Does anyone here with a Ram 1500 eco-diesel...
- Thread starter another Todd
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: another Todd
390pi, do you have a crew cab by chance and how does your truck ride? We have a lot of freeway joints around here that used to cause my F350 to bounce like a pogo stick, absolutely jarring.
If your considering a 2500 you should take one for a spin. The ride is so much more refined than my 98 CTD, its like comparing a 65 VW bug to a new Cadillac. There was a repo on a super low mileage 13 near us and I test drove it as my family is outgrowing my 98 and i am in the market for one. It was a great truck but ultimately I'm holding out for a SRW3500 with the Aisin transmission.
390pi, do you have a crew cab by chance and how does your truck ride? We have a lot of freeway joints around here that used to cause my F350 to bounce like a pogo stick, absolutely jarring.
If your considering a 2500 you should take one for a spin. The ride is so much more refined than my 98 CTD, its like comparing a 65 VW bug to a new Cadillac. There was a repo on a super low mileage 13 near us and I test drove it as my family is outgrowing my 98 and i am in the market for one. It was a great truck but ultimately I'm holding out for a SRW3500 with the Aisin transmission.
Yes, crew cab short bed. The rear coil suspension makes a huge difference in the ride. I know the roads you speak of. GVW is 10,000- close to what 1-tons were a few years back. Starting in 2014 the 2500 got the 3500 frame. Says so in the brochure.
They have come a long way with these trucks.
They have come a long way with these trucks.
I just looked up my 93 F350 4x4 crew cab LB 460 cu in. gas (long ago sold) and the Eco-Diesel has about the same HP but more torque, by a fair amount. I towed a fifth wheel trailer with that truck and it was pretty good at it. Is it possible the tow ratings are low on the ED so as to not steal sales from the 2500 Cummings?
390pi, I didn't realize the rear was coil springs on the 2500. That would make for a more civil ride for sure. As soon as my motorhome is sold I will start my search. Your truck sounds like just the ticket. My neighbors SOL has the same truck and indicates he is getting over 20 MPG also. My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
390pi, I didn't realize the rear was coil springs on the 2500. That would make for a more civil ride for sure. As soon as my motorhome is sold I will start my search. Your truck sounds like just the ticket. My neighbors SOL has the same truck and indicates he is getting over 20 MPG also. My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
Cost of diesel. As you'll see discused in my links above, diesel isn't that expensive if you shop around a bit. I ran 89 octane, mid grade in GA, in my '06 F-150. Altho rated for 87, I figured it would be better to up a grade for towing. The price delta for diesel is much larger than what you normally see for gas. Within a mile of my house gas prices vary by ~10cents, but diesel by 50cents. What that means is that you have to shop a little harder for diesel. I can always find diesel for ~10% more than 89 octane. The Ram gets 1/3rd better mpg as a DD than the F-150 did, and almost double the mpg when towing.
First, I refuse to use cheap diesel in my 10 year old car--I can't imagine running "cheap" diesel in something newer with vastly more expensive injector system. One slug of water and it's game over.
Second, you chose to run 89 octane becuase... you thought it would do better? Not that it did, but because you thought it might? Cheap diesel vs mid range (top tier?) gasoline. I'm not trying to flame you but it sounds like special pleading. The Ecoboost appears to do better on higher octane, and some other vehicles might--so that make sense, and make for a fair comparsion. But unless if it's absolutely known then it's really not fair. If the truck pulls the same on 87 octane, then 87RUG vs D2 ought to be the comparasion.
Right now it seems like D2 is running 30% more expensive (I think, I don't pay that much attention, and even by my own standards, I'm using pricing from a "spendy" place that I usually go to). $2.62 vs $3.43? Something like that.
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
Yet the tow capacity of the '99 Ram was only slightly less then my 2014 ED. So when one says the towing with the ED at it's capacity is unsafe, what is the measuring stick for that statement? Certainly it's not historic norms.
This I do agree with. Older trucks made do with inferior parts (proper at the time, but clearly not in the same class as today). I still am not convinced at towing at published limits is a great idea, but clearly we have come a long ways, and pulling at or near the limits is not what it used to be.
Cost of diesel. As you'll see discused in my links above, diesel isn't that expensive if you shop around a bit. I ran 89 octane, mid grade in GA, in my '06 F-150. Altho rated for 87, I figured it would be better to up a grade for towing. The price delta for diesel is much larger than what you normally see for gas. Within a mile of my house gas prices vary by ~10cents, but diesel by 50cents. What that means is that you have to shop a little harder for diesel. I can always find diesel for ~10% more than 89 octane. The Ram gets 1/3rd better mpg as a DD than the F-150 did, and almost double the mpg when towing.
First, I refuse to use cheap diesel in my 10 year old car--I can't imagine running "cheap" diesel in something newer with vastly more expensive injector system. One slug of water and it's game over.
Second, you chose to run 89 octane becuase... you thought it would do better? Not that it did, but because you thought it might? Cheap diesel vs mid range (top tier?) gasoline. I'm not trying to flame you but it sounds like special pleading. The Ecoboost appears to do better on higher octane, and some other vehicles might--so that make sense, and make for a fair comparsion. But unless if it's absolutely known then it's really not fair. If the truck pulls the same on 87 octane, then 87RUG vs D2 ought to be the comparasion.
Right now it seems like D2 is running 30% more expensive (I think, I don't pay that much attention, and even by my own standards, I'm using pricing from a "spendy" place that I usually go to). $2.62 vs $3.43? Something like that.
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
Yet the tow capacity of the '99 Ram was only slightly less then my 2014 ED. So when one says the towing with the ED at it's capacity is unsafe, what is the measuring stick for that statement? Certainly it's not historic norms.
This I do agree with. Older trucks made do with inferior parts (proper at the time, but clearly not in the same class as today). I still am not convinced at towing at published limits is a great idea, but clearly we have come a long ways, and pulling at or near the limits is not what it used to be.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
Special order, or did you swap them in? Didn't think you could go that low. [Was tempted for a while to go that route, Silverado with a "lowly" 4.8 and swap gears to my liking.]
My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
Special order, or did you swap them in? Didn't think you could go that low. [Was tempted for a while to go that route, Silverado with a "lowly" 4.8 and swap gears to my liking.]
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: another Todd
My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
Special order, or did you swap them in? Didn't think you could go that low. [Was tempted for a while to go that route, Silverado with a "lowly" 4.8 and swap gears to my liking.]
I swapped them. The 4.8 had the towing power of a 4 cyl, and would die towing a trailer when you hit a hill. GM said nothing was wrong (under warrantee). Earlier this year (after 12 years of hating the truck and GM) I changed the fuel pump and found a red shop rag wrapped around the pump inlet, apparently left there when they changed the pump under warrantee. Truck runs completely different for the better now, but still not up to the task of towing a travel trailer long distances like I will be doing. I wish I had my 3.73 gears back, or 4:10's.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3390837/Removed_factory_fuel_pump_toda
Originally Posted By: another Todd
My current 1500 pick up with a 4.8L gas gets 15mpg (with 4.56 gears).
Special order, or did you swap them in? Didn't think you could go that low. [Was tempted for a while to go that route, Silverado with a "lowly" 4.8 and swap gears to my liking.]
I swapped them. The 4.8 had the towing power of a 4 cyl, and would die towing a trailer when you hit a hill. GM said nothing was wrong (under warrantee). Earlier this year (after 12 years of hating the truck and GM) I changed the fuel pump and found a red shop rag wrapped around the pump inlet, apparently left there when they changed the pump under warrantee. Truck runs completely different for the better now, but still not up to the task of towing a travel trailer long distances like I will be doing. I wish I had my 3.73 gears back, or 4:10's.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3390837/Removed_factory_fuel_pump_toda
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Originally Posted By: another Todd
390pi, do you have a crew cab by chance and how does your truck ride? We have a lot of freeway joints around here that used to cause my F350 to bounce like a pogo stick, absolutely jarring.
If your considering a 2500 you should take one for a spin. The ride is so much more refined than my 98 CTD, its like comparing a 65 VW bug to a new Cadillac. There was a repo on a super low mileage 13 near us and I test drove it as my family is outgrowing my 98 and i am in the market for one. It was a great truck but ultimately I'm holding out for a SRW3500 with the Aisin transmission.
Finding one with the Aisin AS68RC won't happen. They only go in the the chassis cabs, AFAIK. The regular pickups get the Chrysler 68RFE.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
390pi, do you have a crew cab by chance and how does your truck ride? We have a lot of freeway joints around here that used to cause my F350 to bounce like a pogo stick, absolutely jarring.
If your considering a 2500 you should take one for a spin. The ride is so much more refined than my 98 CTD, its like comparing a 65 VW bug to a new Cadillac. There was a repo on a super low mileage 13 near us and I test drove it as my family is outgrowing my 98 and i am in the market for one. It was a great truck but ultimately I'm holding out for a SRW3500 with the Aisin transmission.
Finding one with the Aisin AS68RC won't happen. They only go in the the chassis cabs, AFAIK. The regular pickups get the Chrysler 68RFE.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
I'll add this:
Let's use the Ecodiesel's competition - the 2.7L F150.
The 2.7 is getting in the low to mid 20's for MPG #'s from the mags.
According to Fuelly, the Ram Ecodiesel is averaging 23.1
We'll use 20MPG for the 2.7 and 23.1 for the Ecodiesel. Assume 50 miles per day.
50*365= 18,250 miles per year.
Ford 2.7 will require 912.5 (18250/20) gallons of 87 Octane for a cost of $2,326.88
EcoDiesel will require 790.04 (18250/23.1) gallons of Diesel for a cost of $2,599.24
So where's the savings again?
I'll even play with my #'s in an Ecoboost 3.5: 1086.31 gallons (18250/16.8) of 87 Octane for a cost of: $2770.09. Or for $171 per year I can have a vehicle that will out-everything that Ram Ecodiesel.
The flaw in the math is that it doesn't account for towing. Gas engines can do ok as long as they aren't being pushed too hard, but they start sucking gas badly at higher loads.
My 2006 F-150 struggled to briefly get 7mpg pulling my enclosed trailer. The ED gets 13.5-14mpg. There's several families on various forums that have both ED and V8 gas trucks or Ecoboosts. Without exception they get these same results.
Once I got the enclosed trailer and did some test tows, I realized immediately that I'd created a real problem for my race budget. The mpg that the gas truck was getting was going to double the cost of my towing fuel. That was going to be a big problem. "Double" isn't a few cents here and there.
So if someone does not tow, a V6 is a more economical solution. The ecoboosts do better in the mpg tests then the V8s, but there's not a lot of owners talking up their mpg.
It's so obvious to me that the difference in tow ratings (~2500lbs) between ED and Hemi is due almost entirely to the engine that I don't understand how anyone could be unconvinced. The Hemi is almost twice as powerful as the ED (395hp vs. 240). Drag racing up the side of a mountain that would make a helova difference.
I fundamentally cannot understand the approach of "Ram says that's what their # is that's good enough for me." Where is the initiative? Where is the curiousity? Where is the basic American trait of making your own decisions re. the validy of any assertion?
Imagine how corporate decisions are made. At a big table there are 3 accountants, 2 guys from Marketing, 2 lawyers and 1 engineer. That committee makes all decisions. Do we really believe that the sum of their value systems is the same as ours? Is what they perceive as optimum going to be the same as our idea of optimum?
Consider the suspension settings of all modern cars. Lots of negative camber in the rear and none in the front. As a result, at high speed the car understeers like a pig and it won't turn. The handling of the car is intentionally unbalanced. The reason for this is that in court it's much easier to win the suit if the driver drove straight off the turn vs. spun and exited rearward.
"This is what they say and that's good enough for me" is disappointing. We created the very first genuinely representative government, explored the vast continent, became Roosevelt's Arsenal of Freedom, and the most powerful nation on Earth. And we didn't do it by saying "that's what they said and that's good enough for me." We did it by saying "ok, I heard what they said, but I'm going to do some thinking on it and see if I can figure it out myself."
I'll add this:
Let's use the Ecodiesel's competition - the 2.7L F150.
The 2.7 is getting in the low to mid 20's for MPG #'s from the mags.
According to Fuelly, the Ram Ecodiesel is averaging 23.1
We'll use 20MPG for the 2.7 and 23.1 for the Ecodiesel. Assume 50 miles per day.
50*365= 18,250 miles per year.
Ford 2.7 will require 912.5 (18250/20) gallons of 87 Octane for a cost of $2,326.88
EcoDiesel will require 790.04 (18250/23.1) gallons of Diesel for a cost of $2,599.24
So where's the savings again?
I'll even play with my #'s in an Ecoboost 3.5: 1086.31 gallons (18250/16.8) of 87 Octane for a cost of: $2770.09. Or for $171 per year I can have a vehicle that will out-everything that Ram Ecodiesel.
The flaw in the math is that it doesn't account for towing. Gas engines can do ok as long as they aren't being pushed too hard, but they start sucking gas badly at higher loads.
My 2006 F-150 struggled to briefly get 7mpg pulling my enclosed trailer. The ED gets 13.5-14mpg. There's several families on various forums that have both ED and V8 gas trucks or Ecoboosts. Without exception they get these same results.
Once I got the enclosed trailer and did some test tows, I realized immediately that I'd created a real problem for my race budget. The mpg that the gas truck was getting was going to double the cost of my towing fuel. That was going to be a big problem. "Double" isn't a few cents here and there.
So if someone does not tow, a V6 is a more economical solution. The ecoboosts do better in the mpg tests then the V8s, but there's not a lot of owners talking up their mpg.
It's so obvious to me that the difference in tow ratings (~2500lbs) between ED and Hemi is due almost entirely to the engine that I don't understand how anyone could be unconvinced. The Hemi is almost twice as powerful as the ED (395hp vs. 240). Drag racing up the side of a mountain that would make a helova difference.
I fundamentally cannot understand the approach of "Ram says that's what their # is that's good enough for me." Where is the initiative? Where is the curiousity? Where is the basic American trait of making your own decisions re. the validy of any assertion?
Imagine how corporate decisions are made. At a big table there are 3 accountants, 2 guys from Marketing, 2 lawyers and 1 engineer. That committee makes all decisions. Do we really believe that the sum of their value systems is the same as ours? Is what they perceive as optimum going to be the same as our idea of optimum?
Consider the suspension settings of all modern cars. Lots of negative camber in the rear and none in the front. As a result, at high speed the car understeers like a pig and it won't turn. The handling of the car is intentionally unbalanced. The reason for this is that in court it's much easier to win the suit if the driver drove straight off the turn vs. spun and exited rearward.
"This is what they say and that's good enough for me" is disappointing. We created the very first genuinely representative government, explored the vast continent, became Roosevelt's Arsenal of Freedom, and the most powerful nation on Earth. And we didn't do it by saying "that's what they said and that's good enough for me." We did it by saying "ok, I heard what they said, but I'm going to do some thinking on it and see if I can figure it out myself."
Last edited:
My point with the previous example of committee decision making is that there's a lot going on behind the scenes in any decision. The values of the folks arriving at that decision are not necessarily your values. J2807 represents a set of standards dreamed up by a committee. They were trying to come up with, for the first time, a universal towing standard. They played around with a whole bunch of ideas, each of which had represented real use to some degree, each of which presented different problems in testing, and each of which had different "importance" to different people. The sum of that decision-making process is J2807.
Each of us as individuals has to make our own decision re. to what degree J2807 is applicable to us. If we have inquiring minds we read up on the details of the test, and research how particular trucks did in the various tests. We also have to make judgement calls re. what J2807 tests are important to us, and what of the tests might be not so important.
OEM alignment specs intentionally make cars handle poorly. A committee made decisions that they perceived as optimum, but the average car enthusiast would perceive as terrible sub-optimum. Some SAE working group came up with J2807. Just like there is a big delta between the OEM idea of optimum car alignment, we must be prepared to imagine a big delta between J2807 and our values and towing usage. We cannot assume that some committee's idea of optimum reflects our idea.
Separate from the idea of the J2807 tests being valid for our individual usage, is the issue of trying to understand why one truck did better than another. There's lots of smart guys around, it's not that hard for some consensus to emerge that makes sense to the guys in forums with hard science backgrounds.
To intentionally avoid mulling over OEM assertions, industry standards, and the like, to avoid this inquisitive process, is hard for me to understand. The day I am no longer inquisitive, they might as well shut off my life support because I've become a turnip.
Each of us as individuals has to make our own decision re. to what degree J2807 is applicable to us. If we have inquiring minds we read up on the details of the test, and research how particular trucks did in the various tests. We also have to make judgement calls re. what J2807 tests are important to us, and what of the tests might be not so important.
OEM alignment specs intentionally make cars handle poorly. A committee made decisions that they perceived as optimum, but the average car enthusiast would perceive as terrible sub-optimum. Some SAE working group came up with J2807. Just like there is a big delta between the OEM idea of optimum car alignment, we must be prepared to imagine a big delta between J2807 and our values and towing usage. We cannot assume that some committee's idea of optimum reflects our idea.
Separate from the idea of the J2807 tests being valid for our individual usage, is the issue of trying to understand why one truck did better than another. There's lots of smart guys around, it's not that hard for some consensus to emerge that makes sense to the guys in forums with hard science backgrounds.
To intentionally avoid mulling over OEM assertions, industry standards, and the like, to avoid this inquisitive process, is hard for me to understand. The day I am no longer inquisitive, they might as well shut off my life support because I've become a turnip.
Originally Posted By: RangerGress
It's so obvious to me that the difference in tow ratings (~2500lbs) between ED and Hemi is due almost entirely to the engine that I don't understand how anyone could be unconvinced. The Hemi is almost twice as powerful as the ED (395hp vs. 240). Drag racing up the side of a mountain that would make a helova difference.
RangerGress wins the cookie. Horsepower is a time based measure, as is speed. Higher hp means the same work done in less time.
I've run some numbers for tractors that will serve to illustrate:
I've got a 1941 John Deere B rated at 18.5 hp at 1150 rpm which equals 84.49 ft/lbs of torque. The Kubota L5060 is rated at 44 hp at 2700 rpm which equals 85.59 ft/lbs of torque, the same as the JD for practical purposes. Were you to attach both to a plow that took 2700 lbs of force to move, the JD would be able to plow at 2.55 mph, the Kubota at 6.1 mph.
The EcoDiesel has the same torque as a HEMI(right between the 5.7 and 6.4), but due to it's lower horsepower, takes more time to do the same work. It can pull as much as a HEMI, but must do it at a lower speed, or pull less at the same speed, 40 mph in the case of J2807.
Ed
P.S. Very happy new EcoDiesel owner here. I'll post my impressions in the next couple of days in the Vehicles sub forum.
It's so obvious to me that the difference in tow ratings (~2500lbs) between ED and Hemi is due almost entirely to the engine that I don't understand how anyone could be unconvinced. The Hemi is almost twice as powerful as the ED (395hp vs. 240). Drag racing up the side of a mountain that would make a helova difference.
RangerGress wins the cookie. Horsepower is a time based measure, as is speed. Higher hp means the same work done in less time.
I've run some numbers for tractors that will serve to illustrate:
I've got a 1941 John Deere B rated at 18.5 hp at 1150 rpm which equals 84.49 ft/lbs of torque. The Kubota L5060 is rated at 44 hp at 2700 rpm which equals 85.59 ft/lbs of torque, the same as the JD for practical purposes. Were you to attach both to a plow that took 2700 lbs of force to move, the JD would be able to plow at 2.55 mph, the Kubota at 6.1 mph.
The EcoDiesel has the same torque as a HEMI(right between the 5.7 and 6.4), but due to it's lower horsepower, takes more time to do the same work. It can pull as much as a HEMI, but must do it at a lower speed, or pull less at the same speed, 40 mph in the case of J2807.
Ed
P.S. Very happy new EcoDiesel owner here. I'll post my impressions in the next couple of days in the Vehicles sub forum.
I'll conclude with this.
Lots of rationalization in these last few posts.
The fact is that the tow and payload is low on the Ecodiesel. Chrysler with their marketing folks, lawyers, and engineers determined that capacity. It is what it is. If you want to go over that capacity, have at it. But if you run into trouble be preared for no help from anyone.
To advise one to throw their ratings out the window and create your own is sheer lunacy. Those ratings are there for a reason. Like load lmits on bridges, ladders, etc, they are there for a reason.
Lots of rationalization in these last few posts.
The fact is that the tow and payload is low on the Ecodiesel. Chrysler with their marketing folks, lawyers, and engineers determined that capacity. It is what it is. If you want to go over that capacity, have at it. But if you run into trouble be preared for no help from anyone.
To advise one to throw their ratings out the window and create your own is sheer lunacy. Those ratings are there for a reason. Like load lmits on bridges, ladders, etc, they are there for a reason.
I have found that EPA fuel economy estimates are skewed to the high side for gas engines, and low side for diesel. My 2006 Jeep Liberty diesel, the EPA highway was 27 mpg. Even Consumer Reports got it all goofed up and said it only got 19 mpg highway. It regularly busts 32 mpg on highway, and will cap 35 mpg on a good day. Most gas vehicles, they seem to either barely meet the EPA estimate or come in lower. It is hard to make comparisons between gas and diesel vehicles, and fuel pricing, when the real world fuel economy numbers are not quite as accurate as posted on the window sticker.
And comparing HP and Torque between the two different fueled engines is not very telling either. While a diesel may show equal or lower HP, the engine can probably pull the side of the barn down a lot easier than the gasser. Torque and the band in which it is at peak is the forte of diesels. HP is for that "getting out of the hole" at the traffic light that characterizes gassers. That is why experienced diesel owners don't try to operate their diesels like they are gassers. Most modern gas engines tend to have shorter strokes than diesel counterparts, mostly because one is spark combusted and other is compression combusted. And to that end, they each have different characteristics that have to be exploited, both in design and operation.
I have a 500 hp detroit diesel series 60 with 1850 lb torque. I would be willing to bet, it will rip a 500 hp Dodge Viper to shreds, and do it at less than 1000 RPM. And I, operating the Detroit engine in my semi, might not even know that I was ripping the car apart when it happens. The only difference is the Viper will be able to get away before I could do it. By the same token, if I hook up my 12,000 lb trailer with 47,000 lb of freight in it to the Dodge Viper, that car will blow up trying to tow it. Even if we stiffened the frame and suspension to handle the trailer.
And comparing HP and Torque between the two different fueled engines is not very telling either. While a diesel may show equal or lower HP, the engine can probably pull the side of the barn down a lot easier than the gasser. Torque and the band in which it is at peak is the forte of diesels. HP is for that "getting out of the hole" at the traffic light that characterizes gassers. That is why experienced diesel owners don't try to operate their diesels like they are gassers. Most modern gas engines tend to have shorter strokes than diesel counterparts, mostly because one is spark combusted and other is compression combusted. And to that end, they each have different characteristics that have to be exploited, both in design and operation.
I have a 500 hp detroit diesel series 60 with 1850 lb torque. I would be willing to bet, it will rip a 500 hp Dodge Viper to shreds, and do it at less than 1000 RPM. And I, operating the Detroit engine in my semi, might not even know that I was ripping the car apart when it happens. The only difference is the Viper will be able to get away before I could do it. By the same token, if I hook up my 12,000 lb trailer with 47,000 lb of freight in it to the Dodge Viper, that car will blow up trying to tow it. Even if we stiffened the frame and suspension to handle the trailer.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
I'll conclude with this.
Lots of rationalization in these last few posts.
The fact is that the tow and payload is low on the Ecodiesel. Chrysler with their marketing folks, lawyers, and engineers determined that capacity. It is what it is. If you want to go over that capacity, have at it. But if you run into trouble be preared for no help from anyone.
To advise one to throw their ratings out the window and create your own is sheer lunacy. Those ratings are there for a reason. Like load lmits on bridges, ladders, etc, they are there for a reason.
The payload ratings on the Eco Diesel RAM is so low it's a joke. In my 2011-Silverado 5.3 Crew Cab it's 1444 pounds.
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
I'll conclude with this.
Lots of rationalization in these last few posts.
The fact is that the tow and payload is low on the Ecodiesel. Chrysler with their marketing folks, lawyers, and engineers determined that capacity. It is what it is. If you want to go over that capacity, have at it. But if you run into trouble be preared for no help from anyone.
To advise one to throw their ratings out the window and create your own is sheer lunacy. Those ratings are there for a reason. Like load lmits on bridges, ladders, etc, they are there for a reason.
The payload ratings on the Eco Diesel RAM is so low it's a joke. In my 2011-Silverado 5.3 Crew Cab it's 1444 pounds.
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
I honestly don't think the tow rating nor the tow rating methodology is the real issue here.
The real issue is why the payload is as low as it is on the Ecodiesel. You can rationalize all you want why the tow ratings are lower, but that still doesn't answer why the payload is so low.
As far as I am aware, setting the payload has nothing to do with the J2807 towing standard.
The real issue is why the payload is as low as it is on the Ecodiesel. You can rationalize all you want why the tow ratings are lower, but that still doesn't answer why the payload is so low.
As far as I am aware, setting the payload has nothing to do with the J2807 towing standard.
Originally Posted By: CKN
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I have read here about commercial operators getting sued for running over loaded and that being a contributing factor in causing the accident, but not any private guys.
Anyways, the whole tow rating system makes no sense, ask any farmer if they want a heavier or a lighter tractor to handle a heavy wagon a hilly road. All things equal, the heavier tow vehicle is safer. Even the very same tractor with 2000lbs of water in the tires will be better. So why would a shorter wheel base lighter 2wd truck be a better tow vehicle than a longer wheel base heavier 4wd truck? Less tail wagging the dog with a bigger dog IMO.
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I have read here about commercial operators getting sued for running over loaded and that being a contributing factor in causing the accident, but not any private guys.
Anyways, the whole tow rating system makes no sense, ask any farmer if they want a heavier or a lighter tractor to handle a heavy wagon a hilly road. All things equal, the heavier tow vehicle is safer. Even the very same tractor with 2000lbs of water in the tires will be better. So why would a shorter wheel base lighter 2wd truck be a better tow vehicle than a longer wheel base heavier 4wd truck? Less tail wagging the dog with a bigger dog IMO.
I can see going over total GVWR while towing, but I'm not sure how many (outside of commercial applications) really run afoul of GVWR. There was a thread on one of the RV sites where someone stated with authority that unless you hit 26k there wasn't much state police could do to you.
Personally, I'd rather stay w/in the stated limits. Someone took the time to come up with them, and probably with data that no one else has. I also rather just toss stuff together and know I'm intrisnically under the limit rather than having to
measure down to the pound.
*
I'm not sure what to think about adding helper springs. Seems like if one has to modify a tow vehicle to tow at its rated limit then is it really rated for that kind of weight? I realize adding airbags is pretty easy to do, and maybe getting a vehicle to sit flat is perhaps more aesthetic than required: but it's struck me as odd.
Personally, I'd rather stay w/in the stated limits. Someone took the time to come up with them, and probably with data that no one else has. I also rather just toss stuff together and know I'm intrisnically under the limit rather than having to
measure down to the pound.
*
I'm not sure what to think about adding helper springs. Seems like if one has to modify a tow vehicle to tow at its rated limit then is it really rated for that kind of weight? I realize adding airbags is pretty easy to do, and maybe getting a vehicle to sit flat is perhaps more aesthetic than required: but it's struck me as odd.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: CKN
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I don't know but I'd hate to be the one to find out. I would think it's hard to fault a lift or bigger tires as a contributing factor. A whole lot easier for the lawyers to say "your truck can tow 5klbs and you put 8k on it, exceeding its design, therefore you are at fault."
Originally Posted By: CKN
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I don't know but I'd hate to be the one to find out. I would think it's hard to fault a lift or bigger tires as a contributing factor. A whole lot easier for the lawyers to say "your truck can tow 5klbs and you put 8k on it, exceeding its design, therefore you are at fault."
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: CKN
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I don't know but I'd hate to be the one to find out. I would think it's hard to fault a lift or bigger tires as a contributing factor. A whole lot easier for the lawyers to say "your truck can tow 5klbs and you put 8k on it, exceeding its design, therefore you are at fault."
See, here's yet another point we can agree on!
I personally know a gentleman who was sued blind for running vans over weight limits when an accident occurred. Any sharp attorney will check that if circumstances warrant.
Despite what myself and others may think a vehicle can tow, even if modded, I would never even consider going over the specified limits on a public road.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: CKN
BTW-all those who want to ignore the payload will suffer dire legal consequences in the event of an "at fault" accident.
Is that really true though? All guys with lifted trucks, or even bigger tires, or suspension tweaks, get sued to skid row when they have an accident?
I don't know but I'd hate to be the one to find out. I would think it's hard to fault a lift or bigger tires as a contributing factor. A whole lot easier for the lawyers to say "your truck can tow 5klbs and you put 8k on it, exceeding its design, therefore you are at fault."
See, here's yet another point we can agree on!
I personally know a gentleman who was sued blind for running vans over weight limits when an accident occurred. Any sharp attorney will check that if circumstances warrant.
Despite what myself and others may think a vehicle can tow, even if modded, I would never even consider going over the specified limits on a public road.
- Status
