2013 Ram Long Hauler w/Air Suspension ????

[HBarlow]

+++++++++++++ Cut and Paste from Allpar. Com ++++++++++++++

Based on its success as a concept, the Ram 5500 Long Hauler is launched for the 2013 model year. It uses a Kelderman heavy duty air suspension system and extra fuel tanks, and is designed for those who carry heavy loads for very long distances, who want to go without having to refill often.

The Long Hauler used a rolling lobe, primary air spring, located over the axle (not cantilevered on the forward bar from the frame), according to reader Mike V. , whereas the Grand Cherokee uses a supplemental spring. MoparNorm wrote, “The air springs will be only on the rear axle, so there won’t be any impact upon turning radius. There will also be no ‘axle shift’ as the panhard bar prevents that and the control arms keep the axle in place front to rear. Look at the rear of a Wrangler or Ram 1500 and just imagine the coil spring replaced by an air spring, or look at the rear axle of most newer semi truck tractors

 

[EGroeneveld]

Let me guess 75k MSRP

 

[HBarlow]

+++++ Here's The Link From The Above Also Cut and Paste from AllPar. Com +++++

The Ram Long-Hauler concept was designed for those who have a trailer to tow and a long distance to travel, but don't want to move up to a Class 6 truck. Based on the Class 5 Ram 5500 Chassis Cab, the Ram Long-Hauler has a six-cylinder 6. 7-liter high output Cummins turbodiesel engine rated at 800 lb. -ft. of torque mated to a reliable six-speed Aisin AS68RC automatic transmission. Four wheel drive is handled via a transfer case coupled to a 4. 88 Dana 110 axle with dual rear wheels.

The Class 5 Ram Crew Cab has been converted to a Mega Cab configuration, with an 8-foot box. A mid-ship fuel tank was combined with a second frame-mounted tank and a third bed-mounted tool box/auxiliary tank, giving the Long-Hauler a total fuel capacity of 170 gallons. At the national average price of diesel (time of launch), a fill-up would cost over $706 for a fill-up — but one fuel stop is all the truck may need for a coast-to-coast trip.

The Long Hauler has a 197. 4-inch wheelbase and 37,500 Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), taking it beyond the capability of traditional Class 3 or Class 4 trucks. Overall length of the Ram Long-Hauler is 288 inches, so parallel parking is an issue unless two spaces happen to be available. The Long Hauler is 79. 1 inches tall and tips the scales at an estimated 9,300 lbs. It may seem like an extravagance in times of rising fuel prices, but by avoiding the purchase of a heavier, less economical truck, it can actually be a fuel saver for its target audience.

To improve the ride and handling, the Long Hauler has full Kelderman Air Suspension front and rear and 19. 5-inch Alcoa aluminum wheels. The folks at Ram claim the ride is like a 3/4 ton truck. The suspension is self-leveling and has a kneel feature.

Trailer hook-ups are aided by a fifth-wheel hitch and a setup that allows hook-ups without opening the tailgate. There's also a camera to help line up with a trailer.

The Ram Long Hauler concept is finished in brilliant black paint accented by white gold metallic lower two-tone including body side moldings and wide wheel flares at the front and rear. Up front, there's a full-width bull bar.

Inside, noise levels have been reduced by upgraded NVH package. Four leather seats include a higher-comfort driver's seat. Rear passengers get power-adjustable footrests and a rear center console with a refrigerator, cup holders and tray tables. Front and rear 115V and 12V outlets are available and with the interior Wi-Fi enabled, passengers can use laptop computers during long drives. Rear seat passengers can opt for a movie on the DVD system with overhead screen; there's also a laptop storage area and a safe for valuables. The rear seats and console also fold flat for additional storage or as a berth for resting.

Ram sees the potential market for a Class 5 pickup, including race car teams, car haulers, RV owners, ranchers and rodeo competitors, boaters and commercial expediting operations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The MSRP on this monster is probably not much south of $100k!

 

[AH64ID]

Most of the articles I have seen on it claim it has the standard C&C 6. 7, so 305/610 not the 350/800 pickup motor.

 

[NIsaacs]

Most of the articles I have seen on it claim it has the standard C&C 6. 7, so 305/610 not the 350/800 pickup motor.

Well that would suck:-laf



I wonder, if that is the case, will it maintain the grade speed the new SAE towing standards mandate for 37,500 lbs GCW??



Nick

 

[AH64ID]

I would guess yes, considering the 4. 88's!!!

Let's say your in direct, at peak torque in a max tow PU it's 3280 ft/lbs to the rear wheels and in a C&C it's 2976. The C&C is within 10% of the rear wheel torque, but I bet it has no issues with the weight and those standards. In 6th the

 

[NIsaacs]

Yes, you are probably right, however the gear ratio between the two trucks would mostly just pertain to startability. The 4. 88's are close in max tq but at a much slower road speed.



If the 800 tq pickup with 4. 10's and 37,500 pulled the required grade at say 35 mph, would the 600 tq C&C and 4. 88's pull it the same? I don't think so but I aint smart enough to figure the percentages:-laf



Nick

 

[AH64ID]

When your hauling at 37,500 I am not sure you are really concerned about going 80.

With your example and lets look at some ratio's. 35 mph on a pickup is doable in 2nd gear (locked converter) at 3000 rpms. That would be roughly 4615 ft/lbs to the wheels (assuming no drive-train loss).

The C&C would be at 2500 rpms in 3rd gear, and assuming a flat torque curve (since the published specs aren't for 2500 rpms, but the pic shows about 600 ft/lbs), there would be roughly 3925 ft/lbs to the rear wheels.

If you let the C&C pull the grade at 3K in 2nd it would have 5200 ft/lbs to the rear wheels and be at 29 mph.

You also have to consider that torque is what gets a load moving, but hp keeps it moving. Case in point is my motor made at least 555 ft/lbs from 1400-2900 rpms, with the peak of 610 at 1600. It sure could get things going below 2000, but if I tried to pull a grade at 1600 it wouldn't do it, same grade at 2200 and it was barely breathing, more hp and less tq. So the C&C may be 190 ft/lbs behind, but it's only 45 hp with 30% better gearing. The pickup will always have a slighly better advantage, but won't last as long at those weights as it's using power to pull the grade and not mechanical advantage and the Aisin is supposed to be better at putting power to the ground than the 68RFE when towing.

It's all just math, but in the end pickups are designed for split duties and C&C's are designed for heavy work all the time. It's more than just the hp, the drive train, frame, etc. It's like comparing a 400hp Powerstroke to a 350 hp Cummins, sure the PS may win up this hill, but it will quit long before the Cummins does.

 

[NIsaacs]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the math, thats what I was looking for. When I was a kid I always asked my Dad (how come) so he named me Question Box and my middle son always asked me (Hey Dad, what if?)



My '01 (3. 55's)has way more power then my Cummins powered Ford (4. 10's) but with the two trannys and the 4. 10's it makes a good showing in towing comparison, so what you posted makes sense.



Nick

 

[HBarlow]

Nick,

I don't know whether the new Longhauler uses the ordinary C&C motor (305/610) or the 800 but I would bet the 800 would be only a second faster if that. The 800 ft. lbs. figure is mostly (if not entirely) hype for television and printed advertising.

I didn't know it for a long time until a TDR member persuaded me but all the newer trucks use torque management to protect the transmissions and other driveline components so the 800 motor only develops and applies that much torque under limited and controlled conditions. I doubt that 800 ft. lbs. is applied during start ups.

 

[Bill Stockard]

If you check the GCWR, maximum engine HP and torque specifications on the Dana S-110 axle used in the 4500/5500, you may find why the engine is limited to the standard C&C engine.



Bill

 

[NIsaacs]

Bill, yes Dana does limit the power and I figure that was why Dodge went to the AAM. I do wonder if Ford and Chevy limit their power to Dana specs in their 4500/5500 trucks, they use the same axle.



Nick

 

[HBarlow]

If you check the GCWR, maximum engine HP and torque specifications on the Dana S-110 axle used in the 4500/5500, you may find why the engine is limited to the standard C&C engine.

Bill

Bill,

I thought of that also when I posted the original info obtained from Allpar.

I wonder where Allpar got that 37,500# GCWR figure?

From your experience with spec'ing trucks would you guess that Dana would make improvements to the rear end assembly to permit an almost 50% overage of GCWR or is Dodge just ignoring it using torque limiting to let it survive?

 

['strokeThis_'07]

If they made it, and I had the money, I'd buy one. But they better come in the high-50, low 60k range or it won't sell. I mean, there's always that person that needs the biggest/longest/most optioned truck out there that has deep enough pockets to buy, but for the average-type workers, a Laramie Longhorn crew/long is expensive enough, let alone the same, but a Laramie Longhorn Longhauler

 

[HBarlow]

I hear an ordinary Ram 3500 dually pickup w/Cummins 68RFE is now in the $50 - 60k range, perhaps that's for a loaded Laramie with sunroof and navigation. I have no idea. I stay clear of dealers.

 

[Bill Stockard]

Bill,



I thought of that also when I posted the original info obtained from Allpar.



I wonder where Allpar got that 37,500# GCWR figure?



From your experience with spec'ing trucks would you guess that Dana would make improvements to the rear end assembly to permit an almost 50% overage of GCWR or is Dodge just ignoring it using torque limiting to let it survive?

Yes, they probably would with a guarantee from Chrysler/Dodge for a quantity of axles that would cover their design, engineering, and production costs. I have no idea what that quantity would be, what it would cost, or if Chrysler/Dodge would even underwrite such a project.



Bill

 

[HBarlow]

That's what I figured. Chances are Ram is offering the same standard Dana S-110 or whatever it is shown on Dana's website with a GCRW or 26k.

I really wouldn't be afraid of it because Dodge-Cummins trucks have been routinely grossly overloaded for years and rear end failures are pretty rare.

 

[JGilbert]

I hear an ordinary Ram 3500 dually pickup w/Cummins 68RFE is now in the $50 - 60k range, perhaps that's for a loaded Laramie with sunroof and navigation. I have no idea. I stay clear of dealers.

Our loaded Laramie dually Max Tow with sunroof and navigation came in at $52,000 ish with a sticker of $64,000. I shudder to think what the Long Hauler will sticker for. I cannot imagine a dealer ordering one for his lot without having a customer request/order in hand.



Joe

 

[HBarlow]

Wow! $52k with a $12k discount. It wasn't too many years ago that old guys like you and I could buy a new pickup with the $12k discount.

 

[CUMMINZ]

+++++++++++++ Cut and Paste from Allpar. Com ++++++++++++++



Based on its success as a concept, the Ram 5500 Long Hauler is launched for the 2013 model year. It uses a Kelderman heavy duty air suspension system and extra fuel tanks, and is designed for those who carry heavy loads for very long distances, who want to go without having to refill often.



The Long Hauler used a rolling lobe, primary air spring, located over the axle (not cantilevered on the forward bar from the frame), according to reader Mike V. , whereas the Grand Cherokee uses a supplemental spring. MoparNorm wrote, “The air springs will be only on the rear axle, so there won’t be any impact upon turning radius. There will also be no ‘axle shift’ as the panhard bar prevents that and the control arms keep the axle in place front to rear. Look at the rear of a Wrangler or Ram 1500 and just imagine the coil spring replaced by an air spring, or look at the rear axle of most newer semi truck tractors

HB, I don't doubt this is true but I can't find your quote on either website.