![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/wink.gif "wink")
2016 Ram 3500 Mega Cab Limited/2013 Ram 3500 SRW Cummins(sold)/2005 RAM 2500 Cummins/2011 Sandpiper 345 RET (sold) 2015 Sanibel 3601/2008 Nitro Z9 Mercury 250 PRO XS the best motor made.
The new standard lays out minimum performance standards for acceleration, braking and handling. There are parking brake tests and grade-launch standards. The trailers used to conduct all such tests are spelled out specifically, and they must be ballasted and connected in a specific way.
And J2807 sets a minimum speed for the truck-trailer combination when climbing a specific mountain grade — the so-called "Davis Dam" grade that climbs eastward out of the Colorado River valley at Laughlin, Nevada. Cooling systems must bear the strain of the 11-mile trip when the outside temperature is at least 100 degrees and the air-conditioner is set to full blast.
2021 F150 2.7 Ecoboost - Summer Home 2017 Bighorn 3575el. Can Am Spyder RT-L Chrome, Kawasaki KRX1000. Retired and enjoying it! RIP DW 07-05-2021
Viperpoker wrote:
i believe all three use the same ratings system now.
The new standard lays out minimum performance standards for acceleration, braking and handling. There are parking brake tests and grade-launch standards. The trailers used to conduct all such tests are spelled out specifically, and they must be ballasted and connected in a specific way.
And J2807 sets a minimum speed for the truck-trailer combination when climbing a specific mountain grade — the so-called "Davis Dam" grade that climbs eastward out of the Colorado River valley at Laughlin, Nevada. Cooling systems must bear the strain of the 11-mile trip when the outside temperature is at least 100 degrees and the air-conditioner is set to full blast.
Minimum is the key word. GM has stated that they rate their trucks to the performance level that their customers have come to expect. That happens to be a higher level than the j standard. This can be seen in the many tests where GM smokes the competition at their rating. i believe all three use the same ratings system now.
The new standard lays out minimum performance standards for acceleration, braking and handling. There are parking brake tests and grade-launch standards. The trailers used to conduct all such tests are spelled out specifically, and they must be ballasted and connected in a specific way.
And J2807 sets a minimum speed for the truck-trailer combination when climbing a specific mountain grade — the so-called "Davis Dam" grade that climbs eastward out of the Colorado River valley at Laughlin, Nevada. Cooling systems must bear the strain of the 11-mile trip when the outside temperature is at least 100 degrees and the air-conditioner is set to full blast.
What are you getting that exceeds GMs rating?
I have been looking at big THs as well, and haven’t seen any that a GM could not tow.
Huntindog
100% boondocking
2021 Grand Design Momentum 398M
2 bathrooms, no waiting
104 gal grey, 104 black,158 fresh
FullBodyPaint, 3,8Kaxles, DiscBrakes
17.5LRH commercial tires
1860watts solar,800 AH Battleborn batterys
2020 Silverado HighCountry CC DA 4X4 DRW
2014 Ram 2500 6.7L CTD
2016 BMW 2.0L diesel (work and back car)
2023 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 3.0L Ecodiesel
Highland Ridge Silverstar 378RBS
ShinerBock wrote:
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
The other side of the coin is I'm never going to tow up the Davis Dam grade in 100° heat. So if it can do that at 35 mph, it should be just fine at 65 mph anywhere I'm going.
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
ShinerBock wrote:
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
GM uses the highest tie ratings for all of their other ratings. their gas trucks, 1500’s, 2500’s and srw 3500’s are all right there with ford and ram. doesn’t make sense that they would only choose to under rate their heaviest package, or that they have higher standards. i have owned 5 chevy trucks, one ford and one ram. not trying to start a pissing match, just trying to figure out why they are rated so much lower. they used to be as high as the other two.
iI would rather be using 70% of my trucks ability than 95%. if two silverados were side by side snd were the same price, and one was rated to tow 9,000 lbs more than the other i would choose the more capable truck.
i have been looking at some of these comparison tests, and they are sort of rigged. they are towing a lad of about 22,000. haven’t seen a test towing 31,000 lbs because only two of th trucks could compete. by that logic have a test towing 5000 lbs. most half tons trucks would win a drag race against a dually, and ride better. that doesn’t make them a better towing machine.
i am really just trying to determine what is the limiting factor on the silverado. not saying one is better than the other, don’t care.
ShinerBock wrote:
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
Because GM is not in a "best in class" pissing match like Ram and Ford are and I commend them for it. Just because your truck can tow 30k at the minimum 35 mph using J2807 doesn't mean that is what you have to rate your truck for. Using a higher minimum speed limit like 55 mph will make your tow rating lower than the J2807 standard, but it is a more reasonable speed at which most would prefer to tow and many will respect that. It is only the fan boys that are concerned with "best in class" and care about the highest tow ratings possible even though they themselves would never tow that much. This is coming from a Ram owner who also prefers a Ford over GM.
When you consider Class 8 trucks with under 600 HP haul 140,000 lbs through mountain passes all day long year after year, the 40,000 lbs GCWR for a 1 ton dually doesn't seem out of line to me. I think GM recognizes that the small market that exists for trucks that are used for tough work is not worth going after. Even towing the heaviest RVs down the highway is a walk in the park compared to a pick up used for off road work.
2023 F350 SRW Platinum short box 4x4.
B&W Companion
2008 Citation Platinum XL 34.5
troubledwaters wrote:
The other side of the coin is I'm never going to tow up the Davis Dam grade in 100° heat. So if it can do that at 35 mph, it should be just fine at 65 mph anywhere I'm going.
The other side of the coin is I'm never going to tow up the Davis Dam grade in 100° heat. So if it can do that at 35 mph, it should be just fine at 65 mph anywhere I'm going.
Not necessarily. The J2807 test at Davis Dam peaks out at just 3,500 ft above elevation at the very end. If you are towing above 5,000 ft, then you have lost a lot more engine power especially if your truck is naturally aspirated which looses about 3% engine power per 1,000 ft versus 1.5% for forced induction engines. The Ike Gauntlet for example starts at 8,000 ft and ends at 11,000 ft so you would probably be going a lot slower than 35 mph on the Ike if all you can do at Davis Dam is 35 mph towing the same amount.
However, why is having such a high tow rating (and only doing 35 mph to get that rating) so important? What would you rather be able to say, my truck can tow its rated 20k at a minimum of 55 mph or my truck can tow its rated 30k at a minimum of 35 mph? Why is lowering the standards just so you can post a higher tow rating number so important? That is like making a test easier just so you can get a better score like they do with many kids these days.
For most of us it's academic, and in the tests I've seen the Duramax holds its own just fine against the other two diesels with a comparable load. From a performance standpoint you really can't fault any of the current diesels.
2015 Cummins Ram 4wd CC/SB
The ratings are horribly low from my perspective.
OR, their needs to be more than one tow rating for a given rig, depending upon usage. OR a way for one to know how to derate the max rating, based on ones personal performance standards. Which is what a tow rating is. A performance standard.
Marty
92 Navistar dump truck, 7.3L 7 sp, 4.33 gears with a Detroit no spin
2014 Chevy 1500 Dual cab 4x4
92 Red-e-haul 12K equipment trailer
blt2ski wrote:
It might not be just speed too. The minimum grade % a rig can go up before stalling out is 12%. Not sure how many 12+% grades I'll go up today, but that grade is 3% lower than a class 8 uses for OTR work. 8% less than minimum for LDT work. 30% less than rigs potentially used off road, like dump and cement trucks.
The ratings are horribly low from my perspective.
OR, their needs to be more than one tow rating for a given rig, depending upon usage. OR a way for one to know how to derate the max rating, based on ones personal performance standards. Which is what a tow rating is. A performance standard.
Marty
It might not be just speed too. The minimum grade % a rig can go up before stalling out is 12%. Not sure how many 12+% grades I'll go up today, but that grade is 3% lower than a class 8 uses for OTR work. 8% less than minimum for LDT work. 30% less than rigs potentially used off road, like dump and cement trucks.
The ratings are horribly low from my perspective.
OR, their needs to be more than one tow rating for a given rig, depending upon usage. OR a way for one to know how to derate the max rating, based on ones personal performance standards. Which is what a tow rating is. A performance standard.
Marty
I know Ford actually does this (or at least used to before J2807) and it was in the owners manual or towing guide where most owners do not look. The max towing rating would decrease a certain percentage depending elevation and the frontal area size of what you were towing.
Although what I find funny is that I have seen many claim BS on lower towing numbers back before J2807 when each manufacture had their own standard. Now they are posting higher numbers with the J2807 standard and everyone thinks it is fine. In many cases, J2807 lowered the standards just so they can post higher numbers in advertising.
i am looking to get the most capable one ton truck that i can. i like silverados, have owned 5. but i am not blind. just wondering what part is not up to a higher tow rating. i am sure in a year or two when they raise the ratings they will tell us what was beefed up to increase the ratings. and they will brag about their improved capacity.
ram has jumped their ratings up about 8 or 9,000 lbs over the last few years. they attribute that to the aisin transmission being better than the 68rfe, and tuning the cummins to take advantage of it. you can still get a 68rfe, but it is rated about 8000 less than the aisin. one is obviously better to tow heavy.
that is the type of answer i was wondering about on the gm.
Viperpoker wrote:
there seems to be two types of replies to this question. some are speculating what is holding gm back, such as the allison. the others are basically saying that gm is too nice to brag and want to protect us from towing too much. i have no doubt, zero, that gm would publish numbers better than 32,000 if they could.
i am looking to get the most capable one ton truck that i can. i like silverados, have owned 5. but i am not blind. just wondering what part is not up to a higher tow rating. i am sure in a year or two when they raise the ratings they will tell us what was beefed up to increase the ratings. and they will brag about their improved capacity.
ram has jumped their ratings up about 8 or 9,000 lbs over the last few years. they attribute that to the aisin transmission being better than the 68rfe, and tuning the cummins to take advantage of it. you can still get a 68rfe, but it is rated about 8000 less than the aisin. one is obviously better to tow heavy.
that is the type of answer i was wondering about on the gm.
It has been this way for quite a few years now.there seems to be two types of replies to this question. some are speculating what is holding gm back, such as the allison. the others are basically saying that gm is too nice to brag and want to protect us from towing too much. i have no doubt, zero, that gm would publish numbers better than 32,000 if they could.
i am looking to get the most capable one ton truck that i can. i like silverados, have owned 5. but i am not blind. just wondering what part is not up to a higher tow rating. i am sure in a year or two when they raise the ratings they will tell us what was beefed up to increase the ratings. and they will brag about their improved capacity.
ram has jumped their ratings up about 8 or 9,000 lbs over the last few years. they attribute that to the aisin transmission being better than the 68rfe, and tuning the cummins to take advantage of it. you can still get a 68rfe, but it is rated about 8000 less than the aisin. one is obviously better to tow heavy.
that is the type of answer i was wondering about on the gm.
How do you square your thinking with the fact that GM smokes the other two at its rating?
I would not hesitate to tow with the GM at 23k
It performs the way I want it to
I would have concerns about towing with the Ram at 31k
35 mph up a hill does not impress me at all
* This post was edited 03/16/18 09:46am by Huntindog *
Groover wrote:
I have never seen a pickup builder discuss what the week link is but the last time I checked Allison does only rate the transmission for 300hp and 30,000lbs. I know that is the week link on my motorhome. I like to think that Allison is very conservative but then again I can't convince myself to test that theory. I hate that I have a rig built on a Freightliner chassis with commercial truck underpinnings hamstrung by an underrated transmission.
GM is wayyy over 300hp.
I have never seen a pickup builder discuss what the week link is but the last time I checked Allison does only rate the transmission for 300hp and 30,000lbs. I know that is the week link on my motorhome. I like to think that Allison is very conservative but then again I can't convince myself to test that theory. I hate that I have a rig built on a Freightliner chassis with commercial truck underpinnings hamstrung by an underrated transmission.
Huntindog wrote:
How do you square your thinking with the fact that GM smokes the other two at its rating?
I would not hesitate to tow with the GM at 23k
It performs the way I want it to
I would have concerns about towing with the Ram at 31k
35 mph up a hill does not impress me at all
Viperpoker wrote:
there seems to be two types of replies to this question. some are speculating what is holding gm back, such as the allison. the others are basically saying that gm is too nice to brag and want to protect us from towing too much. i have no doubt, zero, that gm would publish numbers better than 32,000 if they could.
i am looking to get the most capable one ton truck that i can. i like silverados, have owned 5. but i am not blind. just wondering what part is not up to a higher tow rating. i am sure in a year or two when they raise the ratings they will tell us what was beefed up to increase the ratings. and they will brag about their improved capacity.
ram has jumped their ratings up about 8 or 9,000 lbs over the last few years. they attribute that to the aisin transmission being better than the 68rfe, and tuning the cummins to take advantage of it. you can still get a 68rfe, but it is rated about 8000 less than the aisin. one is obviously better to tow heavy.
that is the type of answer i was wondering about on the gm.
It has been this way for quite a few years now.there seems to be two types of replies to this question. some are speculating what is holding gm back, such as the allison. the others are basically saying that gm is too nice to brag and want to protect us from towing too much. i have no doubt, zero, that gm would publish numbers better than 32,000 if they could.
i am looking to get the most capable one ton truck that i can. i like silverados, have owned 5. but i am not blind. just wondering what part is not up to a higher tow rating. i am sure in a year or two when they raise the ratings they will tell us what was beefed up to increase the ratings. and they will brag about their improved capacity.
ram has jumped their ratings up about 8 or 9,000 lbs over the last few years. they attribute that to the aisin transmission being better than the 68rfe, and tuning the cummins to take advantage of it. you can still get a 68rfe, but it is rated about 8000 less than the aisin. one is obviously better to tow heavy.
that is the type of answer i was wondering about on the gm.
How do you square your thinking with the fact that GM smokes the other two at its rating?
I would not hesitate to tow with the GM at 23k
It performs the way I want it to
I would have concerns about towing with the Ram at 31k
35 mph up a hill does not impress me at all
at 23k if you were using a ram would you rather have the 68rfe rated at 23k or the aisin rated at 31k? as i said before, i would rather be towing at 75% of my rated capacity than 100%. these numbers are not meaningless. there is a reason ram rates the 68rfe 8,000 less than the aisin.
Also, maybe since they knew they were going to be coming out with the class 4 and up trucks real soon, they want to sell those for heavy work and not have them competing with the 3500 line.
2003silverado wrote:
It might just be that GM only offers 3.73 gears where as you can get a 4.10 option from Ram and even a 4.30 option (I believe) from ford. Seems ford even used to offer 4.88's.
Also, maybe since they knew they were going to be coming out with the class 4 and up trucks real soon, they want to sell those for heavy work and not have them competing with the 3500 line.
It might just be that GM only offers 3.73 gears where as you can get a 4.10 option from Ram and even a 4.30 option (I believe) from ford. Seems ford even used to offer 4.88's.
Also, maybe since they knew they were going to be coming out with the class 4 and up trucks real soon, they want to sell those for heavy work and not have them competing with the 3500 line.
thanks, that makes sense, no 4:10. that probably accounts for half of the difference. that is the type of factual answer i was looking for, not the numbers don’t matter or gm doesn’t want to brag. without a 4:10 they will not be able to tow as much. for example, a ram is rated about 21k with a 3:42, 26k with a 3:73, and 31k with a 4:10. changing those gears makes a big difference.
Huntindog wrote:
Groover wrote:
I have never seen a pickup builder discuss what the week link is but the last time I checked Allison does only rate the transmission for 300hp and 30,000lbs. I know that is the week link on my motorhome. I like to think that Allison is very conservative but then again I can't convince myself to test that theory. I hate that I have a rig built on a Freightliner chassis with commercial truck underpinnings hamstrung by an underrated transmission.
GM is wayyy over 300hp.I have never seen a pickup builder discuss what the week link is but the last time I checked Allison does only rate the transmission for 300hp and 30,000lbs. I know that is the week link on my motorhome. I like to think that Allison is very conservative but then again I can't convince myself to test that theory. I hate that I have a rig built on a Freightliner chassis with commercial truck underpinnings hamstrung by an underrated transmission.
Maybe GM is just ignoring the rating. If you can find a higher number for the Allison 1000 I would love to see it.
Viperpoker wrote:
there is a reason ram rates the 68rfe 8,000 less than the aisin.
there is a reason ram rates the 68rfe 8,000 less than the aisin.
I'm not saying it is, but it could be marketing that influences at least part of that difference.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
that makes sense, i thought i had read that before. so the frame in combination with the gearing probably explains the difference.
Viperpoker wrote:
that makes sense, i thought i had read that before. so the frame in combination with the gearing probably explains the difference.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
that makes sense, i thought i had read that before. so the frame in combination with the gearing probably explains the difference.
Yeah, they made so many changes on both of those trucks during their respective redesigns that it's hard to know if that was all that was needed. I suspect there are differences to cooling, brakes and who knows what else.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
I believe both Ram and Ford had their new frames for at least a year or two before they started this pissing match and coincidentally it started after they both adopted the lower standards of the J2807. GM also upgraded their frame with their new trucks, but chose not to get into the best in class war.
ShinerBock wrote:
I believe both Ram and Ford had their new frames for at least a year or two before they started this pissing match and coincidentally it started after they both adopted the lower standards of the J2807. GM also upgraded their frame with their new trucks, but chose not to get into the best in class war.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
I believe both Ram and Ford had their new frames for at least a year or two before they started this pissing match and coincidentally it started after they both adopted the lower standards of the J2807. GM also upgraded their frame with their new trucks, but chose not to get into the best in class war.
Shiner, do you have any documented evidence that GM secretly has higher capabilities, but due to some brilliant marketing scheme they won’t tell anyone? If GM’s numbers mean nothing, I should just get one of their 1500’s rated at 9,000 lbs, because it is obviously underrated so they don’t get in a pissing match. GM doesn’t want to seem like they are competing with Ford and Dodge, so they purposefully misstate their capabilities on the extreme low side. Seriously???
Also a 6 cylinder Camaro will outrun a Shelby Mustang, but it is a secret that GM keeps so it doesn’t look like they are in a pissing match.
Where do you get your information? Did the Chevy sales rep tell you this?
Also, why is GM in a best of class war on every other level of truck? Looks like their SRW has a higher rating than Ram. Aren’t they afraid this will start a pissing contest?
ShinerBock wrote:
I believe both Ram and Ford had their new frames for at least a year or two before they started this pissing match and coincidentally it started after they both adopted the lower standards of the J2807. GM also upgraded their frame with their new trucks, but chose not to get into the best in class war.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
I believe both Ram and Ford had their new frames for at least a year or two before they started this pissing match and coincidentally it started after they both adopted the lower standards of the J2807. GM also upgraded their frame with their new trucks, but chose not to get into the best in class war.
Here is an announcement from GM in 2011. It looks like they used to be on top of the pissing match.
General Motors has just announced the hauling capacities for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups. The new trucks can now pull up to 21,700 pounds in fifth-wheel configuration and lug around 6,635 pounds worth of payload, thereby making them the new best-in class champions. The traditional tow rating sits at 17,000 pounds. What did GM change to give the trucks their new credentials? The company says that it extensively tested the trucks' systems, including the engine, transmission and brakes at the new gross combined vehicle weight and found that the thing could handle the abuse.
Both the Silverado HD and the Sierra HD now come with tougher bed rails, though. GM specified a new high-strength steel that can take more of a beating compared to last year's pieces. The new tow ratings best the next closest competitor, the 2011 Ford F-350, by 1,000 pounds on the conventional towing front and a more modest 100 pounds under fifth-wheel conditions.
ShinerBock wrote:
I know Ford actually does this (or at least used to before J2807) and it was in the owners manual or towing guide where most owners do not look. The max towing rating would decrease a certain percentage depending elevation and the frontal area size of what you were towing.
Although what I find funny is that I have seen many claim BS on lower towing numbers back before J2807 when each manufacture had their own standard. Now they are posting higher numbers with the J2807 standard and everyone thinks it is fine. In many cases, J2807 lowered the standards just so they can post higher numbers in advertising.
blt2ski wrote:
It might not be just speed too. The minimum grade % a rig can go up before stalling out is 12%. Not sure how many 12+% grades I'll go up today, but that grade is 3% lower than a class 8 uses for OTR work. 8% less than minimum for LDT work. 30% less than rigs potentially used off road, like dump and cement trucks.
The ratings are horribly low from my perspective.
OR, their needs to be more than one tow rating for a given rig, depending upon usage. OR a way for one to know how to derate the max rating, based on ones personal performance standards. Which is what a tow rating is. A performance standard.
Marty
It might not be just speed too. The minimum grade % a rig can go up before stalling out is 12%. Not sure how many 12+% grades I'll go up today, but that grade is 3% lower than a class 8 uses for OTR work. 8% less than minimum for LDT work. 30% less than rigs potentially used off road, like dump and cement trucks.
The ratings are horribly low from my perspective.
OR, their needs to be more than one tow rating for a given rig, depending upon usage. OR a way for one to know how to derate the max rating, based on ones personal performance standards. Which is what a tow rating is. A performance standard.
Marty
I know Ford actually does this (or at least used to before J2807) and it was in the owners manual or towing guide where most owners do not look. The max towing rating would decrease a certain percentage depending elevation and the frontal area size of what you were towing.
Although what I find funny is that I have seen many claim BS on lower towing numbers back before J2807 when each manufacture had their own standard. Now they are posting higher numbers with the J2807 standard and everyone thinks it is fine. In many cases, J2807 lowered the standards just so they can post higher numbers in advertising.
Chevy, at least for the 1500, had lower numbers when they adopted the standard.
2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2014(Pre SAE J2807) 2015(SAE J2807)
Regular cab 2WD 4.3L V-6 6.5' box 3.43 axle 6,400 lbs. 6,100 lbs.
Double cab 2WD 5.3L V-8 6.5' box 3.08 axle 6,900 lbs. 6,500 lbs.
Crew cab 2WD 5.3L V-8 5.7' box 3.42 axle 9,800 lbs. 9,400 lbs.
Regular cab 4x4 4.3L V-6 6.5' box 3.42 axle 7,600 lbs. 7,600 lbs.
Double cab 4x4 5.3L V-8 6.5' box 3.42 axle 9,600 lbs. 9,200 lbs.
Crew cab 4x4 5.3L V-8 5.7' box 3.73 axle 11,200 lbs. 10,800 lbs.
2015 GMC Sierra 1500 2014(Pre SAE J2807) 2015(SAE J2807)
Double cab 4x4 5.3L V-8 6' 6" box 3.42 axle 9,600 lbs. 9,200 lbs.
Crew cab 4x4 5.3L V-8 5' 8" box 3.73 axle 11,200 lbs. 10,800 lbs.
Viperpoker wrote:
Here is an announcement from GM in 2011. It looks like they used to be on top of the pissing match.
General Motors has just announced the hauling capacities for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups. The new trucks can now pull up to 21,700 pounds in fifth-wheel configuration and lug around 6,635 pounds worth of payload, thereby making them the new best-in class champions. The traditional tow rating sits at 17,000 pounds. What did GM change to give the trucks their new credentials? The company says that it extensively tested the trucks' systems, including the engine, transmission and brakes at the new gross combined vehicle weight and found that the thing could handle the abuse.
Both the Silverado HD and the Sierra HD now come with tougher bed rails, though. GM specified a new high-strength steel that can take more of a beating compared to last year's pieces. The new tow ratings best the next closest competitor, the 2011 Ford F-350, by 1,000 pounds on the conventional towing front and a more modest 100 pounds under fifth-wheel conditions.
Here is an announcement from GM in 2011. It looks like they used to be on top of the pissing match.
General Motors has just announced the hauling capacities for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups. The new trucks can now pull up to 21,700 pounds in fifth-wheel configuration and lug around 6,635 pounds worth of payload, thereby making them the new best-in class champions. The traditional tow rating sits at 17,000 pounds. What did GM change to give the trucks their new credentials? The company says that it extensively tested the trucks' systems, including the engine, transmission and brakes at the new gross combined vehicle weight and found that the thing could handle the abuse.
Both the Silverado HD and the Sierra HD now come with tougher bed rails, though. GM specified a new high-strength steel that can take more of a beating compared to last year's pieces. The new tow ratings best the next closest competitor, the 2011 Ford F-350, by 1,000 pounds on the conventional towing front and a more modest 100 pounds under fifth-wheel conditions.
The part that you are saying is GM's announcement is actually Autoblog's words. GM's announcement is at the bottom of that article (LINK) and was for a redesigned 2011 year model with the new 397hp/765lb-ft Duramax versus the 365hp/660lb-ft Duramax in the 2010. Manufactures usually increase ratings with redesigns especially when it comes with a more powerful engine.
ShinerBock wrote:
The part that you are saying is GM's announcement is actually Autoblog's words. GM's announcement is at the bottom of that article (LINK) and was for a redesigned 2011 year model with the new 397hp/765lb-ft Duramax versus the 365hp/660lb-ft Duramax in the 2010. Manufactures usually increase ratings with redesigns especially when it comes with a more powerful engine.
Viperpoker wrote:
Here is an announcement from GM in 2011. It looks like they used to be on top of the pissing match.
General Motors has just announced the hauling capacities for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups. The new trucks can now pull up to 21,700 pounds in fifth-wheel configuration and lug around 6,635 pounds worth of payload, thereby making them the new best-in class champions. The traditional tow rating sits at 17,000 pounds. What did GM change to give the trucks their new credentials? The company says that it extensively tested the trucks' systems, including the engine, transmission and brakes at the new gross combined vehicle weight and found that the thing could handle the abuse.
Both the Silverado HD and the Sierra HD now come with tougher bed rails, though. GM specified a new high-strength steel that can take more of a beating compared to last year's pieces. The new tow ratings best the next closest competitor, the 2011 Ford F-350, by 1,000 pounds on the conventional towing front and a more modest 100 pounds under fifth-wheel conditions.
Here is an announcement from GM in 2011. It looks like they used to be on top of the pissing match.
General Motors has just announced the hauling capacities for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD pickups. The new trucks can now pull up to 21,700 pounds in fifth-wheel configuration and lug around 6,635 pounds worth of payload, thereby making them the new best-in class champions. The traditional tow rating sits at 17,000 pounds. What did GM change to give the trucks their new credentials? The company says that it extensively tested the trucks' systems, including the engine, transmission and brakes at the new gross combined vehicle weight and found that the thing could handle the abuse.
Both the Silverado HD and the Sierra HD now come with tougher bed rails, though. GM specified a new high-strength steel that can take more of a beating compared to last year's pieces. The new tow ratings best the next closest competitor, the 2011 Ford F-350, by 1,000 pounds on the conventional towing front and a more modest 100 pounds under fifth-wheel conditions.
The part that you are saying is GM's announcement is actually Autoblog's words. GM's announcement is at the bottom of that article (LINK) and was for a redesigned 2011 year model with the new 397hp/765lb-ft Duramax versus the 365hp/660lb-ft Duramax in the 2010. Manufactures usually increase ratings with redesigns especially when it comes with a more powerful engine.
Right, here is GM’s actual press release, in their words. It seems like they are claiming first place in a pissing contest.
Silverado HD Bests the Competition with 21,700 Pound Towing and 6,635 Pound Payload Ratings
2010-05-18
DETROIT – Through ongoing development and testing, the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD capability ratings have been increased to 21,700 pounds of towing, and 6,635 pounds of payload. Based on these ratings, the Silverado HD will offer heavy-duty truck buyers the most power and most capability available in the segment.
Viperpoker wrote:
Chevy, at least for the 1500, had lower numbers when they adopted the standard....
Chevy, at least for the 1500, had lower numbers when they adopted the standard....
I thought we were talking about HD trucks? Besides(and I know I am going to get flamed for this), I never considered the GM 4.3L or 5.3L towing engines.
* This post was edited 03/16/18 02:57pm by ShinerBock *
Viperpoker wrote:
Right, here is GM’s actual press release, in their words. It seems like they are claiming first place in a pissing contest.
Silverado HD Bests the Competition with 21,700 Pound Towing and 6,635 Pound Payload Ratings
2010-05-18
DETROIT – Through ongoing development and testing, the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD capability ratings have been increased to 21,700 pounds of towing, and 6,635 pounds of payload. Based on these ratings, the Silverado HD will offer heavy-duty truck buyers the most power and most capability available in the segment.
Right, here is GM’s actual press release, in their words. It seems like they are claiming first place in a pissing contest.
Silverado HD Bests the Competition with 21,700 Pound Towing and 6,635 Pound Payload Ratings
2010-05-18
DETROIT – Through ongoing development and testing, the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD capability ratings have been increased to 21,700 pounds of towing, and 6,635 pounds of payload. Based on these ratings, the Silverado HD will offer heavy-duty truck buyers the most power and most capability available in the segment.
True, they are claiming to be better than the competition with the new numbers from their new more powerful engine like most manufacturers(regardless of what they make) boasts when they make something that has been improved. The difference between that and the Ram & Ford pissing match is that they kept increasing their number without changing a thing to their trucks for the sole purpose to claim they are "best in class".
ShinerBock wrote:
I thought we were talking about HD trucks? Besides(and I know I am going to get flamed for this) but I never considered the GM 4.3L or 5.3L towing engines.
Viperpoker wrote:
Chevy, at least for the 1500, had lower numbers when they adopted the standard....
Chevy, at least for the 1500, had lower numbers when they adopted the standard....
I thought we were talking about HD trucks? Besides(and I know I am going to get flamed for this) but I never considered the GM 4.3L or 5.3L towing engines.
The point was that they had to lower their ratings when the new standard came out, so it must not have been an easier standard.
I was just wondering why they were so low comparatively, just on the max tow. They are not that low anywhere else. No 4:10 gears explains some. Wasn’t interested in a bunch of guys saying, oh they will tow it just fine, they have the ability but don’t want to brag about it. That is sort of a stupid statement, or would come from someone who works for GM. Chevy used to brag when they were on top of the heap. I’m sure they would love to again. Some decision has been made at some level not to upgrade these trucks, not to put in a 4:10 gear, whatever, but not to go after the high end of the one ton towing market.
ShinerBock wrote:
True, they are claiming to be better than the competition with the new numbers from their new more powerful engine like most manufacturers(regardless of what they make) boasts when they make something that has been improved. The difference between that and the Ram & Ford pissing match is that they kept increasing their number without changing a thing to their trucks for the sole purpose to claim they are "best in class".
Viperpoker wrote:
Right, here is GM’s actual press release, in their words. It seems like they are claiming first place in a pissing contest.
Silverado HD Bests the Competition with 21,700 Pound Towing and 6,635 Pound Payload Ratings
2010-05-18
DETROIT – Through ongoing development and testing, the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD capability ratings have been increased to 21,700 pounds of towing, and 6,635 pounds of payload. Based on these ratings, the Silverado HD will offer heavy-duty truck buyers the most power and most capability available in the segment.
Right, here is GM’s actual press release, in their words. It seems like they are claiming first place in a pissing contest.
Silverado HD Bests the Competition with 21,700 Pound Towing and 6,635 Pound Payload Ratings
2010-05-18
DETROIT – Through ongoing development and testing, the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD capability ratings have been increased to 21,700 pounds of towing, and 6,635 pounds of payload. Based on these ratings, the Silverado HD will offer heavy-duty truck buyers the most power and most capability available in the segment.
True, they are claiming to be better than the competition with the new numbers from their new more powerful engine like most manufacturers(regardless of what they make) boasts when they make something that has been improved. The difference between that and the Ram & Ford pissing match is that they kept increasing their number without changing a thing to their trucks for the sole purpose to claim they are "best in class".
Ram added an Aisin transmission to make their numbers go up. The engine also has increased from 800 to 930 ft lbs of torque.
GM numbers actually increased a little for some variations of the HDs and none decreased. GMs 1/2 tons took a major hit
When GM realized that Ford was now ahead in the advertised (fake) numbers,they retracted their numbers.
This may have a lot to do with not wanting to play the numbers game anymore.
They were the first to use the j standard and stuck with it even though they were showing lower numbers
It likely cost them a lot of sales
GM gets credit for trying to do the right thing but lacked the will to see-it through
Ford gets credit for the snake oil award
Huntindog wrote:
2011, I know that year well. I have one of the first dually cc DAs made. The j standard was just coming out. GM and Ford both said they would release their numbers GM did They were posted on this forum for a short time Ford backed out stating that they would wait for a major redesign
GM numbers actually increased a little for some variations of the HDs and none decreased. GMs 1/2 tons took a major hit
When GM realized that Ford was now ahead in the advertised (fake) numbers,they retracted their numbers.
This may have a lot to do with not wanting to play the numbers game anymore.
2011, I know that year well. I have one of the first dually cc DAs made. The j standard was just coming out. GM and Ford both said they would release their numbers GM did They were posted on this forum for a short time Ford backed out stating that they would wait for a major redesign
GM numbers actually increased a little for some variations of the HDs and none decreased. GMs 1/2 tons took a major hit
When GM realized that Ford was now ahead in the advertised (fake) numbers,they retracted their numbers.
This may have a lot to do with not wanting to play the numbers game anymore.
Right. My point was that this is a standard benchmark that all three are using now. All else being equal, the Chevy is down from only having a 3:73 gear. I think everyone agrees that a lower gear can tow more, and for some reason Chevy does not match the gear ratio of Ford and Ram.
Viperpoker wrote:
Ram added an Aisin transmission to make their numbers go up. The engine also has increased from 800 to 930 ft lbs of torque.
Ram added an Aisin transmission to make their numbers go up. The engine also has increased from 800 to 930 ft lbs of torque.
Ram has had the Aisin and the 385hp/865lb-ft Cummins in 2013 until 2016 when they increased it to 900lb-ft. From 2013 to 2015 it was the same frame, trans, and engines yet miraculously it was able to tow over 30k all of the sudden in 2015 when they went J2807 compliant even though nothing changed on the truck from 2014-2015.
chevman
2019 rockwood 34 ft fifth wheel sold
2005 3500 2wd duramax CC dually
prodigy
KSH 55 inbed fuel tank
scanguage II
TD-EOC
Induction Overhaul Kit
TST tire monitors
FMCA # F479110
ShinerBock wrote:
Ram has had the Aisin and the 385hp/865lb-ft Cummins in 2013 until 2016 when they increased it to 900lb-ft. From 2013 to 2015 it was the same frame, trans, and engines yet miraculously it was able to tow over 30k all of the sudden in 2015 when they went J2807 compliant even though nothing changed on the truck from 2014-2015.
Viperpoker wrote:
Ram added an Aisin transmission to make their numbers go up. The engine also has increased from 800 to 930 ft lbs of torque.
Ram added an Aisin transmission to make their numbers go up. The engine also has increased from 800 to 930 ft lbs of torque.
Ram has had the Aisin and the 385hp/865lb-ft Cummins in 2013 until 2016 when they increased it to 900lb-ft. From 2013 to 2015 it was the same frame, trans, and engines yet miraculously it was able to tow over 30k all of the sudden in 2015 when they went J2807 compliant even though nothing changed on the truck from 2014-2015.
Wrong. Ram was rated at 30,000 in 2013. They had many changes to get there.
It never hurts to have a lot of pull, particularly when you’re talking pickup trucks. So for 2013, Ram has upgraded its 2500 and 3500 Heavy Duty pickups, the latter trumping the competition by quite a margin. The 3500 Heavy Duty has had its trailer capacity bumped up to 30,000 pounds compared it its nearest competitor’s 23,100 pounds. What’s more, it’s GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), which includes the weight of the truck, trailer, and the load being carried, has been upped to 37,600 pounds compared to the other guys’ 30,500. Ram 2500s have had their capacities also increased to 18,350 and 25,000 pounds, leading the 3/4-ton class. Also new for 2013 are a factory-integrated fifth-wheel and gooseneck hitch mount, a 17,000-pound Class V hitch with 1800 pounds of tongue weight, and electronic stability control for dual-rear-wheel layouts. Very handy will be a camera mounted in the high-mounted stoplight to make it easier when hooking up the likes of a fifth wheel. Making all this work required a myriad of changes. The frame now is of 50,000-pound-per-square-inch, high-strength steel, which now houses a new suspension. The transfer case, transmission, and 6.7-liter Cummins turbo-diesel all were upgraded, the latter now with 385 hp and 850 lb-ft of torque and—important to budget-conscious haulers—15,000-mile oil change intervals.
Also improved to match the higher ratings were the cooling system, driveshafts, and U-joints. A new active-air-intake system allows for extreme heat or high altitudes and both engine- and transmission-cooling systems have dual radiators/coolers.
Viperpoker wrote:
Wrong. Ram was rated at 30,000 in 2013. They had many changes to get there.
Wrong. Ram was rated at 30,000 in 2013. They had many changes to get there.
Not according to Ram. 2015 was the first year they could officially tow 30k according to their bodybuilders data sheets.
Ram bodybuilder
* This post was edited 03/16/18 04:18pm by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
Not according to Ram. 2015 was the first year they could officially tow 30k according to their bodybuilders data sheets.
Ram bodybuilder
Viperpoker wrote:
Wrong. Ram was rated at 30,000 in 2013. They had many changes to get there.
Wrong. Ram was rated at 30,000 in 2013. They had many changes to get there.
Not according to Ram. 2015 was the first year they could officially tow 30k according to their bodybuilders data sheets.
Ram bodybuilder
Try this link
https://www.ramtrucks.com/en/pdf/141550_DRP12US_HD_eBrochure.pdf
Or this one
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/towing_guide/pdf/2013_RAM.3500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Viperpoker wrote:
Right. My point was that this is a standard benchmark that all three are using now. All else being equal, the Chevy is down from only having a 3:73 gear. I think everyone agrees that a lower gear can tow more, and for some reason Chevy does not match the gear ratio of Ford and Ram.
I don’t think the whys are important Huntindog wrote:
2011, I know that year well. I have one of the first dually cc DAs made. The j standard was just coming out. GM and Ford both said they would release their numbers GM did They were posted on this forum for a short time Ford backed out stating that they would wait for a major redesign
GM numbers actually increased a little for some variations of the HDs and none decreased. GMs 1/2 tons took a major hit
When GM realized that Ford was now ahead in the advertised (fake) numbers,they retracted their numbers.
This may have a lot to do with not wanting to play the numbers game anymore.
2011, I know that year well. I have one of the first dually cc DAs made. The j standard was just coming out. GM and Ford both said they would release their numbers GM did They were posted on this forum for a short time Ford backed out stating that they would wait for a major redesign
GM numbers actually increased a little for some variations of the HDs and none decreased. GMs 1/2 tons took a major hit
When GM realized that Ford was now ahead in the advertised (fake) numbers,they retracted their numbers.
This may have a lot to do with not wanting to play the numbers game anymore.
Right. My point was that this is a standard benchmark that all three are using now. All else being equal, the Chevy is down from only having a 3:73 gear. I think everyone agrees that a lower gear can tow more, and for some reason Chevy does not match the gear ratio of Ford and Ram.
It is all speculation
Your guess is as good as mine
I think it is several things
No matter
The GM does a spectacular job up to its rating
There are VERY few RVs made that will exceed them
Viperpoker wrote:
Try this link
https://www.ramtrucks.com/en/pdf/141550_DRP12US_HD_eBrochure.pdf
Or this one
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/towing_guide/pdf/2013_RAM.3500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Try this link
https://www.ramtrucks.com/en/pdf/141550_DRP12US_HD_eBrochure.pdf
Or this one
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/towing_guide/pdf/2013_RAM.3500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Hmm, your link does show 30k tow rating, but the Ram bodybuilder's engineers guide that we got from Ram for or medium duty up-fitters says differently. I will have to send this to our fleet manager to get with the Ram rep about this the next time he speaks with her.
Oh, and next time please post links. It is a PITA to copy and paste that much from a phone. I had to wait till I got home.
2008 Jayco G2 28RBS
2016 Nissan XD 5.0L Cummins
I am GM guy, unlikely I will ever buy anything else. I regularly tow at or in excess of the GM rating and the pickup does very well. That said, this has never made any sense to me either. I watched a GM rep on YouTube state that the market above the GM tow ratings is very small (this thread states 3%, I cant remember but it was small) and so they choose not to compete. I was so pissed when I saw that I wanted to throw my lap top. They are willing to compete in the HP/torque war obviously. I agree if I am pulling a modest weight of say 18K, even though the GM truck is within the posted 23K, on paper the Ford or Ram at 30K looks like the better option, all else being equal. The point is, they may be right perhaps most don't tow around the 30K mark, but by comparison the other two look like stronger trucks. They are not stronger which has been proven on the numerous Ike runs, but a lot sales are won and lost in the spec sheet. I wish they would at least get to 28-29k. If your "not going to compete" at least make it close.
The last thing I will say is, since when is not competing in a significant category even an option. You sell HD pickups, and tow capacity is a major factor in a purchasing decisions in this weight class, and you just opt out? 7K under the rest of the field? If the rational is a small % use that kind of tow capacity, well what percent need 445 hp and 900 plus foot/pounds of torque? Probably that same 3%, yet there is no issue in being class leading or nearly so in other significant areas.
I am confident in the durability of the trucks and pulling up and down mnt passes with huge loads gives me nothing but confidence in the trucks. They handle the weight and they have been very reliable, but this under rating the tow ratings is just plain stupid. I would like to know the real reason for it.
2020 Chevy 3500 CC 4X4 DRW D/A
2013 Fuzion 342
2011 RZR Desert Tan
2012 Sea Doo GTX 155
2018 Chevy 3500HD CC LB SRW 4X4 D/A
2015 Chevy Camaro ZL1
ShinerBock wrote:
Hmm, your link does show 30k tow rating, but the Ram bodybuilder's engineers guide that we got from Ram for or medium duty up-fitters says differently. I will have to send this to our fleet manager to get with the Ram rep about this the next time he speaks with her.
Oh, and next time please post links. It is a PITA to copy and paste that much from a phone. I had to wait till I got home.
Viperpoker wrote:
Try this link
https://www.ramtrucks.com/en/pdf/141550_DRP12US_HD_eBrochure.pdf
Or this one
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/towing_guide/pdf/2013_RAM.3500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Try this link
https://www.ramtrucks.com/en/pdf/141550_DRP12US_HD_eBrochure.pdf
Or this one
https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/towing_guide/pdf/2013_RAM.3500.Towing.Specs.pdf
Hmm, your link does show 30k tow rating, but the Ram bodybuilder's engineers guide that we got from Ram for or medium duty up-fitters says differently. I will have to send this to our fleet manager to get with the Ram rep about this the next time he speaks with her.
Oh, and next time please post links. It is a PITA to copy and paste that much from a phone. I had to wait till I got home.
Were you looking at pickups or cab and chassis?
Me Again wrote:
Allison 1000 transmission!
Allison 1000 transmission!
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
2015 RAM LongHorn 3500 Dually CrewCab 4X4 CUMMINS/AISIN RearAir 385HP/865TQ 4:10's
37,800# GCVWR "Towing Beast"
"HeavyWeight" B&W RVK3600
2016 MobileSuites 39TKSB3 highly "Elited" In the stable
2007.5 Mobile Suites 36 SB3 29,000# Combined SOLD
Viperpoker wrote:
i’m looking at a riverstone 39fkth. gvwr is 21,000 lbs. i’m probably going to be towing heavier than most people here.
i’m looking at a riverstone 39fkth. gvwr is 21,000 lbs. i’m probably going to be towing heavier than most people here.
35k combined with my 2015 RAM, Cummins, AISIN, 4.10 combo within its ratings. I could not tow within GM's ratings.
Love all the excuses! If they could do it they sure as HE!! would.
The trans can't handle the start stops on steep grade as part of the SAE rating I will bet.
Viperpoker wrote:
thanks, that makes sense, no 4:10. that probably accounts for half of the difference. that is the type of factual answer i was looking for, not the numbers don’t matter or gm doesn’t want to brag. without a 4:10 they will not be able to tow as much. for example, a ram is rated about 21k with a 3:42, 26k with a 3:73, and 31k with a 4:10. changing those gears makes a big difference.
2003silverado wrote:
It might just be that GM only offers 3.73 gears where as you can get a 4.10 option from Ram and even a 4.30 option (I believe) from ford. Seems ford even used to offer 4.88's.
Also, maybe since they knew they were going to be coming out with the class 4 and up trucks real soon, they want to sell those for heavy work and not have them competing with the 3500 line.
It might just be that GM only offers 3.73 gears where as you can get a 4.10 option from Ram and even a 4.30 option (I believe) from ford. Seems ford even used to offer 4.88's.
Also, maybe since they knew they were going to be coming out with the class 4 and up trucks real soon, they want to sell those for heavy work and not have them competing with the 3500 line.
thanks, that makes sense, no 4:10. that probably accounts for half of the difference. that is the type of factual answer i was looking for, not the numbers don’t matter or gm doesn’t want to brag. without a 4:10 they will not be able to tow as much. for example, a ram is rated about 21k with a 3:42, 26k with a 3:73, and 31k with a 4:10. changing those gears makes a big difference.
3.42 with Aisin is around 28k combined. Try again.
Actually heavier than that. I am using the chart for the heaviest combo. DRW, 4 door and 4wd. Look at the bottom three lines.
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/AyhcNf9l.jpg)
* This post was edited 03/17/18 07:20am by Cummins12V98 *
Cummins12V98 wrote:
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
Me Again wrote:
Allison 1000 transmission!
Allison 1000 transmission!
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
C,
What about the mighty sushi aisin backing big power.
OP,
GM is targeting the largest percentage of the market with their trucks towing capabilities.
'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs "270k Miles"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"
Viperpoker wrote:
Were you looking at pickups or cab and chassis?
Were you looking at pickups or cab and chassis?
Only pickups. After you select the year it asks you if it is a 1500, HD, or cab & chassis. You have to navigate through the technical data and drawing to get to the tow and other ratings.
Rich
2016 Chevrolet/Duramax 3500HD Dually Crew Cab B&W RVK 3700 5th Wheel Hitch
2014 Arctic Fox 29-5T
Compare the 68RFE to what the AISIN tests at with same gear ratio.
* This post was edited 03/17/18 07:22am by Cummins12V98 *
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
Viperpoker wrote:
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
It seams very reasonable Intel you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
4x4ord wrote:
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
Viperpoker wrote:
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
4x4ord wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
Viperpoker wrote:
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
Don't forget torque management. None of the engines are putting out full engine torque in first gear.
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
Did Allison lower the ratios of the 1000? Last I saw the 1000 and two of the 2000 series had a 3.10 1st gear. Two versions of the 2000 had a 3.54? 1st gear. OD and DOD were .71/.61 vs .74/.64 for the two. Do NOT remember 2nd and 3rd off the top of my head.
GM would get a lot more take off using the lower geared 2000 optioned trans. Being it the parking pawl version, or the pawless version, which last I saw was rated higher by 10,000 lbs or so.
Marty
blt2ski wrote:
Did Allison lower the ratios of the 1000? Last I saw the 1000 and two of the 2000 series had a 3.10 1st gear. Two versions of the 2000 had a 3.54? 1st gear. OD and DOD were .71/.61 vs .74/.64 for the two. Do NOT remember 2nd and 3rd off the top of my head.
GM would get a lot more take off using the lower geared 2000 optioned trans. Being it the parking pawl version, or the pawless version, which last I saw was rated higher by 10,000 lbs or so.
Marty
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
Did Allison lower the ratios of the 1000? Last I saw the 1000 and two of the 2000 series had a 3.10 1st gear. Two versions of the 2000 had a 3.54? 1st gear. OD and DOD were .71/.61 vs .74/.64 for the two. Do NOT remember 2nd and 3rd off the top of my head.
GM would get a lot more take off using the lower geared 2000 optioned trans. Being it the parking pawl version, or the pawless version, which last I saw was rated higher by 10,000 lbs or so.
Marty
You are correct, it is 3.10 for first gear. 1.81 for second and 1.41 for third.
CumminsDriver wrote:
Don't forget torque management. None of the engines are putting out full engine torque in first gear.
4x4ord wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
Viperpoker wrote:
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
i think this answers my question as to why gm tow ratings are so much lower. combination of no 4:10 and the allison trans. that all makes sense.
I agree, it seems very reasonable until you think about the numbers. In 2016 the GM HD3500 dually was rated for pulling up to 23200 lb with an engine that made 765 lb ft of torque. In 2017 they increased the torque to 910 lb ft and yet the new 3500HD is still only rated for pulling 23300 lbs. You'd think if the limiting factor was putting torque to the rear wheels in low gear the new engine would have made an improvement in the tow rating. 910/765 x 23200 = 27600.
Don't forget torque management. None of the engines are putting out full engine torque in first gear.
I believe the main application of torque management is to limit fuel during shift points to avoid damage to the clutches. It makes absolutely no sense to limit torque at the engine and multiply it in the transmission if the concern is torque on the drive shaft or rear axles. With my Ford I have had very heavy loads on my tandem dually gooseneck and had to feed it full throttle to get moving when off road in soft ground. Often I will shift the transfer case to low range in those circumstances and the truck will move the load easily. So obviously the rear axle, driveshaft and output shaft of the transfer case have no problem handling far more torque than what is being delivered in low gear high range ..... what parts do you think torque management is protecting?
2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold
Grit dog wrote:
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
right, you mean like believing when i read the tow ratings published by chevrolet. note to self: chevy lies on their tow ratings, they are really as high as ram or ford, even with higher gear ratios in the transmission and rear end. chevy intentionally understates their ability by four and a half tons.
Viperpoker wrote:
right, you mean like believing when i read the tow ratings published by chevrolet. note to self: chevy lies on their tow ratings, they are really as high as ram or ford, even with higher gear ratios in the transmission and rear end. chevy intentionally understates their ability by four and a half tons.
I really do not see the point of your thread any moreGrit dog wrote:
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
right, you mean like believing when i read the tow ratings published by chevrolet. note to self: chevy lies on their tow ratings, they are really as high as ram or ford, even with higher gear ratios in the transmission and rear end. chevy intentionally understates their ability by four and a half tons.
You started out saying that GM with its rating was not an option for the large THs you were looking at
Later you stated it had a GVW of 21k
That is well with in GMs rating
The GM routinely spanks the others at that weight
Then you got concerned about having extra capacity
You basically have a choice
Buy the GM and have the best performing truck for your weight
Or buy one of the others with extra capacity you do not need and have lower performance at your weight
Any of the trucks will do the job
Huntindog wrote:
You started out saying that GM with its rating was not an option for the large THs you were looking at
Later you stated it had a GVW of 21k
That is well with in GMs rating
The GM routinely spanks the others at that weight
Then you got concerned about having extra capacity
You basically have a choice
Buy the GM and have the best performing truck for your weight
Or buy one of the others with extra capacity you do not need and have lower performance at your weight
Any of the trucks will do the job
Viperpoker wrote:
right, you mean like believing when i read the tow ratings published by chevrolet. note to self: chevy lies on their tow ratings, they are really as high as ram or ford, even with higher gear ratios in the transmission and rear end. chevy intentionally understates their ability by four and a half tons.
I really do not see the point of your thread any moreGrit dog wrote:
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
right, you mean like believing when i read the tow ratings published by chevrolet. note to self: chevy lies on their tow ratings, they are really as high as ram or ford, even with higher gear ratios in the transmission and rear end. chevy intentionally understates their ability by four and a half tons.
You started out saying that GM with its rating was not an option for the large THs you were looking at
Later you stated it had a GVW of 21k
That is well with in GMs rating
The GM routinely spanks the others at that weight
Then you got concerned about having extra capacity
You basically have a choice
Buy the GM and have the best performing truck for your weight
Or buy one of the others with extra capacity you do not need and have lower performance at your weight
Any of the trucks will do the job
that is correct i was just wondering what was limiting the gm, i think i know now
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
The marketing or competitive reason is their is limited market or reason to compete for customers at the higher tow rating.
Maybe GM needs to consider adding other gear ratios, however there is no market share or real demand for them to do so. Bragging rights do not always equate to sales.
19'Duramax w/hips,12'Open Range,Titan Disc Brake
BD3,RV safepower,22" Blackstone
Ox Bedsaver,RV760 w/BC20,Glow Steps, Enduraplas25,Pedego
BakFlip,RVLock,5500 Onan LP,Prog.50A surge,Hughes autoformer
Porta Bote 8.0 Nissan,Sailun S637
Correct Trax,Splendide
I've generally speaking, gone over most rigs GCWR's with out giving it a 2nd glance, other than an 88 and 89 3500's with a TH400 and a BB454. Those rigs were pigs at the low end. Burned up trannies every 30K like clockwork! Meanwhile, I had no issues towing upwards of 18K with my 96 6.5TD and an emanual 5 sp trans, that GM rated at 12500 vs 14500 with the 4l80e......I blew the doors off of every 4l80 setup and a 6.5td. In fact other than a 3% grade at sea level, it blew the doors off of the 454 setups!
A lot of this is the gearing, how many gears you have too.
Then also look at tire diam. Yeah GM uses a 3.73, but if Ford and Ram have a tire diam that is 2" greater in diam, that 4.10 is negated to a 3.73 due to the the taller tires! There is more than one way to look at what is or is not a better tow rig!
Marty
Marty it's a rare day I can find fault with anything you have to say but today is the day! Tire size on the GM and RAM are the same at 31.8x9.3 and Ford is 31.5x9.6, all three are 17" wheels now.
GM recently went from 16-17" wheels, did this coincide with upping the HP n TQ? NOPE I just looked back to 2014 they had 17's then.
I am still saying the Allison is at the end of it's life being able to pass the SAE J2807 test. Anyone in their right mind would not post lower numbers if they could have similar numbers to their competition.
Like I said before I could not tow with a GM and be within it's tow ratings with my current setup.
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/tQooDyAl.jpg)
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/2QhL19ll.jpg)
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/V0GWR1Ol.jpg)
* This post was edited 03/18/18 08:22am by Cummins12V98 *
Marty
blt2ski wrote:
NOTE Cummins, I said IF Ram and Ford use a tire........ Maybe I should have bolded, capitalized the "IF". For awhile both of these brands used a tire that was 1-2" taller than GM. But lately GM has upped the diam.
Marty
True that
NOTE Cummins, I said IF Ram and Ford use a tire........ Maybe I should have bolded, capitalized the "IF". For awhile both of these brands used a tire that was 1-2" taller than GM. But lately GM has upped the diam.
Marty
blt2ski wrote:
NOTE Cummins, I said IF Ram and Ford use a tire........ Maybe I should have bolded, capitalized the "IF". For awhile both of these brands used a tire that was 1-2" taller than GM. But lately GM has upped the diam.
Marty
NOTE Cummins, I said IF Ram and Ford use a tire........ Maybe I should have bolded, capitalized the "IF". For awhile both of these brands used a tire that was 1-2" taller than GM. But lately GM has upped the diam.
Marty
Well I don't think we were talking about older trucks. So I assumed you just did not know the GM's have been similar sizes. Like I said you don't make many mistakes!!!
Groover wrote:
It looks like GM did just give us some confirmation that the Allison 1000 is the "weak link". From the article on the new 6500 coming out: "the new work truck will produce 350 horsepower and 700 pounds-feet of torque. The Allison transmission backing up the engine will be available in several versions; pairing depends on how much weight the chassis cab is rated to carry. Those transmissions will include the 1000 and 2000 vocational series along with several other stronger versions to accommodate the expected Class 6 loads that go all the way up to a 22,900-pound gross vehicle weight rating."
It looks like GM did just give us some confirmation that the Allison 1000 is the "weak link". From the article on the new 6500 coming out: "the new work truck will produce 350 horsepower and 700 pounds-feet of torque. The Allison transmission backing up the engine will be available in several versions; pairing depends on how much weight the chassis cab is rated to carry. Those transmissions will include the 1000 and 2000 vocational series along with several other stronger versions to accommodate the expected Class 6 loads that go all the way up to a 22,900-pound gross vehicle weight rating."
As tough as these little pick ups are they are not in the same league as vocational trucks. Ford uses a beefed up version of the TorqShift for their HD line of trucks as well. And they reduce the power to 330/725 HP/Torque.
Groover wrote:
It looks like GM did just give us some confirmation that the Allison 1000 is the "weak link". From the article on the new 6500 coming out: "the new work truck will produce 350 horsepower and 700 pounds-feet of torque. The Allison transmission backing up the engine will be available in several versions; pairing depends on how much weight the chassis cab is rated to carry. Those transmissions will include the 1000 and 2000 vocational series along with several other stronger versions to accommodate the expected Class 6 loads that go all the way up to a 22,900-pound gross vehicle weight rating."
It looks like GM did just give us some confirmation that the Allison 1000 is the "weak link". From the article on the new 6500 coming out: "the new work truck will produce 350 horsepower and 700 pounds-feet of torque. The Allison transmission backing up the engine will be available in several versions; pairing depends on how much weight the chassis cab is rated to carry. Those transmissions will include the 1000 and 2000 vocational series along with several other stronger versions to accommodate the expected Class 6 loads that go all the way up to a 22,900-pound gross vehicle weight rating."
Previous versions also offered different versions of the 1000/2000 derivatives too. Other brands like Navistar that sell the Allison trans on trucks, spec the 2000 or 3000 series where appropriate.
Marty
chevman
I just thought that the article I quoted might help answer the op's question. Maybe it doesn't, maybe GM will give us the true answer but I am not going to hold my breath on that one.
ScottG wrote:
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Both Ford and Ram went through major redesigns of their frames to achieve the 30K towing number. I suspect GM would need to do the same thing and they have said that they don't feel the market is worth it because it only accounts for 3% of HD trucks sold.
Makes sense to me. I am thinking that that 3% are members of this forum. I know a lot of people who have diesels from all three and several who have the 1500 Ecodiesel. None of these guys have any idea of tow capacity, axle ratios or transmissions on any of them. Almost all tow nothing. Some buy because they believe the Ram is the best and the word "Ram" needs no further explanation. Some love to say "I have a "SuperDuty" as if it was a status symbol. Almost lost a friend when I told him that his 1500 had little load capacity and could not be used in the same load rating as the 2500/3500. He also didn't like it when I told him not to be idling that diesel just because it has a remote start. They say they bought them because of mileage without realizing the cost of the diesel option or that diesel is 50 to 60 cents more per gallon.
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile")
Enjoying Your Freedom?
Thank A Veteran
Native Texan
2013 Prime Time Crusader 330MKS
2018 Chevy 2500 D/A Z71 4x4 Offroad
2006 Holiday Rambler Savoy 33SKT-40,000 trouble free miles-retired
2006 Chevy 2500 D/A-retired
2013 Chevy 2500 D/A-retired
blt2ski wrote:
Did Allison lower the ratios of the 1000? Last I saw the 1000 and two of the 2000 series had a 3.10 1st gear. Two versions of the 2000 had a 3.54? 1st gear. OD and DOD were .71/.61 vs .74/.64 for the two. Do NOT remember 2nd and 3rd off the top of my head.
GM would get a lot more take off using the lower geared 2000 optioned trans. Being it the parking pawl version, or the pawless version, which last I saw was rated higher by 10,000 lbs or so.
Marty
CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but transmission gear ratios along with only having the 3.73 gears hurts the GM for the big tow ratings. The Allison has a 3.23 first gear compared to the Aisin with 3.72 I believe and the Fords 3.93 first gear. Throw in the 4.10 gears for the Ram and Ford and you have much better take off capability compared to the GM.
Rich
Did Allison lower the ratios of the 1000? Last I saw the 1000 and two of the 2000 series had a 3.10 1st gear. Two versions of the 2000 had a 3.54? 1st gear. OD and DOD were .71/.61 vs .74/.64 for the two. Do NOT remember 2nd and 3rd off the top of my head.
GM would get a lot more take off using the lower geared 2000 optioned trans. Being it the parking pawl version, or the pawless version, which last I saw was rated higher by 10,000 lbs or so.
Marty
Thee 2100/2200 has the same ratios as the 1000, the 2500 has the lower gears across the board including OD's.
http://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/........s/int2500_sa5340(201306)blk.pdf?sfvrsn=2
The Silverado HD’s 6.6L turbodiesel V-8 makes 445 hp and 910 lb.-ft. (1,243 Nm) of torque, which is unchanged from the previous generation and short of the 1,000 lb.-ft. (1,355 Nm) generated by the Ram 2500HD with its Cummins 6.7L High Output turbodiesel inline 6-cyl.
But GM hooks the Silverado HD to an all-new Allison 10-speed automatic transmission, which together with upgraded parts such as larger and stronger front and rear axles; larger ring gears to both 2500HD (11.5-in. [292 mm]) and 3500HD (12-in. [305 mm]) models; and 30%-larger prop shafts helps enable a 52% increase in maximum towing capacity to 35,500 lbs. (15,876 kg). The Ram HD’s tow rating is 35,100 lbs. (15,921 kg).
Other Silverado HD upgrades include a stronger frame, which delivers a higher gross combined vehicle weight rating of up to 43,500 lbs. (19,731 kg). A 28-in. (711-mm) diameter variable speed fan, which is 2.5 ins. (64 mm) larger than the one it replaces, will help keep the turbodiesel cool under all that load.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
Me Again wrote:
Allison 1000 transmission!
Allison 1000 transmission!
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
YUP, YUP!!!
FishOnOne wrote:
C,
What about the mighty sushi aisin backing big power.
OP,
GM is targeting the largest percentage of the market with their trucks towing capabilities.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
Me Again wrote:
Allison 1000 transmission!
Allison 1000 transmission!
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
C,
What about the mighty sushi aisin backing big power.
OP,
GM is targeting the largest percentage of the market with their trucks towing capabilities.
Well "Fish" it looks like a Magic Wand and a little electronic tweaking and it will be eating up 400hp and 1,000#' TQ.
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Targeting BS, HA.
Lantley wrote:
I think the mechanical reason is the 3.73 gear ratio.
The marketing or competitive reason is their is limited market or reason to compete for customers at the higher tow rating.
Maybe GM needs to consider adding other gear ratios, however there is no market share or real demand for them to do so. Bragging rights do not always equate to sales.
I think the mechanical reason is the 3.73 gear ratio.
The marketing or competitive reason is their is limited market or reason to compete for customers at the higher tow rating.
Maybe GM needs to consider adding other gear ratios, however there is no market share or real demand for them to do so. Bragging rights do not always equate to sales.
YES the 3.73 was part of it but the RAM had at least 3k more SAE towing with the same gears and LESS power.
What do you think of the 3,42's? I'm thinking EXTREMELY low starting and reverse gearing.
Personally I would love to lock out my 1st gear with 4.10's and AISIN when running BobTail.
Viperpoker wrote:
It looks like the weak link was the transmission and non engine items. And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue. Engine, hp, torque did not change. Upgraded trans, axles, ring gears, drive shaft, and frame. Tow rating up to 35,500. 12,000 more than last year. Huge difference between 2019 and earlier GM trucks and this new 2020 model. Much more truck, as ram and ford have already been for a while.
The Silverado HD’s 6.6L turbodiesel V-8 makes 445 hp and 910 lb.-ft. (1,243 Nm) of torque, which is unchanged from the previous generation and short of the 1,000 lb.-ft. (1,355 Nm) generated by the Ram 2500HD with its Cummins 6.7L High Output turbodiesel inline 6-cyl.
But GM hooks the Silverado HD to an all-new Allison 10-speed automatic transmission, which together with upgraded parts such as larger and stronger front and rear axles; larger ring gears to both 2500HD (11.5-in. [292 mm]) and 3500HD (12-in. [305 mm]) models; and 30%-larger prop shafts helps enable a 52% increase in maximum towing capacity to 35,500 lbs. (15,876 kg). The Ram HD’s tow rating is 35,100 lbs. (15,921 kg).
Other Silverado HD upgrades include a stronger frame, which delivers a higher gross combined vehicle weight rating of up to 43,500 lbs. (19,731 kg). A 28-in. (711-mm) diameter variable speed fan, which is 2.5 ins. (64 mm) larger than the one it replaces, will help keep the turbodiesel cool under all that load.
It looks like the weak link was the transmission and non engine items. And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue. Engine, hp, torque did not change. Upgraded trans, axles, ring gears, drive shaft, and frame. Tow rating up to 35,500. 12,000 more than last year. Huge difference between 2019 and earlier GM trucks and this new 2020 model. Much more truck, as ram and ford have already been for a while.
The Silverado HD’s 6.6L turbodiesel V-8 makes 445 hp and 910 lb.-ft. (1,243 Nm) of torque, which is unchanged from the previous generation and short of the 1,000 lb.-ft. (1,355 Nm) generated by the Ram 2500HD with its Cummins 6.7L High Output turbodiesel inline 6-cyl.
But GM hooks the Silverado HD to an all-new Allison 10-speed automatic transmission, which together with upgraded parts such as larger and stronger front and rear axles; larger ring gears to both 2500HD (11.5-in. [292 mm]) and 3500HD (12-in. [305 mm]) models; and 30%-larger prop shafts helps enable a 52% increase in maximum towing capacity to 35,500 lbs. (15,876 kg). The Ram HD’s tow rating is 35,100 lbs. (15,921 kg).
Other Silverado HD upgrades include a stronger frame, which delivers a higher gross combined vehicle weight rating of up to 43,500 lbs. (19,731 kg). A 28-in. (711-mm) diameter variable speed fan, which is 2.5 ins. (64 mm) larger than the one it replaces, will help keep the turbodiesel cool under all that load.
Myself and MeAgain certainly were NOT part of the below comments.
"And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue."
Plain and simple GM could NOT pass the SAE forward and reverse repeated hill test.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Myself and MeAgain certainly were NOT part of the below comments.
"And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue."
Plain and simple GM could NOT pass the SAE forward and reverse repeated hill test.
Viperpoker wrote:
It looks like the weak link was the transmission and non engine items. And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue. Engine, hp, torque did not change. Upgraded trans, axles, ring gears, drive shaft, and frame. Tow rating up to 35,500. 12,000 more than last year. Huge difference between 2019 and earlier GM trucks and this new 2020 model. Much more truck, as ram and ford have already been for a while.
The Silverado HD’s 6.6L turbodiesel V-8 makes 445 hp and 910 lb.-ft. (1,243 Nm) of torque, which is unchanged from the previous generation and short of the 1,000 lb.-ft. (1,355 Nm) generated by the Ram 2500HD with its Cummins 6.7L High Output turbodiesel inline 6-cyl.
But GM hooks the Silverado HD to an all-new Allison 10-speed automatic transmission, which together with upgraded parts such as larger and stronger front and rear axles; larger ring gears to both 2500HD (11.5-in. [292 mm]) and 3500HD (12-in. [305 mm]) models; and 30%-larger prop shafts helps enable a 52% increase in maximum towing capacity to 35,500 lbs. (15,876 kg). The Ram HD’s tow rating is 35,100 lbs. (15,921 kg).
Other Silverado HD upgrades include a stronger frame, which delivers a higher gross combined vehicle weight rating of up to 43,500 lbs. (19,731 kg). A 28-in. (711-mm) diameter variable speed fan, which is 2.5 ins. (64 mm) larger than the one it replaces, will help keep the turbodiesel cool under all that load.
It looks like the weak link was the transmission and non engine items. And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue. Engine, hp, torque did not change. Upgraded trans, axles, ring gears, drive shaft, and frame. Tow rating up to 35,500. 12,000 more than last year. Huge difference between 2019 and earlier GM trucks and this new 2020 model. Much more truck, as ram and ford have already been for a while.
The Silverado HD’s 6.6L turbodiesel V-8 makes 445 hp and 910 lb.-ft. (1,243 Nm) of torque, which is unchanged from the previous generation and short of the 1,000 lb.-ft. (1,355 Nm) generated by the Ram 2500HD with its Cummins 6.7L High Output turbodiesel inline 6-cyl.
But GM hooks the Silverado HD to an all-new Allison 10-speed automatic transmission, which together with upgraded parts such as larger and stronger front and rear axles; larger ring gears to both 2500HD (11.5-in. [292 mm]) and 3500HD (12-in. [305 mm]) models; and 30%-larger prop shafts helps enable a 52% increase in maximum towing capacity to 35,500 lbs. (15,876 kg). The Ram HD’s tow rating is 35,100 lbs. (15,921 kg).
Other Silverado HD upgrades include a stronger frame, which delivers a higher gross combined vehicle weight rating of up to 43,500 lbs. (19,731 kg). A 28-in. (711-mm) diameter variable speed fan, which is 2.5 ins. (64 mm) larger than the one it replaces, will help keep the turbodiesel cool under all that load.
Myself and MeAgain certainly were NOT part of the below comments.
"And all of you that said things like GM just doesn’t want to get in a pissing match, or GM intentionally underrates the towing numbers, had no clue."
Plain and simple GM could NOT pass the SAE forward and reverse repeated hill test.
You forgot this one
Grit dog
Black Diamond, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2013
View Profile
Offline
Posted: 03/17/18 11:39am Link | Quote | Print | Notify Moderator
There isn't a weak link. A new L5P Dmax will rip the hitch off of a trailer as effectively as the other 2 and GM frames have been stout for a good long time and they use the same rear axles as Ram. So there it is. They are comparable and equally capable. Anyone who says differnet is biased and believes too much of what they read.....
Cummins12V98 wrote:
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
ShinerBock wrote:
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
Unbelievable. I agree stupidity, just don’t agree with where it is being aimed.
ShinerBock wrote:
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
Viperpoker wrote:
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
ShinerBock wrote:
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much. Those kind of tow ratings should be left to heavier medium duty trucks.
Kind of funny that the very same people here who say you shouldn't tow a 10k trailer with a 6k half ton even though it is within its ratings don't mind touting when their favorite brand's truck configuration they will never own is rated to tow 30k+ with an 8k truck.
Hey per GM's specs I could not tow my 23k RV.
These 3500/350 trucks are actually MD Trucks! Simply look at the suspensions under them. Simply no reason to buy a MD truck.
The 14k self imposed GVWR is a JOKE for these trucks.
I tow 33-35k combined in ALL conditions and I can honestly say it's ROCK SOLID.
Still waiting for someone to tell my how I can load to my SAE RAWR and load ZERO weight to my front axle and NOT be over 14k.
As DA "FISH" says "towing just got easier".
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/scratchead.gif "scratchead")
ShinerBock wrote:
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
Viperpoker wrote:
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
I drive a Ram ctd also, but am happy that all of the trucks are getting better. I could get a 2001 ram 3500 that is rated to tow about 14,000. I think the newer more capable trucks are better.
I own a Dodge Viper. I have no desire to see them remove two cylinders and make it a V8, even though the v10 is overkill. I guess anything over a vw bug or a smart car is above what is needed, but I like a little more “go” than that.
I also own a charger hellcat. Haven’t seen many hellcat owners saying “I wish it had less hp. 707 hp is too much. Chevy got it right with the 650 hp zl1.” No, what I see is hellcat owners saying “****, the new car is 797 hp. I need to trade”
I tow a 19,000 lb fifth wheel. I may in the future go to a 44 foot toy hauler, and have two or three Harley’s loaded on it. If I do, I would like to have plenty of truck to pull that. And for basically the same price, Ram, Ford, and GM are now about equal. Last year GM was a lot less truck than the other two, but cost about the same.
I started this thread just trying to determine where GM had less than the other two. With the new truck, that has been explained. I don’t think GM is stupid for upgrading their truck. If a 2019 was sitting next to a 2020 for the same price, I am going to choose the one with the much higher rating.
Viperpoker wrote:
I drive a Ram ctd also, but am happy that all of the trucks are getting better. I could get a 2001 ram 3500 that is rated to tow about 14,000. I think the newer more capable trucks are better.
I own a Dodge Viper. I have no desire to see them remove two cylinders and make it a V8, even though the v10 is overkill. I guess anything over a vw bug or a smart car is above what is needed, but I like a little more “go” than that.
I also own a charger hellcat. Haven’t seen many hellcat owners saying “I wish it had less hp. 707 hp is too much. Chevy got it right with the 650 hp zl1.” No, what I see is hellcat owners saying “****, the new car is 797 hp. I need to trade”
I tow a 19,000 lb fifth wheel. I may in the future go to a 44 foot toy hauler, and have two or three Harley’s loaded on it. If I do, I would like to have plenty of truck to pull that. And for basically the same price, Ram, Ford, and GM are now about equal. Last year GM was a lot less truck than the other two, but cost about the same.
I started this thread just trying to determine where GM had less than the other two. With the new truck, that has been explained. I don’t think GM is stupid for upgrading their truck. If a 2019 was sitting next to a 2020 for the same price, I am going to choose the one with the much higher rating.
ShinerBock wrote:
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
Viperpoker wrote:
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
I drive a Ram ctd also, but am happy that all of the trucks are getting better. I could get a 2001 ram 3500 that is rated to tow about 14,000. I think the newer more capable trucks are better.
I own a Dodge Viper. I have no desire to see them remove two cylinders and make it a V8, even though the v10 is overkill. I guess anything over a vw bug or a smart car is above what is needed, but I like a little more “go” than that.
I also own a charger hellcat. Haven’t seen many hellcat owners saying “I wish it had less hp. 707 hp is too much. Chevy got it right with the 650 hp zl1.” No, what I see is hellcat owners saying “****, the new car is 797 hp. I need to trade”
I tow a 19,000 lb fifth wheel. I may in the future go to a 44 foot toy hauler, and have two or three Harley’s loaded on it. If I do, I would like to have plenty of truck to pull that. And for basically the same price, Ram, Ford, and GM are now about equal. Last year GM was a lot less truck than the other two, but cost about the same.
I started this thread just trying to determine where GM had less than the other two. With the new truck, that has been explained. I don’t think GM is stupid for upgrading their truck. If a 2019 was sitting next to a 2020 for the same price, I am going to choose the one with the much higher rating.
No sure why I was told your life story on what you own.....
I never said GM is stupid for upgrading their truck either. Again, I said I think this whole pissing match that keeps increasing the ratings on a light duty truck is what is stupid. If you are towing that much weight then they should move up to a medium duty just like one has to move up to a half ton to an HD or SRW to DRW with bigger loads. All this is is fanboy bragging rights and I doubt anyone here would buy the regular cab configuration that is required to tow that much.
ShinerBock wrote:
No sure why I was told your life story on what you own.....
I never said GM is stupid for upgrading their truck either. Again, I said I think this whole pissing match that keeps increasing the ratings on a light duty truck is what is stupid. If you are towing that much weight then they should move up to a medium duty just like one has to move up to a half ton to an HD or SRW to DRW with bigger loads. All this is is fanboy bragging rights and I doubt anyone here would buy the regular cab configuration that is required to tow that much.
Viperpoker wrote:
I drive a Ram ctd also, but am happy that all of the trucks are getting better. I could get a 2001 ram 3500 that is rated to tow about 14,000. I think the newer more capable trucks are better.
I own a Dodge Viper. I have no desire to see them remove two cylinders and make it a V8, even though the v10 is overkill. I guess anything over a vw bug or a smart car is above what is needed, but I like a little more “go” than that.
I also own a charger hellcat. Haven’t seen many hellcat owners saying “I wish it had less hp. 707 hp is too much. Chevy got it right with the 650 hp zl1.” No, what I see is hellcat owners saying “****, the new car is 797 hp. I need to trade”
I tow a 19,000 lb fifth wheel. I may in the future go to a 44 foot toy hauler, and have two or three Harley’s loaded on it. If I do, I would like to have plenty of truck to pull that. And for basically the same price, Ram, Ford, and GM are now about equal. Last year GM was a lot less truck than the other two, but cost about the same.
I started this thread just trying to determine where GM had less than the other two. With the new truck, that has been explained. I don’t think GM is stupid for upgrading their truck. If a 2019 was sitting next to a 2020 for the same price, I am going to choose the one with the much higher rating.
ShinerBock wrote:
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
Viperpoker wrote:
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
I guess since you think GM is stupid for making this truck, you can buy a used 2018 that has a weaker trans, frame, axles, drive shaft, etc. That would be a better truck for you, and wouldn’t be stupid. No pissing match there.
Nope, I would never buy a GM product after what they did to my old man. I own a 2014 Ram CTD and do not plan on getting a new one for at least the next 5 years.
I would also have no problems owning something with a "weaker" frame as long as it can tow the 13k I need it to. Anything else after that is pointless to me. And in my view, anything above 23k in a light duty truck is just a pissing match for bragging rights. That kind of weight should be left to the medium duty trucks.
Also, I think you are confusing things. Just because someone owns a 2020 GM HD(even in the configuration that isn't rated to tow 35k+) doesn't make them stupid. It is the marketing pissing match itself and towing that much weight in a 8k lb light duty truck that I think is stupid. Not sure how you got confused with that.
I drive a Ram ctd also, but am happy that all of the trucks are getting better. I could get a 2001 ram 3500 that is rated to tow about 14,000. I think the newer more capable trucks are better.
I own a Dodge Viper. I have no desire to see them remove two cylinders and make it a V8, even though the v10 is overkill. I guess anything over a vw bug or a smart car is above what is needed, but I like a little more “go” than that.
I also own a charger hellcat. Haven’t seen many hellcat owners saying “I wish it had less hp. 707 hp is too much. Chevy got it right with the 650 hp zl1.” No, what I see is hellcat owners saying “****, the new car is 797 hp. I need to trade”
I tow a 19,000 lb fifth wheel. I may in the future go to a 44 foot toy hauler, and have two or three Harley’s loaded on it. If I do, I would like to have plenty of truck to pull that. And for basically the same price, Ram, Ford, and GM are now about equal. Last year GM was a lot less truck than the other two, but cost about the same.
I started this thread just trying to determine where GM had less than the other two. With the new truck, that has been explained. I don’t think GM is stupid for upgrading their truck. If a 2019 was sitting next to a 2020 for the same price, I am going to choose the one with the much higher rating.
No sure why I was told your life story on what you own.....
I never said GM is stupid for upgrading their truck either. Again, I said I think this whole pissing match that keeps increasing the ratings on a light duty truck is what is stupid. If you are towing that much weight then they should move up to a medium duty just like one has to move up to a half ton to an HD or SRW to DRW with bigger loads. All this is is fanboy bragging rights and I doubt anyone here would buy the regular cab configuration that is required to tow that much.
Nope, I’m towing 19k, possibly 23 or 24k in the future with a big toy hauler. Would rather have the truck capable of towing 35k than the one rated at 23k to pull either load. No bragging rights, just better to have more capability than you need. If your trailer is 13k, you don’t need a ctd. You could find 1500’s rated to tow that. Seems like a 2500/3500 that you own is overkill for that trailer, like trying to win a pissing contest, or bragging rights.
And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings. But that applies across all three manufacturers, and across last years trucks also. So the new Chevy 4wd cc lb won’t tow 35,500, it will be somewhat reduced. It will still be 12,000 better than a 4wd cc lb from last year. Never gonna convince me it is a bad thing that the Chevy has much more capability this year.
Viperpoker wrote:
Nope, I’m towing 19k, possibly 23 or 24k in the future with a big toy hauler. Would rather have the truck capable of towing 35k than the one rated at 23k to pull either load. No bragging rights, just better to have more capability than you need. If your trailer is 13k, you don’t need a ctd. You could find 1500’s rated to tow that. Seems like a 2500/3500 that you own is overkill for that trailer, like trying to win a pissing contest, or bragging rights.
Nope, I’m towing 19k, possibly 23 or 24k in the future with a big toy hauler. Would rather have the truck capable of towing 35k than the one rated at 23k to pull either load. No bragging rights, just better to have more capability than you need. If your trailer is 13k, you don’t need a ctd. You could find 1500’s rated to tow that. Seems like a 2500/3500 that you own is overkill for that trailer, like trying to win a pissing contest, or bragging rights.
The trailer is 12.5k dry and is generally between 13-14k loaded. Sometimes it we will load more depending on the trip and it will be well over 14k. So no, there is no 1500 that is rated to tow that much and I got the right truck for the job. I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
Viperpoker wrote:
And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings. But that applies across all three manufacturers, and across last years trucks also. So the new Chevy 4wd cc lb won’t tow 35,500, it will be somewhat reduced. It will still be 12,000 better than a 4wd cc lb from last year. Never gonna convince me it is a bad thing that the Chevy has much more capability this year.
And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings. But that applies across all three manufacturers, and across last years trucks also. So the new Chevy 4wd cc lb won’t tow 35,500, it will be somewhat reduced. It will still be 12,000 better than a 4wd cc lb from last year. Never gonna convince me it is a bad thing that the Chevy has much more capability this year.
I could care less if all I needed to tow was 19k. If you had a new Ford PSD rated to tow 30k, a new Ram CTD rated to tow just 23k, and a new GM Dmax rated to 30k all being the same price, I would still pick the Ram because of the Cummins. I worked for Cummins, I know how to work on them, and they have proven reliable to me. If another engine would prove just as reliable to me then I would consider that as well. That is what I base my truck decisions on if all are rated to tow what I need them to, not some pissing contest tow rating that I will never tow or even attempt to tow.
* This post was edited 02/08/19 08:01am by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
The trailer is 12.5k dry and is generally between 13-14k loaded. Sometimes it we will load more depending on the trip and it will be well over 14k. So no, there is no 1500 that is rated to tow that much and I got the right truck for the job. I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I could care less if all I needed to tow was 19k. If you had a new Ford PSD rated to tow 30k, a new Ram CTD rated to tow just 23k, and a new GM Dmax rated to 30k all being the same price, I would still pick the Ram because of the Cummins. I worked for Cummins, I know how to work on them, and they have proven reliable to me. If another engine would prove just as reliable to me then I would consider that as well. That is what I base my truck decisions on if all are rated to tow what I need them to, not some pissing contest tow rating that I will never tow or even attempt to tow.
Viperpoker wrote:
Nope, I’m towing 19k, possibly 23 or 24k in the future with a big toy hauler. Would rather have the truck capable of towing 35k than the one rated at 23k to pull either load. No bragging rights, just better to have more capability than you need. If your trailer is 13k, you don’t need a ctd. You could find 1500’s rated to tow that. Seems like a 2500/3500 that you own is overkill for that trailer, like trying to win a pissing contest, or bragging rights.
Nope, I’m towing 19k, possibly 23 or 24k in the future with a big toy hauler. Would rather have the truck capable of towing 35k than the one rated at 23k to pull either load. No bragging rights, just better to have more capability than you need. If your trailer is 13k, you don’t need a ctd. You could find 1500’s rated to tow that. Seems like a 2500/3500 that you own is overkill for that trailer, like trying to win a pissing contest, or bragging rights.
The trailer is 12.5k dry and is generally between 13-14k loaded. Sometimes it we will load more depending on the trip and it will be well over 14k. So no, there is no 1500 that is rated to tow that much and I got the right truck for the job. I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
Viperpoker wrote:
And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings. But that applies across all three manufacturers, and across last years trucks also. So the new Chevy 4wd cc lb won’t tow 35,500, it will be somewhat reduced. It will still be 12,000 better than a 4wd cc lb from last year. Never gonna convince me it is a bad thing that the Chevy has much more capability this year.
And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings. But that applies across all three manufacturers, and across last years trucks also. So the new Chevy 4wd cc lb won’t tow 35,500, it will be somewhat reduced. It will still be 12,000 better than a 4wd cc lb from last year. Never gonna convince me it is a bad thing that the Chevy has much more capability this year.
I could care less if all I needed to tow was 19k. If you had a new Ford PSD rated to tow 30k, a new Ram CTD rated to tow just 23k, and a new GM Dmax rated to 30k all being the same price, I would still pick the Ram because of the Cummins. I worked for Cummins, I know how to work on them, and they have proven reliable to me. If another engine would prove just as reliable to me then I would consider that as well. That is what I base my truck decisions on if all are rated to tow what I need them to, not some pissing contest tow rating that I will never tow or even attempt to tow.
Lol, I have no idea what your point is, and who is stupid. Either GM is stupid for making this truck, or their customers are stupid for buying it, or people are stupid for admiring it.
I like Cummins also, it is why I have a Ram. However, given a choice I like the new Ram that is rated at 35k better than the 2012 Ram rated at 23k. I think most people would agree, and very few would have wanted Ram to freeze everything at 2012 levels. Don’t hear a lot of people saying, “I sure wish these tow ratings were lower, like they used to be”
Ralph Cramden wrote:
After reading through these 11 pages I have a good idea where the weak link is.
After reading through these 11 pages I have a good idea where the weak link is.
Viperpoker wrote:
Lol, I have no idea what your point is, and who is stupid. Either GM is stupid for making this truck, or their customers are stupid for buying it, or people are stupid for admiring it.
Lol, I have no idea what your point is, and who is stupid. Either GM is stupid for making this truck, or their customers are stupid for buying it, or people are stupid for admiring it.
I said it multiple times, and not one of what you stated was it.
Viperpoker wrote:
I like Cummins also, it is why I have a Ram. However, given a choice I like the new Ram that is rated at 35k better than the 2012 Ram rated at 23k. I think most people would agree, and very few would have wanted Ram to freeze everything at 2012 levels. Don’t hear a lot of people saying, “I sure wish these tow ratings were lower, like they used to be”
I like Cummins also, it is why I have a Ram. However, given a choice I like the new Ram that is rated at 35k better than the 2012 Ram rated at 23k. I think most people would agree, and very few would have wanted Ram to freeze everything at 2012 levels. Don’t hear a lot of people saying, “I sure wish these tow ratings were lower, like they used to be”
So you are going to trade in your crew cab for a regular cab? Cause that is the only way your going to be rated at 35K.
Also, I would guarantee you that many people here that don't need to tow over 23k wouldn't mind if Ram froze the 2012 ratings at 23k if the cost didn't go up as well which is what happens when you have to add in all the things needed to be able to tow 35k along with the R&D. If people really cared about 35k tow ratings then everyone here would be driving the latest regular cab DRW trucks and traded them in every time the tow ratings went up even if they only need to tow a 5k trailer.
I bet more people would rather Ram spend the R&D money to make the truck more efficient and reliable towing the weight we need to tow rather than to spend it to win a pissing match with another brand on some number that a majority of their customers do not tow. These numbers will keep going up, and they will keep spending money to do it which will increase the costs of all HD trucks as long as there are enough fanboys out there that think having the highest tow ratings is what is important. That is why I think it is stupid.
I guess I am just looking at it from a perspective of someone who has worked for an engine and truck manufacturer, and think it is a waste of money just for bragging rights especially when it increases the cost of my next truck without making it more efficient or reliable. I just think the money would be better spent making a truck that I do not have to keep sending back to the dealer for recalls or on water pumps that last more than 50k.
* This post was last edited 02/08/19 09:27am by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
350/3500 are medium duty? So now we have 350/3500's identifying as medium duty. Are trucks now payload/GVWR neutral? So are half tons going to now identify as 1 tons?
350/3500 are medium duty? So now we have 350/3500's identifying as medium duty. Are trucks now payload/GVWR neutral? So are half tons going to now identify as 1 tons?
MD as in they are SAE Rated to tow what the MD trucks were rated to tow a few years ago when the DRW's couldn't tow a 20k RV.
Actually 2wd reg cab long bed DRW.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
MD as in they are SAE Rated to tow what the MD trucks were rated to tow a few years ago when the DRW's couldn't tow a 20k RV.
ShinerBock wrote:
350/3500 are medium duty? So now we have 350/3500's identifying as medium duty. Are trucks now payload/GVWR neutral? So are half tons going to now identify as 1 tons?
350/3500 are medium duty? So now we have 350/3500's identifying as medium duty. Are trucks now payload/GVWR neutral? So are half tons going to now identify as 1 tons?
MD as in they are SAE Rated to tow what the MD trucks were rated to tow a few years ago when the DRW's couldn't tow a 20k RV.
Truck classes go by GVWR, not tow ratings. And I think these 25k+ trailer ratings should still be left to the real medium duty trucks.
YOU are the one calling a "pissing match".
Us guys that are towing at the top end of the RV market want the most capable truck possible, if that's a "pissing match" OK I am in a pissing match with every other heavy rV hauler out there.
Ralph Cramden wrote:
After reading through these 11 pages I have a good idea where the weak link is.
After reading through these 11 pages I have a good idea where the weak link is.
Ralph, I usually don't care much for what you have to say but that was **** funny!
Viperpoker Said "And yes, all of these ratings are based on a regular cab, 2wd, short bed. I think everyone understands that, and when we get our crew cab, 4wd longbed it will reduce the ratings."
Shiner are you just wanting to flap your gums??? He clearly understands there is a reduced capacity when going to a heavier model.
Stir Pot, Stir Pot, wash rinse and repeat, INCREDIBLE.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
ShinerBrock, YOU are the one CONSTANTLY in a "PISSING MATCH". Pick the subject it's the same over and over.
YOU are the one calling a "pissing match".
Us guys that are towing at the top end of the RV market want the most capable truck possible, if that's a "pissing match" OK I am in a pissing match with every other heavy rV hauler out there.
ShinerBrock, YOU are the one CONSTANTLY in a "PISSING MATCH". Pick the subject it's the same over and over.
YOU are the one calling a "pissing match".
Us guys that are towing at the top end of the RV market want the most capable truck possible, if that's a "pissing match" OK I am in a pissing match with every other heavy rV hauler out there.
Pot.....kettle?
I am just saying that Ram would probably please more customers by spending the R&D money to make a truck that we do not need to keep sending back to the dealer for recalls, on water pumps that lasts more than 50k, a better shifting transmission, and/or to make the truck more reliable & efficient than to waste it to attain some 35k tow rating just for bragging rights that only a very small percentage of customers actually utilize or care about.
Rocknita wrote:
ShinerBock I usually like to read your posts. I believe you’re very knowledgeable. But it seems as though you’re having a bad day and taking it out here. It seems the “pissing match” is you versus everyone else here. My very uninformed opinion is most of us don’t need to tow 30,000 lbs but we like having a truck that is capable of more than we need. Also these trucks have new features besides new towing/hauling capabilities. And as to the point about braking, all trucks rely on the trailer brakes to stop. I’ve never once brought up how much my trucks could tow but every truck I’ve had was more capable than the last. Certainly not going to whine about that.
ShinerBock I usually like to read your posts. I believe you’re very knowledgeable. But it seems as though you’re having a bad day and taking it out here. It seems the “pissing match” is you versus everyone else here. My very uninformed opinion is most of us don’t need to tow 30,000 lbs but we like having a truck that is capable of more than we need. Also these trucks have new features besides new towing/hauling capabilities. And as to the point about braking, all trucks rely on the trailer brakes to stop. I’ve never once brought up how much my trucks could tow but every truck I’ve had was more capable than the last. Certainly not going to whine about that.
My complaint is that a brands highest tow rating is worthless in a shop bay. I have had more recalls on a truck that is rated to tow just 17k then any truck I have ever had. My brother has the exact same truck and year and has a water pump fail on him under 50k and the same recalls.
My take is, instead of spending the R&D money to keep besting each other in useless tow ratings that a very very small portion of their customers even tow, they should have instead spent it on making the truck more reliable at the current ratings it can tow for most customers. I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable truck rated at 35k.
As I said before, I have worked for engine and truck manufacturers before and I know how their budget for each section usually works. To keep costs low, you have to take away or decrease the budget from one area to focus on others. Or you focus on multiple places and increase the cost on all of the trucks.
Lots of money and time was spent on the frame, and other things to get to these new worthless for most customers tow ratings. Money that is either taken from other areas that make the truck more reliable or spread out among all the trucks (even those that aren't rated to tow 35k) increasing the cost of each truck.
I say at the very least they should have kept the previous years 30k tow ratings(since 99.9999% of their customers don't even tow that much in a light duty truck) so they didn't have to spend more money and time on those things. That way, more money and brain power could go into making the truck more reliable and efficient at the current ratings so owners don't have to keep sending their truck to the dealer every other month for recalls. As I said, I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable(and/or more expensive) truck rated at 35k.
* This post was last edited 02/08/19 01:10pm by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
My complaint is that a brands highest tow rating is worthless in a shop bay. I have had more recalls on a truck that is rated to tow just 17k then any truck I have ever had. My brother has the exact same truck and year and has a water pump fail on him under 50k and the same recalls.
My take is, instead of spending the R&D money to keep besting each other in useless tow ratings that a very very small portion of their customers even tow, they should have instead spent it on making the truck more reliable at the current ratings it can tow for most customers. I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable truck rated at 35k.
As I said before, I have worked for engine and truck manufacturers before and I know how their budget for each section usually works. To keep costs low, you have to take away or decrease the budget from one area to focus on others. Or you focus on multiple places and increase the cost on all of the trucks.
Lots of money and time was spent on the frame, and other things to get to these new worthless for most customers tow ratings. Money that is either taken from other areas that make the truck more reliable or spread out among all the trucks (even those that aren't rated to tow 35k) increasing the cost of each truck.
I say at the very least they should have kept the previous years 30k tow ratings(since 99.9999% of their customers don't even tow that much in a light duty truck) so they didn't have to spend more money and time on those things. That way, more money and brain power could go into making the truck more reliable and efficient at the current ratings so owners don't have to keep sending their truck to the dealer every other month for recalls. As I said, I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable(and/or more expensive) truck rated at 35k.
Rocknita wrote:
ShinerBock I usually like to read your posts. I believe you’re very knowledgeable. But it seems as though you’re having a bad day and taking it out here. It seems the “pissing match” is you versus everyone else here. My very uninformed opinion is most of us don’t need to tow 30,000 lbs but we like having a truck that is capable of more than we need. Also these trucks have new features besides new towing/hauling capabilities. And as to the point about braking, all trucks rely on the trailer brakes to stop. I’ve never once brought up how much my trucks could tow but every truck I’ve had was more capable than the last. Certainly not going to whine about that.
ShinerBock I usually like to read your posts. I believe you’re very knowledgeable. But it seems as though you’re having a bad day and taking it out here. It seems the “pissing match” is you versus everyone else here. My very uninformed opinion is most of us don’t need to tow 30,000 lbs but we like having a truck that is capable of more than we need. Also these trucks have new features besides new towing/hauling capabilities. And as to the point about braking, all trucks rely on the trailer brakes to stop. I’ve never once brought up how much my trucks could tow but every truck I’ve had was more capable than the last. Certainly not going to whine about that.
My complaint is that a brands highest tow rating is worthless in a shop bay. I have had more recalls on a truck that is rated to tow just 17k then any truck I have ever had. My brother has the exact same truck and year and has a water pump fail on him under 50k and the same recalls.
My take is, instead of spending the R&D money to keep besting each other in useless tow ratings that a very very small portion of their customers even tow, they should have instead spent it on making the truck more reliable at the current ratings it can tow for most customers. I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable truck rated at 35k.
As I said before, I have worked for engine and truck manufacturers before and I know how their budget for each section usually works. To keep costs low, you have to take away or decrease the budget from one area to focus on others. Or you focus on multiple places and increase the cost on all of the trucks.
Lots of money and time was spent on the frame, and other things to get to these new worthless for most customers tow ratings. Money that is either taken from other areas that make the truck more reliable or spread out among all the trucks (even those that aren't rated to tow 35k) increasing the cost of each truck.
I say at the very least they should have kept the previous years 30k tow ratings(since 99.9999% of their customers don't even tow that much in a light duty truck) so they didn't have to spend more money and time on those things. That way, more money and brain power could go into making the truck more reliable and efficient at the current ratings so owners don't have to keep sending their truck to the dealer every other month for recalls. As I said, I would much rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a less reliable(and/or more expensive) truck rated at 35k.
This year a Chevy 3500 dually work truck costs about the same as a ford or Ram but it is down about 9,000 lbs give or take in towing capability. I strongly suspect that in 2020 the Chevy will once again cost about the same as the ford or Ram, but will be able to tow as much or a little more than its competitors.
I’m assuming you have a 2500 3:42 pulling that 14k trailer.
Viperpoker wrote:
This year a Chevy 3500 dually work truck costs about the same as a ford or Ram but it is down about 9,000 lbs give or take in towing capability. I strongly suspect that in 2020 the Chevy will once again cost about the same as the ford or Ram, but will be able to tow as much or a little more than its competitors.
This year a Chevy 3500 dually work truck costs about the same as a ford or Ram but it is down about 9,000 lbs give or take in towing capability. I strongly suspect that in 2020 the Chevy will once again cost about the same as the ford or Ram, but will be able to tow as much or a little more than its competitors.
I don't care about cost in relation to each other, but rather cost increases year over year and why. If it is to make the truck more reliable at towing what I tow, then I am fine with that. But if it is because Ram spent most of their budget and time just to say they are "best in class" then I think that is a waste of money especially when they are popping out recalls on their trucks every other month.
There was nothing wrong with the previous frame that was able to tow 30k, yet Ram spent more money and time for a new one just to win a pissing match which will probably add to the cost of the new trucks.
Viperpoker wrote:
I’m assuming you have a 2500 3:42 pulling that 14k trailer.
Yes.
I’m assuming you have a 2500 3:42 pulling that 14k trailer.
* This post was last edited 02/08/19 02:25pm by ShinerBock *
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Well "Fish" it looks like a Magic Wand and a little electronic tweaking and it will be eating up 400hp and 1,000#' TQ.
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Targeting BS, HA.
FishOnOne wrote:
C,
What about the mighty sushi aisin backing big power.
OP,
GM is targeting the largest percentage of the market with their trucks towing capabilities.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
Me Again wrote:
Allison 1000 transmission!
Allison 1000 transmission!
YUP! The mighty Allison is at the end of its power limitations. All three are SAE rated. If GM could compete with RAM n Ford they sure as HE!! Would.
Engine just had big HP n TQ increases so that is not the issue.
C,
What about the mighty sushi aisin backing big power.
OP,
GM is targeting the largest percentage of the market with their trucks towing capabilities.
Well "Fish" it looks like a Magic Wand and a little electronic tweaking and it will be eating up 400hp and 1,000#' TQ.
What do you have for an excuse of why GM is now towing with the BigBoys???
Targeting BS, HA.
I think we know what the excuse is... Having said that, the GM truck pulling that massive camper makes yours look like a pop up!
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/eek.gif "eek")
https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2019/02/ne........er-2019-ram-chassis-cabs-go-upscale.html
HMMMMM, never hear it called a "pop up" before!
It does struggle quite a bit on those HUGE 3% grades.
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/adV85TNl.jpg)
And the recalls have to do with the litigation that all the ambulance chasers feed off of.
2012 RAM 3500 Laramie Longhorn DRW CC 4x4 Max Tow, Cummins HO, 60 gallon RDS aux fuel tank, Reese 18k Elite hitch
2003 Dodge Ram 3500 QC SB 4x4 Cummins HO NV5600 with Smarty JR, Jacobs EB (sold)
2002 Gulf Stream Sea Hawk 29FRB with Honda EV6010
Cummins12V98 wrote:
WAYYYYY more than the frame to get to the new weights. They have vibration canceling because there were complaints about that. They updated the AISIN's electronics because there were complaints about that. The list goes on and on so don't say they should spend more money making them more reliable as they clearly are!
WAYYYYY more than the frame to get to the new weights. They have vibration canceling because there were complaints about that. They updated the AISIN's electronics because there were complaints about that. The list goes on and on so don't say they should spend more money making them more reliable as they clearly are!
THAT is WHY i SAID frame AND other THINGS. I was JUST using FRAME as ONE example......
Bionic Man wrote:
I’d wager that increased costs have about as much to do with all the new technology being put into trucks as any of the R&D to beef up tow ratings.
And the recalls have to do with the litigation that all the ambulance chasers feed off of.
I’d wager that increased costs have about as much to do with all the new technology being put into trucks as any of the R&D to beef up tow ratings.
And the recalls have to do with the litigation that all the ambulance chasers feed off of.
New tech is generally paid for in a package and is only paid for if you get said package. Things such as a new frames are not a part of any package and goes into the cost off all trucks.
While there were some recalls like that, the rest were due to shotty installation, poor design, or bad/cheap supplier parts. There are other things too like using thinner metals in certain areas (ie bumper) than their competitors and poor assembly like missing bolts and nuts on a few parts. I would rather Ram spend money fixing these things than spend it on something useless like a 35k tow rating for bragging rights.
* This post was last edited 02/08/19 06:26pm by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
New tech is generally paid for in a package and is only paid for if you get said package. Things such as a new frames are not a part of any package and goes into the cost off all trucks.
While there were some recalls like that, the rest were due to shotty installation, poor design, or bad/cheap supplier parts. There are other things too like using thinner metals in certain areas (ie bumper) than their competitors and poor assembly like missing bolts and nuts on a few parts. I would rather Ram spend money fixing these things than spend it on something useless like a 35k tow rating for bragging rights.
Bionic Man wrote:
I’d wager that increased costs have about as much to do with all the new technology being put into trucks as any of the R&D to beef up tow ratings.
And the recalls have to do with the litigation that all the ambulance chasers feed off of.
I’d wager that increased costs have about as much to do with all the new technology being put into trucks as any of the R&D to beef up tow ratings.
And the recalls have to do with the litigation that all the ambulance chasers feed off of.
New tech is generally paid for in a package and is only paid for if you get said package. Things such as a new frames are not a part of any package and goes into the cost off all trucks.
While there were some recalls like that, the rest were due to shotty installation, poor design, or bad/cheap supplier parts. There are other things too like using thinner metals in certain areas (ie bumper) than their competitors and poor assembly like missing bolts and nuts on a few parts. I would rather Ram spend money fixing these things than spend it on something useless like a 35k tow rating for bragging rights.
You seem like you would have enjoyed the Soviet system of central planning. “Here is the one model we are making, and you WILL like it, comrade”. Do you own a car? Does it bother you if they make a nicer version of the car you own instead of making your version better? Do you own a 55” television? Does it bother you when Sony invests in making a 65” instead of making the 55” better? After all, a 55” does the job perfectly well for 99.99% of the population, those guys buying the 65” models are just fanboys buying for the bragging rights and to win the pissing contest.
ShinerBock wrote:
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
NOPE, because I repaired IT myself BEFORE it CAME off any FURTHER and WENT on. MY brother's 2014 LEFT him ON the SIDE of THE road DUE to A water PUMP spewing ALL his COOLANT.
ksss wrote:
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.
Yeah, but I would rather them spend the money to make it more reliable and efficient at its current ratings than make it cost more with new(and unneeded) stuff just to get to a ridiculous 35k tow rating. However, I do get your point that these numbers sell trucks even it is pointless to most who buy them.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers say "You know what, I don't think that size of truck should be rated to tow that." Until then, the costs will just keep going up and up and up to attain these numbers. For me, 30k(or even 25k) is enough and I would rather a manufacturer spend their time and money to make their trucks tow safer, are more reliable, and more efficient towing that weight, than to spend it to one up each other in a useless rating.
I also wish some of these guys knew how it works behind the scenes at a manufacturer when they are project planning and number crunching because it is probably not what they are thinking.
* This post was edited 02/08/19 08:29pm by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
Yeah, but I would rather them spend the money to make it more reliable and efficient at its current ratings than make it cost more with new(and unneeded) stuff just to get to a ridiculous 35k tow rating. However, I do get your point that these numbers sell trucks even it is pointless to most who buy them.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers say "You know what, I don't think that size of truck should be rated to tow that." Until then, the costs will just keep going up and up and up to attain these numbers. For me, 30k(or even 25k) is enough and I would rather a manufacturer spend their time and money to make their trucks tow safer, are more reliable, and more efficient towing that weight, than to spend it to one up each other in a useless rating.
I also wish some of these guys knew how it works behind the scenes at a manufacturer when they are project planning and number crunching because it is probably not what they are thinking.
ksss wrote:
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.
Yeah, but I would rather them spend the money to make it more reliable and efficient at its current ratings than make it cost more with new(and unneeded) stuff just to get to a ridiculous 35k tow rating. However, I do get your point that these numbers sell trucks even it is pointless to most who buy them.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers say "You know what, I don't think that size of truck should be rated to tow that." Until then, the costs will just keep going up and up and up to attain these numbers. For me, 30k(or even 25k) is enough and I would rather a manufacturer spend their time and money to make their trucks tow safer, are more reliable, and more efficient towing that weight, than to spend it to one up each other in a useless rating.
I also wish some of these guys knew how it works behind the scenes at a manufacturer when they are project planning and number crunching because it is probably not what they are thinking.
It is called the free market. You don’t have to buy the new Chevy with the higher tow rating. You don’t have to buy the 65 inch or 70 inch (wow who needs a 70 inch tv) television. You don’t have to buy a 797 hp Dodge Challenger. You don’t have to buy seats in first class when coach is available. You don’t have to buy Skippy peanut butter when generic is available. But it is nice to have the freedom to choose to do so. And calling people stupid and ridiculous for choosing to do so says a lot about you. You come across as if everyone doesn’t make the same choices you make then they are wrong, stupid, uninformed, ridiculous, etc.
For someone that is so concerned with cost, you have a bit of overkill in your truck for a 14,000 lb trailer. Plenty of 2500 or f250 gas models will pull that load, and you could save 10k or so. Don’t understand why you bought a truck with so much extra capacity that you are not using. Oh, right, I forgot, free country, we have choices. We all don’t have to drive Yugo’s.
Viperpoker wrote:
It is called the free market. You don’t have to buy the new Chevy with the higher tow rating. You don’t have to buy the 65 inch or 70 inch (wow who needs a 70 inch tv) television. You don’t have to buy a 797 hp Dodge Challenger. You don’t have to buy seats in first class when coach is available. You don’t have to buy Skippy peanut butter when generic is available. But it is nice to have the freedom to choose to do so. And calling people stupid and ridiculous for choosing to do so says a lot about you. You come across as if everyone doesn’t make the same choices you make then they are wrong, stupid, uninformed, ridiculous, etc.
It is called the free market. You don’t have to buy the new Chevy with the higher tow rating. You don’t have to buy the 65 inch or 70 inch (wow who needs a 70 inch tv) television. You don’t have to buy a 797 hp Dodge Challenger. You don’t have to buy seats in first class when coach is available. You don’t have to buy Skippy peanut butter when generic is available. But it is nice to have the freedom to choose to do so. And calling people stupid and ridiculous for choosing to do so says a lot about you. You come across as if everyone doesn’t make the same choices you make then they are wrong, stupid, uninformed, ridiculous, etc.
Who did I call stupid? I never chastised anyone for choosing to buy anything? I just said I think this whole tow rating pissing match between the manufacturers is stupid and the R&D time and money that went to getting them there could have probably been better spent elsewhere especially if they keep recalling their truck every other month.
Viperpoker wrote:
For someone that is so concerned with cost, you have a bit of overkill in your truck for a 14,000 lb trailer. Plenty of 2500 or f250 gas models will pull that load, and you could save 10k or so. Don’t understand why you bought a truck with so much extra capacity that you are not using. Oh, right, I forgot, free country, we have choices. We all don’t have to drive Yugo’s.
For someone that is so concerned with cost, you have a bit of overkill in your truck for a 14,000 lb trailer. Plenty of 2500 or f250 gas models will pull that load, and you could save 10k or so. Don’t understand why you bought a truck with so much extra capacity that you are not using. Oh, right, I forgot, free country, we have choices. We all don’t have to drive Yugo’s.
I don't think you understand what I have been saying. As I said before, I don't mind paying more for better reliability and efficiency because I see that as a benefit. However, I don't see paying more for a tow rating I don't need. If Ram upgrades things like the frame, then the cost is spread amongst all trucks that use that frame so even those who do not need to go from a frame that can tow 30k to 35k will still have to pay for it. Not only that, but the R&D to make a 35k tow rating truck is spread out in the COGS of each unit. I just think that money(which increases the cost of each truck) could have been better spent elsewhere by the Ram instead of chasing a "best in class" title. Again, I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
Not sure why you guys don't like that I think this pissing match is pointless and that the money would have been better spent elsewhere by Ram and keep quoting what I am saying with a rebuttal to my opinion.
* This post was edited 02/08/19 09:54pm by ShinerBock *
We hear you LOUD and clear. IMHO it's NOT a pissing match it's giving people what they want, a more capable truck with improvements top to bottom.
If all they did was simply fix the issues they would be left in the dark by the others.
I have NOT had a single issue with my 11 or current RAM DRW that caused me grief at all.
Heck if I did not have a couple recalls I would not have gotten to drive this beauty.
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/VCkXMvOl.jpg)
When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?
At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.
When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.
Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. I would rather have 385 hp stock with a CP3 than 400 hp stock with a CP4. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.
* This post was edited 02/09/19 09:33am by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?
When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?
At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.
When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.
Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?
When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?
At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.
When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.
Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.
I totally agree. The specs on these trucks now are WAY higher than over 99% of the people that will buy them need (myself included). That's why I stick with my 350/660 G56 model Ram!
2013 Ram 3500 Megacab DRW Laramie 4x4, 6.7L Cummins, G56, 3.73, Maximum Steel, black lthr, B&W RVK3670 hitch, Retrax, Linex, and a bunch of options incl. cargo camera
2008 Corsair Excella Platinum 34.5 CKTS fifth wheel with winter package & disc brakes
ShinerBock wrote:
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?
When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?
At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.
When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.
Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?
When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?
At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.
When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.
Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.
I started this thread trying to determine what was different about GM that made their tow ratings so much lower last year, as compared to Ram and Ford. The announcement of the new GM truck explained what they had to improve and answered the question. This thread was intended as a discussion of the mechanical capabilities of these trucks, not a gripe session about quality or where the manufacturers should focus their dollars.
You should start a thread about why tow ratings are too high, and open a discussion about it.
And as far as I am concerned, the more power the better. I would like to pull out on an on ramp and be able to accelerate as well as I can accelerate when I am not towing. I would like to "forget the trailer is behind me". I know that is not going to happen, but I am never going to complain about more power in any of my vehicles. No one has to buy these vehicles, but it is nice to have the choice to do so. You also have the choice not to buy them.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
ShinerBock wrote:
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
Yes. On a remote freeway towing the camper home from the coast. It was 100 degrees and my wife and daughters had to wait with me for about 3 hours beside the freeway for a tow truck. It was a good time. That water pump was replaced by another bad one, and the new good one just went in a few weeks ago. Shortly after that dealer visit I learned that I need to go back again for another recall.
These are great trucks but they have a serious problem with excessive recalls. If I were buying one of the newest diesels it would be a Duramax.
Viperpoker wrote:
I started this thread trying to determine what was different about GM that made their tow ratings so much lower last year, as compared to Ram and Ford. The announcement of the new GM truck explained what they had to improve and answered the question. This thread was intended as a discussion of the mechanical capabilities of these trucks, not a gripe session about quality or where the manufacturers should focus their dollars.
I started this thread trying to determine what was different about GM that made their tow ratings so much lower last year, as compared to Ram and Ford. The announcement of the new GM truck explained what they had to improve and answered the question. This thread was intended as a discussion of the mechanical capabilities of these trucks, not a gripe session about quality or where the manufacturers should focus their dollars.
Then stop quoting and rebutting what I am saying and I won't respond. Just let me leave my opinion like everyone else does and be done with it. However, you keep rebutting me because you don't like my opinion and I am returning the favor.
Viperpoker wrote:
And as far as I am concerned, the more power the better. I would like to pull out on an on ramp and be able to accelerate as well as I can accelerate when I am not towing. I would like to "forget the trailer is behind me". I know that is not going to happen, but I am never going to complain about more power in any of my vehicles. No one has to buy these vehicles, but it is nice to have the choice to do so. You also have the choice not to buy them.
And as far as I am concerned, the more power the better. I would like to pull out on an on ramp and be able to accelerate as well as I can accelerate when I am not towing. I would like to "forget the trailer is behind me". I know that is not going to happen, but I am never going to complain about more power in any of my vehicles. No one has to buy these vehicles, but it is nice to have the choice to do so. You also have the choice not to buy them.
No I don't have a choice. When I go to replace my current truck in five years, I will have to buy a CP4 Cummins all because fanboys wanted more stock power instead of sticking with the reliable CP3 pump and turning to the aftermarket for power as I have said in other threads. I can guarantee you that my 500rwhp CP3 Cummins is a lot more reliable at that power rating than a new CP4 Cummins is making 400hp at the crank. No failure prone CP4, no pushing exhaust gases into the intake, no fuel dilution on regens, no pilot injection to wear the injectors out faster, no unnecessary actuation of the VG turbo for emissions to wear it out faster, no carbon gumming up the VG vanes, no restrictive DPF making the EGT high, and so on.
I have been more than happy with my 15 towing 33-35k and just driving it around.
Saying that i am seriously thinking about buying a 2020. I will have about 75k on mine with a warranty to 100k and will get a premium price for it.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Plain and simple if RAM sat back and did not increase power and capability they would soon be non existent plain and simple!
Plain and simple if RAM sat back and did not increase power and capability they would soon be non existent plain and simple!
I have to disagree, and sadly it is only the people why care about such useless figures that get heard by the manufacturer.
Cummins has been behind GM and Ford for a long time in horsepower ratings yet people still buy them. Why? Because they have(had?) a reputation for reliability versus the others. How many people here have said that they will never buy a failure prone CP4 pumped Dmax or PSD regardless of power ratings over the years? How many people have said the only reason the buy a Ram is because the Cummins engine even though they know it made over 25-90 hp less than the competition for many years?
Toyota is another example. Toyota/Leuxus vehicles are behind many of their competitors in regards to tech, power, and capabilities because they use proven and reliable tech yet people still buy them. Why? Because they have a reputation of dependability.
Idad above is considering a Dmax on his next truck. Why? Because the dependability of his truck is not what he thought it would be and does not meet his expectations. He picked a Cummins because out of all the truck that are rated to tow what he needs to, the Cummins had the most reliable track record regardless of if another truck was rated to tow more or had higher stock power levels. Which goes to my point, if Ram focused on making their truck more reliable and efficient instead of trying to win a pissing match, then it probably would make more customers happy instead of just a few fanboys who care about such useless things.
Why do people stick with a brand? Is it because of their highest tow rating in a truck configuration they will never own or because of their reliability?
Why do people leave a brand? Is it because another brand has a higher tow rating in a truck configuration they will never own or is it due to unreliability?
This is why I say that if Ram(and other makes) would focus more of their time and money on making their trucks more reliable instead of winning pissing matches, they would probably please more of their customers instead of a select few fanboys. Besides, if a customer flip flops their truck buying decision on who has the highest tow ratings each year, is that really the kind of customer that you want?
* This post was edited 02/09/19 10:44am by ShinerBock *
IdaD wrote:
Yes. On a remote freeway towing the camper home from the coast. It was 100 degrees and my wife and daughters had to wait with me for about 3 hours beside the freeway for a tow truck. It was a good time. That water pump was replaced by another bad one, and the new good one just went in a few weeks ago. Shortly after that dealer visit I learned that I need to go back again for another recall.
These are great trucks but they have a serious problem with excessive recalls. If I were buying one of the newest diesels it would be a Duramax.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
ShinerBock wrote:
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.
Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?
Yes. On a remote freeway towing the camper home from the coast. It was 100 degrees and my wife and daughters had to wait with me for about 3 hours beside the freeway for a tow truck. It was a good time. That water pump was replaced by another bad one, and the new good one just went in a few weeks ago. Shortly after that dealer visit I learned that I need to go back again for another recall.
These are great trucks but they have a serious problem with excessive recalls. If I were buying one of the newest diesels it would be a Duramax.
Interesting discussion. For the record the best discussions on this forum are often those that stray off topic. I think it's often enlightening when the discussion strays. Let the discussion run its course, wherever that takes us is fine, as long as the discussion stays civil.
I just purchased a 2019 Duramax yes I missed out on the recent upgrades the 2020 models will have, but honestly I'm not trying to keep up with the power wars. I have no plans to to a 20K GVW trailer.
The 2019 will meet my current and future needs.
I can agree with ShinerBock and IdaD that reliability is a bigger priority than ability.
I ended up going with the proven Duramax platform strictly based on drivetrain reliability. I deliberately went with the end of the era of the 6 speed transmission. Because I did not want to be a tester for
the newer platform. My prior 07 Duramax dually had 300K on it and was also the end of era. I know what the 6 speed tranny is about, I also know it can reliably fulfill my current needs and haul the weight I need. I do not need to be on the bleeding edge of ability, especially if the leading edge potentially compromises reliability or introduces the guinea pig factor.
More power is not what I am looking for in a truck. More reliability and more efficiency are more meaningful/desirable criteria for me.
I am by no means suggesting everyone go out and buy a 2019 Duramax,
there are lots of great truck out there and we all have different needs and requirements.
I am suggesting that despite what the marketing departments want us to believe, there is a lot more to consider than just having the truck with the highest ratings.
By the way....the average consumer and car salesman doesn't truly understand the ratings and what they really convey.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
Viperpoker wrote:
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
If you think the big 3 have it all figured out in terms of what consumers want you are dreaming.
The big 3 get it wrong all the time. There are features,colors, and entire lines that don't sell. They are constantly gambling on what consumers really want. Chevy went from teasing Ford about their tailgate step. To trying to revolutionize the tailgate. Dodge/Ram could not be out done, so they came produced their own evolved tailgate. It's a monkey see monkey do world...LOL
As a consumer I'm not interested in any of the new $1,000.00 new fangled tailgates. I prefer the basic model I have. But once again, the big 3 apparently knows better.
How about option packages? None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit..
.I guess I should consider myself lucky the Big 3 have it all figured out for me
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/doh.gif "doh")
I am not saying that Ram(or any other make) should never upgrade their trucks. In fact I am saying the opposite. I believe that the manufactures should strive to make continuous improvements to trucks for safer, more reliable, and efficient towing. And, if they see a considerable amount of customer demand warrants upgrading the truck to increase ratings then I am for that as well. That is money well spent and a good ROI for both the manufacturer and the consumer.
However, there is a huge difference between upgrading a truck(and it's cost to the consumer) to make it better for your customers to meet actual demand versus doing so just to win a "best in class" pissing match especially when you are having quality issues at the current tow ratings. That is a waste of their money and an unnecessary cost increase to the consumer when it could have been better spent elsewhere to increase the reliability or efficiency of their trucks. All the money they spent to go from a 30k tow rated truck to a 35k tow rated truck is a poor ROI for both Ram and and vast majority of their customers.
Lantley wrote:
If you think the big 3 have it all figured out in terms of what consumers want you are dreaming.
The big 3 get it wrong all the time. There are features,colors, and entire lines that don't sell. They are constantly gambling on what consumers really want. Chevy went from teasing Ford about their tailgate step. To trying to revolutionize the tailgate. Dodge/Ram could not be out done, so they came produced their own evolved tailgate. It's a monkey see monkey do world...LOL
As a consumer I'm not interested in any of the new $1,000.00 new fangled tailgates. I prefer the basic model I have. But once again, the big 3 apparently knows better.
How about option packages? None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit...
I guess I should consider myself lucky the Big 3 have it all figured out for me
Viperpoker wrote:
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
If you think the big 3 have it all figured out in terms of what consumers want you are dreaming.
The big 3 get it wrong all the time. There are features,colors, and entire lines that don't sell. They are constantly gambling on what consumers really want. Chevy went from teasing Ford about their tailgate step. To trying to revolutionize the tailgate. Dodge/Ram could not be out done, so they came produced their own evolved tailgate. It's a monkey see monkey do world...LOL
As a consumer I'm not interested in any of the new $1,000.00 new fangled tailgates. I prefer the basic model I have. But once again, the big 3 apparently knows better.
How about option packages? None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit..
.I guess I should consider myself lucky the Big 3 have it all figured out for me
I pretty much agree with most except this
"None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit"
They indeed know what you want. And that is why it is buried in a package. If you want that feature you must pay for the entire thing not just that one option.
mich800 wrote:
I pretty much agree with most except this
"None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit"
They indeed know what you want. And that is why it is buried in a package. If you want that feature you must pay for the entire thing not just that one option.
Lantley wrote:
If you think the big 3 have it all figured out in terms of what consumers want you are dreaming.
The big 3 get it wrong all the time. There are features,colors, and entire lines that don't sell. They are constantly gambling on what consumers really want. Chevy went from teasing Ford about their tailgate step. To trying to revolutionize the tailgate. Dodge/Ram could not be out done, so they came produced their own evolved tailgate. It's a monkey see monkey do world...LOL
As a consumer I'm not interested in any of the new $1,000.00 new fangled tailgates. I prefer the basic model I have. But once again, the big 3 apparently knows better.
How about option packages? None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit...
I guess I should consider myself lucky the Big 3 have it all figured out for me
Viperpoker wrote:
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
GM, Ford, and Ram should listen to some of the people on this forum. It looks like they could sell a lot more trucks if they followed some of the advice found here. Apparently too many dummies buying trucks for the wrong reasons. I wonder why GM, Ford, and Ram can’t figure this out? If only one of them would go back to something like 2013 model capabilities, most everyone would buy it and the other two would probably go out of business. Such a simple plan.
Also, those 57 Chevy’s were probably the best car ever. Too bad I can’t buy a new one, it was absolutely the peak of automotive technology, downhill ever since.
If you think the big 3 have it all figured out in terms of what consumers want you are dreaming.
The big 3 get it wrong all the time. There are features,colors, and entire lines that don't sell. They are constantly gambling on what consumers really want. Chevy went from teasing Ford about their tailgate step. To trying to revolutionize the tailgate. Dodge/Ram could not be out done, so they came produced their own evolved tailgate. It's a monkey see monkey do world...LOL
As a consumer I'm not interested in any of the new $1,000.00 new fangled tailgates. I prefer the basic model I have. But once again, the big 3 apparently knows better.
How about option packages? None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit..
.I guess I should consider myself lucky the Big 3 have it all figured out for me
I pretty much agree with most except this
"None of the big 3 are actually interested in what I really want. Instead they tell me what packages I can have vs. letting me pick my options as I see fit"
They indeed know what you want. And that is why it is buried in a package. If you want that feature you must pay for the entire thing not just that one option.
Good point. I'm sure it's more profitable to mix a little of what I don't want in with what I want.
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/frown.gif "frown")
I consider my Super Duty to be a very economical truck to own.
Having said that I wouldn't mind stock 500HP and 1,010 ft/lbs of torque under the hood.
ExxWhy wrote:
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
HMMMMM, sounds like common sense. How dare you!!!
ExxWhy wrote:
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
My last truck was a pre Emissions 2007 Duramax. My new truck is a 2019 Duramax with DEF emissions. The tow ratings have increased. I believe the frame is more substantial as well.
However the complexity has also increased. There are more electronics
than my prior truck.
While I have lots of faith in my new truck, it is more complicated than the old one. In short there is more to go wrong with it
While my new truck is more capable I don't know that it is more reliable.
Increased ability does not automatically equate to increased reliability. I purchased my 2007 because it was a pre emissions truck.
I deliberately avoided the DPF era trucks that had higher ratings, but suffered from poor MPG's and other issues. The DPF era is a good example of more capability but less reliability.
Fast forward now to the DEF era and the trucks are reliable and more capable. But the big 3 went through a learning curve to get there.
Will this next era of 10 speed trannies and insane power come with a learning curve?
Only time will tell but increased tow ratings is not a magical cure all for reliability issues.
* This post was edited 02/10/19 07:36am by Lantley *
Lantley wrote:
My last truck was a pre Emissions 2007 Duramax. My new truck is a 2019 Duramax with DEF emissions. The tow ratings have increased. I believe the frame is more substantial as well.
However the complexity has also increased. There are more electronics
than my prior truck.
While I have lots of faith in my new truck, it is more complicated than the old one. In short there is more to go wrong with it
While my new truck is more capable I don't know that it is more reliable.
Increased ability does not automatically equate to increased reliability. I purchased my 2007 because it was a pre emissions truck.
I deliberately avoided the DPF era trucks that had higher ratings, but suffered from poor MPG's and other issues. The DPF era is a good example of more capability but less reliability.
Fast forward now to the DEF era and the trucks are reliable and more capable. But the big 3 went through a learning curve to get there.
Will this next era of 10 speed trannies and insane power come with a learning curve?
Only time will tell but increased tow ratings is not a magical cure all for reliability issues.
ExxWhy wrote:
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
My last truck was a pre Emissions 2007 Duramax. My new truck is a 2019 Duramax with DEF emissions. The tow ratings have increased. I believe the frame is more substantial as well.
However the complexity has also increased. There are more electronics
than my prior truck.
While I have lots of faith in my new truck, it is more complicated than the old one. In short there is more to go wrong with it
While my new truck is more capable I don't know that it is more reliable.
Increased ability does not automatically equate to increased reliability. I purchased my 2007 because it was a pre emissions truck.
I deliberately avoided the DPF era trucks that had higher ratings, but suffered from poor MPG's and other issues. The DPF era is a good example of more capability but less reliability.
Fast forward now to the DEF era and the trucks are reliable and more capable. But the big 3 went through a learning curve to get there.
Will this next era of 10 speed trannies and insane power come with a learning curve?
Only time will tell but increased tow ratings is not a magical cure all for reliability issues.
The emissions requirements are a separate issue from increased capabilities. Even if they didn’t increase the tow ratings at all, Uncle Sam drove the new emissions.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
FISH, why replace the shocks "TWICE" ?
FISH, why replace the shocks "TWICE" ?
Because I decided to try the adjustable Rancho shocks and after about ~20k miles they were junk.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
HMMMMM, sounds like common sense. How dare you!!!
ExxWhy wrote:
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
HMMMMM, sounds like common sense. How dare you!!!
Okay. Then can either of you explain how increasing the tow ratings fixes the water pump recall, the steering linkage recall, the SCR recall, and all the other recalls on these trucks?
Also, how does going from a 30k tow rated frame to a 35k tow rated frame make it more reliable for those that tow less than 20k?
Prev: 2010 Cougar 322QBS (junk)
02 Dodge 2500 4x4 5.9L CTD 3.55
07 Dodge 3500 4x4 SRW Mega 5.9L CTD 3.73
14 Ram 2500 4x4 Crew 6.4L Hemi 4.10
06 Chevy 1500 4x4 E-Cab 3.73 5.3L
07 Dodge 1500 5.7L Hemi 3.55 / 2010 Jayco 17z
All above are sold, no longer own an RV
ib516 wrote:
I wonder if the cooling ability (heat rejection) of the previous Duramax was the limiting factor? GM seems to have done a number of improvements in that area with this newest generation Duramax, and they have to be sensitive to the issue since they screwed up the engineering of the 2004.5 and 2005 LLY overheaters....
I wonder if the cooling ability (heat rejection) of the previous Duramax was the limiting factor? GM seems to have done a number of improvements in that area with this newest generation Duramax, and they have to be sensitive to the issue since they screwed up the engineering of the 2004.5 and 2005 LLY overheaters....
ib516 You must have nightmares about the early duramax's so let it go and enjoy the new trucks. If our 05 was an overheater it would not be towing our alpenlite. If it was a truck with years of poor front end suspensions it would not be doing it either.
102000 miles and runs awesome.
chevman
larry barnhart wrote:
ib516 You must have nightmares about the early duramax's so let it go and enjoy the new trucks. If our 05 was an overheater it would not be towing our alpenlite. If it was a truck with years of poor front end suspensions it would not be doing it either.
102000 miles and runs awesome.
chevman
ib516 wrote:
I wonder if the cooling ability (heat rejection) of the previous Duramax was the limiting factor? GM seems to have done a number of improvements in that area with this newest generation Duramax, and they have to be sensitive to the issue since they screwed up the engineering of the 2004.5 and 2005 LLY overheaters....
I wonder if the cooling ability (heat rejection) of the previous Duramax was the limiting factor? GM seems to have done a number of improvements in that area with this newest generation Duramax, and they have to be sensitive to the issue since they screwed up the engineering of the 2004.5 and 2005 LLY overheaters....
ib516 You must have nightmares about the early duramax's so let it go and enjoy the new trucks. If our 05 was an overheater it would not be towing our alpenlite. If it was a truck with years of poor front end suspensions it would not be doing it either.
102000 miles and runs awesome.
chevman
No nightmares here, though I did drive one my dad owned and I towed his 26' TT with it. Any little hill and the cooling fan was screaming. I have no doubt on a steep grade with a heavier load it would have had the temp gauge climbing to the red zone.
Speaking of which, why do you have the aftermarket oil cooler in your signature on your truck? What is it, the TD-EOC ...that was marketed as a cure for the LLY overheating woes?
Come on Larry - There's only about 1000 threads on the Duramax forums about those trucks overheating
I will say the new trucks look pretty awesome and with the exception of the early injector issues (2001 to 2004), then the overheaters of 04 and 05, the Duramax has proven itself as a great powerplant.
Really not an issue for the modern Duramax's of today's era
Lantley wrote:
THe Duramax cooling issues were resolved for the most part with the intro of the LBZ motor in 2006. Really hasn't been an issue for over a decade.
Really not an issue for the modern Duramax's of today's era
THe Duramax cooling issues were resolved for the most part with the intro of the LBZ motor in 2006. Really hasn't been an issue for over a decade.
Really not an issue for the modern Duramax's of today's era
I agree, hasn't been an issue since 05.
What I did say was that they (GM) say they have made the cooling system more robust to be able to tow 35,000+ like the other two. They mentioned their bigger cooling fan, bigger grill, bigger radiator, bigger oil cooler, etc. as improvements to tow the heavier loads. The Duramax hasn't changed much other than that (still 445hp/910tq). So my theory is maybe the cooling system was one of the weak links that held it back to 23,000# towing when the competition was 35k.
The topic of the thread is what folks think was the weak link....
The point of bringing up the LLY overheaters is that GM took a bit of a beating over that screw up, so they would not want to repeat that negative press by screwing up this new one, so they probably didn't want to artificially jack up the rating to keep up with the competition and have the trucks overheat going up the Ike for example. Also, for the SAE towing specs to be met, they have to tow their rated load up a grade, in the heat, without any warning lights coming on.
To simulate some of the toughest conditions a truck and trailer combination will face, the J2807 “Highway Gradeability” tests take place on a well-known stretch of Arizona highway, the 11.4-mile-long Davis Dam Grade. If trucks are not tested on this specific stretch of steep road, they can be run in a simulation using a “climactic” wind tunnel. Ambient temperature plays a significant role in this test with a minimum temperature of 100 degrees required at the base of the grade. In addition to a hot climate outside the truck, the test requires the air conditioning system to be set at maximum cold, with outside air selected (not recirculating) and the fan running at full blower speed. Once those criteria are met, the evaluation can begin on the famous stretch of SR 68 between Bullhead City and Golden Valley, Arizona. To pass this test, a truck-and-trailer combination must be able to drive at 40 mph (35 mph for dualies) and never drop below that speed until the end of the test segment at the peak of Union Pass. Testdrivers are allowed to go faster than the minimum speed requirement in the sections of the grade where posted speed limits are 55 mph and 65 mph, but there are other requirements the vehicle must still meet. Under “drivetrain system performance,” the J2807 standard requires there be no component failures, along with no “check engine” lights or any other alerts or warnings for the driver. The “cooling system performance” requirement also requires zero part failures, no error codes, no driver warnings of any other kind, and no loss of coolant fluid during the test.
To me, that is a more important test than many of the other things they test for.
* This post was edited 02/10/19 01:09pm by ShinerBock *
PS if our truck was bad it would have been replaced years ago
chevman
larry barnhart wrote:
ib516 yes it is the TD EOC. No knowledge of any issues when we had it installed by the inventer close to us in Az. It was not supposed to be of any value and proven to be a waste of money by some experts so maybe it wasn't so bad after all. I was not being mean to you just messing around.
PS if our truck was bad it would have been replaced years ago
chevman
ib516 yes it is the TD EOC. No knowledge of any issues when we had it installed by the inventer close to us in Az. It was not supposed to be of any value and proven to be a waste of money by some experts so maybe it wasn't so bad after all. I was not being mean to you just messing around.
PS if our truck was bad it would have been replaced years ago
chevman
No worries. I'd gladly own a Dmax powered GM/Chevy, they're great trucks. My dad was a GM (Chev/Olds) dealer for 25 years. I'm not a GM hater by any stretch. I just call out bad engineering when (IMO) I see it. All 3 (Ram, Ford, and GM) have had their blunders.
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
blt2ski wrote:
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
Most did not have overheating issues. Those that did were easily repaired with some LBZ components (of which I cant remember exactly anymore what that was). Grandstand on the issue if you like, but it wasn't wide spread nor was it a big deal to correct.
The temp gauge would hit 3/4 and the cooling fan would scream on any little grade when pulling his TT in the summer. His TT was a 26' Thor rear bath with 14" wheels. Not heavy or high profile, and no where near the max capacity of the truck, likely not even 1/2 it's max tow rating.
ksss wrote:
Most did not have overheating issues. Those that did were easily repaired with some LBZ components (of which I cant remember exactly anymore what that was). Grandstand on the issue if you like, but it wasn't wide spread nor was it a big deal to correct.
blt2ski wrote:
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
Most did not have overheating issues. Those that did were easily repaired with some LBZ components (of which I cant remember exactly anymore what that was). Grandstand on the issue if you like, but it wasn't wide spread nor was it a big deal to correct.
What percentage had over heating issues is anyone's guess. I'd categorize it as a significant problem that gave GM's diesels a bit of a black eye, much like the injector issues the LB7 had.
Google it for yourself. I realize it's 13-14 years ago now, but a
2 second google search will show there's still plenty of plain to see info still out there about it if anyone cares to look. If not, that's OK too.
ShinerBock wrote:
Okay. Then can either of you explain how increasing the tow ratings fixes the water pump recall, the steering linkage recall, the SCR recall, and all the other recalls on these trucks?
Also, how does going from a 30k tow rated frame to a 35k tow rated frame make it more reliable for those that tow less than 20k?
Cummins12V98 wrote:
HMMMMM, sounds like common sense. How dare you!!!
ExxWhy wrote:
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
It could be argued that by increasing the tow rating to a number most customers will never use actually increases the reliability of the truck while towing at the lesser numbers that most people do need. If you think about how to make something more reliable, the first thing that comes to my mind is make it stronger.
HMMMMM, sounds like common sense. How dare you!!!
Okay. Then can either of you explain how increasing the tow ratings fixes the water pump recall, the steering linkage recall, the SCR recall, and all the other recalls on these trucks?
Also, how does going from a 30k tow rated frame to a 35k tow rated frame make it more reliable for those that tow less than 20k?
I'm not saying high ratings are a total cure all, but I am saying it surely has some effect on general reliability and does more than allow bragging rights. Engines are derated in larger trucks to meet some reliability goal. Same engine, different tune and less demanded of it, makes it meet the higher goal.
I don't see recalls having anything to do with that. Manufacturers don't deliberately design a part to fail so they can meet the customer again at the dealer. They designed something wrong, they made it too cheap, just plain poor workmanship, bottom line it was a mistake. If it costs the company enough, they will redesign it.
FWIW, the water pump on the Cummins engine was redesigned to accomodate the higher cooling demands of the higher rated engine. In theory, that should fix that weak point.
blt2ski wrote:
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
Ian,
I didnot have any overheating issues with my 05 dually, same with Larry. Maybe neither of us is a lead foot? or trying to pull at unreasonable speeds etc.
If you want to talk about overheaters, try the 6.5td from 95-97 with the auto trans. I had some issues with my NV4500, but not near the temps issues as those with the auto trans. I solved most of that issue with the post 97 cooling mods.
Of course this is not to say some or all of these did not have issues.....with the HP/torque a lot of the new motors are producing, an excellent cooling system is a must.
Marty
You can add my parents 05 Duramax to the list of non overheating issue. They had that truck for 10 years and pulled some pretty good mountains with their 5ver.
Although I'm not dismissing it as a problem in certain conditions, I think there's a bit of internet amplification going on here!
ExxWhy wrote:
I'm not saying high ratings are a total cure all, but I am saying it surely has some effect on general reliability and does more than allow bragging rights. Engines are derated in larger trucks to meet some reliability goal. Same engine, different tune and less demanded of it, makes it meet the higher goal.
I don't see recalls having anything to do with that. Manufacturers don't deliberately design a part to fail so they can meet the customer again at the dealer. They designed something wrong, they made it too cheap, just plain poor workmanship, bottom line it was a mistake. If it costs the company enough, they will redesign it.
FWIW, the water pump on the Cummins engine was redesigned to accomodate the higher cooling demands of the higher rated engine. In theory, that should fix that weak point.
I'm not saying high ratings are a total cure all, but I am saying it surely has some effect on general reliability and does more than allow bragging rights. Engines are derated in larger trucks to meet some reliability goal. Same engine, different tune and less demanded of it, makes it meet the higher goal.
I don't see recalls having anything to do with that. Manufacturers don't deliberately design a part to fail so they can meet the customer again at the dealer. They designed something wrong, they made it too cheap, just plain poor workmanship, bottom line it was a mistake. If it costs the company enough, they will redesign it.
FWIW, the water pump on the Cummins engine was redesigned to accomodate the higher cooling demands of the higher rated engine. In theory, that should fix that weak point.
That is not how it works. Engines are derated to meet emissions and are also sandbagged a little for future "updates". Has nothing to do with reliability. An engine make can produce a 400 hp diesel and if at any point it detects temps are getting to high to the detriment of the engine it will simply defuel and lower power levels.
This has more to do with recalls than you might think. How it works in manufacturing is you have a lead engineer for the whole project who is being told buy his superiors what to focus on. If his superiors tell him to focus on beating the competition's tow rating then he will divert more money, manpower, and time to achieving that goal which diverts less to other areas.
Truck makes also strive to keep these trucks under a certain cost point, and they know exactly how much they can spend on the development and production of this truck before hand. If more money for the whole project is spent on parts to update the frame, then less will have to be spent elsewhere like going with a cheaper water pump supplier over a better one from another supplier to stay in budget. They had to switch to the better supplier with the recall.
So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck.
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
ShinerBock wrote:
Engines are derated to meet emissions and are also sandbagged a little for future "updates". Has nothing to do with reliability.
So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck.
Engines are derated to meet emissions and are also sandbagged a little for future "updates". Has nothing to do with reliability.
So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck.
This is way out of my knowledge base. You are telling me that larger medium duty class trucks (4500/5500/6500) have stricter emission standards than consumer grade (2500/3500) pickup trucks? Makes no sense to me, but if that is what comes from the government it wouldn't shock me. Can you enlighten us on that?
I completely disagree with the last sentence. More capable does not equate to less reliable, just the opposite IMO.
![[image]](https://i.imgur.com/olRnE0hl.jpg)
Viperpoker wrote:
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
I bet the water pump would have been world class!!
ExxWhy wrote:
This is way out of my knowledge base. You are telling me that larger medium duty class trucks (4500/5500/6500) have stricter emission standards than consumer grade (2500/3500) pickup trucks? Makes no sense to me, but if that is what comes from the government it wouldn't shock me. Can you enlighten us on that?
I completely disagree with the last sentence. More capable does not equate to less reliable, just the opposite IMO.
This is way out of my knowledge base. You are telling me that larger medium duty class trucks (4500/5500/6500) have stricter emission standards than consumer grade (2500/3500) pickup trucks? Makes no sense to me, but if that is what comes from the government it wouldn't shock me. Can you enlighten us on that?
I completely disagree with the last sentence. More capable does not equate to less reliable, just the opposite IMO.
Yes, medium duty class 4500/5500/6500 and cab & chassis 3500's have different emissions certifications than a complete pick up truck. Complete pickups go through a chassis dyno certification and incomplete vehicles go through a engine dyno certification for emissions that also differ based on the GVWR of the truck. They are de-rated based on the on the limit of each GVWR and/or purposely derated by the manufacturer to sell a higher power package.
That is the reason why a Ram 3500 CTD pickup has a max of 385/950, but the 3500 cab & chassis max's out at 325/750. Both have different emissions certifications dictating their power levels.
* This post was edited 02/11/19 12:34pm by ShinerBock *
Cummins12V98 wrote:
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
I was just using the water pump as one simple example of many. Would you like me to use another recall out of the 10 my brother and I got? Just got a new one last week that they says they don't have a solution for.
* This post was edited 02/11/19 12:44pm by ShinerBock *
Viperpoker wrote:
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
* This post was edited 02/11/19 12:35pm by ShinerBock *
ShinerBock wrote:
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
Viperpoker wrote:
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
I like the way you point out that people don't understand your wisdom or the development process.. I understand you very well, just happen to disagree, and I don't have to throw around terms like, stupid, stupidity, ridiculous, fanboy, pissing match, knuckleheads, or"mine is better" to help them get through life. No one has to buy one of these trucks (and we were talking about Chevy's, not Rams) If someone doesn't like the new trucks, they can buy a used one from a few years ago. Or they can buy a Toyota, if you think they have the quality advantage. You may have to get a smaller RV or a trailer, but it is an option.
If anyone sounds like a fanboy, you appear to only consider Rams. I have had all three, and would have no problem buying any of them again. If I think one is ahead of the others in multiple categories, including price, performance, reliability, resell, etc, I would buy it. Some people like work trucks, others like every bell and whistle there is. More power to them. Not gonna throw out insulting terms for any of their decisions.
GM, Ford, and Ram are all in competition, and will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the market place. Sometimes they make good calls, sometimes not, but if they screw the pooch too bad, the market will punish them.
Here are some of your greatest hits from this thread, for those idiots who disagree with you.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much.
I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is bette
Viperpoker wrote:
I like the way you point out that people don't understand your wisdom or the development process.. I understand you very well, just happen to disagree, and I don't have to throw around terms like, stupid, stupidity, ridiculous, fanboy, pissing match, knuckleheads, or"mine is better" to help them get through life. No one has to buy one of these trucks (and we were talking about Chevy's, not Rams) If someone doesn't like the new trucks, they can buy a used one from a few years ago. Or they can buy a Toyota, if you think they have the quality advantage. You may have to get a smaller RV or a trailer, but it is an option.
If anyone sounds like a fanboy, you appear to only consider Rams. I have had all three, and would have no problem buying any of them again. If I think one is ahead of the others in multiple categories, including price, performance, reliability, resell, etc, I would buy it. Some people like work trucks, others like every bell and whistle there is. More power to them. Not gonna throw out insulting terms for any of their decisions.
GM, Ford, and Ram are all in competition, and will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the market place. Sometimes they make good calls, sometimes not, but if they screw the pooch too bad, the market will punish them.
Here are some of your greatest hits from this thread, for those idiots who disagree with you.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much.
I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is bette
ShinerBock wrote:
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
Viperpoker wrote:
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
I like the way you point out that people don't understand your wisdom or the development process.. I understand you very well, just happen to disagree, and I don't have to throw around terms like, stupid, stupidity, ridiculous, fanboy, pissing match, knuckleheads, or"mine is better" to help them get through life. No one has to buy one of these trucks (and we were talking about Chevy's, not Rams) If someone doesn't like the new trucks, they can buy a used one from a few years ago. Or they can buy a Toyota, if you think they have the quality advantage. You may have to get a smaller RV or a trailer, but it is an option.
If anyone sounds like a fanboy, you appear to only consider Rams. I have had all three, and would have no problem buying any of them again. If I think one is ahead of the others in multiple categories, including price, performance, reliability, resell, etc, I would buy it. Some people like work trucks, others like every bell and whistle there is. More power to them. Not gonna throw out insulting terms for any of their decisions.
GM, Ford, and Ram are all in competition, and will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the market place. Sometimes they make good calls, sometimes not, but if they screw the pooch too bad, the market will punish them.
Here are some of your greatest hits from this thread, for those idiots who disagree with you.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much.
I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is bette
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
It is senseless for any manufacturer of any product to spend so much time and money on something that less that .1% of their customers will actually buy and will unnecessarily increase the cost of their product to the other 99.9% of their customers when they are having reliability issues with their existing product. That is how companies go bankrupt and need bailouts.
ShinerBock wrote:
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
It is senseless for any manufacturer of any product to spend so much time and money on something that less that .1% of their customers will actually buy and will increase the cost of their product when they are having reliability issues with excising product. That is how companies go bankrupt and need bailouts.
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
It is senseless for any manufacturer of any product to spend so much time and money on something that less that .1% of their customers will actually buy and will increase the cost of their product when they are having reliability issues with excising product. That is how companies go bankrupt and need bailouts.
I agree they (all manufactures) need to do both. Allowing poor quality will ultimately reduce innovation and new performance/options as the money that could be spend on R&D will get diverted to recalls and repairs. Ram has two recalls out right now that do not inspire confidence. Failing steering adjusters on the HD's and the adjustable pedals on the 1500's. I think back on how many times I have adjusted the pedals while driving (not recommended by the mfg). That would sure be a pucker moment if the brake pedal fell off doing that.
ShinerBock wrote:
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
Viperpoker wrote:
I like the way you point out that people don't understand your wisdom or the development process.. I understand you very well, just happen to disagree, and I don't have to throw around terms like, stupid, stupidity, ridiculous, fanboy, pissing match, knuckleheads, or"mine is better" to help them get through life. No one has to buy one of these trucks (and we were talking about Chevy's, not Rams) If someone doesn't like the new trucks, they can buy a used one from a few years ago. Or they can buy a Toyota, if you think they have the quality advantage. You may have to get a smaller RV or a trailer, but it is an option.
If anyone sounds like a fanboy, you appear to only consider Rams. I have had all three, and would have no problem buying any of them again. If I think one is ahead of the others in multiple categories, including price, performance, reliability, resell, etc, I would buy it. Some people like work trucks, others like every bell and whistle there is. More power to them. Not gonna throw out insulting terms for any of their decisions.
GM, Ford, and Ram are all in competition, and will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the market place. Sometimes they make good calls, sometimes not, but if they screw the pooch too bad, the market will punish them.
Here are some of your greatest hits from this thread, for those idiots who disagree with you.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much.
I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is bette
ShinerBock wrote:
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
Viperpoker wrote:
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
Just think how great it would be if they had just focused on making all of the parts more reliable and higher quality on this truck, instead of useless/crazy/unneeded performance improvements. It would be awesome!!
If that is what you get out of what am saying then I am afraid you aren't fully understanding what I am saying and/or how developing a product works.
I like the way you point out that people don't understand your wisdom or the development process.. I understand you very well, just happen to disagree, and I don't have to throw around terms like, stupid, stupidity, ridiculous, fanboy, pissing match, knuckleheads, or"mine is better" to help them get through life. No one has to buy one of these trucks (and we were talking about Chevy's, not Rams) If someone doesn't like the new trucks, they can buy a used one from a few years ago. Or they can buy a Toyota, if you think they have the quality advantage. You may have to get a smaller RV or a trailer, but it is an option.
If anyone sounds like a fanboy, you appear to only consider Rams. I have had all three, and would have no problem buying any of them again. If I think one is ahead of the others in multiple categories, including price, performance, reliability, resell, etc, I would buy it. Some people like work trucks, others like every bell and whistle there is. More power to them. Not gonna throw out insulting terms for any of their decisions.
GM, Ford, and Ram are all in competition, and will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the market place. Sometimes they make good calls, sometimes not, but if they screw the pooch too bad, the market will punish them.
Here are some of your greatest hits from this thread, for those idiots who disagree with you.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "mine is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to tow that much.
I don't need to say mine is rated to tow some exorbitant amount that I will never tow to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is bette
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
Now look who doesn’t understand. I was just referring to your arrogant attitude and coming across as a total a$$, with anyone who disagrees with you. You can believe what you want without insulting everyone with a different opinion. You probably should buy that Toyota. Or apply for CEO of Ram so you can stop them from being so stupid. And Ram is not “best in class”. Ford is today, and GM looks to be tomorrow, unless Ford has a pissing contest and beats them.
Viperpoker wrote:
Now look who doesn’t understand. I was just referring to your arrogant attitude and coming across as a total a$$, with anyone who disagrees with you. You can believe what you want without insulting everyone with a different opinion. You probably should buy that Toyota. Or apply for CEO of Ram so you can stop them from being so stupid. And Ram is not “best in class”. Ford is today, and GM looks to be tomorrow, unless Ford has a pissing contest and beats them.
Now look who doesn’t understand. I was just referring to your arrogant attitude and coming across as a total a$$, with anyone who disagrees with you. You can believe what you want without insulting everyone with a different opinion. You probably should buy that Toyota. Or apply for CEO of Ram so you can stop them from being so stupid. And Ram is not “best in class”. Ford is today, and GM looks to be tomorrow, unless Ford has a pissing contest and beats them.
How you perceive my attitude is not a fault on my part. I was not insulting your opinion with pictures of model T's with off base passive aggressive comments, that was you. I am just reinstating my opinion every time you guys keep rebutting it. If you don't like it, then stop quoting me and stop making the passive aggressive comment meant towards me. Until then, I will keep responding back at what is directed at me.
mich800 wrote:
I agree they (all manufactures) need to do both. Allowing poor quality will ultimately reduce innovation and new performance/options as the money that could be spend on R&D will get diverted to recalls and repairs. Ram has two recalls out right now that do not inspire confidence. Failing steering adjusters on the HD's and the adjustable pedals on the 1500's. I think back on how many times I have adjusted the pedals while driving (not recommended by the mfg). That would sure be a pucker moment if the brake pedal fell off doing that.
ShinerBock wrote:
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
It is senseless for any manufacturer of any product to spend so much time and money on something that less that .1% of their customers will actually buy and will increase the cost of their product when they are having reliability issues with excising product. That is how companies go bankrupt and need bailouts.
You keep insinuating that I do not want the trucks to improve which is false as I have stated multiple times. You guys are just getting mad because I feel that if a company is having so many quality issues ,which Ram clearly is with so many recalls, more money and time should go into fixing that and improving reliability of new models before trying to win a pissing match tow battle especially when their current ratings of 31k covers 99.999999999999999999999% of their customers.
There is fine line between Ram(and other makes) improving these trucks and their ratings to meet customer demand versus doing so just to win "best in class". One actually benefits customers, the other just adds unnecessary cost to every truck with no real ROI since very few customers will actually buy these truck configurations. I can see if there was a big market for these ratings, but there isn't so the rest of us have to bear the cost of these pissing matches with a higher cost truck that you have to take back to the dealer every other month due to recalls.
It is senseless for any manufacturer of any product to spend so much time and money on something that less that .1% of their customers will actually buy and will increase the cost of their product when they are having reliability issues with excising product. That is how companies go bankrupt and need bailouts.
I agree they (all manufactures) need to do both. Allowing poor quality will ultimately reduce innovation and new performance/options as the money that could be spend on R&D will get diverted to recalls and repairs. Ram has two recalls out right now that do not inspire confidence. Failing steering adjusters on the HD's and the adjustable pedals on the 1500's. I think back on how many times I have adjusted the pedals while driving (not recommended by the mfg). That would sure be a pucker moment if the brake pedal fell off doing that.
Yeah, and sadly there is already reported to be one injury and eight accidents due to the steering recall. What makes maters worse for me is my dealer says they don't even have the parts to fix it and probably won't for a while. That doesn't instill confidence in a truck that I purchased for its reliability. I will dump an unreliable brand even if it has the highest tow rating or higher power ratings.
ShinerBock wrote:
I was just using the water pump as one simple example of many. Would you like me to use another recall out of the 10 my brother and I got? Just got a new one last week that they says they don't have a solution for.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
I was just using the water pump as one simple example of many. Would you like me to use another recall out of the 10 my brother and I got? Just got a new one last week that they says they don't have a solution for.
To me it's all like water running off a Duck's back!!!
Cummins12V98 wrote:
To me it's all like water running off a Duck's back!!!
ShinerBock wrote:
I was just using the water pump as one simple example of many. Would you like me to use another recall out of the 10 my brother and I got? Just got a new one last week that they says they don't have a solution for.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
"So you see, the more time, money and manpower they devote to these pissing matches, the more it likely hurts the rest of the truck."
In YOUR opinion.
Possibly a bad water pump depending on what brand was installed on your Cummins engine. Is that RAM's fault?
Bottom line there were some bad pumps and they replaced them.
I was just using the water pump as one simple example of many. Would you like me to use another recall out of the 10 my brother and I got? Just got a new one last week that they says they don't have a solution for.
To me it's all like water running off a Duck's back!!!
Of course because it is your favorite brand. However, I don't you would look at it the same if it were a Ford or GM.
Stupidity. Just pissing match bragging rights by fanboys who are the types of people who like to say "my water pump is better" to help them get through life and will probably never own the truck configuration or licence needed to pump that much water.
I don't need to say mine is rated to pump some exorbitant amount of water that I will never need to make me feel better about what I drive. I am not a one brand only fanboy to care about such things.
I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40 months, 50 months, 60 months? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers, for how long a water pump must last.
I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.
because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand has better water pumps.