Another Interesting Article

bsmith0404 · 09-04-2015, 05:22 AM

Here's a link to another interesting article comparing the big 3 diesel trucks. It also includes 2 links to other interesting articles, one of which has already been discussed on this forum. A lot of hair splitting going on among the manufacturers.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...es-bogus-.html

**JRTJH** · 09-04-2015, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsmith0404

Here's a link to another interesting article comparing the big 3 diesel trucks. It also includes 2 links to other interesting articles, one of which has already been discussed on this forum. A lot of hair splitting going on among the manufacturers.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...es-bogus-.html

Very interesting articles (all three). It's "revealing" how the manufacturers "pick and choose" what to advertise and how to "be the best". It's also unique to read how the test evaluators "level the playing field" by stating that any of the top three are "more than capable" of towing current trailers safely and efficiently.

Thanks for sharing the articles.

Pmedic4 · 09-04-2015, 03:47 PM

Of course, as I just purchased my new TV, I was looking at the tow ratings and information. When I looked at the article listed above, I was surprised by the heading in the article, which is, "Are the RAM HD output figures Bogus?". In this case, the article is really talking about the measurement of the engine's output.

While it is one consideration, to me it seems more important to use the SAE standard of J2807, which actually measures towing capacity, and over a very specific course. I like this standard, and it's measurement, since it is uses a truck we will buy, and use to tow our RVs. I won't talk bad about any brand or vehicle, but it is interesting to see what this standard has done to some truck capacities, and how manufacturers had to change their ratings to get this approval, and in one case, a manufacturer hasn't even rated their trucks with this standard for 2015.

There are several different articles, but here are a few:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...w-ratings.html

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/what-i...cks-1593305929

Nice to know that truck we spent $60,000+ on will do what they say it will!

bsmith0404 · 09-04-2015, 07:12 PM

To me it's all blowing smoke. There are different standards and it's almost like the companies are saying which one can we use to make our product look better than the other? I've never really looked at the Dodge all that much, but I was really surprised to see that the Cummins/Aisin combo was an additional $11k, where the Duramax/Allison combo is under $8k, not sure on the Ford. That just seems like a huge difference for very similar packages.

The other part that I still find interesting is that the GM trucks which are the lowest rated on power seem to do a better job of putting the power to the ground. Makes you wonder if it's power band or is it transmission or a combination of both.

I know it wouldn't make a difference to me for buying influence, I am very GM partial, but it would be interesting to see how they all stack up under the same criteria. In the end, they all pull a hell of a lot more than I'll ever need them to. I wish they would concentrate on fuel mileage over who has the most power. Every time I see the power numbers go up, the only thing I think is that it takes fuel to feed the beast and create that power. We all seem to have Tim Taylor syndrome....MORE POWER, ARGH, ARGH, ARGH!!

Alpine · 09-05-2015, 06:15 AM

Are the 2016 Ram HD’s Output Figures Bogus?

Let me state right out of the chute (cowboy talk), that when purchasing my tow vehicle it came down to availability...I required a one ton - long box. The Ram was available and ready to roll. I would have been happy with Ford or GM.

I just found it disingenuous to title the article in such a manner to lead one to believe that Ram is dishonest! Do all car and truck manufactures "fudge the facts and figures a little" probably!

bsmith0404 · 09-05-2015, 07:01 AM

The title could be a bit misleading, but I believe they used it because Ram/Cummins chose to use a certification standard which is not the one commonly used and they claim the best in class. It does bring into question why so many different standards are available and why each manufacturer chooses the one they use. Ford is the only one of the big three that chooses to use the industry standard. GM uses a third method that is "arguably the most trustworthy one". If that standard is the most trustworthy, why isn't it the industry standard? Again, I find the article interesting only because it shows how the big three choose to use different standards for whatever reason. Then they put add campaigns out there based on the results like they're comparing apples to apples, but in reality it's more apples to oranges, or at least oranges to tangerines.

As I mentioned earlier, they all do a lot more than I need them to so none of it is relevant to me. I wouldn't look at any of them and be concerned that a new diesel wouldn't be able to tow my RV. I am discouraged that the big three truck war has remained a power war instead of a fuel mileage war. I know so many owners of earlier model trucks (03-07) that are in the 20s on fuel mileage, but the newer trucks just seem to keep dropping to the point that some owners are happy with mid teens when not towing. They blame it on emissions, but I believe emissions is only one factor and that they have chosen to also sacrifice some mileage for power, more than is needed IMO. One of the articles does compare fuel mileage, which shows the GMs as getting the best mileage. I wonder if they have purposefully kept the power down to keep the mileage up or if the next generation will sacrifice mileage for power as well.

Javi · 09-05-2015, 08:03 AM

Interesting article..

I can honestly say that the manufacturer's claims have never influenced me one way or another when purchasing a truck...

I love the look of the Ram and drove one for years but would never buy one of the new ones because of the goober mirrors.

I quit buying GM because the last one I owned nearly crippled me with the poor seat, and the bailout.

I bought Ford because I like the seat, the mirrors and I got a good deal.

The tow ratings had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. Any one of the duallies would be sufficient for my purposes.

T3/T4 Hybrid · 09-05-2015, 09:13 AM

The articles look to me to basically say, buy what you like and enjoy it. Don't let the companies advertising get your panties into a wad.

All of the trucks are capable machines to tow todays trailers.

I went with Dodge over the ease of any possible repairs in the future. The I-6 has a lot more space under the hood then the other companies V-8s. But I do wish my Ram came with an Allison transmission option. My family members in the diesel repair have nothing but good comments about Allison. Plus the parasitic loss inside a transmission will effect how much HP/TQ your truck is making at the back wheels.

gearhead · 09-05-2015, 06:32 PM

It would be nice to have a switch for "Economy" or "Power". Factory installed de-tuner with no warranty issues. I don't need 400HP to go to the barbershop.
Just give me that old time mileage.

T3/T4 Hybrid · 09-06-2015, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gearhead

It would be nice to have a switch for "Economy" or "Power". Factory installed de-tuner with no warranty issues. I don't need 400HP to go to the barbershop.
Just give me that old time mileage.

There is an option like that on big rigs. When the truck is in flat land the computer will decrease HP to conserve fuel but in the mountains the HP goes up so the rig can make it up the hills. It would be a good option to have.

Desert185 · 09-06-2015, 07:25 AM

From my standpoint, being a Cummins and stick guy, Dodge is the only manufacturer to offer a stick, so...

Less HP/TQ with the stick? Enough for what I tow. The Dodge, especially in dually duds, is the best looking truck, too.

Whether my checkbook allows me to write a $60K check or not, writing that big check isn't going to happen. Insanity...and compares to paying $500K for a new Cessna when an older $100K one will do. A newer truck may be in the future, but not a new truck. Thankfully, I still like my present rig. Like my wife, the rig is familiar, comfortable, dependable and still "gets it done" in spite of age. Maybe its a loyalty thing.

chris199 · 09-07-2015, 04:47 AM

I may be off base here but I've found the max tow rating, while a guage of towing prowess, doesn't accurately reflect what the vehicle can tow. What good is it that a Tundra can tow over 10,000 lb and a 3500 can tow 16,000+ lb when the payload limit of each restricts a person from approaching the maximum rating? IMHO these ratings can serve to disappoint when a buyer, thrilled with their new purchase, learns more via forums like this after the purchase that in reality their towing capacity is significantly lower than initially thought - when the realities of payload are taken into account.

You may also like: