, a (little farther North) in Chatt, Tennessee, probably not in the running now, had the optional 3.92, both had limited slip differentials.
Window sticker 1500 tradesman

If I'm not jumping off the cliff this time, well I hope somebody else will...

Edit
Here's several a little closer to home...North Carolina
A 2014, Ram 2500 6.4L smorgasbord

I called that dealer in NC, and like most that is the rock bottom price IF you qualify for every rebate they have..no military, no competitive lease in the household, not employed by an "affiliate" add $4000 to the price!

[normal_dave]

The 2015 model, 2500 series I was hinting at in Georgia, "cough" sorta near the town of Bremen, "ahem" had the 3.73s...(btw, looks like 3 identically equipped at the sale price)
window sticker 2500 tradesman

The 1500 I mentioned, a (little farther North) in Chatt, Tennessee, probably not in the running now, had the optional 3.92, both had limited slip differentials.
Window sticker 1500 tradesman

If I'm not jumping off the cliff this time, well I hope somebody else will...

Edit
Here's several a little closer to home...North Carolina
A 2014, Ram 2500 6.4L smorgasbord

[Bedlam]

8iron wrote:
So I'm guessing the "derated" numbers for the manual are because there is no torque management? Would it be a fair assumption that the effective available hp/tq is the same at the rear wheel between a manual and an auto that has the tq rolled back by the computer?

If you look at the tow ratings based on transmission, It looks like the weakest link is the transmission choice.

When I bought my Ford 10 years ago I wanted the manual until I saw the derated abilities - It was the first automatic I owned. I just bought a Ram and it has the Aisin.