Ram 2500 Diesel

[stapler101]

I have a 2018 Ram 2500, diesel, short bed, "standard" rear end.
I am considering a 42 ft 5th wheel trailer with an empty weight of 12K.
Will my truck handle it on cross country trips with hills and mountains?

[wanderingaimles]

Shiner, I get what you are saying about specialized buyers wanting specialized specs for their purposes. But, if you subscribe to that as a generality, why rate any non commercial truck for over 9900 lbs ever? Why not sell 9900 lb f-450 dually models?
Everybody can save a buck on their recreational plates.

[ShinerBock]

I will also add that de-rating or even up-rating a truck happens a lot in the medium/heavy duty industry that I work in. In most cases it comes down to regulations and/or money.

Here is a great article about re-rating a truck from two employees at Ford's VSO department, one being an engineer. It also further explains why a fleet customer would want a 10k GVWR truck.

"Beattie and Chew noted their greatest involvement comes with vehicles rated at 10,000 lbs. and under. With heavy and medium trucks, VSOs are now set up to accommodate the special GVW ratings. One requirement for vehicles over 10,000 GVW is that the drivers maintain comprehensive logbooks.

So, according to Chew, "The customer might say 'I'm willing to give up the payload capacity. I really don't need it. I want you to de-rate the vehicle. I'm happy to have all the components that allow me to have that much capacity, but I want a vehicle that's rated at 10,000 lbs. or less, so I can avoid maintaining logbooks and some of the other markings that must be on the vehicle.' "

He added the logbook and vehicle marking issues are the main reasons, over the past few years, the VSO group has been asked to do a 10,000 lb. de-rate from a higher GVWR — either 11,500 or 10,700 lbs.

Canada mandates a similar requirement as well, based on a GVWR of 4.5 metric tonnes (9,900 lbs.)"

Re-rating GVWR: Why and How it's Done


As I said before, Ram seems to take a different approach than Ford by just increasing the actual carrying ability of a 2500(that is already at 10k GVWR) with higher GAWRs and other components for these types of customers rather than de-rating a 3500.

[wanderingaimles]

Grit dog wrote:
"If you really want to go into the weeds you would need to examine the rest of the vehicle. Is the braking system the same? Or are the 3500 series brakes heavier? I honestly don't know, and don't care, because I have always assumed that the engineers designing something and a manufacturing a piece of equipment that are willing to put a warranty on it, have a better idea of what it can do than the average guy with a toolbox and a JCWhitney catalog. "

Don't know and don't care is why the mfgs recommendations exist in the first place probably.
But for those that do know and understand (don't have to care), incorrect assumptions from folks that don't know are false information.

As I said, dont know and dont care, because I typically dont push way beyond the vehicle specs.
I acknowledged that I have overloaded my truck on occasion, short distances, low speeds, and decided to take the inherent risk on myself.
I would not for example have taken my truck, loaded 1000 pounds past the cargo cap, and hit the interstates at 70+ mph for a 1000 mile interstate trip.
Would I have made it? Probably. Was it prudent? NO. And if an emergency situation was presented, could I have avoided it? Cant say, but the overloaded condition definitely would not have helped me or been beneficial.

As someone who worked in structural engineering, I know you design and build to 25-50% beyond the spec.

Stresses caused by swerving to avoid an unforeseen object, or rapid braking becomes a major hazard, and when the piece of equipment is pushed beyond its designed capabilities, you run the risk of going beyond the designed in safety margin.
I worked for an auto dealer years ago, and owned an auto service shop recently, and as a prudent business owner and technician, while I may have strayed from accepted safety margins, I would never recommend that someone else do so.

[ShinerBock]

Here is a list of regulations placed on a commercial vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 and up.

Commercial Motor Vehicles

Could You be Subject to DOT Regulations and Not Know It?

As you can see, there many added cost and regulations associated with a truck over 10,001 GVWR for a fleet. Many states will have added regulations on top of these. So there is a reason why a manufacturer would want to keep its GVWR below 10k even though the trucks other ratings are well above that. The manufacturers would lose a lot of fleet customers if they no longer offered a 10k GVWR truck. That is why Ford offers to de-rate an F350 and Ram makes their 2500 more capable.

[ShinerBock]

wanderingaimlessly wrote:


In most cases, the answer to your question is that they saved money by using the same components as on another vehicle. Be it brakes, frame or whatever.

I am guessing you never actually worked for a vehicle manufacturer or dealer before?

wanderingaimlessly wrote:

I could use your logic to likewise ask "why list the front axle higher than 5000 and the rear axle over 5000 since the total rig is rated for 10,000."

Because many fleet customers want a truck option below 10k GVWR to pay less on state registrations and insurance. 10k GVWR trucks also do not have to abide by many costly DOT regulations in most states either which would require the driver to have a CDL. And while they want a truck that is under 10k GVWR for on road use, they still want the capability of over 10k GVWR for off road use like many of my oilfield and mining customers.

This is exactly why Ford offers an option to de-rate the F350 from a 12k GVWR to a 10k GVWR. It is the exact same truck with an F350 on the door, but Ford will replace the 12k GVWR rating with a 10k GVWR for these types of customers. Ram takes a different approach and just makes their 2500's capabilities closer to their 3500 for customers that want a more capable truck, but with a 10k GVWR.

[Grit_dog]

"If you really want to go into the weeds you would need to examine the rest of the vehicle. Is the braking system the same? Or are the 3500 series brakes heavier? I honestly don't know, and don't care, because I have always assumed that the engineers designing something and a manufacturing a piece of equipment that are willing to put a warranty on it, have a better idea of what it can do than the average guy with a toolbox and a JCWhitney catalog. "

Don't know and don't care is why the mfgs recommendations exist in the first place probably.
But for those that do know and understand (don't have to care), incorrect assumptions from folks that don't know are false information.

[wanderingaimles]

ShinerBock wrote:

wanderingaimlessly wrote:


With the concept of the truck being a 10k lbs gvwr the engineers designed the springs for that weight. the springs are the same for either the CTD or a 5.7 gas, only the payload cap changes, because that is the stated goal of building a 10k lbs gvwr truck.

I gave my opinion, and stated why I dont think it's a good idea for the op's stated idea, if you want to suggest otherwise, feel free.

Yes, the brakes on the 2500 and SRW 3500 are exactly the same. The frames have the same ratings. The front suspension and front axle are the same, The rear axles are the same. The only difference is the rear suspension which is why a 3500's rear axle GAWR is 500 lbs more at 7,000 lbs while my 2500 is 6,500 lbs. Ram's (and most manufacturers) GAWR's are ratings of the whole axle system which includes brakes, tires, axles and suspension.

So if Ram designed my 2500 suspension around a 10k GVWR rating, then why did they give it a front GAWR of 6,000 lbs and the rear 6,500 lbs which is 12,500 lbs total. The 3500 of the same year has a front GAWR of 6,000 lbs and the rear of 7,000 lbs with is 13,000 lbs total.

In most cases, the answer to your question is that they saved money by using the same components as on another vehicle. Be it brakes, frame or whatever.
I could use your logic to likewise ask "why list the front axle higher than 5000 and the rear axle over 5000 since the total rig is rated for 10,000."

I can think of several scenarios where the weights could be a problem. As an example,,,
You are in a fairly new truck, under warranty, and experience a major breakdown. Get towed by a Ram dealer to their facility and they note that you were towing something which caused you to exceed their weight limits, (this would be my luck) and they void your warranty.

I have hauled gravel several times in my 2500 and had it at least 1000 pounds over the mfr's limit, but,,,
I was past my warranty,
I knew it was only a short distance on flat roads
and I knew the liklihood of a weight check was near nil.
All of that being said, I would not tell someone else to do it. I may tell them I have, but I decided to take the risk.

[ShinerBock]

wanderingaimlessly wrote:


With the concept of the truck being a 10k lbs gvwr the engineers designed the springs for that weight. the springs are the same for either the CTD or a 5.7 gas, only the payload cap changes, because that is the stated goal of building a 10k lbs gvwr truck. And engineers tend to build to suit the design need, not the backyard mechs dreams.

If you really want to go into the weeds you would need to examine the rest of the vehicle. Is the braking system the same? Or are the 3500 series brakes heavier? I honestly don't know, and don't care, because I have always assumed that the engineers designing something and a manufacturing a piece of equipment that are willing to put a warranty on it, have a better idea of what it can do than the average guy with a toolbox and a JCWhitney catalog.

I gave my opinion, and stated why I dont think it's a good idea for the op's stated idea, if you want to suggest otherwise, feel free.

Yes, the brakes on the diesel 2500 and diesel SRW 3500 are exactly the same. The frames have the same ratings. The front suspension and front axle are the same, The rear axles are the same. The only difference is the rear suspension which is why a 3500's rear axle GAWR is 500 lbs more at 7,000 lbs while my 2500 is 6,500 lbs. Ram's (and most manufacturers) GAWRs are ratings of the whole axle system which includes brakes, tires, axles and suspension.

So if Ram designed my 2500 suspension around a 10k GVWR rating, then why did they give it a front GAWR of 6,000 lbs and the rear 6,500 lbs which is 12,500 lbs total. The 3500 of the same year has a front GAWR of 6,000 lbs and the rear of 7,000 lbs which is 13,000 lbs total.

[wanderingaimles]

Grit dog wrote:


You're missing the point because you can't see through your mfgs gvw rating glasses...
Put aside some people's perceived "liability" of the matter for a moment and think about it.
YOUR truck has a 3klb payload. How much heavier is your truck's unladen rear axle weight than a comparable diesel 4wd? I'll answer for you.
About 1/2 the weight of the transfer case, so about 100lbs heavier.
Yet, with the same rear suspension and chassis, the diesels are considerably less, but pretty much all the diesel's (and front axle) weight is on the front axle. Therefore, the rear end of the truck with the SAME everything else is just as safe and capable.

With the concept of the truck being a 10k lbs gvwr the engineers designed the springs for that weight. the springs are the same for either the CTD or a 5.7 gas, only the payload cap changes, because that is the stated goal of building a 10k lbs gvwr truck. And engineers tend to build to suit the design need, not the backyard mechs dreams.

If you really want to go into the weeds you would need to examine the rest of the vehicle. Is the braking system the same? Or are the 3500 series brakes heavier? I honestly don't know, and don't care, because I have always assumed that the engineers designing something and a manufacturing a piece of equipment that are willing to put a warranty on it, have a better idea of what it can do than the average guy with a toolbox and a JCWhitney catalog.

I gave my opinion, and stated why I dont think it's a good idea for the op's stated idea, if you want to suggest otherwise, feel free.

[Grit_dog]

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
You still have not understood my point. The 2500 is designed for the 10k limit. the frame, engine one tranny etc are the same as the heavier 3500 series. BUT by design the coil springs are spece'ed to be ideal for the 10K weight. and unless you want to modify, ignore, or overload, they are what causes the limit to be at that point on the truck as built.
Yes I have a 2500 but 2wd, mine is near 3000 lbs because of the gas engine I have towed tt's and had a TC for a while. But I dont tend to jump in and out of my trucks frequently so I Have not had a need as of yet for a diesel.

You're missing the point because you can't see through your mfgs gvw rating glasses...
Put aside some people's perceived "liability" of the matter for a moment and think about it.
YOUR truck has a 3klb payload. How much heavier is your truck's unladen rear axle weight than a comparable diesel 4wd? I'll answer for you.
About 1/2 the weight of the transfer case, so about 100lbs heavier.
Yet, with the same rear suspension and chassis, the diesels are considerably less, but pretty much all the diesel's (and front axle) weight is on the front axle. Therefore, the rear end of the truck with the SAME everything else is just as safe and capable.

[wanderingaimles]

You still have not understood my point. The 2500 is designed for the 10k limit. the frame, engine one tranny etc are the same as the heavier 3500 series. BUT by design the coil springs are spece'ed to be ideal for the 10K weight. and unless you want to modify, ignore, or overload, they are what causes the limit to be at that point on the truck as built.
Yes I have a 2500 but 2wd, mine is near 3000 lbs because of the gas engine I have towed tt's and had a TC for a while. But I dont tend to jump in and out of my trucks frequently so I Have not had a need as of yet for a diesel.

[rhagfo]

stapler101 wrote:
the trailer I am looking at is a Wildcat 384mb with a hitch weight of 2080 and dry weight of 12443,
I did not know about the door sticker until your post.
My door stickers shows 2380.

Here is my read on this, as one who towed a 12,500# fiver with a 2001 Ram CTD at 1,700# over the 8,800# GVWR.

Will the truck pull it, absolutely no issue there same engine as base 3500. Will you be over GVWR and rear GAWR yes to GVWR, and maybe close to GAWR.
When I finally moved to a 3500 DRW I was 10,500# on the TV, with just shy of 6,000# on the rear axle.

One thing to think about about your choice of 5er, is at 42' it only has a payload of 1,958#, that is less than I have on our 32' 5er!

I see you in trouble keeping both TV and 5er under GVWR.

So lets look at some numbers,
2018 Wildcat 384mb specs
Length 42'
Width 96"
Height 12' 7"
Dry Weight 12,101#
Payload 1,958# (17%)
Hitch Weight 2,059#
GVWR 14,059#
Wet Hitch;
At 17% of GVWR 2,390#
At 20% of GVWR 2,812#
At 22% of GVWR 2,652#
At 25% of GVWR 3,015#

So at GVWR and 17% pin same as dry you are already 10# over 10,000#.
Now that is nothing, but add hitch, passengers, stuff, likely not 17% but closer to 22% for smooth ride you are looking at 11,000# on the TV. Check you tire size, 17" not good only 3,195# each, 18" or 20" you have enough tire.
The reason I chose to step up to a 3500 DRW was not getting cited by a LEO, but being taken to Civil Court by a very hungry injury lawyer.

It is your choice to tow over GVWR, just realize there can be consequences other than a ticket.

[ib516]

wanderingaimlessly wrote:

ib516 wrote:

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
Yeah , it's sad, but the coil suspension makes that light riding truck, have very little payload after you allow for the diesels weight.

Sorry my friend, but that is 100% BS.

The 2380# payload is typical for the 2500 crew cab diesel class and has zero to do with the rear springs, and everything to do with the 10k weight limit for class 2 trucks (that is until GM changed the rules sort of, but that's another topic).

All that means is your truck weighs 10,000 - 2380 = 7620# empty as it sits.

The coil spring rear suspension gives a better ride, empty or loaded, but does not reduce the available payload. Trains engines ride on coil springs, and I think they're pretty heavy.

And I simply said it was a light payload cap. And advised how to check it.
The Manufacturers guidelines show the light payload. I did point out that tow capacity was more than sufficient especially since it is the same engine as the 3500 series.
If you want to overload yours, go ahead, but acknowledge that you do this by your own decision and thought process, and at some point some agency or lawyer will prosecute/sue someone for violating the guidelines and going over the 10,000 limit you point out.
What the rear axle in and of itself can carry wont be the determining factor.
And whether or not a train engine has leaf or coil springs has nothing to do with springs spec'ed out to give that soft ride at a 10,000 weight limit in this pickup.

No, you stated the coils were to blame for the light payload which is completely untrue. Have you owned a Ram 2500 with rear coil suspensions and towed a 5th wheel with it? I have.

Maybe you didn't mean for it to be read the way you wrote it, but, other than the oddly placed comma, your statement directly attributed the light payload to the rear coil springs.
"it's sad, but the coil suspension makes that light riding truck have very little payload after you allow for the diesels weight"

And the truck does ride very well. You may not have been on these forums then, but I did a test with a friend who had a:

2014 Ram 3500 SRW short bed, 4x4, crew cab, 6.7L diesel
and compared it to my then
2014 Ram 2500 short bed, 4x4, crew cab, 6.4L Hemi

And we towed his 14,000# 41' 5er back to back with each truck and MEASURED the squat difference in the rear suspension, along with 0-60 and a few other things. I posted pictures on this forum and a written report. My 2500 squatted exactly 1 inch more than the leaf sprung 3500 that had a 500# higher rear GAWR (7000# vs 6500#) and a 1500# higher GVWR (11,500# vs 10,000#).

I also did a comparison to the 2007 Ram 3500 SRW Megacab (with factory rear overload leaf springs and Torqlift Stable Loads) to my 2014 RAM 2500 with the same 5er, back to back. I measured squat there too and the 2500 squatted less than the 3500 - even with the rear suspension add ons the 3500 had. So yes, I feel I'm pretty qualified to talk about the characteristics of a coil sprung Ram 2500 truck.

The point about the trains was to illustrate that coil springs do not equal weak as most uneducated assume because before the 2014 RAM 2500, they were typically found on lighter duty applications in the automotive world.

[IdaD]

stapler101 wrote:
I have a 2018 Ram 2500, diesel, short bed, "standard" rear end.
I am considering a 42 ft 5th wheel trailer with an empty weight of 12K.
Will my truck handle it on cross country trips with hills and mountains?

I can't really say without more detail on the trailer, but with bags or Timbrens your truck will handle that trailer as well as any same year SRW 3500. Just register it properly. As others have said the only difference in fourth gen Rams is the rear suspension (and the availability of the Aisin/HO CTD, which has nothing to do with load carrying capacity). I run timbrens on my Ram and I think they work great, particularly as they sit outside the coils so they effectively widen out the suspension.

That said, a DRW truck might be a better fit for cross country trips with a 42' trailer. If you are thinking of upgrading it would be a total waste to buy a SRW 3500 when $200 timbrens would accomplish the same thing.

[wanderingaimles]

ib516 wrote:

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
Yeah , it's sad, but the coil suspension makes that light riding truck, have very little payload after you allow for the diesels weight.

Sorry my friend, but that is 100% BS.

The 2380# payload is typical for the 2500 crew cab diesel class and has zero to do with the rear springs, and everything to do with the 10k weight limit for class 2 trucks (that is until GM changed the rules sort of, but that's another topic).

All that means is your truck weighs 10,000 - 2380 = 7620# empty as it sits.

The coil spring rear suspension gives a better ride, empty or loaded, but does not reduce the available payload. Trains engines ride on coil springs, and I think they're pretty heavy.

And I simply said it was a light payload cap. And advised how to check it.
The Manufacturers guidelines show the light payload. I did point out that tow capacity was more than sufficient especially since it is the same engine as the 3500 series.
If you want to overload yours, go ahead, but acknowledge that you do this by your own decision and thought process, and at some point some agency or lawyer will prosecute/sue someone for violating the guidelines and going over the 10,000 limit you point out.
What the rear axle in and of itself can carry wont be the determining factor.
And whether or not a train engine has leaf or coil springs has nothing to do with springs spec'ed out to give that soft ride at a 10,000 weight limit in this pickup.