2013 & diesel particulate filter?

[Wingate]

Joe... I have a vaccine to the 2013 Ram. . its the 3:42 ring gear they stuck in it.

Would LOVE to have the Aisin though. . Im torn, I can keep my current truck and buy a new motorcycle which I want BAD, or buy a new truck and just dream of the new Victory.....

 

[HBarlow]

Select a real truck with drw and you won't be forced to endure the 3. 42 ring and pinion that gives you a lugging engine at 75 mph. Ram is trying to tell you guys a Ram 2500 is not intended to tow the huge and heavy fivers or gooseneck trailers the Cummins is capable of pulling.

 

[CBari]

This is the best cure I have found. It. Stopped me dead in my tracks.

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

I too was concerned about the 3. 42, as my column in the next issue of the TDR will discuss. Afterwards, past the due date for the column, I did more thinking and realized that 3. 42 is OK, you just need to go from 6th into 5th when towing a load--and the transmission is programmed to do that as needed. I also was privileged to have a 40 minute phone conversation with the Ram Powertrain Integration Manager. I came away feeling that if you aren't using the Ram primarily near GCVW meaning towing a very heavy trailer, the 3. 42s are going to give better fuel economy and work well up to the 17,000 or so trailer weight the SRW 3500s are rated to tow. The new engine is happy and fuel efficient from 1200 to 2000 rpm. As stubborn as I can be (lol), I came away convinced by him.

 

[HBarlow]

Joe,

What will engine rpm be at the KA, OR, IL, and other states with towing speed limit of 55 mph? At 65?

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

Engine RPM changes with transmission and differential ratios for 17" wheels, compared to my 2004 setup:



Trans/rear 74 mph in 6th 74 mph in 5th 61 mph in 6th 62 mph in 1:1 gear

NV5600/3. 73 2200 rpm 3014 rpm 1800 rpm 2500 rpm

Late G56/3. 42 2046 rpm 2765 rpm 1674 rpm 2292 rpm

68RFE/4. 10 2090 rpm 2720 rpm 1710 rpm 2375 rpm

68RFE/3. 73 1899 rpm 2472 rpm 1553 rpm 2158 rpm

68RFE/3. 42 1738 rpm 2262 rpm 1424 rpm 1975 rpm

Aisin/4. 10 2090 rpm 2554 rpm 1710 rpm 2375 rpm

Aisin/3. 73 1899 rpm 2321 rpm 1553 rpm 2158 rpm

Aisin/3. 42 1738 rpm 2124 rpm 1424 rpm 1975 rpm





Engine RPM changes with transmission and differential ratios and 18" tires (2013 3500 SRW), vs. NV5600/3. 73 with 17" tires:



Trans/rear 74 mph in 6th 74 mph in 5th 61 mph in 6th 62 mph in 1:1

NV5600/3. 73 2200 rpm 3014 rpm 1800 rpm 2500 rpm

Late G56/3. 42 1960 rpm 2649 rpm 1603 rpm 2195 rpm

68RFE/4. 10 2002 rpm 2606 rpm 1638 rpm 2275 rpm

68RFE/3. 73 1819 rpm 2368 rpm 1487 rpm 2067 rpm

68RFE/3. 42 1665 rpm 2167 rpm 1364 rpm 1892 rpm

Aisin*/4. 10 2002 rpm 2447 rpm 1638 rpm 2275 rpm

Aisin/3. 73 1819 rpm 2223 rpm 1487 rpm 2067 rpm

Aisin/3. 42 1665 rpm 2035 rpm 1364 rpm 1892 rpm

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

The above tables don't copy well into a forum post, but you can see that if you get a SRW 3500 (of course you will choose the Aisin) then at 61 mph in 6th, the rpm will be only 1364. Thus, under any kind of load, the trans will downshift; in 4th you will have 1892 rpm. Get DRW with 4. 10 if you plan on towing a heavy trailer most of the time. I like hunting and do some town driving and don't want a dually. My heaviest trailer is under 8000 lb.

 

[AClayton]

I just purchased a 2013 and so far it seems to be a great truck with plenty of power. I'm used to a bit more torque than what this rig develops but the refinement of the interior and overall quiet operation makes this a very livable combo for me. The 3. 42 has not really hampered me at all pulling my RV(17k) and I just throw it in tow/haul and let the computer do its thing. I do however, manually shift to 5 just to keep the transmission happy. The one thing that confuses me is that the transmission is VERY busy even when traveling unloaded. It is constantly shifting and locking and unlocking the convertor. The dealer says it is normal to unlock the convertor between shifts and then lock shortly after it upshifts. Unloaded it is hardly noticeable... ... but pulling my RV it becomes much more prevalent. Other than that, plenty of power and the E-brake is simply awesome!!! I don't see where a 4. 10 would be necessary pulling what this rig is rated to tow. The 3500?..... yeah, to tow 30k, I would want more gear in the rear! But for 17k... . I feel the 3. 42 is adequate and unloaded, will render respectable mileage as well.

 

[RVTRKN]

I'm trying to restrain my self by finding excuses and reasons not to trade in a perfect garage kept '03 dually with only 40k miles. :-laf The $$$ probably will be the limiting factor.



Bill

You could almost pay the for the new truck with what you could get for it, if it had a NV5600.

 

[Wingate]

I too was concerned about the 3. 42, as my column in the next issue of the TDR will discuss. Afterwards, past the due date for the column, I did more thinking and realized that 3. 42 is OK, you just need to go from 6th into 5th when towing a load--and the transmission is programmed to do that as needed. I also was privileged to have a 40 minute phone conversation with the Ram Powertrain Integration Manager. I came away feeling that if you aren't using the Ram primarily near GCVW meaning towing a very heavy trailer, the 3. 42s are going to give better fuel economy and work well up to the 17,000 or so trailer weight the SRW 3500s are rated to tow. The new engine is happy and fuel efficient from 1200 to 2000 rpm. As stubborn as I can be (lol), I came away convinced by him.

Im sure thats what the Ford engineers were saying when they put 3:31 gearing in the 12 model 3/4 ton P/U... but in the real world, while the gears may be the best "compromise" the fuel mileage is going to drop like a rock when towing at max gvw. . guess im jsut old school, I would rather have 3:73 or 4:10 and take the slight unloaded fuel mileage penalty, but not cause it to drop so bad when loaded. (due to constant backshifting)
WoW, we should probably start a new thread for this... sorry OP for the hijack.

 

[TCDiesel]

I have NOT owned any pickup truck/Van without 4:10s for 20 YEARS, I'm glad I did not get the 4:10s with the 13s. Cummins Ram have the 13 dial In..... In Dec 03 My 2003 had 238 miles on it when I built the trans, I really have NO need for factory Warranty, But My 13s will on be getting ONLY mild mods for some time ... ... ..... At this point they are the best trucks I have ever owned.



HB just leave the 13 3:42s in 5th and it tows awesome.



The 13 RCS69 TQ management makes it sluggish in 1st , I don't know much on the Lockup clutch the 69 uses, but its quick and will lockup in 3rd. In some cases you can get the TB to stay engaged down to 18 MPH when in TH mode.

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

The Cummins has far more torque at low rpm than the V8 diesels. Also, you not only have tow/haul mode. but you can select the highest gear the transmission can go into, minimizing up- and down-shifting while pulling a trailer. Fuel mileage should not suffer loaded because the trans will just select the correct gear, and will not be less efficient in 4th or 5th compared to 6th.

 

[RVTRKN]

Something tells me there's going to be a rash of blown out rear ends in a few years. The trans can pick the right gear for the engine RPM but what about the added friction that the rear end will have, trying to push/pull the increased GCVWR that Dodge increased to keep up or surpass the competition.

 

[HBarlow]

Yes, you can downshift to achieve a final drive ratio that allows the engine to remain in the torque band at your chosen or state mandated road speed but you've given up the load startability provided by 4. 10 ratios.

Ram engineers have reasons for severely reducing their GCWR specs on trucks with 3. 42 gears. If you never pull a heavy trailer it won't matter to you but if you pull one that meets or exceeds maximum combined weight specs as many do the truck is giving up a lot of towing power and stressing driveline components unnecessarily.

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

I agree that if your trailer is close to or above the GCWR for the 3. 42s, you should have a dually for stability and the 4. 10s. One without the other is not the safest route. Actually, differential internal friction will be lower with the lower numerical ratios; they have more pinion teeth and larger pinion diameters.

 

[RVTRKN]

It's the pitch that increases the friction and unloaded it will be negligible, but at even 75% of the ability of the GCVWR will be detrimental to the gears. Only time will tell us if Dodge was correct, but by the time they fail, it will be out of warranty so why should they care. The G56 is a good example of Dodge knowing it was possible that they will fail but gambled it would make it through warranty, and I just paid a couple of grand upgrading mine.

 

[RustyJC]

Yes, you can downshift to achieve a final drive ratio that allows the engine to remain in the torque band at your chosen or state mandated road speed but you've given up the load startability provided by 4. 10 ratios.

In addition, you've effectively lost 1 or 2 gears in the transmission in towing applications. Where the 4. 10 gears allow effective use of 1-6 even when towing, the 3. 42 gears leave you with 1-4 or 1-5 when towing. Sorry, but I'm not sold on the 3. 42s.



Rusty

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

Rusty, everything you said is true and applies if you tow heavy a high percentage of the time. I too considered the same things, and whether you can be satisfied with 3. 42 vs. 4. 10 depends on what the mix of usage will be. I guess Ram thinks buyers of SRW 3500s will tow lighter or be solo most of the time, and dually 3500s will be used mostly for heavy towing.

 

[rscurtis]

3. 42 gears would have been perfect for the way I use my signature truck, but I would never recoup the cost of an R&P change even if I did it myself. I wouldn't worry about damaging the AAM axles- they've proven to be hell for strong, and much easier to work on than a Dana.

 

[HBarlow]

I agree that if your trailer is close to or above the GCWR for the 3. 42s, you should have a dually for stability and the 4. 10s. One without the other is not the safest route. Actually, differential internal friction will be lower with the lower numerical ratios; they have more pinion teeth and larger pinion diameters. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I accept that but the transmission and driveshaft are feeling greater resistance therefore more driveline stress.