6.4 2500- A different perspective

[sandawilliams]

Weight for a 2500 CC seems a bit light. Granted mine is an optioned Laramie with a hard tonneau cover but weighed just over 7200 lbs last time I had it on the sales.

My 2500 cc 4x4 8' box weighs 7300 with me in it. (I'm 190#)

 

[THETANK]

personally I think the 6.4 should have higher hp and tq as the 5.7 is just about as capable. I have never owned an oil burner as I have never had to tow, if I had to tow I would pick the diesel to do the job. I would order a 3/4 or 1 ton if towing and under the hood would sit the ****** to do the job. You might as well have the best tool in the toolbox I figure.

 

[Snyd]

The tundra is a 3/4 ton truck

Except it's not. 4x4 DC standard bed....

GVW 7100
Payload 1620 (not counting add ons that would drop it)

3/4 ton starts at 8600 GVW and load range E tires standard.

I hear you regarding axles, brakes, etc. It's beefy. But it doesn't have the suspension or tires. Or even the frame for that matter to compare to a 3/4 ton. I like the Tundra, I was close to buying one but it's a half ton. I couldn't get myself to spend 35-40000 grand on a truck only to put a band-aid on it like air bags to combat sag. Even the, the truck would still have been overloaded with my quad and trailer.

 

[Steel Curtain]

I can tell you I bought the ram for the payload, I've owned a few toyotas and they are really nice but don't have the payload. I went back and forth with the eco boost, tundra, keeping my ram 1500, or even holding out for new Titan diesel that is suppose to be more than a half ton but not quite a 3/4 ton......but in the end bought the ram 2500. It is beefier all the way around and gives me a piece of mind when towing our 30' tt.... The ride is no where near as nice but I have gotten used to it. I think the ram out performs the tundra for what it was designed for..... Just my 2 pennies

 

[SouthTexan]

SouthTexan... None of those trucks in the review in a 4x4 can haul an 800lb atv in the bed AND handle 500-750lbs of tongue weight, passengers, some stuff and NOT be over payload! That review is moot for this discussion. If this were only about towing 5000lbs with a 4x2 then I'd stick with my current tow rig.... 1988 Chevy Van. I replaced the 305 with a 350 built up, exhaust, etc. Van has a TH 400 and 3.73 gears. Tows the 5000lb trailer fine, on long steep grades I drop to second and hold 45 to the top, no prob. But... I can't take my 4 wheeler with me and low and behold a $40-50,000 1/2 ton truck can't handle the job either!

Okay, lets see. Trailer is 5,000 lbs and with a 15% tongue weight that is 750 lbs. As per the owners manual on any half ton with a class IV receiver, you have to use a weight distributing hitch(WDH) for any tongue weight over 500 lbs. A WDH distributes about 20% of the tongue weight back to the trailer's axles. So 750 lbs minus 20% is 600 lbs of tongue weight used for the trailer. Add in the 800 lbs ATV and that will bring you to 1,400 lbs of payload used.

You are correct that this would have been over the Ram and Tundra's payload. BUT With the Ford's 1,860 lbs of payload, you would have had 460 lbs left, with the Silverado's 1,960 lbs of payload that would have left you with 560 lbs of payload left, and with GMC 's 1,920 lbs of paylaod would have left you with 520 lbs for passengers and gear. However, as you mentioned in your initial post, Ford does have an HD F150 regular cab that has a starting payload of over 3,000 lbs. That definitely would have left you with plenty of payload, but even with this high payload number in the F150, a Ram HD would handle the weight a lot better as I said before.


The only reason why I brought up the review is because you said the other half tons besides the Tundra are "cars with beds" and that the 2500 6.4L 4.10 gets better mileage than half tons like the Ram 5.7L. I just didn't know if you saying that because you didn't know any better or the place your were getting you numbers from gave you some bad information.

 

[SouthTexan]

Except it's not. 4x4 DC standard bed....

GVW 7100
Payload 1620 (not counting add ons that would drop it)

3/4 ton starts at 8600 GVW and load range E tires standard.

I hear you regarding axles, brakes, etc. It's beefy. But it doesn't have the suspension or tires. Or even the frame for that matter to compare to a 3/4 ton. I like the Tundra, I was close to buying one but it's a half ton. I couldn't get myself to spend 35-40000 grand on a truck only to put a band-aid on it like air bags to combat sag. Even the, the truck would still have been overloaded with my quad and trailer.

Class 2b (what you refer to as a 3/4 ton) trucks start at 8,501 GVWR.

 

[Snyd]

SouthTexan your numbers are all screwed up. First off, the payload of those trucks is for 4x2's! Look at numbers for 4x4's and it's a different story. Yes, the F150 is aluminum and one can get the higher gvw but it's still and ecoboost or 5.0. Not interested. I already mentioned all this. The Toyota in the article is loaded crew cab 4x2. Looks like the do the same as RAM does. Spec out a 1500 with all the bling and you can get it down to less than 1000lbs payload. A 4x4 Double cab SR5 with 6.5' bed has a payload of 1620. More than the ram 1500 and Chevy by a 100lbs or so. To get the 6.2 in the chev you have to get the loaded truck.

Either way, for about the same $$ a guy can get into a 2500 RAM with about twice the payload capacity and either the 5.7 or the 6.4 and have a much more capable truck. MPG's will be close enough to call even. I know guys with Tundras and ecoboosts and a chev 6.2 a couple years old. They all shrink to 8-10ish or up to 12 in certain conditions with a TT. Plus they can't haul an 800lb quad at the same time without being over payload. Do you get it now?!?!?!

 

[drittal]

A Ram 2500 with 5.7l has a GVWR of 9,000 vs 10,000.l for 6.4 and 6.7.

 

[drittal]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the F150 max payload package has a RAWR of 4800lbs or so.

My 2500 door sticker says 6500 RAWR

 

[SouthTexan]

SouthTexan your numbers are all screwed up.

How are my numbers screwed up? You stated that you tow a 5,000 lbs trailer and haul and 800 lb ATV, and the numbers for the trucks are from the article.

First off, the payload of those trucks is for 4x2's! Look at numbers for 4x4's and it's a different story.

Payload for an F150 crew cab 4x4 long bed start at 2,060 lbs and go up to 2,650 lbs for the HD F150. Payload for a Silverado or GMC crew cab 4x4 long bed starts at 2,060 lbs. You seem to be saying a lot of stuff that don't hold up to the facts.

Yes, the F150 is aluminum and one can get the higher gvw but it's still and ecoboost or 5.0. Not interested. I already mentioned all this.

Yes, but you said that none of those trucks in the review had enough payload for your 5,000 lb RV and 800 lb ATV. I was just showing that the Ford and GM trucks in the review actually did, even in their 4x4 variant.

The Toyota in the article is loaded crew cab 4x2. Looks like the do the same as RAM does. Spec out a 1500 with all the bling and you can get it down to less than 1000lbs payload. A 4x4 Double cab SR5 with 6.5' bed has a payload of 1620. More than the ram 1500 and Chevy by a 100lbs or so. To get the 6.2 in the chev you have to get the loaded truck.

Again, you just said that none of the trucks in that review had enough payload. I was just pointing out that they actually do have enough paylaod for your 5,000 lb RV, 800 lb ATV, and for the two passengers you would be able to fit in a regular cab since that is what you are getting.

Either way, for about the same $$ a guy can get into a 2500 RAM with about twice the payload capacity and either the 5.7 or the 6.4 and have a much more capable truck.

This is a false statement. As Drittal pointed out the 5.7L has a 9,000 lb GVWR and a starting payload of 2,650 lbs in a crew cab 4x4 long bed. That is exactly the same starting payload as a crew cab long bed 4x4 F150 HD. Although as I said earlier about three times, the Ram HD would handle the weight better while the F150 HD would perform better and get better MPG. Not even the 6.4L in the 2500 has twice the payload. I am not saying the F150 is better for you here, I am just saying that this statement false.

MPG's will be close enough to call even. I know guys with Tundras and ecoboosts and a chev 6.2 a couple years old. They all shrink to 8-10ish or up to 12 in certain conditions with a TT.

So does just about every other gas or diesel engine in certain conditions. It just depends if you are comparing apples to apples with those conditions.

 

[drittal]

Ready to camp without trailer I have lost 700lbs of sticker payload to aftermarket, occupants, and cargo.

 

[Skrap]

And my point still stands that the top engine stock half ton trucks like the Ford 3.5L EB, GM 6.2L, or even Ram 5.7L will run circles around any stock HD or SD(regardless of engine) towing just 5,000 lbs and would definitely get better fuel mileage doing it regardless if you disagree or not. On the flip side, an HD will handle the weight much better than any half ton. That is the price we all pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For the weight you tow, you don't even need a three quarter ton, but if you want one then by all means you don't have to tell me why other than you just wanted one. It is your money and I ain't going to judge you.

Also, according to that challenge, the Tundra had the worst payload, the worst performance numbers loaded and unloaded, and the worst fuel mileage towing than all of those other "cars with beds".

Not sure of your info on the 6.2. My father in law has the F250 Lariat with 6.2 and he, for the most part drives it like the 69 year old man that he is. When they drive from OK to MT each summer while we drive from SoCal to MT and meet them my 6.4 MC actually gets about 2 mpg better than his when we meet at the destination. I will drive his truck around Tulsa when in town and he averages right at 14mpg around town on his EVIC. I will also tell you that my 6.4 would smoke his F250 from a stop and in passing speeds.

ST, are you talking about a 6.2 in an F150?

And for the OP my truck in the sig below had to be taken to a scale prior to registration and it tipped the scale at just over 7300 lbs. fuel was about half tank. My truck is the equivalent of people on "My 600lb Life" tv show.

 

[drittal]

Only problem is he's not just towing 5,000lbs. He is also carrying an 800lb quad in the bed and the rest of his cargo and passengers. The only half ton c.c. 4x4 that could to that without exceeding GVWR and likely RAWR is the HD payload F150, and even it would be close to RAWR.

 

[SlightlyTweaked]

When I decided in 2014 to buy my first new vehicle ever it brought me to the Ram 2500. I do very little towing/hauling to justify a diesel and needed HD for snow plowing. I also was a little sketchy to go with the 6.4 only bc it was a brand new engine and didn't want to roll the dice on an unproven power train. In retrospect I am so pissed I didn't get it. Decided on the 5.7 since it was a bulletproof engine with a good history. The main concern for me was transmission bc of Ram's history with those issues, which showed its ugly face at 18000 miles when TQ converter, valve body, input shaft, etc had to be replaced. I was also looking for an extended cab, or quad cab model with the 8' bed but was disappointed also to find only full crew was available. If I had to do it all over again I would def go with the 6.4L, but would pay the extra $900 build cost and go with the 3500 and include the AISIN trans. Maybe if they come out with a QC option again, I'll trade mine in. Just my $0.02, don't beat me up too bad guys

 

[cptwing]

L

When I decided in 2014 to buy my first new vehicle ever it brought me to the Ram 2500. I do very little towing/hauling to justify a diesel and needed HD for snow plowing. I also was a little sketchy to go with the 6.4 only bc it was a brand new engine and didn't want to roll the dice on an unproven power train. In retrospect I am so pissed I didn't get it. Decided on the 5.7 since it was a bulletproof engine with a good history. The main concern for me was transmission bc of Ram's history with those issues, which showed its ugly face at 18000 miles when TQ converter, valve body, input shaft, etc had to be replaced. I was also looking for an extended cab, or quad cab model with the 8' bed but was disappointed also to find only full crew was available. If I had to do it all over again I would def go with the 6.4L, but would pay the extra $900 build cost and go with the 3500 and include the AISIN trans. Maybe if they come out with a QC option again, I'll trade mine in. Just my $0.02, don't beat me up too bad guys

As I remembero the aisin is not available behind the 6.4l unless you buy a cab and chassis. Has this changed?

 

[69GWC]

The Aisin in a 3500 ? Have to look at that.

 

[69GWC]

Rams website would not let me build the truck with thr Aisin transmission unless I switched to the Cummins motor.
That transmission is also a $2500 option.

 

[theviking]

The main concern for me was transmission bc of Ram's history with those issues, which showed its ugly face at 18000 miles when TQ converter, valve body, input shaft, etc had to be replaced.

That's scary for a 66RFE, thought it was a beefed up trans (outside of the TC). Assume it was replaced under warranty but any idea why it broke? I haven't heard of too many problems with this trans. But maybe I just haven't heard

 

[theviking]

I bought the 3/4 ton vs the 1/2 ton as it's more of a Swiss Army Knife IMO. Yes, the mileage is worse and it's slower but otherwise it's much more capable. Towing, plowing, hauling, off-roading, durability, all areas which are better with an HD truck to one degree or another. Plus they just look much more aggressive. The 1500's are so low in the front now it just doesn't look like a proper truck anymore.

 

[avolnek]

L
As I remembero the aisin is not available behind the 6.4l unless you buy a cab and chassis. Has this changed?

as far as i am aware you correct with this yet.