Things I am surprised the 5th Gen doesn't have....

[SouthTexan]

Yall dont think FCA does market testing on all of these things? Is it worth them to go through the trouble of testing, re-certifying, retooling, etc to sell a couple extra power wagons(which i assume already is not a truck flying off the lots). I cant even imagine the cost of these trucks if they started letting people pick options exactly how they wanted and not in packages.

Also southtexan, i dont get it. Your halfway there, you already have a better suspension than the powerwagon, add a locker and winch and you have nothing to complain about. I would also assume that the 8 speed is coming soon enough to back the cummins. It took Ford and GM teaming up to get their 10speed out when ram had the 8 speed for a few years already.

I can add these things to my truck, but I am talking about the new trucks. I am sure Ram would like their owners who can buy to trade in their trucks and buy a new one. In fact I have gotten multiple letters and calls from Ram dealerships to do so. However, I don't see anything worth trading up to.

I am not saying that the 5th gen is not better and improved over my 4th gen, I am just saying I don't see enough of an improvement to justify me upgrading. Now if they would slap a ZF 8 speed behind a Cummins have a better off road package with the Cummins than just a rear LSD and shocks then that would definitely get me to upgrade.

 

[S0CAL]

Damn, glad I have a 4th Gen PW. It tows what I need. It goes where I need, and it SLOWS at the gas stations I need.

 

[IRSmart]

Also southtexan, i dont get it. Your halfway there, you already have a better suspension than the powerwagon...

Define “better”

 

[crazy jerry]

So you wouldn't like 500 rear wheel horsepower and 1,200 lb-ft at the wheels when tuned without deleting it?

dont need one, dont want anything to do with one. if ram made a deisel version similar to tremor im sure plenty of people would buy it. rear locker, winch, maybe front lsd, entry or mid level bilsteins, keep towing and payload capacity respectable. ya i could see people buying them but not me

 

[SouthTexan]

dont need one, dont want anything to do with one. if ram made a deisel version similar to tremor im sure plenty of people would buy it. rear locker, winch, maybe front lsd, entry or mid level bilsteins, keep towing and payload capacity respectable. ya i could see people buying them but not me

I don't need it either, but that and the 17 mpg combined average(hand calculated) at the end of every tank is nice to have. That along with my resale more than pays for the $8k I spent up front. Although, you probably didn't need the 6.4L either, but you chose to spend thousands more from the up front and in the long run (due to the much higher maintenance cost) for an additional 27 hp and and 29 lb-ft of torque over the 5.7L.

But I understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way about the gasser options in the HD trucks. Not saying it is a bad option to have, it is just not for me.

 

[tjfdesmo]

I think the PW is a special case truck, and the flexy suspension, etc. do not lend themselves to the Cummins. They would be wise, however, to offer an offroad package HD truck with lockers, etc. that would be available with the Cummins. No question.

As the owner of a 2019 HO dually, and former owner of an '05 48RE 3500, I do not disagree with your transmission desires. The 68 RFE should be put out to pasture, so the 2500 could get the HO. While I agree the Aisin needs to be either upgraded or replaced from a refinement point of view, maybe an eight speed(?), but not so sure how many gears are necessary. I just watched a towing video of a dmax 10 speed, and have read other owner accounts, and with any appreciable weight behind them they basically hang it in 7th direct anyway. So on grades a Cummins/Aisin pulls in 6th OD @1800 RPM, the dmax is in 7th direct @2300, often dropping to 6th. I am not disagreeing with you, but I'll stick with the Cummins grunt.

 

[SouthTexan]

I think the PW is a special case truck, and the flexy suspension, etc. do not lend themselves to the Cummins. They would be wise, however, to offer an offroad package HD truck with lockerts, etc. that would be available with the Cummins. No question.

Here is what I don't get about those that say that adding another 800 lbs with the Cummins diesel will ruins its off road ability. The original Power Wagon was a regular cab. In fact, it was a regular cab all the way until t was resurrected again in 2005 where it was a crew cab to appeal to a wider customer base. Then you have the engines. They came with a small 230 cubic inch straight 6. Throughout the years bigger and heavier engines were introduced up until the 392 cubic engine engine it has today which again was to appeal to a wider customer base. All of these"improvements" lessened the Power Wagons ability by making it thousands of pounds heavier and a lot larger all to appeal to a larger customer base. This is okay, but adding another 800 lbs by adding a diesel is somehow going to ruin its off road ability. I don't get it.

As the owner of a 2019 HO dually, and former owner of an '05 48RE 3500, I do not disagree with your transmission desires. The 68 RFE should be put out to pasture, so the 2500 could get the HO. While I agree the Aisin needs to be either upgraded or replaced from a refinement point of view, maybe an eight speed(?), but not so sure how many gears are necessary. I just watched a towing video of a dmax 10 speed, and have read other owner accounts, and with any appreciable weight behind them they basically hang it in 7th direct anyway. So on grades a Cummins/Asin pulls in 6th OD @1800 RPM, the dmax is in 7th direct @2300, often dropping to 6th. I am not disagreeing with you, but I'll stick with the Cummins grunt.

The main reason for more gears is so that you can lower your rear gear ratio for more efficiency when not loaded. In the case that you pointed out, the GM has a 3.42 rear end while the Ram has a 4.10. With more trans gears, you don't need such a short rear gear ratio. I believe that is is one of the main reasons why the new GM has such great fuel economy versus the other two in all of the tests I have seen.

 

[tjfdesmo]

Here is what I don't get about those that say that adding another 800 lbs with the Cummins diesel will ruins its off road ability. The original Power Wagon was a regular cab. In fact, it was a regular cab all the way until t was resurrected again in 2005 where it was a crew cab to appeal to a wider customer base. Then you have the engines. They came with a small 230 cubic inch straight 6. Throughout the years bigger and heavier engines were introduced up until the 392 cubic engine engine it has today which again was to appeal to a wider customer base. All of these"improvements" lessened the Power Wagons ability by making it thousands of pounds heavier and a lot larger all to appeal to a larger customer base. This is okay, but adding another 800 lbs by adding a diesel is somehow going to ruin its off road ability. I don't get it.




The main reason for more gears is so that you can lower your rear gear ratio for more efficiency when not loaded. In the case that you pointed out, the GM has a 3.42 rear end while the Ram has a 4.10. With more trans gears, you don't need such a short rear gear ratio. I believe that is is one of the main reasons why the new GM has such great fuel economy versus the other two in all of the tests I have seen.

It's not just about the curb weight to me, but about F/R balance or bias. That 800 lbs is ALL on the nose. That's why I think they should do what Ferd did, and offer an offroad package with full GVWR and Cummins. I don't think you can have the GCWR and the flexy ride in the real world. Leave the PW alone.

I see what you are saying, but, again, if you buy it to tow a large fiver, and it basically doesn't use the top three gears, what sense does that make? I am not against more gears, but to me a truck needs geard to its intended purpose. To repeat, though, I totally agree with you that FCA needs to go "all in" on developing a world class driveline to complement and enhance the Cummins, instead of handicap it.

On Edit: I should add that in the "tow test" I referenced the Ram was a 3500 SRW w/3.73 gears.

 

[SouthTexan]

It's not just about the curb weight to me, but about F/R balance or bias. That 800 lbs is ALL on the nose. That's why I think they should do what Ferd did, and offer an offroad package with full GVWR and Cummins. I don't think you can have the GCWR and the flexy ride in the real world. Leave the PW alone.

I see what you are saying, but, again, if you buy it to tow a large fiver, and it basically doesn't use the top three gears, what sense does that make? I am not against more gears, but to me a truck needs geard to its intended purpose. To repeat, though, I totally agree with you that FCA needs to go "all in" on developing a world class driveline to complement and enhance the Cummins, instead of handicap it.

On Edit: I should add that in the "tow test" I referenced the Ram was a 3500 SRW w/3.73 gears.

I am mistaken. It is only a 578 lbs increase with the new CGI Cummins.

According to Ram, the Tradesman PW weighs 6,907 lbs with 4,080 lbs in the front and 2,827 lbs in the rear. That is roughly a 59/41 split. A Tradesman Cummins 4x4 of the same configuration is 7,485 lbs with 4,628 lbs in the front and 2,857 in the rear. That is a 61/39 split. Not much different. Suspension flex does not make that much of a difference with the minimal amount of flex that the Power Wagon has along with its size and weight. It's size will limit you more on the trail than its weight even if you added another 578 lbs.


A Ram Aisin with a 3.73 rear ratio is turning at 1,555 rpm at 65, 1,675 rpm at 70 and 1,794 rpm at 75 in 6th gear. So in order to be at 1,800 rpm, they would had to be going over 75 mph. BTW, Cummins recommends towing between 1,800 and 2,100 rpm. Not only does it keep EGT's low, but it is also the RPM the Cummins is most efficient at. So even if it can tow pull 10k at 1,555 rpm at 65 mph in 6th with a 3.73, it is better for the engine and fuel economy to put it in 5th at a higher rpm.

 

[SouthTexan]

Another thing I wished the new Ram had is a button to turn the side mirror tilt on/off instead of having to go through a bunch of menus in Uconnect to do it. Everything I have to hook up a trailer, I have to switch modes. My BMW has a button and I can instantly switch from the side mirrors from pointing down to straight behind me.

 

[tjfdesmo]

I am mistaken. It is only a 578 lbs increase with the new CGI Cummins.

According to Ram, the Tradesman PW weighs 6,907 lbs with 4,080 lbs in the front and 2,827 lbs in the rear. That is roughly a 59/41 split. A Tradesman Cummins 4x4 of the same configuration is 7,485 lbs with 4,628 lbs in the front and 2,857 in the rear. That is a 61/39 split. Not much different. Suspension flex does not make that much of a difference with the minimal amount of flex that the Power Wagon has along with its size and weight. It's size will limit you more on the trail than its weight even if you added another 578 lbs.


A Ram Aisin with a 3.73 rear ratio is turning at 1,555 rpm at 65, 1,675 rpm at 70 and 1,794 rpm at 75 in 6th gear. So in order to be at 1,800 rpm, they would had to be going over 75 mph. BTW, Cummins recommends towing between 1,800 and 2,100 rpm. Not only does it keep EGT's low, but it is also the RPM the Cummins is most efficient at. So even if it can tow pull 10k at 1,555 rpm at 65 mph in 6th with a 3.73, it is better for the engine and fuel economy to put it in 5th at a higher rpm.

I chose 4.10s because I tend to tow in the 65-68 range, which puts me @1800 RPM, and stays pretty much in 6th OD.

On Edit:
In the video I referenced, yes he was over 70 at times. There is only a couple hundred RPM difference between 3.73 and 4.10 truck.

 

[392DevilDog]

I am mistaken. It is only a 578 lbs increase with the new CGI Cummins.

Just for info...a fully loaded Powerwagon (not a Tradesman with Powerwagon package) weighs 7400lbs. Add the 578 lbs of a Cummins...7978.

GVWR on Powerwagon is 8565lbs...587 lbs for payload.

I know, load it to 11800 like a 3500 it's the same truck...

Good times debating a Powerwagon.

I have a few thoughts about it all in my head.

https://hdrams.com/forum/index.php?threads/outdoorsman-package.8/

A new take on the old Outdoorsman package. It never really had substance, but with the Powerwagon and Off Road Package melted into the truck of your choice.

 

[392DevilDog]

Oh, and a crew cab shortbed tradesman weighs 6622 with Hemi and 7484 with Cummins...so a Cummins and all its equipment weigh 862 pounds.

So you were right the first time. Add that to a fully loaded Powerwagon and that takes us to 8262 and leaves 303 pounds for the driver...

And the loss of the winch, which might allow my 295 lbs ass to ride in it with some gear

 

[SouthTexan]

Oh, and a crew cab shortbed tradesman weighs 6622 with Hemi and 7484 with Cummins...so a Cummins and all its equipment weigh 862 pounds.

So you were right the first time. Add that to a fully loaded Powerwagon and that takes us to 8262 and leaves 303 pounds for the driver...

And the loss of the winch, which might allow my 295 lbs ass to ride in it with some gear

That is if I actually followed manufacturers numbers which I never do.

The funny thing about the Power Wagon is that its rear GAWR(which includes suspension) is 6,200 lbs while most other 6.4L 2500's are 6,000 aside from a few select models. That 6,200 rear GAWR is not too far from the 6,500 in my truck. The front GAWR is 4,750 while most others are 5,500. My front Thuren suspension flexes better than and has a higher RTI than my friends stock 6.4L front end. In fact, I would wager that if I have a sway bar disconnect that it would be just as good as the current Power Wagon. I would bet that if I slapped lockers on my truck that it would be able to go 99% of the places a Power Wagon would go(or were the owner would be willing to take a $50k truck) and that size would be more of a limiting factor on trails than my added weight would.

 

[ClassicRacer]

Another thing I wished the new Ram had is a button to turn the side mirror tilt on/off instead of having to go through a bunch of menus in Uconnect to do it. Everything I have to hook up a trailer, I have to switch modes. My BMW has a button and I can instantly switch from the side mirrors from pointing down to straight behind me.

I have that switch next to the mirror left/right switch on the drivers door panel.

And when I was shopping trucks I found out the new Alison 10 speed in the GM's is a GM trans with a licensing agreement from Alison.

 

[Scott Colbert]

I own and drive both a power wagon and a CTD. Reading the discussion is interesting. We love to talk trucks, that why we are here. CTD is 4th gen. Locked front and rear Prospector XL DIY. Negatives are too heavy up front. Especially for the front diff gears. Pinned in a corner locked the diesel WILL grenade the front. The comments about torque I do not run a winch up front to save nose weight. The PW is 5.7 with 4.56 OEM gears. Feels light and responsive. If I were invited to go trail riding with a group of jeeps I would take the Power Wagon. It would be fun to tow it with the CTD but I wouldn't. If I were invited to Baja for exploring I would take the CTD because of the fuel mileage. I live in the sticks of NW off dirt road with wintery roads. Either are fine on road. The diesel takes so long to warm I prefer remote start PW and warm in 5. CTD never gets warm as I fail to plug in and park outside.
CTD has a mellow confidence about it and the 68rfe is cheap enough to mod or replace it should be considered an economical choice and not all downside. The 5.7 was replaced under warranty and lasted long enough to earn my confidence.
If I could only have one truck it would be the diesel because it does everything. In fact the PW is for sale as well as the CTD. I will happily drive which ever remains and don't give any thought to buying a 10 speed gmc, chevy, ford.

 

[mjf6175]

I can add these things to my truck, but I am talking about the new trucks. I am sure Ram would like their owners who can buy to trade in their trucks and buy a new one. In fact I have gotten multiple letters and calls from Ram dealerships to do so. However, I don't see anything worth trading up to.

I am not saying that the 5th gen is not better and improved over my 4th gen, I am just saying I don't see enough of an improvement to justify me upgrading. Now if they would slap a ZF 8 speed behind a Cummins have a better off road package with the Cummins than just a rear LSD and shocks then that would definitely get me to upgrade.

This is where Ram shot itself in the foot. The 2019/2020 HD's are really NOT 5th Gen's. They look like the 5th Gen 1500's but still use the Gen 4 cab, doors, etc. The 2019/2020 HD's are better described as 4.5 Gens. The planned Gen 5's HD's where delayed and pushed back several years because of money, so they refreshed the Gen 4 HD's. The true Gen 5 will more than likely come out in 2021 as a 2022 model. That 8 speed in all likelihood will show up then. It remains to be seen if Ram will use a specific new cab for Gen 5 HD's or if it will adopt the 1500 Gen 5 cab that is now used.

 

[crash68]

The planned Gen 5's HD's where delayed and pushed back several years because of money, so they refreshed the Gen 4 HD's.

It didn't help that FCA has a capacity problem, the HD truck production was slated to be moved to the renovated Warren Truck where the 1500 Classics are produced. There is new Jeep models going to be built there for the short term. Warren truck is getting a huge expansion and there is also a new assembly plant being built several miles away in Detroit.

 

[Blazin383]

I wish the HD had a full back seat like the 1500.

I wish it had Heads Up display! Then it would be darn near perfect!

 

[Flatblack79]

Im holding out for a true 5th gen cab on the HD's before i make the jump. Im glad they finally put a telescoping steering column in them.