Why a PW doesn't have a CTD option via RAM

[Sweet5ltr]

https://youtu.be/zj_y85sq8us?t=1m38s

#1: modified winch-mounting in front of bumper caused failed crash testing
#2: additional weight over gasoline engine deprives traction in certain scenarios
#3: oil pan depth too low for proper vehicle articulation
#4: diesel power band decreases off road capability in sand and snow
#5: diesel option would only be possible without warn winch, further reducing capabilities

[walc]

^ Informative.
Thanks for posting.

[Reloaderguy]

Yeah but why? Why why why!?!?!?

[Chromolykid]

Weight deprives traction... Yet it's okay to run 65 pounds of air pressure in a truck designed to be taken off-road and marketed as such, with no possibility of modifying the TPMS preset. Brilliant.

[MSCH2112]

the most probable reason for no diesel in PW (pre-production units were made by RAM with the diesel)
#6 : idiot public would destroy the drive train with diesel torque and lockers

mike

[04Ram2500Hemi]

the most probable reason for no diesel in PW (pre-production units were made by RAM with the diesel)
#6 : idiot public would destroy the drive train with diesel torque and lockers

mike

We have a winner!!! I'd say this is the number one reason they didn't put the CTD in the Power Wagon. These are the same idiots that made it so we can't run our lockers in 4-Hi.

[djgaston]

the most probable reason for no diesel in PW (pre-production units were made by RAM with the diesel)
#6 : idiot public would destroy the drive train with diesel torque and lockers

mike

We have a winner!!! I'd say this is the number one reason they didn't put the CTD in the Power Wagon. These are the same idiots that made it so we can't run our lockers in 4-Hi.

Absolutely. The reasons in the video can be worked around pretty easily. But as Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

[15pwag]

Got a buddy that has an '11 CTD and he's lookin for lockers for his truck. He's also one of those guys that had his truck programmed to the max. I told him good luck finding gears that'll take the torque. He just can't stand it that my PW has the off road capabilities it has.

[OffroadTreks]

Absolutely. The reasons in the video can be worked around pretty easily. But as Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

So many stupid people that bent the frame jumping their Raptor's that the 2017 Raptor now has a special frame that is re-enforced unlike the regular F-150. So I could only imagine how many blown up axles and drive trains Ram would be replacing.

[Will]

Absolutely. The reasons in the video can be worked around pretty easily. But as Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

So many stupid people that bent the frame jumping their Raptor's that the 2017 Raptor now has a special frame that is re-enforced unlike the regular F-150. So I could only imagine how many blown up axles and drive trains Ram would be replacing.

Ram needs to strengthen the PW axles.. hahaha

[MoparToYou]

Does anyone know if the front axle for a Ram 3500 CTD/Aisin is the same as the front axle for a Ram 2500 Power Wagon? It seems like the front axle for the 2500 Power Wagon is a bit on the "marginal" side in regards to strength. Put that axle in a truck with 900 ft lbs of torque instead of 430 ft lbs of torque, and you're going to definitely be pushing its limits, especially with the added weight of the CTD.

I may very well find out how strong that axle is. People that have been following my post know I am trading my '16 Power Wagon for a '16 3500 CTD/Aisin with an AEV Prospector package. I plan to add an ARB air locker up front and keep the rear limited slip differential stock, and use an ARB twin air compressor for the air supply for the locker and for airing up tires. After reading about Will's front axle I am wondering if I should also add a front axle truss right from the start. I spend a lot of time off road. I'm not a speed demon in the truck, even though I've spent 40 years desert racing other vehicle classes.

[04Ram2500Hemi]

Does anyone know if the front axle for a Ram 3500 CTD/Aisin is the same as the front axle for a Ram 2500 Power Wagon? It seems like the front axle for the 2500 Power Wagon is a bit on the "marginal" side in regards to strength. Put that axle in a truck with 900 ft lbs of torque instead of 430 ft lbs of torque, and you're going to definitely be pushing its limits, especially with the added weight of the CTD.

I may very well find out how strong that axle is. People that have been following my post know I am trading my '16 Power Wagon for a '16 3500 CTD/Aisin with an AEV Prospector package. I plan to add an ARB air locker up front and keep the rear limited slip differential stock, and use an ARB twin air compressor for the air supply for the locker and for airing up tires. After reading about Will's front axle I am wondering if I should also add a front axle truss right from the start. I spend a lot of time off road. I'm not a speed demon in the truck, even though I've spent 40 years desert racing other vehicle classes.

I don't know anything abut the axels, but I hope you stick around and do a build thread on the new AEV Ram. I love the few components I have so far from AEV, and it would be cool to get non biased reviews from somebody who had a Power Wagon.

[Ducky's Dad]

Weight deprives traction...

Not exactly. Weight increases traction, but it changes the weight distribution of the truck and puts more on the front and less on the rear (leverage). A PW with a diesel would not be as good in sand, mud, snow because all that weight would cause the front end to sink faster, especially in sand and mud. Not a good thing for the PW target market.

[whitey]

I think the power wagon has more than 430 ftlbs at the tires when offroad in 4 lo. It has a good surplus of torque even with 37"s, locked going up the side of a mountain pulling a disabled Jeep or Range Rover. Tires seem to be the limiting factor. There is usually limited tire friction so tires are slipping and giving in to the torque even with awesome flex. The slick rock of Moab, which isn't slick, might be the exception. And I don't think the Cummins would be as good as the hemi due to weight distribution, dimensions and slower throttle response. I have yet to see any diesel make it through any kind of challenging trail that my power wagon goes on with 37"s. I am sure it can be done but I think most of the diesel guys are interested in looking cool and torque, not being functional on the trail. Even if this guy gets lockers front and rear it most likely would not flex like a power wagon either and he'll need to be really smart bumping and handling throttle on obstacles. Now I will admit that the cummins 3500 would be easier to set up for the sand dunes of Pismo Beach in California. In that situation the 3500 can fit bigger tires for more flotation (because it doesn't flex) and the Cummins will have more of a nice even acceleration (less likely to dig into sand) and possibly some types of mud where flotation is important and a flat bottom is available. Mud holes here in NC don't stay flat and are high in sticky clay. I did run into 6 guys in an F350 on 42"'s and no lockers and an f250 with lockers and 38"s both were powerstrokes. Both were paralyzed by their stiff suspensions at Uwharrie Nat'l park on easy trails in the rain and mud. They wanted no help from me so I waited until they got onto a bypass. They kept telling my wife and I that we wouldn't make it through a heavily rutted area that was much deeper on one side and filled with red muddy clay. They of course told us their trucks' stats and compared them to my power wagon on 37"s and my wifes little TJ on 35"s. By the time we got to go, my wife was pretty pissed, drove through got out of her jeep and told them off. Don't remember what she said but the 2 drivers were looking down in shame and the others were screaming and laughing but still saying the dodge still hasn't made it. They got pretty quiet after a few curse words as I passed by. Point is that dodge figured out a lot of the physics for trail riding. They may have screwed up on the steering but I think they've got it right sticking with a V8 gas. I do think a power wagon could be made with the Cummins but I would want the front axle out further to give some space and offset that anchor/diesel pulling you over when dropping off a 3' ledge. The power wagon is the best pickup platform to start as an offroad rig. Slap 35"s on it and do some insane stuff with it. there's no truck like it....yet.

[Chromolykid]

Weight deprives traction...

Not exactly. Weight increases traction, but it changes the weight distribution of the truck and puts more on the front and less on the rear (leverage). A PW with a diesel would not be as good in sand, mud, snow because all that weight would cause the front end to sink faster, especially in sand and mud. Not a good thing for the PW target market.

Quoted from the list, I'm well aware of weight distribution in regards to traction and vehicle dynamics. Which is why it bothers me that Ram decided to mandate 65 PSI in an unloaded truck. The fronts with the weight of the motor are fine, but the rears are overinflated and should be closer to 45-50 if they're really concerned about maintaining traction.

[Low_Sky]

Weight deprives traction...

Not exactly. Weight increases traction, but it changes the weight distribution of the truck and puts more on the front and less on the rear (leverage). A PW with a diesel would not be as good in sand, mud, snow because all that weight would cause the front end to sink faster, especially in sand and mud. Not a good thing for the PW target market.

Quoted from the list, I'm well aware of weight distribution in regards to traction and vehicle dynamics. Which is why it bothers me that Ram decided to mandate 65 PSI in an unloaded truck. The fronts with the weight of the motor are fine, but the rears are overinflated and should be closer to 45-50 if they're really concerned about maintaining traction.

The tires are always rock hard in all their media day, "come see how tough the new PW is" videos. The lawyers must have them pretty scared.

[NickTF]

Long story short I would not trade my current 2015 power wagon with locker bypass as the only modification for my previous 97 2500 std cab 12v cummins with around 650hp, 35" ss-m16 tires which were excellent offroad (not so much on the road due to 27oz on some sides to balance), front lock rite, and factory rear posi (4.10 geared) with no limited slip additive. That truck was way too off/on in regards to the throttle and the weight over the nose was always noticeable. Personally I think they got it right and with all the emissions failures and super expensive parts of today's super high pressure injected diesels I don't know why anyone is so worried about the option. Just my two cents.

[walc]

The tires are always rock hard in all their media day, "come see how tough the new PW is" videos. The lawyers must have them pretty scared.

Perhaps, the reviewers are just showing how a PW performs in a completely stock/oem configuration, rather than how an experienced off-roader might air-down?
I think the review shows PW's in a very favorable light.

[loveracing1988]

Does anyone know if the front axle for a Ram 3500 CTD/Aisin is the same as the front axle for a Ram 2500 Power Wagon? It seems like the front axle for the 2500 Power Wagon is a bit on the "marginal" side in regards to strength. Put that axle in a truck with 900 ft lbs of torque instead of 430 ft lbs of torque, and you're going to definitely be pushing its limits, especially with the added weight of the CTD.

I may very well find out how strong that axle is. People that have been following my post know I am trading my '16 Power Wagon for a '16 3500 CTD/Aisin with an AEV Prospector package. I plan to add an ARB air locker up front and keep the rear limited slip differential stock, and use an ARB twin air compressor for the air supply for the locker and for airing up tires. After reading about Will's front axle I am wondering if I should also add a front axle truss right from the start. I spend a lot of time off road. I'm not a speed demon in the truck, even though I've spent 40 years desert racing other vehicle classes.

Other than the locker plug they are identical.

[nts007]

I think the power wagon has more than 430 ftlbs at the tires when offroad in 4 lo. It has a good surplus of torque even with 37"s, locked going up the side of a mountain pulling a disabled Jeep or Range Rover. Tires seem to be the limiting factor. There is usually limited tire friction so tires are slipping and giving in to the torque even with awesome flex. The slick rock of Moab, which isn't slick, might be the exception. And I don't think the Cummins would be as good as the hemi due to weight distribution, dimensions and slower throttle response. I have yet to see any diesel make it through any kind of challenging trail that my power wagon goes on with 37"s. I am sure it can be done but I think most of the diesel guys are interested in looking cool and torque, not being functional on the trail. Even if this guy gets lockers front and rear it most likely would not flex like a power wagon either and he'll need to be really smart bumping and handling throttle on obstacles. Now I will admit that the cummins 3500 would be easier to set up for the sand dunes of Pismo Beach in California. In that situation the 3500 can fit bigger tires for more flotation (because it doesn't flex) and the Cummins will have more of a nice even acceleration (less likely to dig into sand) and possibly some types of mud where flotation is important and a flat bottom is available. Mud holes here in NC don't stay flat and are high in sticky clay. I did run into 6 guys in an F350 on 42"'s and no lockers and an f250 with lockers and 38"s both were powerstrokes. Both were paralyzed by their stiff suspensions at Uwharrie Nat'l park on easy trails in the rain and mud. They wanted no help from me so I waited until they got onto a bypass. They kept telling my wife and I that we wouldn't make it through a heavily rutted area that was much deeper on one side and filled with red muddy clay. They of course told us their trucks' stats and compared them to my power wagon on 37"s and my wifes little TJ on 35"s. By the time we got to go, my wife was pretty pissed, drove through got out of her jeep and told them off. Don't remember what she said but the 2 drivers were looking down in shame and the others were screaming and laughing but still saying the dodge still hasn't made it. They got pretty quiet after a few curse words as I passed by. Point is that dodge figured out a lot of the physics for trail riding. They may have screwed up on the steering but I think they've got it right sticking with a V8 gas. I do think a power wagon could be made with the Cummins but I would want the front axle out further to give some space and offset that anchor/diesel pulling you over when dropping off a 3' ledge. The power wagon is the best pickup platform to start as an offroad rig. Slap 35"s on it and do some insane stuff with it. there's no truck like it....yet.

I'm up for that challenge. Weight you may have the edge but I know the axles can take what I throw at em. Don't lump me in with those pussy strokers and the pretty show offs

[olyelr]

Don't lump me in with those pussy strokers and the pretty show offs

Yeah right your just one of those typical flat billin' soot throwing cummins kids, arent ya?! Probly have semi stacks comming through your box next to your cab
























Just kidding, i know better than that!

[nts007]

Don't lump me in with those pussy strokers and the pretty show offs

Yeah right your just one of those typical flat billin' soot throwing cummins kids, arent ya?! Probly have semi stacks comming through your box next to your cab























Just kidding, i know better than that!

Aaaggg you caught me. They keep hitting low bridges when I go under. Mounted n spring bases now.

[olyelr]

I knew it!!! Lol

[FirerescuePW]

I would have to have flappers on mine if I had stacks...

[RustyPW]

Rollin'coal.

phpBB [video]

Clickable link for Tapatalk