Here I am

Standardized Tow Ratings Coming

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

got an enclosed trailer problem

Dot experts

Am I correct when I tell people our 4th gen trucks already meet the new standards?
I pulled the J2807 info from a towing post on RV. NET. Ford won't comply until they have an all new truck that meets the ratings, but no one knows when they will step up. Why should they change they have so many sheep that buy them because it is a 'SUPER DUTY' and 'POWER STROKE'. Must be nice to have so many blind followers.

I've never read any statements by Dodge/Ram claiming the specs they use but most of us who have towed with Cummins - Rams for years have long felt that Ram pickups are easily capable of towing and remain reliable and durable towing far more than the rated figures claimed by Ram.

I think it is honest and reasonable for you to tell friends that your Ram DOES meet the new agreed specs.
 
"Tow ratings for the Ram 3500 Heavy Duty meet 100 percent of 2013 model year SAE testing standards"

I am sure that the 2500 meet's them as well, but the test standards are different for SRW vs DRW.
 
"Tow ratings for the Ram 3500 Heavy Duty meet 100 percent of 2013 model year SAE testing standards"



I am sure that the 2500 meet's them as well, but the test standards are different for SRW vs DRW.



Thanks, do you have a link to that? I am having to prove things to the guys at RV. NET



Also is there s link to the specs for the big 3 HD frames. I said GM and RAM are superior frames to Ford and that is why Ford won't comply to the new ASE spec. Of course they said prove it.
 
I've never read any statements by Dodge/Ram claiming the specs they use but most of us who have towed with Cummins - Rams for years have long felt that Ram pickups are easily capable of towing and remain reliable and durable towing far more than the rated figures claimed by Ram.



I think it is honest and reasonable for you to tell friends that your Ram DOES meet the new agreed specs.



Thanks Harvey



Only thing I had to go on was at May Madness one of the Chrysler reps said "they already meet the spec"
 
Thanks, do you have a link to that? I am having to prove things to the guys at RV. NET



Also is there s link to the specs for the big 3 HD frames. I said GM and RAM are superior frames to Ford and that is why Ford won't comply to the new ASE spec. Of course they said prove it.



I haven't ever seen a frame spec, IIRC Ram is lacking in the FAWR, RAWR, and GVWR compared to the other 2.



That quote was in multiple press releases, here is one. Chicago 2011: 2011 Ram 3500 HD High Output takes the torque war nuclear
 
Yea I am finding that is true. But it is kinda fun.



Fun up to a point. I went through a similar conversation on a brand specific RV forum for a few days with a "Dodge" expert. He kept giving his expert advise concerning his vast knowledge gained during the ownership of his "5. 9L Cummings". Unfortunately, idiots are apparently allowed to buy Dodge products also.



Finally had to walk away from the thread. I felt dumber every time I read it.
 
Fun up to a point. I went through a similar conversation on a brand specific RV forum for a few days with a "Dodge" expert. He kept giving his expert advise concerning his vast knowledge gained during the ownership of his "5. 9L Cummings". Unfortunately, idiots are apparently allowed to buy Dodge products also.



Finally had to walk away from the thread. I felt dumber every time I read it.



I was talking about all the trouble Ford has had with thier engines. He sends a link about head gasket failure on Cummins 6. 7. So I looked at the post and guss what the guy was deleted and had two programmers. So I said try again!
 
Thanks, do you have a link to that? I am having to prove things to the guys at RV. NET



Also is there s link to the specs for the big 3 HD frames. I said GM and RAM are superior frames to Ford and that is why Ford won't comply to the new ASE spec. Of course they said prove it.



You can always tell them to prove you aren't telling the truth!
 
I was talking about all the trouble Ford has had with thier engines. He sends a link about head gasket failure on Cummins 6. 7. So I looked at the post and guss what the guy was deleted and had two programmers. So I said try again!



Yea, these types are amazing aren't they. The one I just had to walk away from had all this experience in the couple of months he's owned his '04 Dodge "Cummings" that he bought used with 160K. The guy literally posts in every thread that comes along. He's towed everything, knows everything there is to know about every diesel ever made and to top it of... ... . get's something like 28 mpg empty and 20 mpg pulling his 31' TT. :-laf
 
Yea, these types are amazing aren't they. The one I just had to walk away from had all this experience in the couple of months he's owned his '04 Dodge "Cummings" that he bought used with 160K. The guy literally posts in every thread that comes along. He's towed everything, knows everything there is to know about every diesel ever made and to top it of... ... . get's something like 28 mpg empty and 20 mpg pulling his 31' TT. :-laf



I have been a registered member of RVnet for 10-12 years and there are too many of those "experts" on the forums now and why I don't read/post anymore.



Bill
 
I have been a registered member of RVnet for 10-12 years and there are too many of those "experts" on the forums now and why I don't read/post anymore.



Bill



Every once in a while, I take for granted the quality of members we have here at TDR. A quick trip out to some of the other boards certainly makes me respect the people we have here.



Getting back to the standardized tow ratings, I will really be interested to see what happens to models across the board. I'm not positive what rating system was used for my 2010 1/2 Dodge for example, but there is no way that I would be comfortable pulling the ~10K or whatever it is supposedly rated for. I have never been loaded over maybe 7K or so with it, and it is flat out painful at that point. I'm probably just spoiled by the other trucks, but realistically, I wouldn't want to go much heavier on a regular basis with it.
 
Tow ratings have been a compromise between the big three manufacturer's sales/advertising, engineering, warranty administration, and legal departments for years. The standardized tow ratings may not be perfect, but it will give prospective buyers more meaningful data to compare.



Bill
 
Its similar to the SAE standard for horsepower that came about back in the 2004 time frame. Some engines gained power and some lost, but at least they were all rated the same.
 
Its similar to the SAE standard for horsepower that came about back in the 2004 time frame. Some engines gained power and some lost, but at least they were all rated the same.





I think diesel power has always been SAE Net. Back in the early 70's the gassers went from SAE Gross to Net and the HP wars stopped. I think the gassers went back to SAE Gross and the HP wars started again, but I am not sure when. I think they still are??



Nick
 
I don't recall exactly what changed in the ~2004 time frame, but IIRC it had something to do with accessories that were mounted on the engine for the dyno runs. I guess some mfgr's weren't mounting things like a/c, ps, etc.

I know the 4. 0 V6 I have in my 03 4Runner, and had in a 07 Tacoma, didn't have any tuning/mechanical changes as went from a 245/283 rating in 2003 to 236/266 by 2007.

EDIT: Stole this from wiki.

Society of Automotive Engineers
SAE gross power

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.
SAE net power

In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.
SAE certified power

In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723. [17] This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in a ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.

A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (330 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3. 0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The company's Lexus ES 330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp (168 kW) but the ES330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7. 0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (370 to 377 kW).

While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.

SAE tightened its horsepower rules after some engineers noticed parts of the old test could be subjected to different interpretations. Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important. [18]
 
Back
Top