Truck Camper Magazine Chooses RAM

[Cummins12V98]

http://www.truckcampermagazine.com/news/tcm-debuts-2014-ram-3500

[wintersun]

Miami Vice wrote:
Truck Camper Magazine chose the 3.73 rear end to get better gas mileage.
If there same rig had the 4.10 rear end how much would their gas mileage suffer?
Miami Vice

Probably not at all. It is a game the manufacturers play to get higher fleet averages with the EPA testing that is not done on the highway much less with a 3,000 lb. camper sticking up out of the bed.

My 1998 Chevy Tahoe got 17 MPG over a period of 12 years and more than 170,000 miles and that was with 4.10 gears and a 4-speed automatic transmission. Now with 6-speed transmissions you get 2 overdrive gears so there is no penalty with an empty bed traveling down the highway with lower gears.

When you are towing a load or carrying a heavy camper with all the extra air drag it generates, higher gears work against the engine which spends less time in its peak power band. The more the transmission has to downshift the more momentum is lost and the more fuel that is wasted in the process.

It is really a moot point as a truck with a camper or a trailer in tow is not going to get good fuel economy. My truck with the camper and no head wind consumes 20% more fuel. Add in a 15 MPH headwind and fuel consumption goes up another 20%.

That the wife of the couple that runs Truck Camper Magazine preferred the look of the Ram truck is of no interest to me as someone else's wife may prefer the look of the Ford or the GM trucks and if they call the shots that will be the truck that is bought. It has nothing to do with the merits of one truck over another.

[Boatycall]

99Discovery wrote:
I'm a chevy guy ...So I'm looking for bigger.

Our condolences, understandable why you need a Ford.

:B

[hedgehopper]

brholt wrote:

hedgehopper wrote:

brholt wrote:

-Kevin wrote:


I think a 6.4 HEMI with 410 HP and 429 LB-Ft doesn't compare to 370 HP and 850 LB-Ft and I want more power pulling mountains around here sometimes.

As an engineer I kind of had to smile at this statement.

As an engineer, I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.

Horsepower is a measure of power so if someone wants more "power" they should choose the engine with more horsepower.

I think what Kevin meant to say was that he wants more torque. The diesel has less power but twice the torque.

[billtex]

deltabravo wrote:
The discussion about torque, downshifting, mountain driving is very good food for thought.

My #2 truck doesn't do camper hauling duties as it's not up to the task for my AF811. It's a 2006 2500HD. I haul the camper in a 2009 3500HD dually.
Both have a Duramax/6 speed Allison.

Here's my additions: I do part time RV transport with the 06. I do the same route every trip (it's a one day trip).
With a diesel truck towing the load, the truck barely breaks a sweat on the minor hills I pull. Most trips I can do 6th gear with cruise control the majority of the trip. This past week I hauled two identical 30' toy haulers and the truck stayed in 5th the entire trip, with cruise control on most of the way.

Hauling a camper is a lot different than towing a trailer with regard to wind resistance, etc. It takes a lot more effort to maintain a given speed, this is where high torque numbers of a diesel are a huge benefit on mountain passes.

I notice a huge difference in driving techniques between the two trucks when one tows and the other hauls the camper. The 09 will get worse fuel economy (it has a DPF and more wind resistance with the AF811) than the 06 does while towing 2-2.5 times the weight of my AF811. The 09 will be in 4th gear on some of the hills I can do 5th in while towing with the 06.

Gas engines have come a long way in the last 5 years, with cylinder deactivation, direct injection, etc. I'd be curious to try a new gas truck with how I use my current trucks to get a seat of the pants comparison.

delta..we have experienced similar. We often travel the same routes up north to the White Mts of NH. We get 15-16 mpg towing our 7000# Airstream and only 13-14 mpg hauling the TC. Wind resistance is a factor in performance/efficiency.

Bill

[deltabravo]

The discussion about torque, downshifting, mountain driving is very good food for thought.

My #2 truck doesn't do camper hauling duties as it's not up to the task for my AF811. It's a 2006 2500HD. I haul the camper in a 2009 3500HD dually.
Both have a Duramax/6 speed Allison.

Here's my additions: I do part time RV transport with the 06. I do the same route every trip (it's a one day trip).
With a diesel truck towing the load, the truck barely breaks a sweat on the minor hills I pull. Most trips I can do 6th gear with cruise control the majority of the trip. This past week I hauled two identical 30' toy haulers and the truck stayed in 5th the entire trip, with cruise control on most of the way.

Hauling a camper is a lot different than towing a trailer with regard to wind resistance, etc. It takes a lot more effort to maintain a given speed, this is where high torque numbers of a diesel are a huge benefit on mountain passes.

I notice a huge difference in driving techniques between the two trucks when one tows and the other hauls the camper. The 09 will get worse fuel economy (it has a DPF and more wind resistance with the AF811) than the 06 does while towing 2-2.5 times the weight of my AF811. The 09 will be in 4th gear on some of the hills I can do 5th in while towing with the 06.

Gas engines have come a long way in the last 5 years, with cylinder deactivation, direct injection, etc. I'd be curious to try a new gas truck with how I use my current trucks to get a seat of the pants comparison.

[deltabravo]

Duplicate thread.

Here's the first one:
Someone got a new 6.4L hemi 3500

[Miami_Vice]

Truck Camper Magazine chose the 3.73 rear end to get better gas mileage.
If there same rig had the 4.10 rear end how much would their gas mileage suffer?
Miami Vice

[billyray50]

3 tons wrote:
Since in the TCM article brand loyalty was effectively mute, I wouldn't case this in terms of brand wars, ultimately its always personal preference that causes one to sign on the line, period ...

I do however think that in this age of the 'Mega Camper' (well understood to require a H.D. 1 ton+ & DRW), the former 2by short bed gasser was inadequate as an overall camper test-bed. JMO.

Also fair to note that with a HD truck, Horsepower ratings should be saved for the glossier marketing brochures (as part of the brand theology wars...) since with a heavy load it's chiefly torque that matters. But then the fair question that should be asked is "torque at what RPM"??

It should also be pointed out that as good a news as the 6.4 Hemi's 429 ft/lbs is, that this figure occurs at a whopping (compared to a Dsl) 4,000RPM, which (with a heavy TC - especially so in the Western mountain ranges) will require a fair amount of downshifting into the lower cogs to keep one's forward momentum happy...

Compare this to the typical (but costlier to buy and to maintain diesel), of say 650 ft/lbs at 1,500 (07.5 dodge) where even with the largest camper, with a 16' x 7' enclosed trailer in tow, and up the Sierra Nevada's, downshifting occurs only occasionally and even then, from OD II (6th) to OD I (5th), all while maintaining acceptable freeway speeds. Its in this scenario that the side mirrors are what reveal a trailer is in tow - not downshifting. And power is even greater on the newest of diesels (i.e. silly power).

Yet admittedly, after just having to replace my dang VN turbo ($4,717 - at 108k mi due to perpetual EGR sooting...), the TCM article did catch my certain attention. It will be very interesting to see what size camper the experts at TCM mate to the mighty 6.4 Hemi - May the 6-7% grade wars begin!

3 Tons (out of necessity...)

3tons...After reading your last paragraph of your post I just bought a engine oil analysis kit from Genos garage and start monitoring the engine with regular testing. Hope it helps foresee any engine trouble in the future. I have been religious about my oil changes and maintenance with my 2006 5.9 CTD with 114,800 since I bought it new.. That kind of repair bill scares the heck out of me!!

[scottz]

I don't know, I read most of the article 😃 and it seemed to me that TCM chose ram because the DW said so! That, and everyone else bought up the 2014 GMs.

[brholt]

hedgehopper wrote:

brholt wrote:

-Kevin wrote:


I think a 6.4 HEMI with 410 HP and 429 LB-Ft doesn't compare to 370 HP and 850 LB-Ft and I want more power pulling mountains around here sometimes.

As an engineer I kind of had to smile at this statement.

As an engineer, I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.

Horsepower is a measure of power so if someone wants more "power" they should choose the engine with more horsepower.

[3_tons]

Since in the TCM article brand loyalty was effectively mute, I wouldn't case this in terms of brand wars, ultimately its always personal preference that causes one to sign on the line, period ...

I do however think that in this age of the 'Mega Camper' (well understood to require a H.D. 1 ton+ & DRW), the former 2by short bed gasser was inadequate as an overall camper test-bed. JMO.

Also fair to note that with a HD truck, Horsepower ratings should be saved for the glossier marketing brochures (as part of the brand theology wars...) since with a heavy load it's chiefly torque that matters. But then the fair question that should be asked is "torque at what RPM"??

It should also be pointed out that as good a news as the 6.4 Hemi's 429 ft/lbs is, that this figure occurs at a whopping (compared to a Dsl) 4,000RPM, which (with a heavy TC - especially so in the Western mountain ranges) will require a fair amount of downshifting into the lower cogs to keep one's forward momentum happy...

Compare this to the typical (but costlier to buy and to maintain diesel), of say 650 ft/lbs at 1,500 (07.5 dodge) where even with the largest camper, with a 16' x 7' enclosed trailer in tow, and up the Sierra Nevada's, downshifting occurs only occasionally and even then, from OD II (6th) to OD I (5th), all while maintaining acceptable freeway speeds. Its in this scenario that the side mirrors are what reveal a trailer is in tow - not downshifting. And power is even greater on the newest of diesels (i.e. silly power).

Yet admittedly, after just having to replace my dang VN turbo ($4,717 - at 108k mi due to perpetual EGR sooting...), the TCM article did catch my certain attention. It will be very interesting to see what size camper the experts at TCM mate to the mighty 6.4 Hemi - May the 6-7% grade wars begin!

3 Tons (out of necessity...)

[deserteagle56]

egarant wrote:

Wake me up if he is still seeing those double digit gas mileage figures while carrying a TC on the back. I'll be the first to congratulate him.

My only concern with the review was that it appeared that they were using the Rams' overhead display for mileage figures instead of hand calculating. I am on my second Ram/Cummins and I've found that the mileage figures provided by the overhead display on both trucks bore little relation to reality. Drive that truck a couple thousand miles, add up the fuel used and do the calculation. That's the only figure I'll believe!

[woodhog]

Their next camper must be quite large as they went to an 8 foot box, maybe it is a newly designed camper?

[hedgehopper]

brholt wrote:

-Kevin wrote:


I think a 6.4 HEMI with 410 HP and 429 LB-Ft doesn't compare to 370 HP and 850 LB-Ft and I want more power pulling mountains around here sometimes.

As an engineer I kind of had to smile at this statement.

As an engineer, I don't understand your point. Please elaborate.