900 ft lbs of torque

[Mingoglia]

Heck, I'm very happy with the stock HP and torque in front of my G56 on my '14 2500.

That's because with your G56 you actually get to use the hp/tq you paid for.... us Aisin folks have the electronic nanny teasing us along the way, withholding torque like my wife teases and withholds ..... nevermind.

 

[AH64ID]

What is LD / MD drivetrain?

Light Duty/Medium Duty

 

[jeepit]

2015 LongHorn Dually for sale with a measly 865 TQ

View attachment 92057.

Let me know if you wanna sell!

 

[Newsa]

Heck, I'm very happy with the stock HP and torque in front of my G56 on my '14 2500.

Also happy with my stock "reduced torque and hp" due to G56 "limitations"

Haven't reached GCVW rating yet, but happy with what I have seen after nearly 16,000 miles with 4500 miles of towing just shy of 3 tons

 

[photowrite]

Also happy with my stock "reduced torque and hp" due to G56 "limitations"

Haven't reached GCVW rating yet, but happy with what I have seen after nearly 16,000 miles with 4500 miles of towing just shy of 3 tons

I've not been towing with this rig yet. Have been hauling slightly above GVWR with excellent results. Love shifting and driving the truck myself.

On topic...happy for those who prefer the A/T and want the torque and bragging rights that comes with 900 lb-ft.

 

[JR]

I read they upped the rear axle to a 16 bolt rear end. Not sure if ring gear size increased or not.

 

[Tuesdak]

"Where is my fuel economy?"

Horsepower wars are getting stupid and insurance rates follow.

I just don't see the need for a 1 Ton pickup to enter the Medium Duty truck category with the CDL license required class tow ratings. The HP and TQ levels in the Medium Duty are lower for longer average engine life. Even the Ram Long Hauler is said to have a de-rated engine for longer life at it's intended job of hauling RV's. Less available power means less fuel burned and less food taken off my table from high diesel prices.

Yes I am happy we left the IDI Forgotten Diesel era of 200HP 400 FT Lbs behind, but, 1000 HP and 1000 Ft Lbs just isn't needed. I would rather have better MPG. Sometimes with the proper setup you get your cake and can eat it too as I have seen more power and MPG from a larger turbo on some forgotten diesels.

 

[Deleted member 995608]

I read they upped the rear axle to a 16 bolt rear end. Not sure if ring gear size increased or not.

Link please?

 

[AH64ID]

Looks like its the same 11.8" axle as 2015 but with more ring gear bolts.

http://www.fourwheeler.com/news/150...-lb-ft-of-torque-for-2016-cummins-67l-engine/

 

[JR]

^^^^That article is a little more detailed than the one I read.^^^^

 

[kthaxton]

Looks like its the same 11.8" axle as 2015 but with more ring gear bolts.

http://www.fourwheeler.com/news/150...-lb-ft-of-torque-for-2016-cummins-67l-engine/

...and stronger materials used in the carrier.

 

[TJJEEPER]

I'm curious if the transfercase on the 4x4 is rated for that kind of power or if when engaged it signals for lower torque? Seems logical since 900 Ft Lbs in low range would do some serious twisting!

 

[Newsa]

Even the Ram Long Hauler is said to have a de-rated engine for longer life at it's intended job of hauling RV's. Less available power means less fuel burned and less food taken off my table from high diesel prices.

I think the 850-865 ft/lbs is why Chrysler did away with the lifetime extended warrantee. But I could be mistaken.

 

[photowrite]

Yes I am happy we left the IDI Forgotten Diesel era of 200HP 400 FT Lbs behind, but, 1000 HP and 1000 Ft Lbs just isn't needed. I would rather have better MPG. Sometimes with the proper setup you get your cake and can eat it too as I have seen more power and MPG from a larger turbo on some forgotten diesels.

Valid points/arguments for sure, and I agree. I'm not saying that I'm not impressed with the towing/torque/horsepower race, or that I don't support the race to the moon and back...but also that I'm perfectly happy driving my de-rated, lowly 660 lb-ft/350 HP G56 truck. Though I've read about the "torque management" these trucks have, including the manual transmission versions, my '14 2500 with G56 manual sure doesn't drive like its being held back, the seat-of-the-pants driver sensations are very satisfying (and I've owned diesel trucks since 1992, and driven diesels since 1986).

I also agree with your comments regarding medium-duty trucks...the 4500 and 5500 trucks are surely in that class (and always were), and the 3500 maybe be up there too depending on where one sets the bar, surely in towing capacity if not hauling. The GVWRs and GCWRs of modern pickups have long since surpassed the outdated classifications of "1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1-ton".

 

[Tuesdak]

Valid points/arguments for sure, and I agree. I'm not saying that I'm not impressed with the towing/torque/horsepower race, or that I don't support the race to the moon and back...but also that I'm perfectly happy driving my de-rated, lowly 660 lb-ft/350 HP G56 truck. Though I've read about the "torque management" these trucks have, including the manual transmission versions, my '14 2500 with G56 manual sure doesn't drive like its being held back, the seat-of-the-pants driver sensations are very satisfying (and I've owned diesel trucks since 1992, and driven diesels since 1986).

I also agree with your comments regarding medium-duty trucks...the 4500 and 5500 trucks are surely in that class (and always were), and the 3500 maybe be up there too depending on where one sets the bar, surely in towing capacity if not hauling. The GVWRs and GCWRs of modern pickups have long since surpassed the outdated classifications of "1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1-ton".

As far as I see it the 2500 and 3500's are entering the 4500 and 5500 class with the tow ratings. This is extra cost for the truck and lower MPG for something I don't need.

Running a 24' or 28' cargo trailer (~12,000 LBS) full of tires and auto parts from Phoenix (1000') over "The Rim" (7600-7800') through Heber-Overgaard and turning around at Snowflake I can say that the Forgotten Diesel era did not have enough power. That route is hard enough on normal vehicles that aren't towing. However the 2003 I have has enough power to easily maintain the speed limit towing on the 7%+ grades. Heavier trailers should be, IMO, in the 4500 or 5500 class. Regardless fuel was the biggest expense out of my bottom line and after the 2003 power levels I simply didn't need much more. So I would rather have better MPG than 1000 HP that I can't use. No argument that it would be fun, but, money in my pocket is More fun.

After the power getting heavier trailers stopped or slowed down becomes a real challenge. The better brakes of today vs. obsolete drums of yesterday were needed before way they were offered...

 

[Newsa]

Mine gets pretty good mileage unloaded. I think the truck is programmed to only drink what it needs for the load it's given.

The automatics lock up the torque converter in these trucks faster than passenger cars.

I would add a second overdrive to the g56 (7th gear) to only be used when unloaded.

I think the 3.42 rear end accomplishes the fuel efficiency it intended to.

I'm not trading in my g56 for a bit more torque.

 

[photowrite]

snip... Regardless fuel was the biggest expense out of my bottom line and after the 2003 power levels I simply didn't need much more. So I would rather have better MPG than 1000 HP that I can't use. No argument that it would be fun, but, money in my pocket is More fun.

After the power getting heavier trailers stopped or slowed down becomes a real challenge. The better brakes of today vs. obsolete drums of yesterday were needed before way they were offered...

I both understand and agree with you.

James

 

[DLeno]

Some observations:

1. the torque increase itself is about 4% which, by the time you consider drivetrain losses, is about 3.5%.

2. the J2807 compliant towing capacity increase affects only 4.10s and 3.73s, which means only the DWR. Apparently the taller 3.42 gears (20% taller than the 4.10) are unable to show any improvement on the J2807 test.

3. there is no payload capacity increase

4. The increase in towing capacity for the 4.10s is....drumroll... 4%! I wonder where that came from

5. The ratio of payload to trailer weight rating was already 22% to begin with, (meaning that 22% of the trailer weight is on the pin). In order to realize the additional trailer weight rating, only 21% of trailer weight can be on the pin.

 

[JHumphries]

So, the 2016 Ram Body Builder guide is up, and it lists 865 ft-lb torque for the HD on page 3?
http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2016/docs/ram/ramhdts.pdf

I don't remember reading anything about late availability.

 

[EGroeneveld]

Here is the 900 on the ram website for 2016. http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/ram_3500/