I have no bias here other than to say both of these trucks have more than enough power to haul our 5th wheels.
Also note these trailers are loaded with a <20% tongue weight so don't even consider getting anywhere close to 30k lbs for a 5th wheel. As this forum continues to point out it is all about the rear axle rating for Class 3 1 ton trucks. To be safe in calculating truck and trailer weight limits without actual numbers I would use 4200 lbs. empty RAWR and 24% tongue weight on the 5th wheel.
Ram 3500: https://youtu.be/4sHvBZVPK_s
Ford F450: https://youtu.be/Dzx7SL5AbE0
Ford has a lot of bells & whistles some of which look very useful but I would stay away from the 2017 and wait for 2018 until it is a proven truck. When looking at the aluminum body I would research the first 2015 F150 to see what problems you might have with the super duty.
The Cummins diesel is such a solid performer and looking at the two Ike runs it is clear to me the Ram exhaust brake is superior (Fords system engaged the brakes automatically). The longer time to climb is expected and attributed to the lower horsepower. This is by no means a deficiency just physics.
Andy
Cummins12V98 said
09:11 AM Aug 27, 2016
I can tell you from personal experience it's best to let the truck do the shifting when "ascending" once on a steep grade. I have experimented and NO the truck does not run any cooler at the 3,000 rpm area then the 2-2,200 rpm area. Climbing a grade just hold it to the floor and let the truck do the work. One exception is when you can see a grade ahead of you and you know it will downshift do it manually and it will make a more seamless climb.
"Descending" I found it's best to place the truck in a gear that will keep the rpm's in the upper 2K area and run cruise control. My combined is 33K and the EB will hold the load in 2nd down a 14% grade.
The Ford has the 4.30 gears that will make a difference pulling a long steep grade but net worse mileage as shown, actually in all conditions.
Not sure why the comparison between a 16 and 17 or 450 and 3500?
Neil and Connie said
03:27 PM Aug 27, 2016
As Bill Napier frequently says though…ya gotta run the numbers. We found our 2012 F450 to have more than enough power and brakes to tow our New Horizons rig but it's the rear axle capacity that gets you. If you add an aux fuel tank and have a trailer over probably 20K loaded then you're gonna be getting close to the rated axle capacity.
What happens if you go over? From an engineering standpoint pretty much nothing unless you're several thousand pounds over…we were about 1500 over before we swapped to the 5500HD. From a legal standpoint…I suppose the insurance company could deny your claim because you over loaded the truck, but have no direct experience either way.
From a towing capacity standpoint ya gotta run those numbers as well…but that's not really the limiting factor…at least with the F450, it's rear axle capacity.
That overload and the insufficient clearance between the bed rails and the bottom of the bedroom was why we switched.
travlingman said
08:09 PM Aug 27, 2016
ahull wrote:
I have no bias here other than to say both of these trucks have more than enough power to haul our 5th wheels.
Also note these trailers are loaded with a <20% tongue weight so don't even consider getting anywhere close to 30k lbs for a 5th wheel. As this forum continues to point out it is all about the rear axle rating for Class 3 1 ton trucks. To be safe in calculating truck and trailer weight limits without actual numbers I would use 4200 lbs. empty RAWR and 24% tongue weight on the 5th wheel.
Ram 3500: https://youtu.be/4sHvBZVPK_s
Ford F450: https://youtu.be/Dzx7SL5AbE0
Ford has a lot of bells & whistles some of which look very useful but I would stay away from the 2017 and wait for 2018 until it is a proven truck. When looking at the aluminum body I would research the first 2015 F150 to see what problems you might have with the super duty.
The Cummins diesel is such a solid performer and looking at the two Ike runs it is clear to me the Ram exhaust brake is superior (Fords system engaged the brakes automatically). The longer time to climb is expected and attributed to the lower horsepower. This is by no means a deficiency just physics.
Andy
So they manually hold the Ram in 2nd gear coming down the mountain and compare to the Ford using adaptive cruise control(automatically brakes for you) and you say the Ram exhaust break is better? 2 completely different ways of descending, so how is the Ram exhaust brake better? You did notice the little part about the tach red lining?
Did you happen to notice the way the trucks were drove up the mountain. They shifted the Ram manually to keep its RPM's up to pull the mountain and yet at the top it was going 25 MPH. They let the computer shift the Ford, letting it drop the RPM's before shifting, and it only once dropped below 40 MPH.
Both are good trucks but with the testing being done different both up and down the mountain it takes away from a true comparison.
RonC said
09:18 PM Aug 27, 2016
Don't get lost in the 3500 vs 450 designations ... the trucks were compared based on their published CGVW not their model numbers. If the manufacturer claims to have 30,000 lbs CGVWR, don't be shocked when it's compared to another manufacturers 30,000 CGVWR truck. Regardless of the model designations.
RonC said
09:20 PM Aug 27, 2016
Adaptive cruise control was used BEFORE the test started ... Not during the test. But I have owned a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and I assure you that it is AWESOME!!
-- Edited by RonC on Saturday 27th of August 2016 09:32:26 PM
-- Edited by RonC on Saturday 27th of August 2016 09:33:19 PM
travlingman said
09:25 PM Aug 27, 2016
RonC wrote:
Adaptive cruise control was used BEFORE the test stared ... Nor during the test. But I have owned a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and I assure you that it is AWESOME!!
The adaptive cruise control was used with testing of the Ford coming down the hill. It shows the truck braking for a vehicle in front of it and they comment how they never had to touch the brake the truck did it for them.
RonC said
10:04 AM Aug 28, 2016
You're right about that ... but it was more of an observation. When TFL does an Ike Gauntlet test for score, the number of brake applications on the downhill count against a truck and they don't use cruise control. In this instance they were just going down the hill to be able to turn around and time (test) going up the hill. I guess it's semantics, but I didn't consider the "test" to be anything other than the time up the hill.
Bill and Linda said
11:41 AM Aug 28, 2016
For those interested, you may want to view the video of the 3500HD RAM closely and learn some techniques which the pro-driver mentioned from time-to-time in between all the jabber. It is important to realize "gear selection" etc. is very dependent on the truck's engine type (IL-6 vs. V-8) and rear-end ratio. I.e. there is no "go down in second gear if you came up in second gear" that's correct for all engines and rear-end combinations. "It depends." Using the wrong gear going down hill can definitely destroy an engine. That "red line" on the tachometer is there for a reason.
As an example, a truck with a 4.88 rear end will use a different gear than one wit a 4.10 going up or down hill with the same truck and exactly the same engine to pull the exact same load. One must learn to drive their truck.
I've driven I-70 over "Ike" with our current trailer and our previous truck - a 3500HD Chevy. It's a fair test, but nothing the truck couldn't handle up and down hill without issue. That said, the comments of the professional driver about keeping RPM's up, etc. in the first video listed, are quite necessary for best engine cooling and performance.
RonC said
07:15 PM Aug 28, 2016
Bill's right about learning your truck and rig's behavior. My last truck was a 2014 SRW F350 6.7 diesel with 3.55 rear axle. Don't recall what gear(s) I was in going up at IKE. I just put it in tow haul and let the truck make the decisions, but I would estimate that it was mostly 3rd and 4th. Going down I used 2nd gear, 3,000 rpm's at around 40 mph with 4 way flashers going, with brake application every 1/2 mile or so to keep the RPMs and speed under control. The 2014 did not have a very effective exhaust brake. Our new truck is a 2016 DRW F350 6.7 diesel with 3.73 rear axle and a much better exhaust brake. I will have to go thru the mountains again to see how this all works, but I expect that I will be able to do the same decent at 50 mph in 3rd gear with very few, if any brake applications. But that is not based on real world experience.
RonC said
09:55 PM Aug 29, 2016
Not going down the Ford, Chevrolet, Ram path. That's like religion and politics, everybody has their opinion and no amount of discussion is likely to change anybody's mind. That said, the "headroom" discussion is legit. So here is mine: RAGWR 9,690 ... my RAW 7,520 so I have 2,170 "headroom" on the rear axle. My CGVWR is 32,100 ... my CGVW is 24,830 so I have 7,270 "headroom" on that front. My truck's HP and Torque ratings are quite good and show up in real world tests, and my exhaust brake is as good as anybody's (that uses the turbo vanes to create back pressure). All that means I have made my choice, and I'm pretty OK with it. The only manufacturer that hasn't aggressively upped their HP and Torque ratings over the last 5 years is Chevy ... and that's about to change. All of the big three diesels are capable of much more HP and Torque than they are currently delivering. A little like playing poker ... nobody willing to show their hands too early. I personally have no idea how much "headroom" they have in that regard, but I am sure they are all capable of more. I would guess they are all easily capable of 500 HP and 1,000 lbs/ft of torque without breaking a sweat. In their current configurations, they are probably in the sweet spot of their respective potentials. But that is just MO.
-- Edited by RonC on Tuesday 30th of August 2016 11:46:41 AM
-- Edited by RonC on Tuesday 30th of August 2016 07:54:15 PM
I have no bias here other than to say both of these trucks have more than enough power to haul our 5th wheels.
Also note these trailers are loaded with a <20% tongue weight so don't even consider getting anywhere close to 30k lbs for a 5th wheel. As this forum continues to point out it is all about the rear axle rating for Class 3 1 ton trucks. To be safe in calculating truck and trailer weight limits without actual numbers I would use 4200 lbs. empty RAWR and 24% tongue weight on the 5th wheel.
Ram 3500: https://youtu.be/4sHvBZVPK_s
Ford F450: https://youtu.be/Dzx7SL5AbE0
Ford has a lot of bells & whistles some of which look very useful but I would stay away from the 2017 and wait for 2018 until it is a proven truck. When looking at the aluminum body I would research the first 2015 F150 to see what problems you might have with the super duty.
The Cummins diesel is such a solid performer and looking at the two Ike runs it is clear to me the Ram exhaust brake is superior (Fords system engaged the brakes automatically). The longer time to climb is expected and attributed to the lower horsepower. This is by no means a deficiency just physics.
Andy
"Descending" I found it's best to place the truck in a gear that will keep the rpm's in the upper 2K area and run cruise control. My combined is 33K and the EB will hold the load in 2nd down a 14% grade.
The Ford has the 4.30 gears that will make a difference pulling a long steep grade but net worse mileage as shown, actually in all conditions.
Not sure why the comparison between a 16 and 17 or 450 and 3500?
As Bill Napier frequently says though…ya gotta run the numbers. We found our 2012 F450 to have more than enough power and brakes to tow our New Horizons rig but it's the rear axle capacity that gets you. If you add an aux fuel tank and have a trailer over probably 20K loaded then you're gonna be getting close to the rated axle capacity.
What happens if you go over? From an engineering standpoint pretty much nothing unless you're several thousand pounds over…we were about 1500 over before we swapped to the 5500HD. From a legal standpoint…I suppose the insurance company could deny your claim because you over loaded the truck, but have no direct experience either way.
From a towing capacity standpoint ya gotta run those numbers as well…but that's not really the limiting factor…at least with the F450, it's rear axle capacity.
That overload and the insufficient clearance between the bed rails and the bottom of the bedroom was why we switched.
So they manually hold the Ram in 2nd gear coming down the mountain and compare to the Ford using adaptive cruise control(automatically brakes for you) and you say the Ram exhaust break is better?
2 completely different ways of descending, so how is the Ram exhaust brake better? You did notice the little part about the tach red lining?
Did you happen to notice the way the trucks were drove up the mountain. They shifted the Ram manually to keep its RPM's up to pull the mountain and yet at the top it was going 25 MPH. They let the computer shift the Ford, letting it drop the RPM's before shifting, and it only once dropped below 40 MPH.
Both are good trucks but with the testing being done different both up and down the mountain it takes away from a true comparison.
Don't get lost in the 3500 vs 450 designations ... the trucks were compared based on their published CGVW not their model numbers. If the manufacturer claims to have 30,000 lbs CGVWR, don't be shocked when it's compared to another manufacturers 30,000 CGVWR truck. Regardless of the model designations.
Adaptive cruise control was used BEFORE the test started ... Not during the test. But I have owned a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, and I assure you that it is AWESOME!!
-- Edited by RonC on Saturday 27th of August 2016 09:32:26 PM
-- Edited by RonC on Saturday 27th of August 2016 09:33:19 PM
The adaptive cruise control was used with testing of the Ford coming down the hill. It shows the truck braking for a vehicle in front of it and they comment how they never had to touch the brake the truck did it for them.
For those interested, you may want to view the video of the 3500HD RAM closely and learn some techniques which the pro-driver mentioned from time-to-time in between all the jabber. It is important to realize "gear selection" etc. is very dependent on the truck's engine type (IL-6 vs. V-8) and rear-end ratio. I.e. there is no "go down in second gear if you came up in second gear" that's correct for all engines and rear-end combinations. "It depends." Using the wrong gear going down hill can definitely destroy an engine. That "red line" on the tachometer is there for a reason.
As an example, a truck with a 4.88 rear end will use a different gear than one wit a 4.10 going up or down hill with the same truck and exactly the same engine to pull the exact same load. One must learn to drive their truck.
I've driven I-70 over "Ike" with our current trailer and our previous truck - a 3500HD Chevy. It's a fair test, but nothing the truck couldn't handle up and down hill without issue. That said, the comments of the professional driver about keeping RPM's up, etc. in the first video listed, are quite necessary for best engine cooling and performance.
Not going down the Ford, Chevrolet, Ram path. That's like religion and politics, everybody has their opinion and no amount of discussion is likely to change anybody's mind. That said, the "headroom" discussion is legit. So here is mine: RAGWR 9,690 ... my RAW 7,520 so I have 2,170 "headroom" on the rear axle. My CGVWR is 32,100 ... my CGVW is 24,830 so I have 7,270 "headroom" on that front. My truck's HP and Torque ratings are quite good and show up in real world tests, and my exhaust brake is as good as anybody's (that uses the turbo vanes to create back pressure). All that means I have made my choice, and I'm pretty OK with it. The only manufacturer that hasn't aggressively upped their HP and Torque ratings over the last 5 years is Chevy ... and that's about to change. All of the big three diesels are capable of much more HP and Torque than they are currently delivering. A little like playing poker ... nobody willing to show their hands too early. I personally have no idea how much "headroom" they have in that regard, but I am sure they are all capable of more. I would guess they are all easily capable of 500 HP and 1,000 lbs/ft of torque without breaking a sweat. In their current configurations, they are probably in the sweet spot of their respective potentials. But that is just MO.
-- Edited by RonC on Tuesday 30th of August 2016 11:46:41 AM
-- Edited by RonC on Tuesday 30th of August 2016 07:54:15 PM