• Torque Wars! 2018 Ram HD Claims Most Torque and Heaviest 5th-Wheel Towing (News)


    2018 ram 3500 hd cummins torque specs
    2018 Ram HD 3500 Cummins

    The torque wars have never been hotter! Ram Trucks claims a class topping 930 lb-ft of torque for the 2018 HD truck lineup with the 6.7L Cummins turbo diesel high-output engine. Isn’t this a fun time to be shopping for a pickup truck!

    Ever More Torque

    Ram and Cummins were first to reach a rating of 900 lb-ft around two years ago. Ford and GM then hopped over Ram for 2017 model year with 925 lb-ft and 910 lb-ft respectively from the 6.7L Power Stroke V8 and the 6.6L Duramax V8. Ram takes back the lead (thus far) for the 2018 model year. How will the competition respond, if at all?

    Ram and Cummins worked together on the 30 lb-ft of torque increase. It’s thanks to higher turbo boost limits and higher fuel flow rates. The horsepower rating will remain at 385 horsepower.

    5th Wheel Trailer Towing Capacity

    The second announcement has to do with a sizable increase in the 5th-wheel trailer towing capacity, which has now been raised to 30,000 lbs (from the previous rating of 24,000 lbs). What’s the big deal? As you know, the Ram HD has previously been rating to tow a maximum of 31,210 lbs with the gooseneck trailer coupling. The “mini” 5th-wheel hitches have been rated much lower than their gooseneck counterparts due to their design. They are called “mini” because they are miniaturized versions of the ones used by the semi trucks.

    Ram Trucks designed their own version of the 5th-wheel hitch to handle up to 30,000 lbs of load. This would allow you to tow some of the largest travel RV trailers in the industry.

    This new 5th wheel hitch can be purchased separately. It will retail at $1,395. (Part number: 82215769)

    2018 model year Ram HD trucks are starting to roll down the factory line now, and the first trucks will be available at the dealers in August 2017.

    Here are three 2017 HD turbo-diesel trucks locked in a three-way drag race battle. Check it out!


    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    134 thoughts on “Torque Wars! 2018 Ram HD Claims Most Torque and Heaviest 5th-Wheel Towing (News)

    1. 930 Lb.-FT? That’s all?
      I thought Ram was going to nail 1,000 lb.-ft for 2018.
      But maybe they are saving that for 2020?

      I’ll bet the 6.7-L Cummins may have to get a higher displacement AND new turbos to get to 1,000…

      ======================

      1. That Cummins can go a lot higher than 1000 torque. They just don’t want to go so high because the competition does not require it.

        Now we all know that the Cummins and Duramax put out more than the Ford even before they made this change, since we have all seen the independent tests.

        So ratings be darned.

          1. I think all the big three should make it 1000 lbs. of torque and get on with it. Just spend the R and D on more important things at this point, like safety and reliability, rust proofing, efficiency and well, just QUALITY.

            1. Just remember, at 30,000 lbs towing the Ford was a minute faster than the Ram. Not within 3 seconds like the lower towing load and the Ram they guessed the stop time due to traffic slowing ahead.

            2. WTF do they need 1,000 torque for? Shit is out of control. Medium duty trucks usually don’t have that. Just power wars.

            3. Its a plot by the tire companies. Pay of the diesel MFGs to make more torque than any normal tire can put down to the ground lol.

        1. They all can. They just have to meet emission standards. Something fiat products seem to have a hard time doing.

          1. Last time I checked, FIAT meets all the emission standards and only company to sell half ton diesel.
            Ford has still a one more year to go,but it’s ok, because you are completely blind.

            1. The current fiat 1/2 tons are waiting for their pcm update to meet emission standards. They have not began selling 2017’s that were forced to be put on hold because of emissions cheating and just passed inspection. Sorry for your loss but you lose again.

            2. Yes, by reading the article they are now checking everyone since VW and fiat has been cheating emissions. Likely the same thing here in the states too.

            3. Could be because ford came to the realization that the economy diesels in the smaller trucks are a waste of time and are really just about waving shiny MPG number in front of people too stupid to do some simple math in an excel spreadsheet.

            4. Diesel would work for me and save ne thousands. Diesel fuel is less expensive than Regular in Canada.
              What did you say about spread sheets?

            5. Thats great for you, do all Canadians drive incredible amounts of miles/km every year to save thousands? Canada also has 1/10th the population of the US so hardly a huge deal.

              Here in the US the diesel is at least as expensive as gas and usually more. At 20000 miles/year an Ecodiesel would save a driver ~$33 a month over a 2.7 Ecoboost based on the Fuelly averages of each. Hardly thousands a year.

            1. The fine trial date is set. But that is for the fine portion. The EPA shut down fiat for emissions cheating. Why else would they NOT sell the ecodiesel till next month after they just received 2017 certification. They HAVE been trying since last year to get it. Sorry bro, but you are wrong once again. Fiat cheated emissions. Now they are waiting for if they get fined.

          2. JJ, I agree it was faster than the Ram,but it was not a f350,not the Big Tex 3xgn ,the weight was not calculated by tfl crew and it was done at midnight?? Why not pull Same trailer as the Ram and pull during the same Ambient temperature during the day..

            I’m not sure about the rest of the country ,but here in southern California the majority of 1 tons doing the hauling are the Ram 3500 about 80-90% of them are..Kaufman 5 car haulers big Tex,pj goosenecks etc..

            I’m a Gm guy not ashamed to admit the truth ,but not too many Gms or Fords doing heavy hauling..Ram must be doing something right..

            1. Ford had no idea if TFL truck would weigh the trailer or not so you can bet it was what they said it was. Cat scales are usually open 24 hrs or tfl could have their own set of scales. In my area we are pretty even for Ford and Ram trucks on the road. My sister is into horse riding and shows and she said Ford dominates in that crowd.work truck are a good mix of ram and Ford but I’m seeing a lot of new Superduty’s with work bodies.

            2. FYI, GM would easily be my second choice for a truck. We use them at work and they hold up really well.

        1. That is right on. All that power and longevity can start going down hill. That is why the medium duty trucks are rated lower. Longevity.

        2. Just keep your right foot away from the floor, and there is your less power, increased longevity, and it’s no extra charge! Amazing!

          1. Uh, you are still getting charged the same. Duh. I would rather pay for a long lasting truck and save on th power up front.

      2. a minor change to the tune will net 1000ftlbs easy… no need for more displacment lol. Even my 05 5.9 layed down 1600ftlbs to the tire with a bigger single, more fuel and tuning.

        1. It seems that some guys are putting the 5.9L crank in their 6.7L. They loose a little torque but gain significant HP. But enough boost and fuel can take care of that too.

    2. Newbie here when it comes to diesels. Why do HDs come with (relatively)low horsepower. I always thought a 500 hp/800 Tq engine would be a perfect combo? Laymans terms would be greatly appreciated. I know this would be the site to get some interesting facts/answers. Thanks in advance.

      1. Horse power is torque and rpm factored together (hp=[torque*rpm]/5252)
        So torque is always higher then hp till 5252 rpm at which hp becomes higher.

        For more hp you’d either have to rev higher which isn’t really needed nor probably a good thing for longevity or you have to make more torque at higher rpm which would take massive air flow (and more fuel) most likely bigger turbo and what not that would have negative effect on lower rpm performance and throttle response.

        Gas engines nearly always make more hp then torque because they almost always rev to at least 5252 rpm.

      2. For driving characteristics, this is the best way I can describe it. High torque engines always produce that torque at lower rpm. That allows you to harness lots of power at lower revs which is very desirable. Hp will always be the defining factor for the most power though. This is why low Hp engines like the Ecodiesel are slow up the Ike even though they have comparable torque to the quicker gasoline engines.

        1. Matt and Distinctively – – –

          Good answers to help “Rickydelivers”.

          But here has always been my question: Since, for gasoline engines, max HP and Torque can vary all over the map, what are the engine-design features that determine the relationship between max HP and max torque?
          Examples – – –
          1) Some engines, like old L-134 “Go Devil” used in the 1940 Willys, had 60 HP, but 105 lb.-ft of torque, numerically almost twice as much.
          2) Others, like the Ferrari 458 Italia engine, the F136, has 562 HP, but only 398 lb.-ft of torque.
          3) Still others, like the Corvette LT-1 engine in the new Stingray, has them almost balanced: 455 Hp and 460 lb.-ft of torque.

          How do these things happen**?
          1) Bore/stoke ratios?
          2) Cam-lift profiles, and onset/closure?
          3) Piston design?
          4) Crankshaft design: flat-plane, cross-plane, or 120-degrees (like BMW)?
          5) Ignition placement (TDC or earlier?)
          6) Other factors?

          But how do those features determine that ratio way BELOW 5252 RPM? Say 2,000 or 3,000?

          ————
          ** For amusement, a horse has only 1 horsepower (obviously, by definition), but can produce about 1300 lb.-ft of torque! Great for pulling a wagon out of mud…(^_^))
          ————-

          =========================

          1. Your on the right track Bernie. Everything plays a part in power band. An over square engine will usually make more HP than torque than an undersqaure engine. The longer stroke of an undersqaure engine will help increase torque over HP.

            Camshaft is key to. Depending on valve timing it can be set up for early torque or for higher HP. You usually don’t get both until you go VCT. By moving the cam position, you and have early torque and a broader torque range and higher HP by advancing and retarding the cam timing.

            Intake manifold also needs to be matched to the power. Short runners for HP and long runners for torque. We get both now with intakes that can be both by changing the intake runner path.

            Now with DI, we can get crazy high compression ratios and not worry about predetonation. This helps with torque and HP.

            1. Jimmy – – –

              Thanks. Good help.
              From what you said, this is not simple.
              Maybe that’s why we pay good automotive engineers “the big bucks”.
              Looks like a mix of a half-dozen to eight MAJOR contributing factors., — and none of the examples I chose even used turbochargers or superchargers! They really mess up good, simple physics!

              ====================

            2. Bernie, you throw forced induction on there, it changes everything. That’s why I tried to limit it to N/A engines. Pretty much everyone throws a bunch of new tech at engines to make the target power. But in the end, it still comes down to bore and stroke and compression ratios.

            3. The reason why the diesels dont make a lot of HP is because the fuel does not burn fast enough to support high RPM torque. HP is a function of torque and RPM and therefore you need to have a lot of torque and a lot of RPM to make a lot of HP.

              Most torque curves for diesels I have seen tend to start crapping out at about 3000 rpm. After 3000 RPM the HP curve stays basically flat because the torque is falling off fast enough that the extra RPM makes little difference. In order to create more HP you need to dump a lot more fuel at high RPM which creates a ton of heat. It also requires that the turbo be able to flow a LOT of air. Since the goal of the diesel is to make low RPM power they tend to size the turbos so that the spool quickly but arnt great at the top end. My Jeep liberty diesel for example makes 192 HP at 3000 RPM but only 200 at 4000 RPM

            4. Jay, outside of Diesel engines for race application’s I also believe the fuel cannot compress fast enough and ignite at high RPM too.

            5. I disagree with you. Diesel can makes lot of HP.
              Audi was winning Le Mans and Nascar 10 years ago with diesel.

              For the 2005 and 2006 seasons, the 5.5-liter engine produced 650 hp and 737 lb-ft of torque.

              3.7-liter V6 TDI produced over 540 hp.

            6. They absolutely can on specialized fuel blended specifically for racing, with no emissions requirements and millions of dollars of R&D devoted to a few cars that are hand built.

              In real life its not so easy.

            7. Meanwhile my bosses 5.4L GT500 is making that much HP and torque on pump gas, a supercharger pulley change and a tune.

          2. ADDITION – – – –

            “For amusement, a horse has only 1 horsepower (obviously, by definition), but can produce about 1300 lb.-ft of torque! Great for pulling a wagon out of mud…(^_^))”

            Does that mean when we finally produce an ICE engine/vehicle with 1300 lb.-ft of torque, we will be as good as a horse?…

            =====================

            1. Jimmy – – –

              J: “A horse has that kind of torque force?”
              Yup. It’s enormous. You can do that calculation yourself using the horse’s leg length as a moment arm. Even in WWII, both the Germans and the Russians still used horses, not recovery vehicles, if they really had to extract stuck artillery and tanks from adhesive goo!

              ==============

            2. Well she is not a horse but I have an English Mastiff. She has long legs and my goodness, she has incredible pulling power. So I can believe would be even more so. Especially since they used to pull plows for fields.

            3. A horse Appling 1300 ft of torque to a fence post has no horsepower unless it actually pulls the fencepost out of the ground. To get horsepower, (LOL) there has to be motion.
              But it seems ridiculous to say a horse has zero HP doesn’t it.
              Another problem with the term HP is that it doesn’t specify which horse or which kind of horse, HP is referring to. All those things plus more make torque a better measurement. You can indeed measure torque. And if you are comparing tools with the same measuring equipment you will get pretty reliable numbers.

              By the way I could easily produce 1300 lb-ft of torque with my lawnmower engine. But it would still only produce 4 HP. Because the gearing needed to get that 1300ft-lbs of torque would take forever to move the load 1 foot.
              Torque is how much pull a engine has.
              HP is how fast a given amount of torque can pull a load 1 foot.
              Nobody wants to look at torque charts.
              So for advertisement purposes Auto manufacturers have trained us all to accept HP as the correct comparison method.

          3. But here has always been my question: Since, for gasoline engines, max HP and Torque can vary all over the map, what are the engine-design features that determine the relationship between max HP and max torque?
            Examples – – –
            1) Some engines, like old L-134 “Go Devil” used in the 1940 Willys, had 60 HP, but 105 lb.-ft of torque, numerically almost twice as much.
            2) Others, like the Ferrari 458 Italia engine, the F136, has 562 HP, but only 398 lb.-ft of torque.
            3) Still others, like the Corvette LT-1 engine in the new Stingray, has them almost balanced: 455 Hp and 460 lb.-ft of torque.

            Engines like the Ferrari have big bores and short strokes. If you look at the power and torque I bet they are really high. Like 5000 rpm torque and 6500 or 7000 HP. They spin the. Hard and fast for the small displacement to make that power.

            The GM 6.2 L is just an excellent engine. Good balance of bore and stroke, compression, VCT. It makes great power and does not need to spin high rpm numbers. But when you start spinning big engines, you need good rods and crank. GM makes the parts light but there is a fine line between light and durable.

            1. Jimmy – – –

              Again, very good info…. helps me …
              …and I’m sure “Rickydelivers” benefits as well.

              J: “The GM 6.2 L is just an excellent engine. Good balance of bore and stroke, compression, VCT. It makes great power and does not need to spin high rpm numbers.”

              Yup. The most popular V-8 crate engine in the world. Shipped all over. My guess is that even GM was surprised. That engine is a home run. See link:
              https://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/24/gm-chevrolet-small-block-v8-engine-lt1-corvette-c7-videos/

              ====================

          4. You mentioned piston design. That really plays a big part in emissions. It seems hard to believe but it does. How the design controls the flame spread and downward force on the piston. The best example I can come up with is the new Hemi engine. It cannot have the original Hemi pistons from the original version that everyone loves. Daimler/Chrylser had to change the design to meet emissions. The same with the head design. In fact most DOHC engines are closer to the original Hemi design because of using 4 valves per cylinder. There are some really smart engineers out there and I would love to learn more about that kind of stuff.

            1. Jimmy – – –

              J: “There are some really smart engineers out there and I would love to learn more about that kind of stuff.”

              Agree. I chose the wrong profession. Mine (chemist) was not nearly as much fun. I mean, how thrilling are test tubes?? (^_^)

              ==================

            2. I figured you were in some sort of field that required math and brains. Between your comments and graph’s, you seem like a pretty smart fella. Except the tent camping thing. LOL. Just messing. But chemist are needed for sure. Heck, even people that clean hospitals and restaurants are much needed. We all play a part in life.

          5. My 400m is a square 4inch stroke 4inch bore engine. It produces great low end torque because of the long stroke and low compression big bore. But it is poor on HP mainly because of the long stroke and heavy pistons. To get a big increase in HP for this engine you would have to make changes to the internals that would allow smoother high RPM operation. This is costly but has been done and it will do it at the expense of low RPM torque.

    3. Amen to the HP vs LBS/Ft discussion. If you really need a truck for Truckie things then Torque is what you want to pay the most attention.
      I know I harp on this a lot but the grill showing on the customized model is really good looking. The grill on the HD looks O.K. and the one on the Power Wagon makes me Barf big chunks.
      I don’t know what the designers were smoking-Your old power wagon had the cross-hair grill with the panels painted red and I still think it is the best looking yet!
      Why did you stop making the temperature readings on the brakes on the Ike? I thought it was great…

      1. The temp readings were a very in accurate test. For starters you need to know the specs and what they are rated at. What I wish they would do is make stopping measurements. To me, stopping distance is the most important, not temp of the rotors.

            1. RAM will do it 100 times in the row. Ford brakes once, overheats and no one can stop that rolling can anymore.

          1. So a ram stops so slow it can’t build up heat. Explains why a ram doesn’t stop as fast as Ford in a panic situation. In a panic situation, you need to stop fast once. Because you have only one shot at it. Not 100.

    4. I really hope they went to a real hitch manufacturer to build that fifth wheel hitch. It will be very scary if fiat decided to engineer and build it themselves.

            1. Ahhhh, there you go. I just hope fiat didn’t build it because it will fail. Fiat is known for cutting corners. If it is built by a reputable manufacturer, it will be available for all soon.

            2. Your right again zombiera! Ford will not have a half ton that gets shit down by the EPA for emissions cheating. You are on a roll today little buddy! Ford will make sure it is emissions compliant.

    5. Is the 2500 still at 370 hp and 800 ft/lbs? If so Ford and GM are way ahead in the 3/4 ton market. So many Ram guys saw the 900 ft/lbs and thought their 2500 had that much.

      1. The problem with a ton of power in SRW trucks is putting the power to the ground. Everyone limits power in 1st gear and others based on configuration.

      2. From what I’ve seen the 2500’s have not changed. If you are in the market for a Ram HD, get a 3500 with Aisin transmission. Otherwise you will be disappointed when you read the fine print.

    6. Very interesting. RAM puts out 5 more lb-ft than Ford. GM puts out 5 more HP than Ford. Apparently its hard to make big jumps. As I’ve been saying for awhile, it seems easy to add torque to the Cummins, but very hard to add horsepower.

      A lot of people are citing the 350 dually test up the IKE where the Ford somewhat inexplicably failed to perform. That was towing near the GM’s max tow limit of 23,000lbs. But at 30,000lbs, the F-450 was indeed one minute quicker than the RAM with the same load. It would be interesting to perform that same test again with the new, more torque-rich RAM. I still think the Ford will be quicker since it makes 55hp more than RAM.

      1. Remember on the 30k tow, they left the Ford in gear to do its thing. The ram slowed down so much Kent was trying different gears to try and get it up to speed

            1. Since when did semi trucks come in the discussion. But since you brought it up. Loaded semis passed the ram. Haha.

        1. For the 8 mile stretch of the IKE, I doubt fuel economy would be a very important consideration. That said, I applaud the Cummins for typically being the most fuel efficient of the Big 3 diesels. That would be very important to someone using these vehicles commercially.

      2. Troverman
        Agreed, as far as the torque rich Cummins, any inline engine will produce torque easier…remember the old Ford 300 Straight Six, one of the best engines Ford ever made IMHO.
        As far as the astronomical HP / Trq numbers all 3 manufacturers are producing these days, at what point do I, as an average consumer really see the difference? (Not talking about drag races, towing comparisons, etc). All 3 are way over rated for most consumers. But, I do love the fact that they’re in a power war, we as consumers all benefit, regardless of brand.

        1. I remember that engine – we had one in our 1986 Bronco…it ran poorly thanks to its crappy carburetor. Regarding the diesel engines…well, at a traffic light, I like to put the hammer down from time to time and yes…the additional horsepower found in the Ford and GM trucks will be noticeably better. For pulling? The Ram will do fine. I’ll say, its a beautiful truck.

      1. That’s a really good point. It gets the job done. People with the old 7.3L and 5.9L had no issue getting the job done either.

    7. Jimmy Johns,
      Federal judge Jesse Furman rejected a lawsuit from investors who sued FCA stating that FCA didn’t deliberately lie.
      On top of that, FCA has once again started producing trucks with this Diesel engine and were granted permission to start selling 2017 Trucks and SUVs with the 3.0L Diesel once again.
      Justice Department suit is still a go though.

      1. Yes, I knew about the civil case against FCA. That looked Ike a lawyer attempt for some cash. The DOJ case is still waiting and that is the one that will determine the fines if any.

        FCA started building ecodiesel in anticipation a month ago or more for the certification. Which they got a week or two ago.

        1. So what exactly is your argument then? If you know this, then why are you
          1) Bringing up the 3.0L VM Diesel when the article is about the 6.7L Cummins Diesel, and
          2) There is no evidence that FCA deliberately cheated and a federal judge even ruled in favor of them saying they didn’t knowingly lied.
          They haven’t been trying to fix this since “last year” as you say.
          They came up with a fix and were granted the sales of new ones. They are waiting for approval of reflashing the older EcoDiesels… So again, what is your objective here? Just trolling? Well you got me, cause it worked.

          1. pretty much getting zombiera all worked up because he is constantly trolling Ford articles. Taste of his medicine.

            In the case you mentioned with the private civil case, their lawers just didnt have much information to back anything up. The EPA does. They even let FCA know about it back in 2015. They knew because they wrote the software with the 8 calibrations that turned off emissions and failed to let the EPA know about it.

      2. Freaking EPA, I know they have a purpose, but most of their crap is just asinine…..
        I thought the suit against FCA on the Eco-Diesel was done with. Did they have to change anything programming wise? If so, will it affect power, efficiency, etc?

    8. Nobody even leaves the emissionsequipment on them anyways. The new trucks are almost all tuned and deleted as soon as anyone buys one and good tunes put you at 530+hp/1200+tq on a bone stock truck. The you have one running they way it should from the factory.

      1. That’s not remotely true. The EPA went after tuner companies selling delete kits a few years ago. Now, many delete tuners will require you to sign a form stating the purpose of the tuner is for “off road” only. Some states require emissions inspections, even on this class of truck. A deleted truck would fail. Additionally, deleting a truck voids the warranty. Most folks spending between $50 – 90k on a new diesel truck are NOT choosing to delete…not at least until after the warranty is expired.

        1. I know hear in Utah guys have gotten fined for deletes even though most of the state is not even emission tested. Salt lake county and maybe St. George are the only areas where residents must get an emissions test i believe.

        1. The higher torque is not at 3000 RPM where the truck is gunna be though. If it was, the horsepower would have gotten a bump too. All they did was make the torque curve taller with steeper slopes.

    9. Wonder if Ram is limiting torque in certain gears to save the rest of the drivetrain like Ford and Gm. In these HD the torque and power are really irrelevant if the manufacture limits it based on gearing. It may have say a 1000 ft lbs but it is limited through the 1,2,3,4,5, and 6th gears

      1. They have a system for the automatic trucks called torque management there to save the transmission and make the power come on smoother. The manual trucks get full power all the time though and the transmission is a lot tougher.the factory clutch is a weak point though.

        1. Haha…Bradley, the manual transmission offered in the RAM is the weakest transmission of the three they offer. The Mercedes-made G56 is notorious for all kinds of failures. Clutches are extremely common, but the synchros also fail often enough and even the casings have been known to crack. It may be true that a manual gets all its power right off, but rather than use torque management, they just neutered the Cummins down to 350/660. Very weak numbers by today’s standards.

      2. Scott, RAm limits torque up till 3rd gear on the optional HO Cummins so I assume they will continue since they upped the power with no powertrain or chassis improvements. Ford limits in1st gear only on the dually and up to 4th on the SRW truck. I believe GM limits on 1st gear only across the board

        1. That is what I mean exactly…. why have all this torque but have it limited… let’s take a ram 3500 pulling 30k up the gauntlet…. it will be in 2nd or 3rd gear the whole way and you never get to use all the torque that is there during the pull.
          It would be nice to know what the manufacture rates theperformance at in each gear

          1. i think they limit them in dynamic situations to avoid putting shock into the drive line, say when your racing and you hit a bump and one wheel looses contact and when it regains contact shocks the system. i doubt they limit power in steady state situations. they all should have accelerometers built into them and can sense a lack of longitudinal acceleration and look at engine load and adjust power accordingly.

          2. To safe wear on driveline components. Example – We have a CAT 95E tracked tractor and had to replace some final drive gears as some teeth got sheared off. After researching the cause we realized you are not supposed to ever shift down into 1st gear under load as that much power and torque can cause issues. Ram limits torque output wisely to maximize drivetrain longevity. It may hurt them in Ike comparison tests, but ultimately is better for us, the consumer.

    10. I know in Australia Duallies are very rare . To tow a 38ft or 40ft Goosneck or 5th wheel trailer, vehicle inspection sections of the various Australian States will OK a rig pulled by a Japanese or European MDT but not a Dually

    11. So ram up ford by 5 foot lbs. This almost seems silly. Who is going to notice 5 foot lbs between the two ? It is like ford saying that they have more tq in the hd gas engines then anybody yet it has only 1 more foot lb than the the ram. Who is going to notice that 1 foot lb? It is just down right silly and some what embarrassing.

      Why don’t they go to 1000 lb ? I believe the drive train might be a limited factor, but there is another reason. Will 1000 lb tq will be socially acceptable?I’m sure there is some testing with various none truck people out there that this might not be acceptable ( by the manufacturers). Maybe that is why they didn’t go to 1000 lb tq Yet.

      1. I don’t believe the Aisin will handle more…which may also be why Ram limits output in lower gears? I haven’t been able to find the max input torque the Aisin is rated to handle.

        1. If you notice all 3 brands are making torque in the 9L engine size with mid 6L engines. I know these engines can make more but one has to ask, how does it affect reliability in the long run. I guess the saving grace is they are not pulling 80K gross LB’s so the max torque is limited for short burst.

    12. One thing I will say is that if I was gunna buy one of these and build it up to regularly tow 30k lbs, it would probably be the ram. Reason being is that you can pretty easily drop in a compound turbo kit for a few thousand that would turn it into an absolute beast. You get factory spool up and once the big turbo gets going it would pull like a freight train. Since the other trucks are V8’s it is not nearly as easy.

    Leave a Reply

    Top