SRW vs DRW

[pressure_welder]

Good morning everyone hope your all doing well, So just recently we built a home off of a lake we used to camp at regularly, by doing that we've cut our camping in maybe half.... we spend our usual 1 month trip up at our favorite lake every year though, so our towing needs has decreased significantly, so i actually got rid of our 2015 ram 3500 limited drw about 2 years ago now just because i couldnt justify it carrying my butt around 90% of the year as a grocery getter. So for last two years ive been using the welding truck to pull our rig to the lake 2007 5.9 quad cab, with G56. The truck handles the load perfectly fine, its no rocket ship but it does quite well, on a side note the reverse gear on the G56 is HORRIBLE, your either riding the clutch the whole time or are a race car driver, geared way to high.

Anyway, the welding truck isnt horribly family friendly with the quad cab, and looking into weather or not a SRW 3500 would actually fill our needs accordingly, more comfortable for the family, easier daily driver, and a little more justifiable to own than a dually year round as my personal vehicle. Our situation is a bit different and i am not sure how to read it. We pull our camper and boat in tandem and here are the specs.


2018 montana 305RL - 14,270LBS loaded weight, 2395lbs pin weight

19FT crestliner sportfish - 3800LBS loaded weight/trailer, 300LBS tounge weight. on a tandem axle trailer, 23FT overall length


so with these numbers gets us in around that 18,000LBS total mark. However if i just had the fifth wheel a SRW 3500 should handle that without issue.... ive always thought of the boat as dead weight when in actuality its just rolling resistance of course until your stopping. Would i be correct to say that just adding the toungne weight of the boat to the camper weight, and maybe even 1000lbs extra for rolling resistance, would have me still safely within a SRW 3500 towing capacity?

all in all our main focus is to just acquire somthing more practical to own year round, and not have to use the welding truck to haul the rig up to the lake. Personal vehicle at the moment is a laramie eco diesel which is an amazing commuter, but i do miss my 6.7

[pressure_welder]

For me right now.... i am simply used to allowing my manual down shifting and exhaust brake to take care of a large percentage of braking for me, luckily the banks exhaust brake i have on this 5.9 is a monster when your able to downshift yourself. However the one that was on my 6.7 dually was quite effective as well. All in all the braking while important should be miniscule between the two vehicles, i would still vote for dually having more breaking ability. The used truck market is not in a purchasers favor at the moment thought that is for certain!

[Mike134]

Lantley wrote:

Devo the dog wrote:

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

The DRW test was done on a drag strip (Las Vegas motor speedway).
The SRW test was done on a dusty airport runway in Kingman AZ.

Those are two completely different surfaces. LOL.

I really don't think those conditions are that much different as to invalidate the results.

You've never raced on a dragstrip have you? The guys running for money will even select which lane is the stickiest to run on.
In addition airport runway friction levels will vary and the FAA requires it to be checked.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5320-12C/150_5320_12c_chg1.pdf

[Lantley]

Devo the dog wrote:

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

The DRW test was done on a drag strip (Las Vegas motor speedway).
The SRW test was done on a dusty airport runway in Kingman AZ.

Those are two completely different surfaces. LOL.

I really don't think those conditions are that much different as to invalidate the results. Dually has more braking ability.
It's not like one was in the rain vs. a sunny day.
If really in doubt conduct your own test. With your own trailer.
I have towed same trailer with dually and SRW.
Spoiler alert: The dually will stop faster.
I never knew or considered the DRW and SRW have same braking components. I simply recognized from the driver seat the dually stops quicker than the srw

[fj12ryder]

Mike134 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
What would be really interesting is if they did them pulling a trailer or 5th wheel. Same trailer, same test and see what the results were. That would be actually useful.

If the dually stops faster, I'd expect the same result pulling a trailer. Just have to make sure all test trucks send the same strength brake signal to the trailer.

Yeah, I figured that, but I was curious what the difference in stopping distances would be compared to an empty truck.

[rhagfo]

Devo the dog wrote:

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

The DRW test was done on a drag strip (Las Vegas motor speedway).
The SRW test was done on a dusty airport runway in Kingman AZ.

Those are two completely different surfaces. LOL.

It would be nice if they could get the vehicles for their test at the same time so the test would be in the same conditions.

[Mike134]

Devo the dog wrote:

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

The DRW test was done on a drag strip (Las Vegas motor speedway).
The SRW test was done on a dusty airport runway in Kingman AZ.

Those are two completely different surfaces. LOL.

Just goes to show how worthless internet info can be unless you drill down and verify. Sorta like the "facts" you hear boasted at the local gin mill after the patrons have had a few to many.

[Devo_the_dog]

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

The DRW test was done on a drag strip (Las Vegas motor speedway).
The SRW test was done on a dusty airport runway in Kingman AZ.

Those are two completely different surfaces. LOL.

[Mike134]

fj12ryder wrote:
What would be really interesting is if they did them pulling a trailer or 5th wheel. Same trailer, same test and see what the results were. That would be actually useful.

If the dually stops faster, I'd expect the same result pulling a trailer. Just have to make sure all test trucks send the same strength brake signal to the trailer.

[Grit_dog]

^That is interesting. I reckon I stand corrected!

[fj12ryder]

What would be really interesting is if they did them pulling a trailer or 5th wheel. Same trailer, same test and see what the results were. That would be actually useful.

[Geo_Boy]

Travlingman wrote:
Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

Imagine that.:B

[Travlingman]

Here is a challenge that Pickuptrucks.com ran on 2018 1 ton SRW and then 2017 1 ton DRW where they did a braking challenge from 60 MPH to 0.

1 ton SRW:
Chevy - 165.3 feet
Ford - 158.3 feet

1 ton DRW:
GMC - 133.39 feet
Ford - 139.68 feet

[fj12ryder]

Yes, if you have too much contact area you can lessen the braking ability. But that ain't gonna happen by adding a second and third tire at the rear while towing.

[Mike134]

Flashman wrote:

Mike134 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
If you have more contact surface, you'll have more friction/braking. That's why race cars have very wide tires: bigger tires=better grip.

Yep!! I can tell you paid attention in your HS physics class.

Consider a train - very small contact surface and pulling more than any RV. It is psi on the contact patch - the larger the patch the less PSI if the weight is the same.

It's not the PSI, it's the coefficient of friction between the 2 steel surfaces. "static" friction" vs "sliding friction" The Steam engine is an example what happens when the weight remains the same but you loss your static friction and now have sliding friction. ABS brakes another example.

[Flashman]

fj12ryder wrote:

Flashman wrote:

Mike134 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
If you have more contact surface, you'll have more friction/braking. That's why race cars have very wide tires: bigger tires=better grip.

Yep!! I can tell you paid attention in your HS physics class.

Consider a train - very small contact surface and pulling more than any RV. It is psi on the contact patch - the larger the patch the less PSI if the weight is the same.

Now if that were true, race cars and dragsters would have very skinny tires. But they don't, why do you suppose that is?

Don't know.

But when trying for traction off road a skinny tire is better in many situations. If one wants to float as opposed to digging in then wide tires are better. If one wants to dig down to traction the thin tire is better.