Power Wagon Registry

FYI: for your enjoyment or wasting time at work....

Run down of specs & test results:
http://www.edmunds.com/ram/2500/2014/ro ... specs.html

Road Test Drive Review:
http://www.edmunds.com/ram/2500/2014/road-test.html

Good read. The RTI is definitely down in the 2014's. 518 vs 668 in a 2012 (according to the Four Wheeler Magazine 2012 Truck of the Year testing). And pretty much the same 0-60 times. Of course this made me do some searching and I found that Diablo now supports the 2014 6.4L engines with their tuners and Magnaflow is already making a bold on after cat exhaust kit. Might just have to see what deals the dealers around here are willing to give and what I could sell my 2011 for. . Wife would probably kill me. Haha!!!

Not a bad read. The 2014 isn't upgraded enough to make me want to trade in my 2012 on one (I think the lack of 4.56 gears is a downgrade), but I still like the truck.

mufflex also has a bolt in muffler replacement and straight pipe for the 2500 6.4 now.

JBM Power Wagon wrote:Good read. The RTI is definitely down in the 2014's. 518 vs 668 in a 2012 (according to the Four Wheeler Magazine 2012 Truck of the Year testing). And pretty much the same 0-60 times. Of course this made me do some searching and I found that Diablo now supports the 2014 6.4L engines with their tuners and Magnaflow is already making a bold on after cat exhaust kit. Might just have to see what deals the dealers around here are willing to give and what I could sell my 2011 for. . Wife would probably kill me. Haha!!!

"But the advance that really moves the needle is the Power Wagon's new coil spring rear suspension, which gives this mountain goat more suspension articulation than ever before."

I started laughing at this - the new vehicle has LESS than before as you stated.. Even my '06 scored a 657 RTI..

"A regular Ram 2500 SLT that isn't a Power Wagon has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and a payload of 3,170 pounds. The Power Wagon's GVWR is 8,510 pounds and its rated maximum payload is 1,430 pounds. Similarly, a regular 2500 SLT with 4.10 gears can tow a maximum of 15,500 pounds, but the corresponding Power Wagon is limited to 10,750 pounds."

And honestly my biggest gripe is the reduction of payload from my 3G - I hit my limit of 1980 lbs often and this isn't any better than most 1/2 tons...

Regardless - it's still a kick ass truck and I want one...

The payload is a problem for me too. My 2011 has over 1800lbs in payload and I use it to the max. Would need some kind of aftermarket helper like air bags in a 2014.

Looooong sigh.

Once again, we are watching the very slow demise, the dumbing down if you will, of an outstanding product, that was originally dedicated to a small nitch of people, in favor of the masses, who want trucks to be like & ride like cars. Trouble is, not too many years ago, cars were towing what our trucks tow today. Sad.

Yeah, it seems like now you have a choice between a daily driver or a CTD dually. There's very little in the way of middle ground.

JBM Power Wagon wrote:Good read. The RTI is definitely down in the 2014's. 518 vs 668 in a 2012 (according to the Four Wheeler Magazine 2012 Truck of the Year testing). And pretty much the same 0-60 times. Of course this made me do some searching and I found that Diablo now supports the 2014 6.4L engines with their tuners and Magnaflow is already making a bold on after cat exhaust kit. Might just have to see what deals the dealers around here are willing to give and what I could sell my 2011 for. . Wife would probably kill me. Haha!!!

You have to ask yourself the glaring obvious question(s):
1. Does RTI determine the off-road capability of the PW? If it does, then why would the engineers purposely "degrade" that specific capability, when the entire cuius tota intentio (purpose for being) is that unique off-road capability, which differentiates it from ALL other production trucks. That would also be contrary to most trends in auto development, which are towards bigger and faster (in the case of the PW--more off-road capability) than it's predecessor, not less off-road capable.
2. Is RTI really the end-to-end performance metric of the PW"s capabilities?
3. If the engineers intent is to continually improve the PW's capabilities, then is there another metric, aside from RTI, that the engineers used in the design and calculations, which they claim shows the PW maintaining or improving the performance?
4. If you accept the premise ipso facto that designers are continually improving the design and performance year-to-year, then how does the PW product development team justify the purposely "degraded" PW performance over previous models to the sales and management personnel?

I agree that RTI is not the only metric to look at for off road performance. In fact, most of the off roading I do does not require a huge RTI. I am still a little surprised to see it lower.

agree.

My take...
Radius arms have always been a detriment to articulation. The engineers did the best they could to get it to work with short top flex links added. The only folks as far as I know that have improved the radius arms articulation is Carli with their shock strut design. I think the only reason the 2014 does as good as it does is due to the coil rear suspension. RTI is not the only metric to determine off road capabilities but it sure does show superior off road designs. The 4G has many issues like a longer wheel base less approach and departure angles and even a less generous break over angle hindering its off road performance.

There are many improvements for the new 4G but none help in the area of off road and all help with on road comfort and ride. The new 4G has the potential to be one of the best off road trucks once Carli or Thuren get them tuned and outfitted. The Radius arms have great potential for ride, handling as well as articulation. The rear while using an opposing track bar has great potential for ride compliance. I see Carli long travel air bags in the new 4G's future. The jury is still out but the potential is there for sure.

adeluca73 wrote:
1. Does RTI determine the off-road capability of the PW? If it does, then why would the engineers purposely "degrade" that specific capability, when the entire cuius tota intentio (purpose for being) is that unique off-road capability, which differentiates it from ALL other production trucks. That would also be contrary to most trends in auto development, which are towards bigger and faster (in the case of the PW--more off-road capability) than it's predecessor, not less off-road capable.

I'll play..

First question is we need to define 'off road'... I'm sure my hunting trails don't need huge articulation and since the rest of the system is mechanically the same I can agree that's its just as good as todays. Now if we're talking rocks and slow stuff - then yes I think articulation is key, although not the only metric (as well as tires, gears, lockers, etc).. Now if we're talking faster stuff - yes I think it would be better..

Next point however is to your quote above about why the engineers would 'degrade' that capability.. As mentioned elsewhere they are 'dumming down' the truck to make it more user friendly and appear to a larger crowd. I know the engineers don't drive that - marketing does... Also it's their way of utilizing a new system (suspension) that they are most likely stuck with due to the accountants and commonized parts bin (just like the demise of the 4.56 gears)...

Just my $0.02...

adeluca73 wrote: 3. If the engineers intent is to continually improve the PW's capabilities, then is there another metric, aside from RTI, that the engineers used in the design and calculations, which they claim shows the PW maintaining or improving the performance?
4. If you accept the premise ipso facto that designers are continually improving the design and performance year-to-year, then how does the PW product development team justify the purposely "degraded" PW performance over previous models to the sales and management personnel?

The only people they justify themselves to are the shareholders.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Their goal is to make and sell as many vehicles as possible, not build the ultimate vehicle for the relativity few that want and can afford it. The " Win on Sunday-Sell on Monday " idea is the only reason we ever get the good shit produced in the first place.

The history of auto making is filled with great cars and trucks that were " improved " to the point where nobody wanted them any more, the '60s and '70s muscle cars are a perfect example, albeit that was more of a Gov't mandate, all they care about is for you to throw your to them.

As an owner of a 2004 HD Hemi with a bunch of toys thrown at it, and now a 2012 Power Wagon, I'll be the first to admit that the 3rd Gen Power Wagon was a better off road design versus the 4th Gen. That being said, I think the 4th Gen Power Wagon (and now what I consider the 4.5 Version) are both good trucks. I'm just thankful that Dodge has continued to make a truck like this from the factory. I threw a good chunk of change at my 2004 and while it was a nice truck, my Power Wagon has already proven to be a better off road and all around truck (4.56 gears, lockers, and a winch are all good things). The only place my 2004 shined was the 35" tires, and I plan on fixing that next year when my BFG's hit 30,000 miles and I upgrade to Thuren Control Arms.

azracer wrote:My take...
Radius arms have always been a detriment to articulation. The engineers did the best they could to get it to work with short top flex links added. The only folks as far as I know that have improved the radius arms articulation is Carli with their shock strut design. I think the only reason the 2014 does as good as it does is due to the coil rear suspension. RTI is not the only metric to determine off road capabilities but it sure does show superior off road designs. The 4G has many issues like a longer wheel base less approach and departure angles and even a less generous break over angle hindering its off road performance.

There are many improvements for the new 4G but none help in the area of off road and all help with on road comfort and ride. The new 4G has the potential to be one of the best off road trucks once Carli or Thuren get them tuned and outfitted. The Radius arms have great potential for ride, handling as well as articulation. The rear while using an opposing track bar has great potential for ride compliance. I see Carli long travel air bags in the new 4G's future. The jury is still out but the potential is there for sure.

Great take--so you're saying the path to really tweak out the '14 PW's performance is to give up my kid's college fund to Carli to Thuren for air bags, control arms, and shocks.

vanished wrote:

adeluca73 wrote:
1. Does RTI determine the off-road capability of the PW? If it does, then why would the engineers purposely "degrade" that specific capability, when the entire cuius tota intentio (purpose for being) is that unique off-road capability, which differentiates it from ALL other production trucks. That would also be contrary to most trends in auto development, which are towards bigger and faster (in the case of the PW--more off-road capability) than it's predecessor, not less off-road capable.

I'll play..

First question is we need to define 'off road'... I'm sure my hunting trails don't need huge articulation and since the rest of the system is mechanically the same I can agree that's its just as good as todays. Now if we're talking rocks and slow stuff - then yes I think articulation is key, although not the only metric (as well as tires, gears, lockers, etc).. Now if we're talking faster stuff - yes I think it would be better..

Next point however is to your quote above about why the engineers would 'degrade' that capability.. As mentioned elsewhere they are 'dumming down' the truck to make it more user friendly and appear to a larger crowd. I know the engineers don't drive that - marketing does... Also it's their way of utilizing a new system (suspension) that they are most likely stuck with due to the accountants and commonized parts bin (just like the demise of the 4.56 gears)...

Just my $0.02...

Another good take. However, as a military officer, test pilot, an engineer, and having a family employed in the auto industry in Michigan, I'll have to respectfully disagree with the commonly stated notions of the "bean counters dictate to the engineers what they can do" or "they're stuck with a bin of common platform parts, and are doing the best they can"

1. Special vehicle teams (corvette, viper, Rapturd, SVT mustang, PW etc.) are not constrained by the same commonality requirements as say the off-the-line 2500 SLT, though the Prgm Mgr is evaluated on metrics as cost, schedule, and performance, and there is definitely incentive to use existing sub-system assemblies to maximize bulk purchase pricing, and minimize tooling costs, to the limit in so far as it doesn't cause objective performance metric degradation.

2. The PM and the design team spec out performance goals. The vehicle is broken down into engineering sub-systems, and each sub-system has an engineering lead. The eng lead is responsible for the design, spec, prototype, and testing of the subsystems to meet certain performance metrics, whose compendium are intended to meet the overall vehicle performance goals. Once the vehicle sub-systems are concluded, the eng lead gives a part list and labor rate list to the PM, the PM then comes up with the total vehicle part, machining, and labor cost, and the bean counters then set the price based on company overhead and profit rates set by corporate executive VPs.

3. So if the PW truly has far worse performance than the 200x model yrs, then it was designed and manufactured intentionally worse than it's predecessors, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

4. I don't think they are "dumbing down the PW for the masses". Where's the proof of that? It's a niche vehicle that appeals to a small, but fiercely loyal, mechanically savvy and technically competent customer base, who's sales have remained statistically flat for 10 yrs now, so what's the incentive to dumb it down? A dumbed down PW is essentially a base 2500 gasser, and they already make that, so I don't see who or why they would be purposely reducing the PW's capabilities. What is dumbing down exactly? 2005 and 2014 both have lockers, sway bar disconnects, bigger battery, and a winch, all which require an element of mechanical competence and out-door know-how. So is the shift away from a manual transmission or the addition of a crew cab the "dumbing down"? I'd say those things are not making the truck any more or less "dumb", and don't affect the basic fundamental operation of the core vehicle identity.

If anything, aside from RTI and taller gears, the 2014 has dual alternators, a bigger battery, a more off-road friendly rear suspension, bigger front and rear axles, front axle disconnect (debatable improvement there), better stock tires, better wheels (no plastic cap), and a bigger engine, that is more fuel efficient, than previous editions, so it seems like Ram has actually put some effort into improving it then some, right?

cruz wrote:

adeluca73 wrote: 3. If the engineers intent is to continually improve the PW's capabilities, then is there another metric, aside from RTI, that the engineers used in the design and calculations, which they claim shows the PW maintaining or improving the performance?
4. If you accept the premise ipso facto that designers are continually improving the design and performance year-to-year, then how does the PW product development team justify the purposely "degraded" PW performance over previous models to the sales and management personnel?

The only people they justify themselves to are the shareholders.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Their goal is to make and sell as many vehicles as possible, not build the ultimate vehicle for the relativity few that want and can afford it. The " Win on Sunday-Sell on Monday " idea is the only reason we ever get the good shit produced in the first place.

The history of auto making is filled with great cars and trucks that were " improved " to the point where nobody wanted them any more, the '60s and '70s muscle cars are a perfect example, albeit that was more of a Gov't mandate, all they care about is for you to throw your to them.

And believe me i"m throwing the $$ at it like a drunk sailor

adeluca73 wrote:
Great take--so you're saying the path to really tweak out the '14 PW's performance is to give up my kid's college fund to Carli to Thuren for air bags, control arms, and shocks.

As you stated in another post you will have shore leave every so often to spend that money you've saved. The difference is you will enjoy the fruits of your spending for much longer than any other drunken sailor IMHO LOL. If I'm not mistaken both Carli and Thuren sold their early 4G for the latest iteration dubbed the 4.5G. If so they are going to be ready to meet with you to swap some cash for truck goodies real soon. I have no idea what they have up their sleeves but you can bet it will cost you! Don't forget the possibility of that 513 gear swap LOL.

Happy modding!


.

Love the debate going back and forth.

adeluca73 wrote: ... If anything, aside from RTI and taller gears, the 2014 has dual alternators, a bigger battery, a more off-road friendly rear suspension, bigger front and rear axles, front axle disconnect (debatable improvement there), better stock tires, better wheels (no plastic cap), and a bigger engine, that is more fuel efficient, than previous editions, so it seems like Ram has actually put some effort into improving it then some, right?

When I first read about the 2005 PW I told myself that it is everything that I'd want for a pickup, by Aug. '05 I had one, and I still feel the same way 9 years later. Since 2005 to the present, if I was in the market for any pickup, 1/2 or 3/4 ton, two or four wheel drive it would be Dodge, and not because of brand loyalty, but because they're building the best trucks and the Power Wagon ( 3G, 4G, and 4.5G ) have and been the top of the heap since 2005, " improvements " or not.

I also have a 2014 PW on order, and first off I'd like to state that this forum is a wealth of information with the right balance of knowledge and perspectives. Rarely, have I read a thread where I thought I could give meaningful insight beyond what the original posters have provided.

My background and profession necessitates I work closely with engineering companies spanning their conceptual design through manufacturing execution. I am an aerospace engineer by education, but work closely with aviation, automotive, and shipbuilding industries. From my perspective, this is an interesting thread and many individuals are correct.

A product (such as a Power Wagon) is not solely driven by the desires of engineers. The products are driven by requirements, plain and simple. So who drives the requirements? In most cases, it is marketing (capability, cost) followed by legal (safety, regulation adherence) and operations (manufacturability, cost) and quality (service, warranty, cost). Engineering shapes the concept and definition based on these requirements and most, if not all, decisions are a compromise.

Marketing is simply betting they can increase their revenue by appealing to a broader market with better on road manners and power. Engineering has likely determined the best compromise given their constraints. Is the 2014 Power Wagon better than a 3G Power Wagon? It depends on the buyer. Ram is betting there are more buyers the current design appeals to than previous design iterations. They also know they have better aftermarket support than they have ever enjoyed with Carli, Thuren, and AEV to name a few, for those fewer individuals that want to optimize their product for more off-road use.

Best Regards,
shacke

I say disconnect the rear sway bar on a 2014 then see what the rti scores at.

cruz wrote:

adeluca73 wrote: ... If anything, aside from RTI and taller gears, the 2014 has dual alternators, a bigger battery, a more off-road friendly rear suspension, bigger front and rear axles, front axle disconnect (debatable improvement there), better stock tires, better wheels (no plastic cap), and a bigger engine, that is more fuel efficient, than previous editions, so it seems like Ram has actually put some effort into improving it then some, right?

When I first read about the 2005 PW I told myself that it is everything that I'd want for a pickup, by Aug. '05 I had one, and I still feel the same way 9 years later. Since 2005 to the present, if I was in the market for any pickup, 1/2 or 3/4 ton, two or four wheel drive it would be Dodge, and not because of brand loyalty, but because they're building the best trucks and the Power Wagon ( 3G, 4G, and 4.5G ) have and been the top of the heap since 2005, " improvements " or not.

I still hope I feel the same as you 10 yrs from now!!

Yeah, when you first get something you really like, you hope for the best, and I'm just tickled the way things have turned out.