Has anyone been able to set the TPMS below 80lbs in EVIC 2014 2500

[Kry226]

There is no law specifying a specific psi, Ram has to specify a psi rating for the tires equipped on their trucks in order to safely (and legally) handle the GAWR of the truck. If you are hauling at or near max GAWR's, 80 psi is not ridiculous, it is necessary! It's really not that complicated, slightly annoying, yes, but there is some logic behind it.

Of course you want higher PSIs for heavier loads (not to mention only 1% of Ram drivers even get close to GAWR with any regularity). That's a no-brainer and guys have been airing up for those loads for eons. It IS ridiculous to specify 80 PSI all the time and when empty. I'll also mention that the high PSI puts more wear and tear on the hard parts of the truck instead of allowing the the tire to soak up the "trauma". You'd think Ram would understand that cost.

This is the very reason I won't buy a 2500. It's 3500 only for me.

 

[photowrite]

This is the very reason I won't buy a 2500. It's 3500 only for me.

Good point. I'm happy with my 2014 2500, and the price was unbeatable, but I agree a 3500 with an informational TPMS would be much better.

 

[kthaxton]

Of course you want higher PSIs for heavier loads (not to mention only 1% of Ram drivers even get close to GAWR with any regularity). That's a no-brainer and guys have been airing up for those loads for eons. It IS ridiculous to specify 80 PSI all the time and when empty. I'll also mention that the high PSI puts more wear and tear on the hard parts of the truck instead of allowing the the tire to soak up the "trauma". You'd think Ram would understand that cost.

Yes, I know all of this. It appeared as if you were under the assumption that I was stating that there was a law stating "80 psi" specifically, which I wasn't. You also made it sound like there was no practical use for 80 psi.

Seriously, it's really not that big of a deal. So we have a yellow light on our dash and a display that defaults to a screen other than what we would prefer when we aren't hauling a lot of weight. Big deal. Maybe someday they'll refine the law to allow for trucks meant to haul heavy loads.....since they obviously didn't have that in mind. Its certainly not enough of an issue to be the only reason to get a truck other that what I actually need or want. Even if I knew this before I bought my 2500, it certainly wouldn't' have changed my decision as its only a mild annoyance that I am used to and don't even think about.

 

[Kry226]

Yes, I know all of this. It appeared as if you were under the assumption that I was stating that there was a law stating "80 psi" specifically, which I wasn't. You also made it sound like there was no practical use for 80 psi.

Seriously, it's really not that big of a deal. So we have a yellow light on our dash and a display that defaults to a screen other than what we would prefer when we aren't hauling a lot of weight. Big deal. Maybe someday they'll refine the law to allow for trucks meant to haul heavy loads.....since they obviously didn't have that in mind. Its certainly not enough of an issue to be the only reason to get a truck other that what I actually need or want. Even if I knew this before I bought my 2500, it certainly wouldn't' have changed my decision as its only a mild annoyance that I am used to and don't even think about.

No sir, I wasn't assuming you said there was a law, but by and large, the entire heavy duty Ram community which has been ranting about this problem has been complaining the entire time about the Feds and their mandates. I'm simply stating that's not the case. There is no Federal mandate that requires Ram to specify 80 PSI. Either that, or Ford is violating Federal law by specifying 65 PSI. Now, Ford is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. I'm certain they're not breaking the law. Thus, Ram intentionally and inexplicably designed the truck to behave this way. And at $60k, my friend, that yellow light is a big hairy deal.

 

[SnoKing]

Oh wait, soon we will be able to legally delete smog stuff and by able to demand low pressure limits on 2500 be changed, or the company will be Tweeted out of business.:-laf :-laf :-laf

 

[kthaxton]

There is no Federal mandate that requires Ram to specify 80 PSI. Either that, or Ford is violating Federal law by specifying 65 PSI..

See, there you go again, making it sound like I (or others) are claiming there is a law specifying 80 psi, it sounds like you get that......but then it doesn't.

Apparently, Ram has determined that 80 psi is required to handle the GAWR of the truck, which is where they get the number from. My assumption is that the law states something in regards to the monitoring system must reflect the pressure needed to safely handle the vehicles GAWR (or perhaps it reads GVWR?), and give an indication when it does not....again, an assumption. With passenger cars, this is a non issue, but with trucks designed to haul a lot of weight, it throws a wrench in the works. My truck's monitoring system is only expecting to see 65 psi in the front, which makes sense since it GAWR in the front is less than the rear.

Perhaps this Ford has a LOWER GAWR and thus their 65 psi rating?

 

[Kry226]

What are you talking about? Are you just trying to argue? I never said you said anything. But yes, I wish I had a nickle for every time over the last two years I read a post complaining about the Feds mandating the high psi, yada yada yada. And for a while, I believed it too. But I also did simply point out the difference between the TPMSs of two comparative trucks (F-250/2500, both CCSB SRW 4x4), and that Ram's idiot light isn't based on law but on a manufacturer's whim.

And by the way, according to both MFR's brochures, the Ford rear GAWR is 200 lbs higher than the Ram's (6,200 vs 6,000 lbs). With the tires installed on these trucks (just over 3,600 lbs max load @ 80 psi), you'll run out of axle capacity before you run out of tire capacity by at least 500 lbs per tire. So there's no technical reason for the Ram 2500 to mandate 80 psi rear in the first place, even at GAWR.

I'm not a Ford guy. I've never owned a Ford-anything and don't plan to. I'm a Ram guy, but I really wish Ram would stop doing dumb stuff.

 

[kthaxton]

What are you talking about? Are you just trying to argue? I never said you said anything.

On two occasions now, you pointed out that there is no federal mandate that requires Ram to state 80 psi, yet nobody said that there was, it sounded as if you were challenging a statement that nobody made.

I did simply point out the difference between the TPMSs of two comparative trucks (F-250/2500, both CCSB SRW 4x4), and that Ram's idiot light isn't based on law but on a manufacturer's whim. And by the way, according to both MFR's brochures, the Ford rear GAWR is 200 lbs higher than the Ram's (6,200 vs 6,000 lbs). With the tires installed (just over 3,600 lbs max load @ 80 psi), you'll run out of axle capacity before you run out of tire capacity by at least 500 lbs per tire. So there's no technical reason for the Ram 2500 to mandate 80 psi rear in the first place, even at GAWR.

If that is the case then, I do not have an answer and will not speculate any further, it would probably take an engineer from both Ram and Ford to lay that to rest. However, even if Ram did have a 65 psi rating, the notification (at least mine) would still light up, because I run between 50 and 55 psi.

 

[Kry226]

On two occasions now, you pointed out that there is no federal mandate that requires Ram to state 80 psi, yet nobody said that there was, it sounded as if you were challenging a statement that nobody made.

It's called clarification. This occurs as a response to someone stating that a person is saying something they're actually not saying. I simply restated my point more succinctly so the reader could understand. Apparently I have failed at that. Have a great day, sir.

 

[BarryG]

Well I know this thread has taken a turn from the op's original question but here is some clarification on what the feds have to say about it
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TirePresFinal/Index.html

Looks like anything under 10k needs to have it and is based on the vehicle tire inflation placard or a minimum set in the rule however whichever is higher is required. And while I do agree that there should be more "wiggle room" for being able to set pressures based on tire inflation charts if one were to read more than the small snippet I copied and pasted below most of this is targeted specifically to get the consumer to pay attention to tire pressures (duh). Why ram has the placard pressures so high I do not know unless it is strictly a CYA maneuver as tires in load range E carry more weight than the GVW of the (2500) vehicle even accounting for a heavy load on the rear though I did not do an exhaustive search to verify that but a quick look at 245/70/17e tires indicate a 3000lb rating which I think is the smallest tire available on a 2500 with diesel nor have I weighed front and rear with a heavy load to verify that the rear would still be under the tire load rating at various pressures and the vehicle at the 10k GVW
A. Highlights of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA initiated this rulemaking with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)(66 FR 38982, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572) on July 26, 2001. The NPRM proposed to require passenger cars, light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle, to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS).
The agency sought comment on two alternative sets of performance requirements for TPMSs and proposed adopting one of them in the final rule. The first alternative would have required that the driver be warned when the pressure in any single tire or in each tire in any combination of tires, up to a total of four tires, had fallen to 20 percent or more below the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure for the vehicle's tires (the placard pressure), or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever was higher. (This alternative is referred to below as the four-tire, 20 percent alternative.) The second alternative would have required that the driver be warned when the pressure in any single tire or in each tire in any combination of tires, up to a total of three tires, had fallen to 25 percent or more below the placard pressure, or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever was higher. (This alternative is referred to below as the three-tire, 25 percent alternative.) The minimum levels of pressure were the same in both proposed alternatives. The adoption of four-tire, 20 percent alternative would have required that drivers be warned of under-inflation sooner and in a greater array of circumstances. It would also have narrowed the range of technologies that manufacturers could use to comply with the new standard.
There are two types of TPMSs currently available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct TPMSs have a tire pressure sensor in each tire. The sensors transmit pressure information to a receiver. Indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure sensors. Current indirect TPMSs rely on the wheel speed sensors in an anti-lock braking system (ABS) to detect and compare differences in the rotational speed of a vehicle's wheels. Those differences correlate to differences in tire pressure because decreases in tire pressure cause decreases in tire diameter that, in turn, cause increases in wheel speed.
To meet the four-tire, 20 percent alternative, vehicle manufacturers likely would have had to use direct TPMSs because even improved indirect systems would not likely be able to detect loss of pressure until pressure has fallen 25 percent and could not detect all combinations of significantly under-inflated tires. To meet the three-tire, 25 percent alternative, vehicle manufacturers would have been able to install either direct TPMSs or improved indirect TPMSs, but not current indirect TPMSs.

 

[moparguy]

Interesting info above. The wife's 2015, 2500 has a 6.4 Hemi with the same at times, irritating TPMS message/symbol of low pressure. We do normally run 70 front and 75 rear since most weekends it's hooked to a horse trailer.

That said, due to weather the wife hasn't hooked her truck to a trailer in the past month and while driving it yesterday I checked the tire pressures. Due to the colder temps they were each down about 10psi (60/65) with no message. I'm wondering if this is a TPMS programmed acceptance of the reduced pressures due to temperature or has the system malfunctioned. I'm OK either-way, it's just unexpected.

 

[Kry226]

Well I know this thread has taken a turn from the op's original question but here is some clarification on what the feds have to say about it
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TirePresFinal/Index.html

Looks like anything under 10k needs to have it and is based on the vehicle tire inflation placard or a minimum set in the rule however whichever is higher is required. And while I do agree that there should be more "wiggle room" for being able to set pressures based on tire inflation charts if one were to read more than the small snippet I copied and pasted below most of this is targeted specifically to get the consumer to pay attention to tire pressures (duh). Why ram has the placard pressures so high I do not know unless it is strictly a CYA maneuver as tires in load range E carry more weight than the GVW of the (2500) vehicle even accounting for a heavy load on the rear though I did not do an exhaustive search to verify that but a quick look at 245/70/17e tires indicate a 3000lb rating which I think is the smallest tire available on a 2500 with diesel nor have I weighed front and rear with a heavy load to verify that the rear would still be under the tire load rating at various pressures and the vehicle at the 10k GVW
A. Highlights of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA initiated this rulemaking with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)(66 FR 38982, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8572) on July 26, 2001. The NPRM proposed to require passenger cars, light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle, to be equipped with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS).
The agency sought comment on two alternative sets of performance requirements for TPMSs and proposed adopting one of them in the final rule. The first alternative would have required that the driver be warned when the pressure in any single tire or in each tire in any combination of tires, up to a total of four tires, had fallen to 20 percent or more below the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure for the vehicle's tires (the placard pressure), or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever was higher. (This alternative is referred to below as the four-tire, 20 percent alternative.) The second alternative would have required that the driver be warned when the pressure in any single tire or in each tire in any combination of tires, up to a total of three tires, had fallen to 25 percent or more below the placard pressure, or a minimum level of pressure specified in the standard, whichever was higher. (This alternative is referred to below as the three-tire, 25 percent alternative.) The minimum levels of pressure were the same in both proposed alternatives. The adoption of four-tire, 20 percent alternative would have required that drivers be warned of under-inflation sooner and in a greater array of circumstances. It would also have narrowed the range of technologies that manufacturers could use to comply with the new standard.
There are two types of TPMSs currently available, direct TPMSs and indirect TPMSs. Direct TPMSs have a tire pressure sensor in each tire. The sensors transmit pressure information to a receiver. Indirect TPMSs do not have tire pressure sensors. Current indirect TPMSs rely on the wheel speed sensors in an anti-lock braking system (ABS) to detect and compare differences in the rotational speed of a vehicle's wheels. Those differences correlate to differences in tire pressure because decreases in tire pressure cause decreases in tire diameter that, in turn, cause increases in wheel speed.
To meet the four-tire, 20 percent alternative, vehicle manufacturers likely would have had to use direct TPMSs because even improved indirect systems would not likely be able to detect loss of pressure until pressure has fallen 25 percent and could not detect all combinations of significantly under-inflated tires. To meet the three-tire, 25 percent alternative, vehicle manufacturers would have been able to install either direct TPMSs or improved indirect TPMSs, but not current indirect TPMSs.

I agree, this is interesting info, but also like you stated, doesn't explain why Ram spec'd the high psi as the rule certainly doesn't require it. But TPMSs, as most here know, came about as a result of the Explorer Firestone fiasco. The rule just 1. requires the system to be installed in motor vehicles; and 2. gets all MFRs on the same sheet of music regarding which system they run and the specs under which the system alerts the driver. Thanks for the info.

 

[kthaxton]

Interesting info above. The wife's 2015, 2500 has a 6.4 Hemi with the same at times, irritating TPMS message/symbol of low pressure. We do normally run 70 front and 75 rear since most weekends it's hooked to a horse trailer.

That said, due to weather the wife hasn't hooked her truck to a trailer in the past month and while driving it yesterday I checked the tire pressures. Due to the colder temps they were each down about 10psi (60/65) with no message. I'm wondering if this is a TPMS programmed acceptance of the reduced pressures due to temperature or has the system malfunctioned. I'm OK either-way, it's just unexpected.

Mine seems to have a different tolerance in the front vs the rear. The fronts can be at least 60 psi (maybe even less) and not give me a low pressure warning (it expects 65 psi). In the rear, it is less forgiving, and less consistent. It will give me a warning at 76-77 psi. There have been times when the one rear is giving a warning at 78 psi, but the other tire will be at 75 and give no warning.

 

[kthaxton]

but also like you stated, doesn't explain why Ram spec'd the high psi as the rule certainly doesn't require it.

Likely because of the tire's Ram provides on their trucks. My wheels and tires are aftermarket installed by the dealer so I did not see the stock tire ratings, but mine are 80 psi tires. I assume the ones from the factory were 80 psi tires also. The door "placard" also states 80 psi in the rear. The way I read that, and have always assumed, is since those are the tires equipped with the truck (for whatever reason....even if they are overkill) that is the pressure the TPMS expects/is required to see.

 

[4x4x4door]

If anyone is still looking for a way to lower their TPMS settings, check out this thread How to set TPMS to ANY pressure and/or send me a PM.