Detailed 2013 Heavy Duty Weight Charts Published!

[mgonske]

On the right side of the page below is a link to the detailed charts Oo.



http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do?id=13663&mid=2

 

[Kry226]

Now how is Chrysler going to publish a weight chart with Cummins spelled "Cummings"????

First our guns, and now this!!?? Seriously?

 

[gleb]

Based on that chart, you can't get a 2500 CTD with 4. 10s, am I seeing that right?

 

[Jeff Knight]

Based on that chart, you can't get a 2500 CTD with 4. 10s, am I seeing that right?

From looking at the chart 3. 42's are the only ratio for the 2500's.

 

[orhusky]

Now how is Chrysler going to publish a weight chart with Cummins spelled "Cummings"????

First our guns, and now this!!?? Seriously?

How funny!!!!:-laf I hadn't noticed that till now. How long before they pull the chart and fix it?? Someone is going to get in trouble over this! :-{}

 

[GCP]

Job well done by Ram and Cummins. I believe these trucks will give Ram a very large competetive advantage over the other two, and increase the number of heavy duty Rams we'll see on the roadways.

 

[cerberusiam]

I think somebody messed that article up. In one place the 3500 GCWR is 37,500, in another the 5500 is 37,500. Little misleading there.

 

[CUMMINZ]

One of the greatest steps forward if most of these numbers are correct is the idea of a 6k front axle and a GVW of 14k on the DRWs. I have been asking for these numbers a long time. Personally since I have both driven my dually with factory 17" tires and my addition of 19. 5s. . The 14k trucks either need an upgrade in 17"ers or come factory with 225x19. 5s. With the increase of body refinements as to ride I don't think the 19. 5" tires would hurt the ride. As most of you know when you start stressing tires to their very limit you start having wear issues. These numbers look great and the idea of an option of HD aisen transmission -- I still will not trade my 07. 5. . I have too much money of joy left in it.

#ad


#ad


#ad

 

[WMonroe]

Didn't Ford start out with 19. 5's on their F450's but switched to 17's because the commercial tires had a speed rating of 75 mph? I just seem to remember people complaining that their new trucks topped out much lower than they expected. If they could have a 19. 5" wheel option and still maintain a reasonable speed rating that would be awesome.

 

[RVTRKN]

Now how is Chrysler going to publish a weight chart with Cummins spelled "Cummings"????



First our guns, and now this!!?? Seriously?

Thats the way the Italians spell it. :-laf:-laf

 

[AH64ID]

It's doesn't appear the 3. 42 requirement is limited to the 2500, it looks like ALL SRW trucks have 1 option, 3. 42's.

What a bunch of BS!! I guess that is another reason to keep my 05.

 

[CUMMINZ]

Didn't Ford start out with 19. 5's on their F450's but switched to 17's because the commercial tires had a speed rating of 75 mph? I just seem to remember people complaining that their new trucks topped out much lower than they expected. If they could have a 19. 5" wheel option and still maintain a reasonable speed rating that would be awesome.

I never read why but after seeing one with 17s I thought that was not what I would have wanted.

 

[AH64ID]

When the F450 first came out it was severely overbuilt and rode like a brick, and got horrible mileage. Ford decided to make it more like a F350+, for better mileage and ride. Part of that change was the 17's. 17's have the weight rating required and will give a better ride, and that's what most customers want.

 

[CUMMINZ]

This is what I dislike about the 17s under a heavy load and which will make them less stable at extreme loads. Note the difference in tires and the way they are riding. Heavy crown on many roads and tractor trailer ruts in interstates will do this to duallys.

#ad


#ad

 

[AH64ID]

The 19's are better, but for a 3500 they are not justifiable as an OEM offering.