• 2016 Ram Power Wagon Ike Gauntlet Towing Test: Corrected [Video]

    2016 ram power wagon

    The Fast Lane Truck takes its testing procedures very seriously. So when some of the members on the TFL Forum recently pointed out some potential errors in the results from the 2016 Ram Power Wagon’s Ike Gauntlet run, we went back to the raw footage to find out exactly what was going on. Indeed, it turned out the uphill run time and fuel economy numbers were not accurately recorded during the test. This had a significant impact on the truck’s final score.

    Luckily for fans of the Power Wagon, the actual time was better than previously stated. After scrutinizing the footage from multiple camera angles, it was determined the truck ran the Ike in 8 minutes flat and achieved 2.8 miles per gallon. The corrected final results are:

    Uphill time: 8:00 minutes

    Uphill mpg: 2.8

    Downhill brake applications: 2

    Subjective average score: 20

    Total Score: 77 points

    Watch the corrected video below to see the Power Wagons’s run along with a complete explanation of how the Ike Gauntlet scoring system works. Everyone at TFL would like to thank the diligent viewers who pointed out the mistake so we could provide an accurate score. As an added bonus, we recently caught up with Nick Cappa of Ram Trucks and got a thorough explanation of why a diesel is not offered in the Power Wagon (it’s more than just a weight issue)… watch that explanation at 2:00 into this video. You can also see the reveal of the 2017 Power Wagon from the 2016 Chicago Auto Show, including an awesome demonstration of the truck’s capabilities, here.

    Brian Waring
    Brian Waring
    Brian is an engineer by trade but his true passion is anything automotive. He wakes up every morning to search the web for the latest industry news. He enjoys taking his Tacoma 4×4 off-road in the mountains of Colorado where he spends his free time hiking, biking, and snowboarding with his wife and dogs near their Rocky Mountain home.

    Similar Articles

    88 thoughts on “2016 Ram Power Wagon Ike Gauntlet Towing Test: Corrected [Video]

    1. The correct time would be if they redone the test. No need for explanations, I’ve seen enough bias in these test.

      1. First and foremost there were no fish used in the making of this video so we’re not sure why you think it is fishy. Secondly, we have the entire run on video from three different cameras. All we had to do was time the run from start to finish in real time to get the correct time…just like watching it happen over and over again. That’s why there’s no need to rerun the truck.

        1. That should be obvious, but some of the trolls here don’t have that kind of common sense. Probably die hard Chevy fans!

        2. Why did the power wagon do so well with 9800 pound trailer and the 2500 do so poor with 12,500, with the same 4.10 gears. I am looking at buying a Dodge 3500 with the 6.4 but this really concerns me.

      1. You guys crack me up. We seen the onboard timer from start to finish and the difference is 8:00 They started the clock early.

    2. Interesting. Even with the “corrected” time the 6.4 only had the 16 half ton chev with the 5.3 by 8 seconds. I suppose if we study the video long enough we might find a few seconds in the Chevy’s favor.. 🙂

      1. I’ve heard this argument before and it is rather stupid. Many of the trucks could go faster but the TFL crew tries to keep it 65 mph or less. 8:00 is max points so why go faster? The 5.3 was dogging out towards the end where the Ram was not btw

          1. Except off-road features that the Power Wagon has reduce towing capability, and it still beat the truck you mentioned.

            1. Just responding to your comment about the Chevy not being a bad ass off-road truck and that is not what the test was about. I personally have a heavy duty diesel for towing (will crush the PW) and a Jeep for off-road (will also crush the PW).

            2. @Ape

              I don’t know what dream you just woke up from where a stock diesel will “crush” a PW, but its time to wake up, as far as the jeep goes…… if its a Rubicon then absolutely, but its also dependent on terrain and conditions because stock Rubicons come with mud terrain tires which are not the best in snow and on ice. I hope your not comparing modified vehicles (modified for offroad) to a stock PW?

              BTW all stock 4x4s will spank a heavy duty stock diesel truck when it comes to offroading. I know because I used to have a stock diesel and a lifted one and they were terrible! As well as Alberta is full of “jacked” diesels and they suck!. A lot of guys have switched over to running “gassers” to shed weight and balance out the truck better for offroading.

            3. MTNMN
              In talking TOWING, my 2015 Duramax 3500 WILL out tow the PW, no comparison. When it comes to off-road I will take my Rubicon any day over a PW…My original comment was based off the results of the Ike Gauntlet run which is a towing test. The comment was made that the Chev wasn’t a bad ass off road vehicle to which I agree. My point was that I use a 3500 Duramax for towing and have a Jeep for off-road. That is what works for me. If you want a vehicle that does both ok then the PW or Raptor would be a good choice.

              The bottom line..these debates are like arguing politics or religion…always a different perspective that can lead to an endless back an forth debate with no chance of convincing the other side.

          2. The main point being that the Power Wagon can tow pretty good AND is a pretty darn good off-roader. What other single vehicle can also claim as much?

            Instead of having two specialty vehicles, the Power Wagon can do most of what the specialty vehicles can do in those two departments all wrapped into one vehicle.

    3. The 5.7 hemi killed the 5.3 Silverado up the Ike gauntlet by 24 seconds and and beat the 6.2 silverado by 9 seconds.

      1. LMAO. Do you actually think the 5.7 outperforms the 6.2?

        Oh my. It’s only been tested 77 times from multiple publications. Your Fanboyism is thick.

        Most tests show even the new 5.3 beats the 5.7 Ram. Check it out, Knowledge is power.

        1. Hell I got a 2008 dodge hemi and can spank any 6.2 Chevy red light to red light that I have ever come across I do just piss them off it is so funny and it’s 4×4 quad cab so sick on them eggs

      2. The Hemi did well but it did not beat the 6.2 Gm. It was clear that the 6.2 had power to spare and the goal is 8:00 to get max mpg. These guys are too thick headed to listen though. The 5.7 hemi was clearly stronger than the 5.3 gm though. It was really bogging down the last mile or so.

        1. 5.7 for sure has more power and grunt than the 5.3, still no 3.5 eco though. And for some reason Ram likes putting short rear gears in even with an 8 spd

            1. Yeah, PUTC had the dyno on the V-8 trucks and the current round of V-6 trucks they just did.
              HP / TQ at wheels for each and %HP / %TQ to the wheels from engine rating:
              Chevy 5.3: 286/298 81/78
              Chevy 5.3: 280/290 79/76 (round 2 in the bargain 2×4)
              Ram 5.7: 294/299 74/73
              Toy 5.7: 289/295 76/74
              GMC 6.2: 324/336 77/73
              Ford 3.5: 305/347 84/83
              Ford 2.7: 278/340 86/91
              Ram 3.0: 207/316 86/75
              Toy 4.6: 254/255 82/78

            2. As you can see below, the GM 5.3, Ram 5.7, and Toyota 5.7 are all within a margin of error, however it is the area under the curve that matters since not transmission is perfect, not even the 8-speeds.

              The GMC, Ram, and Toyota are the most generous with their numbers with Ford being much less so,
              especially the 2.7tt. (Not sure of the elevation there, but even if it was high elevation that did not help the diesel Ram which is rated at about 50 ft/lb higher torque than the 2.7tt but is over 20 ft/lbs lower at the wheels)
              Hell, the 2.7tt gives it’s bigger brother a run for the money! TI even matches the GM 6.2L in torque despite being rated nearly 100 ft/lbs less. Crazy little engine. Now att Ike Gauntlet elevations, there is no competition for the Ecoboost.

        2. They don’t get it’s an all out race and they maintain the speed limit or that some trucks have more or less weight than others. A few seconds faster for one doesn’t mean anything as it’s not an actual race. It’s only when the truck can’t maintain speed is it an issue (Like the 6.4 Hemi doing so poorly last year, couldn’t get out of 1st gear). 5.3 was a dog with 3.08 gears, ok with 3.42. With the new 8 speed it’s pretty good with 3.42 gears. Pickup trucks.com showed the 5.3 and 5.7 were even with 0-60, but with weight the 5.3 pulled ahead. I believe the 1/4 mile times were better with the 5.3 as the 5.7 seems to fall on it’s face in 3rd gear. Ram had 3.92, Chevy had 3.42.

    4. My gosh the width of the tires have nothing to do with slowing the truck down on the way down the hill. If Mr Truck believes that then can he please provide some mathematical proof and the percentage loss due to rolling resistance of the truck. If he is successful I can tell you right now that he will prove that the wide tire has more resistance. What he likely cannot prove is the percentage difference which I am willing to bet my left nut is completely insignificant. I cracked my right nut laughing so hard when he said that so my left one is all I have left

      1. I know from my own personal experience running that exact same tire on my truck (33″dura tracs) compared to the stock tires (33″bfg rugged trail, I think that’s what they were called), that there is more rolling resistance, just the same as when I run my 35″x12.5″ mudders in the summer compared to the “dura tracs”. As far as a mathematical equation to figure it out goes……., I could record the difference in fuel mileage running my different tires? Calculate the difference in mileage into a percentage and use that as a basis for rolling resistance?……. I don’t know I’m just throwing stuff out there.

        Hey TFL when you guys came down the hill I heard Nathan talking about the poor road conditions, did you have the truck in 4×4? because that will help hold the truck back as well (more moving parts).

        I know there are some people who are not sure about this correction video but as it was already said before by Nihilus, some people did the math and figured out roughly where the time should be, my own personal opinion is that I trust TFL, mistakes happen you just have to own up to them, that’s life.

        1. MTNMN, Nathan, Kent, All I can say is rolling resistance due to fat tires is nothing. Fuel mileage cannot be equated as a percentage to the rolling resistance as tire weight, wheel weight and size and inflation will contribute to that and the speedometer could read wrong when you switch tire size.

          The easiest way to put this is to push your truck on flat ground in neutral and you will notice you will need about 200-Lbs of force to get it rolling. Once it is rolling maybe put a bathroom scale between your hand and the vehicle and see how much force it requires to keep it moving on flat ground. This might be 100-Lbs. Now switch the tires and do it again and maybe now you need 105 or 110Lbs of force to keep it moving. The difference could be 1-Lb or 20-Lbs of difference, it really doesn’t matter because the vehicle weighs 16,500-Lbs. 1 divided by 16,500 or 20 divided by 16,500 is still 0 or under 0.12% of a factor. The only thing stopping that truck worth talking about is the transmission, motor and gear mapping. It has nothing to do with the tire selection. If your motor has to push 1-20-Lbs of force extra throughout its trip then yes it will burn more fuel so tire selection is important along with its inflation if you want to save a few pennies at the pump.

          But I am no scape goat to saying stupid shit but whatever, I still call it as I see it.

          1. Actually if you factor in the grade just to be specific the truck on a 5.7% grade would have a downward force of sin(10degrees) = 0.174 x 16,500 = a force of 2,865-Lbs pushing downhill. Still a 20-Lb difference is still 20/2865 = 0.7% less than a 1% of a factor. The truck is doing 99.3% of the work to slow it down plus wind resistance which is relatively equal for all vehicles but again negligible in this case. Only the truck and its mapping plus the brakes are going to contribute to holding the speed. Has nothing to do with the width of the tire.

            1. Whoops Sin 3 degrees approx., 2.3% contribution if it takes 20-Lbs of extra force to push these tires vs another set which is likely a high estimate to begin with, which still makes tire selection pointless in trying to stop this much weight from rolling downhill. I make more errors than TFL;) JFC Where’s the GD edit button

            2. Um, its more like 3800 newtons, 775lbs of force when friction neglected. 7484×8.91x (sin 3). Forgot gravity constant.

              But yeah that large displacement engine is doing most of the work

            3. The gravity function is pointless unless you take the power wagon to the moon where gravity is 1.6m/s2 vs 9.81. Even at a mile above sea level gravity is virtually unaffected. Lbs is a force. Work in slugs if you want to talk mass or in kg then I would require g in the equation. Newtons and Lbs is force. 16,500-Lbs is 73,392N. Which is 7482.99kg x 9.81m/s2 =73,392N or 16,500Lbs. The other units for gravity is imperial and mass is slugs. 1 slug =32.174Lbs or 1 slug is equal to 1ft-s2/ft x 32.174 ft/s2 =32.174Lbs So gravity was already included in my original formula based on earths gravitational pull. Ignoring friction of course and wind forces.

              73,392N x sin 3 for a 5.7% grade is 3841N or 864Lbs

              At 10% grade we would be at sin 5.5 x 16,500Lbs = 1581-Lbs

              Now my guess is from one tire to the next might take 0.1-20 Lbs of difference in actual rolling resistance. If I had to guess….A wider tire might offer 0.5Lbs of extra resistance but I said 20 worst case because we all know approximately how much force it takes to push a car and switching the tires wont make it that much more difficult.

            4. Actually there is a pretty good way to figure this out. I pasted the link below. The link shows a table format with ranges for Crr based on cars trains bicycles, etc on the corresponding surface. Closest thing I see is cars on concrete where they rate Crr from 0.010 to 0.015. The truck weighs 7500Lbs and Kent (Mr Truck) put another 1440Lbs on the truck tires. So the maximum difference in car tires on concrete is 8940 x 0.015 – 8940 x 0.010 = 44.7Lbs. That table is taking the best tire with max inflation to the worst tire with low inflation.

              The table is giving the worst case range. Therefore if the wide tire made a 44.7Lb difference worst case on a 5.7% grade it would offer 44.7 / 863 x 100 is 5% contribution.

              On a 10% grade it would offer 44.7 / 1581Lbs x 100 = 2.8% contribution. Likely the width of the tire was much less of a factor than 44.7Lbs. Therefore it is all the truck and has nothing to do with the tires. Pretty much proven now.


            5. I gave you applied force to overcome acceleration Thomas. That would be the force to hold the mass. Better go find out what a newton is. Here let me help.(kg.m/s^2).

            6. @Canoepaddler First of all your gravity force was off. It is 9.81 and not 8.91 for earth. So all your numbers were off. Second you said I forgot the gravity constant when it is already included in LB – force. Had I used Kilograms for metric or slugs for the imperial system then I would have forgot the gravity constant. With Newtons and Lbs the gravity constant is included. A kg or slug is different on earth vs the moon. A Lb or a Newton is already a constant that includes gravity. So when you talk force it does not matter if you are on the moon or not because the slug and kg will be multiplied by the appropriate gravity. Therefore I already had the gravity constant for earth included. I did not miss it.

            7. @canoepaddler, You said here let me help you with what a newton is (kg.m/s^2) That is in the metric system.

              So here is what a pound is (slug.ft/s^2) This is the imperial version of a force which is the pound. Both a Newton and a pound is a force that includes for gravity. One is metric the other is imperial but both include the gravity constant.

              People wrongly associate the kg with a weight for the metric system when they should be talking in Newtons. But on earth their mistake is rarely ever caught or thought about. Lb is a force.

            8. @canoepaddler Sorry but pounds is not a mass it is a weight which is known as force. Only a slug and kg are considered mass within our conversation/debate.

              The units of force is Pound (imperial) and Newton (metric)

              Lb/ft is a UDL load + A force per foot of length. I posted a link that will help to understand. Again I did not forget the gravitational constant if I used units of pounds or if I used Newtons. They are the same and account for gravity.

              Nobody can weigh in kg or slugs. Your mass is defined by slugs and Kg. Your weight/Force is described as Lbs or Newtons and already includes gravity.


            9. @ canoepaddler and Thomas

              You guys are putting way too much into this!
              Take your trucks (assuming you even own trucks) and go drive them around with whatever tires you have now, go at a certain speed and then put the truck into neutral and let it coast to a stop (remember to record speed ,starting point for coasting and the stopping point), then go put on AGRESSIVE tires and do the same test and wala the more aggressive tires with deeper softer treads will stop the vehicle before the standard truck tire will from the factory.

              Keep it simple

            10. Whoops skip over your whoop Thomas. Didn’t notice you did 10 degrees. my bad Both equations equal. Stiil like to add gravity cause I want to drive on the moon.

            11. @MTNMN It wasn’t that hard, simple math once I got the average standard for rolling resistance and angle of force and respective vector force pushing the vehicle downward. I don’t have to change tires now because I used Math to support my initial claim which is way less effort than switching tires, running down a road, wasting fuel and more time, just so I can do math yet again that would make absolutely no sense. How would you even quantify what your rolling resistance is from one tire to the next. Ridiculous and way too much effort. Hypocritical statement.

              And we already know the softer tire stops faster but when up against a loaded vehicle like this on a slope it makes no difference as proven. Tire selection will not help to slow the vehicle down on the way down the gauntlet to any significant advantage. The truck is doing 95-99% of the work to resist downward acceleration, as plausibly proven. 99.9% is my personal opinion if it is just because of tire width as quoted in the video.

            12. @Thomas

              Yes it is difficult to tell what the rolling resistance would be based off of what I told you but your math equation is pretty much the same thing (like shootin in the dark), because your math equation can’t calculate for tread depth, tread design, what the tire is made of (how hard or soft it is), and every tire has a different weight based upon who makes it and what size it is and whats in it (ingredients). My way of doing it is actually A LOT more realistic because its real world testing not just theory based on physics, science, math and whatever else….. Just like TFL it would be results based and not educated guessing.

            13. @MTNMN, You clearly did not read my math or my references. In my pasted thread it clearly states (SAE J1269 and SAE J2452) have already done all the calculations for tread depth, tread design, what the tire is made of (how hard or soft it is), different weight based upon who makes it and what size it is and what is in it, etc, etc, etc. SAE already performed all of these tests and told us that passenger tires have a Crr that ranges from 0.010 to 0.015 on concrete.

              Again any tire on this truck from the best Crr to the worst as tested by SAE can only be a 44.7Lb difference acting against 1581-Lbs of force coming down the hill on a 10% grade for the Power Wagon under its load condition. The best tire to the worst tire yields a 2.8% difference in rolling resistance. These are no longer educated guesses. There is test literature from SAE to back it up along with physics formulae spelled out for you.

            14. @ Thomas
              Your SAE standards are completely useless. The one is 10 years old and the other is 17 years old. They only used certain tires for those tests, and tires since then have completely changed. These mathematical formulas you pulled off Wikipedia do not apply to this particular tire, they are based on a tire that was used 10-17 years ago with a completely different tread pattern.
              I mentioned to you before that you cannot use these formulas and I’m sticking to that.
              We still don’t know if they had the truck in 4×4 that day as well as the slush and water on the highway that day would have held the truck back from resistance which would be directly applied to the tires which would help hold the truck back as well as the engine and drive train.
              Tires do help to hold a truck back!
              If TFL wants to prove one of us right one day, when they get a tire sponsor, than that’s great but this conversation is done, its pointless to continue on without real world testing.

            15. @MTMNM You truly are a belligerent person if you think tires have changed to a point where there coefficients are going to matter to make any significant difference in slowing the Power Wagon down. And tires have only gotten better since 17 years ago, making them matter that much less. Besides these coefficients were all updated last year in February and they still stand. Passenger tires remain under the same formulae with the same variance 0.010 to 0.015 on concrete. Multiply that by the weight on the tire and that is it. Truck tires have higher pressures so their rolling resistance is typically less than what I quoted. I was just being generous to show how ridiculous it is to say a tire has anything to do with slowing the power wagon down. Here is more recent literature for you and guess what Crr hasn’t changed. And also note that light rain like this decreases rolling resistance because the pavement becomes smoother and the tire doesn’t stick as well and it stays colder making it roll faster, overcoming the rain film will slow it down but it all balances out and there is very little difference in rolling resistance on a wet road vs a dry road, usually less rolling resistance on wet roads as pasted below, 2nd post.



            16. Sorry Thomas meant lb/f. The silly slug just cancels earth acceleration 32 something lb/m. One lb/m is one lb/f (weight). NASA slammed a probe in to mars not using SI units, really prefer meteric. Our US measuring standards are really pretty dumb.

              In real word lost 1 mpg highway on my 07 f150 4.6 going from Michelin ltx ms2 to Yokohama geolanders AT

            17. @canoepaddler, it is not Lb/f, that is a UDL. (uniformly distributed load), actually more clearly would be lb/ft Sometimes engineers, scientists, etc will represent the LB as (Lb.f) It just means pound force. It is the same as the pound but some like to represent the “f” at the end to show it off and clearly define it as a force. LB or Lb.f means the same thing. Lb/f or Lb/m is referring to a force per unit length.

            18. @MTMNM You truly are a belligerent person if you think tires have changed to a point where there coefficients are going to matter to make any significant difference in slowing the Power Wagon down. And tires have only gotten better since 17 years ago, making them matter that much less. Besides these coefficients were all updated last year in February and they still stand. Passenger tires remain under the same formulae with the same variance 0.010 to 0.015 on concrete. Multiply that by the weight on the tire and that is it. Truck tires have higher pressures so their rolling resistance is typically less than what I quoted. I was just being generous to show how ridiculous it is to say a tire has anything to do with slowing the power wagon down. Here is more recent literature for you and guess what Crr hasn’t changed. And also note that light rain like this decreases rolling resistance because the pavement becomes smoother and the tire doesn’t stick as well and it stays colder making it roll faster, overcoming the rain film will slow it down but it all balances out and there is very little difference in rolling resistance on a wet road vs a dry road, usually less rolling resistance on wet roads as pasted below, 2nd post.



            19. @MTMNM If you think tires have changed to a point where there coefficients are going to matter to make any significant difference in slowing the Power Wagon down then you are creating a ridiculous argument. And tires have only gotten better since 17 years ago, making them matter that much less. Besides these coefficients were all updated last year in February and they still stand. Passenger tires remain under the same formulae with the same variance 0.010 to 0.015 on concrete. Multiply that by the weight on the tire and that is it. Truck tires have higher pressures so their rolling resistance is typically less than what I quoted. I was just being generous to show how ridiculous it is to say a tire has anything to do with slowing the power wagon down. Recent literature has not changed, not sure if they will post my proof, it is waiting moderation for 3 days now. And also note that light rain like this decreases rolling resistance because the pavement becomes smoother and the tire doesn’t stick as well and it stays colder making it roll faster, overcoming the rain film will slow it down but it all balances out and there is very little difference in rolling resistance on a wet road vs a dry road, usually less rolling resistance on wet roads. I had proof of that as well but it is waiting moderation. Something I said they didn’t like., Maybe it was the posts?

            20. I agree MTNMAN – When I put 35″ at tires on my 04 F-150, it slowed down a HELL of alot faster than stock tires. These guys will show a bunch of formulas showing I am wrong, but this is experience talking.

            21. @ Nihilus, I will agree. But I will explain why your 35 inch tires slow you down in that you notice it. On a flat grade, say 0.1 degrees of down slope, basically flat and your truck weighs 10,000Lbs, it will take 10,000 x sin 0.1 =17Lbs of force moving your truck forward under its own weight. SAE has proven standard tires, (not after market) range between 0.01 to 0.015 % of resistance. Therefore your tires offer between10,000 x 0.01 = 100-Lbs to 10,000 x 0.015 = 150Lbs of rolling resistance to stop your vehicle on flat ground. If you go to a aftermarket tire than rolling resistance can increase even more because larger tires may be at a softer PSI with softer rubber. But take not a taller tire with all things equal will have less rolling resistance because its lever arm being the axle is pushing from the center of the rim, so if it pushes on a longer lever arm with it’s forward motion, it takes less effort to move it forward, same as grabbing a longer wrench; makes it easier to turn the nut, less force to turn the tire. However, on flat grade or a small incline so we don’t 0 ourselves out; from SAE a 10,000Lb truck on a 0.1 degree slope has a force of 17Lbs. Changing the tire to slow 17-Lbs down with a tire resistance of 100-150 is a 50-Lb difference up against 17-Lbs which makes a noticeable difference that you will feel. Now go back to what I initially said. Truck tires under SAE generally range a lot lower than 0.015 because they have higher psi than a car tire and they are taller. The difference between one truck tire to the next that a new vehicle comes with will have a much smaller window than 0.01 to 0.015. If you do enough research standard truck tires that come with a new truck range between 0.006 to 0.008. Mr truck might see a 20_lb difference from one factory tire to the next. On a 5.7% grade the truck has a pushing force of sin 3 x 16,500Lbs = 863-Lbs. So 20/863 = 0.023 Mr Truck may see a 2.3% difference from one factory tire to the next when coming down the gauntlet and at a 7% grade the tire resistance will matter that much less. It is all the truck stopping that load and has very little to do with tire selection.

            22. @Thomas

              Lol, I am not belligerent about this (belligerent means angry, hostile, etc..), but to base your theory on outdated information is……whatever.
              Look at what Nihilus said, he’s talking from experience which always beats out these hilarious mathematical formulas. Thomas I have to ask you now (and I’m not trying to be an a**), but do you own a truck? and have you ever changed from “stock tires” to aggressive and bigger tires? because if the answer is yes than you would know that these formulas are useless. Sorry Thomas but I just don’t think that you know what your talking about.
              There is a saying I learned in a psychology course, when people throw a hole bunch of information at you in an argument to attempt to throw you off, example….. mathematical equations and links to websites, etc…… its called a “snowjob”.
              Your reply to Nihilus about a wrench turning a tire is complete nonsense, the tire gets power applied to it through the “CENTER POINT” or the axle, a wrench gets power applied to it from the “OUTSIDE POINT” or the handle not the center.
              Common Thomas, if your going to talk to people about this stuff, talk from experience, not from SAE or Wikipedia info (some of their info is correct but some is not). You do this in every argument you get into with people, you throw a whole bunch of info at people and take up a lot of room on these posting sections and at the end of it nobody agrees with you anyways, some people agree with certain bits of info but that’s it.

            23. @MTMNM, OMG you are a ridiculous person. You do not have a clue. When the axle is not being powered it is pushing from the center of the rim. Imagine putting a straight stick through the center of the rim of two tires. Now try to push the stick, the tires will start to roll. The higher the center of rim gets the easier it is to push on the stick to make the tires turn. That is all that is going on here, has nothing to do with the axle powering the wheel. JFC When going downhill the axle (stick) is pushing from the center of the rim, the farther the center of the rim is away from the pavement the bigger the moment arm is, making it easier to overcome rolling resistance, hence a taller tire is easier to push when all else is equal. That is a fact, not my opinion, its mathematical fact. Try to get a clue MTNMN. The problem is you cannot read and or understand logic or math or physics.

              If you were coming down mount Everest on a 45 degree slope, do you really think your rolling resistance of your tires are going to make a hoot of difference. Your talking 50Lbs of force vs 12,000Lbs. Like I said with the slope factor on the gauntlet tire resistance makes no difference in overcoming these load conditions. And yes you are Belligerent or incoherent or maybe your brain cannot process the material. Look up Belligerent again, you got that wrong too.

            24. Hahaha, you can get mad all you want Thomas but its not going to make you right or myself for that matter (its just opinions). Try not to have a mental break down over this stuff, it’s just truck talk and opinions…..by the way you still haven’t told me if you even own a truck?

            25. @MTMNM, I’ve owned trucks all my life, my whole family owns trucks. I don’t see how that is relevant to the math that is factual information and not opinions. If you could understand it, you would see it is factual information. My opinions are based in a window of factual values from SAE. Within this small window I do make opinions based on logic. The fact still stands that tire resistance on factory tires from Dodge, Ford, Toyota, GM for a midsize truck to full sized trucks will in no way make any noticeable difference in slowing the truck down on the grade that the gauntlet is at, based on factual data from SAE and based on proven mathematical formulae.

            26. In my opinion your wrong and I don’t care about some mathematical equation because I absolutely do not think that its correct, and my opinion stands. I can’t believe you are someone who has owned trucks his whole life and does not think that tires make a difference. I’ve put this question out to everyone I know who runs trucks and they all agree with me that its a noticeable difference when you go from running stock tires to more aggressive ones and the tires on these PWs are more aggressive than anything else out there besides a Rubicon with mud terrain tires. All you have to do is get in your truck and drive and when you go to switch out tires go buy something more aggressive and then re-think your math equation…….the math doesn’t add up. Do you drive 1/2 tons or bigger? Have you ever switched to a bigger offroad tire? The dura tracs are a 33 inch tire, have you ever owned a tire that big on your truck?

            27. @MTNMN You own a 1st Gen Nissan Titan that weigh’s 5000-Lbs. If you put your truck on a 90 degree incline, the tires will have 0 weight on them and you will free fall and your tire resistance wont mean sht. If you put your truck on a 80 degree slope the truck tires will see a weight of cos 80 x 5000-Lbs = 868-Lbs. Their Crr is therefore 868 x 0.008 =6.9-Lbs of resistance acting against sin 80 x 5000-Lbs = 4924Lbs. So 6.9-Lbs vs 4924 is peanuts. Because your truck is still basically free falling off a cliff where tire resistance still means sht.

              How about a 40 degree slope 5000 x cos 40 = 3830-Lbs. This is the weight on the tires. 3830 x 0.008 = 30.6Lbs of rolling resistance. 0.008 is the Crr from SAE, my value pick for now. Now the force pushing down the hill is sin 40 x 5000-Lbs = 3214-Lbs. So on a ridiculous slope you have 30.6-Lbs acting against 3214-Lbs, again tire resistance is futile, meaningless.

              Now lets go to the gauntlet on a 7% grade with your 5000-Lb truck. You are now on a 4 degree slope. The weight on your truck tires is cos 4 x 5000-Lbs = 4988-Lbs. Crr = 0.008 x 4988 = 40-Lbs of rolling resistance. Force acting downhill is sin 4 x 5000-Lbs = 349-Lbs. NOW 40-Lbs acting against an empty truck against 349-Lbs means something. NOW take SAE highest stock tire coefficient 0.015 x 4988-Lbs = 75-Lbs. With your tire switch you now went from an 11% resistance to a 21% resistance on a 7% grade with an empty truck…..So yes you will notice the tire swap and feel this as you so stubbornly want to hang onto.

              Now go to flat ground say you are on a 0.05 degree slope. cos 0.5 x 5000 = 5000-Lbs Multiply this by SAE coefficient 0.008 for a truck to 0.015. Again 40 to 75Lbs of rolling resistance. Downward forward motion now dwindles to 44-Lbs of forward force up against 40-Lbs of rolling resistance. Change your tire and roll up to a light with a tire with a higher coefficient say 75-Lbs vs 40-Lbs and yes you will notice the tire resistance slowing you down much faster than the tire with only 40-Lbs of resistance.

              However as weight increases and slope increases tire resistance will matter less and less to a point where you get to a 90 degree slope at free fall where tire resistance no longer exists.

              The power wagon with its loaded trailer weighs 16,500-Lbs. Mr truck stated the truck weighs 7500-Lbs +1440 for tongue weight. Total is 8,940-Lbs on the truck tires. Weight on the truck tires is cos 4 x 8940 = 8918. Crr = 0.008 x 8918 = 71-Lbs. Force acting downward including the trailer load is about sin 4 x 16,500-Lbs = 1,150-Lbs of force pushing the truck down the hill minus the trailer tire resistance, likely 60-Lbs. So 1150-60 = 1090-Lbs of force pushing the truck down the hill. Factory tires on all the 1/2 ton trucks are very similar for Crr values so the difference from one tire to the next is likely less than 20-Lbs of force between the two tires. Switch to aftermarket swampers and you may get a bigger range difference but for this case the stock tires on the Power Wagon don’t contribute anything worth a hoot to talk about. 20/1090 = 1.8% difference between stock tire swaps would be a logical conclusion. The steep grade and the 16,500-Lbs sends tire resistance to the bottom of the barrel. The trucks gear and tranny mapping is doing 95 to 99% of the work compared to other trucks that cant hold their speed on grade. Change the tires on the Power wagon to anything you want and the truck will still hold its speed.

            28. Thank you MTNMAN.
              Thomas, your formulas are ridiculous and don’t apply here.

              “basically flat and your truck weighs 10,000Lbs, it will take 10,000 x sin 0.1 =17Lbs of force moving your truck forward under its own weight.”
              – so basically a 2 year old could push a 10k lb truck on flat ground.

              It is a wonder why some tour de France riders don’t just ride mountain bikes since rolling resistance is practically nothing.

            29. @Nihilus

              Jon Maddock pulled a 314,000 pound train because resistance was so small with his teeth so your little girl in comparison to 10,000Lbs is much stronger. Rathakrishnan Velu sets world record at 594,200-Lbs

              Secondly you got it all wrong. The girl could not move the truck unless she could overcome other frictional forces within the system, such as gears, tranny, bearings, etc. Also it takes more initial force to put something in motion than it does to keep it moving. I was talking about the force required to resist Crr as that is the only difference from one tire to the next. SAE uses Crr values and accounts for everything about a tire and puts the coefficient into a range of values. This is the force to resist Crr not the force it actually takes to move a truck.

              Third you talk as if the truck is actually moving. I said the truck under a 0.1 degree slope would have a forward force of 17-Lbs under its own weight of 10,000-Lbs, this does not mean the truck is moving as the truck has to overcome all other frictional forces, one of them is Crr which is actually higher than 17-Lbs so the truck wont be going anywhere just under Crr friction alone. Put it on a greater slope and 17-Lbs will increase and your truck will roll away at some point. Has nothing to do with a girl pushing on it.

              You need learn before you speak or ask grown ups questions more politely if you want a response without belittlement.

    5. I have personally run my 2014 5.3 6-speed up this hill and can tell you the time is really a function of whether or not you’re using the cruise control and how far you want to push the gas pedal. Any truck with enough power can hold 65 or whatever up that hill, it’s just a question of how thirsty you want it to be. It’s also a function of whether or not you’re using the towing mode. With tow haul off, the GM logic allows more speed variation while using cruise control, at least that’s how it’s been with my experience. With tow haul on, going downhill the GM logic performs fabulously, never having to touch the brakes. These videos are entertaining, but I think there are some tests performed by other sites that you should consider with regard to towing capability before drawing any conclusions.

      1. Couldn’t agree more Daniel. I’ve only pulled once up this hill and that was with my 2013 5.3L 6-speed pulling 6500lbs. With cruise control on and the trailer tow mode on, the truck kept the 60 mph I was set at. Yes it downshifted to bring the rpm’s up high, but I still made it up the hill just fine with both engine and trans temps just fine, and the computer read 2.9 mpg. For a 2013 with 325 hp (as compared to the 355 hp now), I am just fine with how it performed. Going down hill, with tow haul and cruise control on, the GM system performed flawless. It downshifted and used the grade braking just fine and like you, I never touched the brakes (except for the once I had to slow down for a camper trailer).

        There is a reason trucks have grade braking, tow haul modes, etc. But not every truck’s systems work the same or perform the same. That is why I think TFL should have these systems activated on their tests because in the real world, we use these features on our trucks when towing.

    6. I didn’t even watch the video. I just know ram guys were complaining and the results changed. I couldn’t care less if the ram actually did it or not because I’m a Nissan guy and that’s it. I believe it did it in the time they said but TFL would get more credibility from me if the ran the same trailer for a class instead of the hodge podge of trailer and truck configurations.

      1. It wasn’t the Ram guys complaining, it was me and a few guys on the forums. Its is alot of effort to set up the runs, especially if they are far from the Ike.

      2. Do some real-real world towing and get some uhauls with seized bears and four different tires on them.

        Watch the damn videos the results are kinda meanless. Nothing better than hearing the vehicle and commentary of the guys.

        1. Don’t care if it was a “Ram guy”. Tfltruck commenters typically don’t display that fanboy behaviour

    7. off subject again sorry. I just read on horsepowerkings. com that ford has been working on a 5.0 ecoboost v8 for the 2018 Raptor with twins turbos. It was the first time ive been on that site. Have you guys heard any of this? Or is it just BS Wow? You guys Rock. I hope to hear an answer. Thanks

      1. That site posts whatever they hear, rumor, myth, or real. They roll with it and post it. Tis why I love this site, great testing, great info, and so much posted here actually happens. <3 tfltruck

      2. Every Ford forum out there is ripe with rumors and info leaks from a “reliable source” saying Ford is going to use a Ecoboost 5.0.
        I call B.S. They (Ford) have basically put the V8 out to pasture. They don’t need a V8 in anything but the Mustang. a Twin Turbo 5.0 would easily be 650-700 hp. THEY ARE NOT PUTTING THAT in a Raptor, trust me. A twin turbo V8 truck will never be put in an F150 from the factory, it’s just not going to happen. IN fact the ONLY factory vehicle I would ever expect to see a tt5.0 in at this point will be a GT500 and even that I don’t think is going to happen. My guess is the GT500 will get a tt3.5 eco similar to what is in the new Ford GT.
        The 5.0 will stick around in n.a. form in the F150 line up strictly for the “a real truck needs a real murican V8” guys. But it will be slowly phased out in production numbers.
        Thanks to CAFE limitations the writing is on the wall for the gas powered V8 engine as a whole in anything but limited production models.

    8. The fact that these folks listened to their readers and then took the time to go back and revise the numbers, and admit they made a mistake, shows that there’s a lot of honesty and credibility here.

      I’m really liking this site and all the info on it. Keep it up, dudes.

    9. @mike. The test doesn’t lie. It’s not fanboyism, it’s the facts. The 6.2 may be quicker to 60mph, but TFL tests proved the 5.7 hemi had a better time up the Ike. That’s all. You sound a little bitter.

      1. Bill, please stop listening to that Wily guy. Before the target speed was 65 mph and this year they are aiming for 8:00 which is about 60 mph to get max mpg. Last year the 6.2l ran a 7:39 with 10k lbs. Check it out on youtube.

    10. Right on, TFL guys. Glad you made this right. I’m with other posters in saying I dig your site because it’s raw and outside the norm with worthwhile info.

    11. I want everyone to know how much I appreciate TFLTrucks for correcting their mistakes like professionals, because their competitor pickuptrucks.com has still not corrected themselves after misleading the public on grave safety matters related to deadly tire advice they published over a year ago. Many have warned Pickuptrucks.com to publish a correction and apologize for their dangerous advice in this article here:

      In the above linked article, look at Heading #8. “Replacing Two Tires”
      Also, look at all the comments below the above article to understand how truly dangerous pickuptrucks.com’s advice is. In fact, pickuptrucks’s advice is illegal in some places.

      Of course, TFLTrucks.com’s subject is nowhere as important as the life and death matter fudged by pickuptrucks.com’s subject, but I very much appreciate that the public has a trustworthy source to go to for this industry.

      And if any readers here can influence pickuptrucks.com to publish an apology and a correction and take down the deadly advice they published, PLEASE do so. Thank you so much.

    12. Obviously the Ram Power Wagon is a very capable and unique truck offering.
      I have had Dodge/Ram trucks since 1974, and would “never leave home without one” (^_^)…
      My big regret here, and the single “deal breaker” for me, is NO MANUAL TRANSMISSION as an option**!

      Don’t know ho to say that more firmly. Are you listening, Ram??????????????????????????????

      ** There was time when Dodge (and others like Chevy and Ford, if I remember) had their “SEG”, the “Special Equipment Group”, in which a vehicle would be pulled off the line for custom work at the owners expense (of course) for added features not regularly offered. Where is that now? Have the “bean counters” take over the world?

    13. I can say hello someone that deals specifically with Ford Performance Work on that is if Ford engineers here or who prepares these sports cars.

    14. Can we see another ram 2500 6.4l hemi with 4.10 gears pull a 12k plus trailer up the hill again. I’m betting there will be better results. Maybe it will quiet the haters out there.

    Comments are closed.