World Exclusive: Ram 5500 Long-Hauler Drive

Long-Hauler fillup 1 II

We’ll make the announcement right here: Move over Ford F-450 Super Duty King Ranch, there is a new Supreme Hauling Champion in town. The only problem is this new king of all things towing may not become a reality — that is, if Ram Truck makes a horrible mistake. 

When Ram Truck gave us the chance to get behind the wheel of the magnificently large Ram Long-Hauler along with a 15,000-pound trailer, we jumped at the chance, and asked if there was any mileage limit to our time with the combination. Ram officials said no, so we said good.  

The Test Truck
For those who may not have seen this before, this was a custom concept vehicle produced by Ram Truck engineers in a secret location. Their job? To produce the ultimate tow vehicle with their existing parts bin. That meant taking a MegaCab from a Ram HD and grafting it on a 5500 chassis cab with a 197.4-inch wheelbase.  

The Long-Hauler uses the Cummins 6.7-liter inline-six-cylinder turbodiesel that’s down-rated to 305 horsepower and 610 pounds-feet of torque like other commercial haulers (3500/4500/5500) and the Aisin AS68RC six-speed transmission running through a Dana S111 axles with 4.88:1 gears. The truck rides on a custom heavy-duty Kelderman airbag suspension and offers 170 gallons of fuel through three separate tanks. That means, theoretically, the fuel tanks would be able to hold out much longer than our bladders (and we’re known for big bladders — just ask my daughters). 

The route we chose was one of the easiest decisions we’ve made in a while, opting to duplicate the Heavy-Duty Hurt Locker Shootout drive route we took with the three one-ton truck turbodiesels. As you might recall, we ran several tests on that king of the hill outing, and if there ever was a king of the hill contestant, this Ram 5500 Long-Hauler was it. 

Long-Hauler front bags II
Naturally, we understand this isn’t an exact apple-to-apples comparison with those one-ton dually diesel 4x4s, but it’s pretty close. To start, we wanted to make sure we got all the weights as close as possible to our Hurt Locker comparison. To do that, we first weighed our Long-Hauler by itself with the fuel tanks topped off. 

As you might imagine, filling the tanks took quite a while, especially when you factor in that our credit card’s auto shutoff limit was quickly hit. We had to call the credit card company to let them know exactly what we were doing (and we had to explain it to them several times). Add to that the need to fill up the DEF tank, which on the Ram 5500 necessitates filling the seven-gallon exhaust fluid tank. More than $650 in fuel and over $30 in DEF later, we were ready to weigh our tow vehicle on the scales. The total? A whopping 11,400 pounds when empty, which left us with a comfortable 8,100 pounds of payload. Ram tells us this concept truck has a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds. 

Next, we had to hook the trailer up and weigh the pair. That totaled just over 25,500 pounds, meaning our trailer, which was equipped with a one-off concept Jeep loaded in back along with several monster 4x4 tire and wheel options (and repair gear), weighed about 14,000 pounds. To get us to a similar on-the-road total weight as we had for our Hurt Locker Shootout, we needed to add about 2,000 pounds to the trailer. 

We bought 52 bags of rock salt at Home Depot and evenly distributed the sacks over the trailer’s axles and the gooseneck. Our driving weight for the 2,200-mile trip would be just under 28,000 pounds yet well below the GCWR of the truck and trailer of 30,000 pounds. That’s the number Ram gave us, but we expect the true number is closer to 37,000 pounds. 

The Test Route
Once our total weight was sorted, it was north on Interstate 15 out of Los Angeles, through the gauntlet of Las Vegas and further north through St. George, Utah, until we hit Interstate 70, heading east. Once in Colorado, we started to hit some fierce weather at the higher altitudes, but eventually made it to the Eisenhower Tunnel (underneath the Loveland Pass). That’s where we hit the really bad weather, as well as spring break traffic headed to the local ski areas.  It was not a good situation to try to get some steep elevation mountain climb data from Dillon to the summit.

After a few attempts to duplicate our “full-pull” runs up the Dillon-side of I-70, we had to call it undoable because of all the snow near the top of the 11,000-foot summit. At each attempt, we had to proceed cautiously since the lanes were covered in snow and ice and we searched for the best traction. We even had to navigate around quite a few big-rigs who were having trouble pulling their loads — some with chains, some without. Local authorities weren’t requiring chains, but the changing weather was beginning to make it a close call. 

Screen Shot 2012-03-01 at 1.42.27 PM
Once we realized we weren’t going to get any test runs done to compare with our winning GMC Sierra 3500 HD run (or the Ram 3500 HD for that matter), we headed straight to Davis Dam -- just two states away in Arizona -- to try to get a few test runs in there. It’s worth noting the exhaust brake on the detuned Cummins Long-Hauler worked exceptionally well with the truck-and-trailer combination down the mountain’s backside. If we didn’t know better, we’d say the Aisin transmission computer was even smarter than the powertrain setup we tested in the Ram HD Hurt Locker test, which also did very well. 

Our trip west on I-70 brought us to U.S. Highway 191 in Utah, where we turned south, headed through Moab, eventually getting into Arizona and through Kayenta, Tuba City and finally to Flagstaff. Our final destination was Kingman, where the turn to Bullhead City and the Davis Dam grade were impatiently waiting for us. Once finished with our unobstructed test runs up the grades (details later in story), we headed south again, eventually meeting up with Interstate 40 and heading west to meet up with the I-15 once again. That brought us back to our original starting point. 

The route and tests took four full days and another half-day of prep work during the test’s pick-up and drop-off phases. We wouldn’t recommend it for amateurs, but it did allow us quite a bit of uninterrupted pulling time in the truck — more than enough to glean a few impressions. 

Our Favorite Parts
We know this is a concept truck, which means this was a custom-built one-off with features that may never see the light of day. If we could have just one wish, it would be to make sure the heavy-duty Kelderman air suspension system makes it to production somewhere (and preferably everywhere) into the Ram HD lineup. We cannot overstate how well-dialed in and comfortable this Class 5 truck’s ride was with this setup. The truth is, we’ve driven our fair share of Class 4, 5 and 6 trucks and we know what they’re built for and how they ride as a consequence. Because of that, we weren’t looking forward to spending so much time – it turned out about 800 miles a day -- in a 5500. But we were wrong, and it didn’t take long to figure that out. 

Long-Hauler rear link bag II
Only on the worst sections of expansion joints, cracked pavement and construction zones did the big axles have trouble settling the vibrations. The system also had a special “dump” feature that allowed us to drop the rear axle onto the bump stops and pull the trailer right out from underneath without having to extend the gooseneck too high. The system also worked well when hooking up the trailer and lifting the ball into the gooseneck receiver instead of the other way around. It’s not foolproof -- I proved that once -- but it did make dropping and hooking up the trailer a fairly simple one-man operation. 

You might know that there is no MegaCab-chassis cab model in the Ram HD 3500/4500/5500 lineup of work trucks, so that meant Ram Truck had to create this one from scratch. No surprise there. What may surprise you is how much time the truckmaker must have spent creating the custom Long Horn interior, how comfortable the custom rear reclining bucket seats were and how clever the design team was with hidden extras like the center console fridge, Wi-Fi hotspot, electronic readouts for each of the three fuel tanks. It even had a gun safe. Other standout features we liked were the front and rear bumper air compressor hookups, custom fifth-wheel cutout tailgate and 19.5-inch big-rig-style alloy wheels. 

Our Least Favorite
The Long-Hauler came equipped with a standard-looking Long Horn Ram HD dash and gauge cluster, complete with navigation screen and satellite radio; unfortunately, neither worked for this outing. Thankfully we knew exactly where we were going and our memory was full of childhood sing-a-long songs and nursery rhymes from when our kids were little. The only other problem encountered along the way was the fuel gauge seemed to wander a bit in cold weather; it had letting us know exactly how much fuel was in each tank. 

Long-Hauler tank readout II
Each of the three tanks (100, 38, 32) had separate sending units that monitored fuel levels and pumps to keep all the tanks as evenly filled as possible. We’re guessing somewhere in those electronics a connection or two didn’t like some of the extreme temperatures we saw during out high-altitude drive section and started to give us faulty readings.

Just outside of Dillon, Colo., on the wrong side of midnight, we saw our vehicle temperature reading in the single digits with our console-mounted digital readouts swinging from 58 gallons to 12 gallons and back in the course of minutes. That meant we needed to get to a comfortable bed in a town with plenty of fuel choices, just in case.  

Once we made it to the lower elevations, closer to Grand Junction, Colo., our tank sensors stabilized.  

Testing the Long-Hauler
For the Hurt Locker Shootout, we took each of our combatants up the 11.17-mile uphill grade on Ariz. Highway 68, starting at McCormick Boulevard and finishing at the Union Pass summit at 3,571 feet above sea level (the run’s base has an elevation of 565 feet). Over the course of our 11-mile run, we rolled up and down steeper and gentler grades (averaging a 5% grade over the 3,000-foot elevation climb), finishing our run on a cool-down glide over the backside of the Highway 68, headed to Kingman, Ariz. 

For those with excellent memories, you’ll recall the GMC Sierra 3500 HD pulled up the hill with its 27,540-pound combined weight in 11 minutes, 11 seconds. The Ford F-350 had a GCW of 27,820 pounds and ran the route in 11 minutes, 51 seconds. The slowest of our trio was the Ram 3500 HD, pulling its 27,440-pound truck and trailer load up the route in 12 minutes, 54 seconds. Clearly, that particular test had a lot to do with how impressed our judges were with the GMC, and it ultimately helped us declare the GM HD the winner of our Heavy Duty Hurt Locker Shootout. 

Long-Hauler tailgate II
For exhaust-brake testing, we duplicated the Hurt Locker test. We came from the opposite direction on Highway 68 (heading toward Laughlin), making sure to have the truck and trailer at 55 mph at the Union Pass summit and then let gravity take over. With an exhaust-brake button (or not in the Super Duty’s case) engaged, we ran each of the trucks downhill to our finish line. If the vehicle’s speed reached 60 mph, we’d slow the truck down to approximately 48 mph and let the cycle begin again. During our Hurt Locker Shootout, the Ram HD won that particular test with only two brake touches in the 11-mile stretch, while the GMC had four and the Ford five. 

Long-Hauler Results
For our wide-open throttle runs with the Long-Hauler up the hill, we got some interesting results. With our 27,460-pound (right inside the range of the Hurt Locker test) Long-Hauler 5500 Ram HD truck and trailer combination, we got a best run up the course of 12 minutes, 49 seconds, beating the Ram 3500 HD by just five seconds but not coming close to the Ford or GMC trucks. 

During the exhaust-brake test, duplicating the exact procedures, the Long-Hauler beat the Hurt Locker competitors without a single touch of the brakes warranted down the Davis Dam grade. We expect the much deeper 4.88:1 ring and pinion, a slightly detuned Cummins engine and unique transmission mapping were probably the main reasons behind the performance. Still, the control and confidence the Long-Hauler showed up and down the hill was impressive to experience. 

As to other types of performance testing we conducted with Long-Hauler, we also tried to duplicate the zero to 50 mph pulls, as well as pulling the best 30 to 50 mph times. Both times were calculated with truck and trailer attached. 

In the zero to 50 mph pulls, our Long-Hauler ran 18.57 seconds, with a best 30 to 50 mph run at 9.95 seconds (Hurt Locker numbers: Ford -- 21.05/12.64; GMC -- 20.60/11.39; Ram HD -- 23.09/13.90). You can see that the best time for the Long-Hauler was a good bit better than each of the Hurt Locker competitors. We should note here that the testing was not done at the same Arizona Proving Ground facility and did benefit from a slight tailwind. Still, it’s worth noting that whereas our Hurt Locker trucks were at 92% and 94% of their GCW, the Long-Hauler was somewhere more realistically in the 75% to 80% range. 

Long-Hauler gooseneck II
In duplicate zero to 60 mph runs (without the trailer), the Ram 5500’s strength off-the-line was not nearly as pronounced. Our best zero to 60 mph time was 12.85 seconds, with a best 30 to 60 mph time of 8.04 seconds (Hurt Locker numbers: Ford -- 9.53/5.76; GMC -- 9.23/5.37; Ram HD -- 10.40/6.46). We’d be guessing, but there might be something in the transmission shift logic or traction control that is able to know when more power is needed and better traction is possible. 

Final Thoughts
Our final test number collected on the 2,300-mile tour of the most Hurt-Locker-friendly Western states was to complete our fuel-economy data. By the end of the trip, we bought almost 300 gallons of diesel fuel, five gallons of DEF fluid and too many truck-stop beef jerky packets to count. Overall, we averaged 7.8 mpg, with our best stretch of 300 miles registering just over 10 mpg. We tried to keep our speeds between 65 and 70 mph and used the cruise control as much as possible. We didn’t do this to get great fuel economy while pulling a good load. We wanted to see how this 5500 HD concept truck could handle the same course and tests we used for our ultimate heavy-duty shootout — and we think it passed with flying colors. 

Is there a place for a vehicle like this in the world of personal-use heavy haulers? We think as long as this air suspension is part of the deal (and Ram Truck sure seems to be interested in airbag suspensions lately), this could be the new towing-and-hauling king for those with monster camper trailers or gooseneck horse trailers or high-dollar car-hauler companies. 

To be honest, we’ve driven half-ton pickups with suspensions much more punishing than this. We don’t know what magic Kelderman was able to do for this Long-Hauler concept, but it works. Ram would be stupid not to green-light this project right away. They won’t sell tens of thousands of them, but we’re guessing there’s a good market of Class 4, 5 and 6 drivers out there that want this type of high-lux work truck. We know this because they kept walking up to us every time we stopped the Long-Hauler.  

Long-Hauler fillup II

Long-Hauler backseat view II

Long-Hauler engine II

Long-Hauler trailer II

Long-Hauler self port 2 II



Well, if you want to label a truck as Super-Duty, it looks like this one takes the prize.

It's still a Road Whale... a "Blue" whale in this case. (Study your ichthyology if you don't understand the reference.) It's far too big for use as an everyday rig by anyone but a professional. Even my F-150 is too big for my comfort (standard cab, 8' bed) but I couldn't beat the price for the condition.

That was a great article. Ram Trucks needs to make this truck for sure and put the higher output engine in it with the 4.88 gears. Hopefully Cummins comes up with a more powerful and fuel efficient engine in the near future.

Great article, I'd buy one of these. It would be the deciding factor to pull my away from my Super Duty.

I have no need for this truck what so ever. And Im sure most of the people who post here dont either and I dont see this selling very well if made. But I do see the few buying it loving it because this truck does def have a small crowd who this is EXACTLY what they need if I was hauling horses for rodeo or something of the sort I would be praying for them to make this nice article as usual

anyone going to do a towing test with the 2012 ram 2500 hemi and new six speed? truck has been out for a while now and would like to know how it compares to f250 6.2l / chevy 6.0


Study Ichthyology concerning blue whales????? Ummm dude, you do realize that Ichthyology is the study of fish. Whales are not fish, ROFL.

Besides that, great article. Good for Dodge on this one. Hopefully it will actually see production.

Take that GM! You know I loved the CK4500 and 5500 series! You're letting Ford and RAM enjoy the spoils! Build this rig for sure Chrysler! Ick that's a lot of rust underneath...I hope they got a lot of miles on it, though 2200 miles doesn't seem like a lot. Awesome truck though. They should make the factory-look cutout tailgate especially for fifth-wheel/gooseneck hauling folk in the 2500/3500 models.

This certainly isn't for the average heavy duty towing crowd, but someone making a living at towing trailers, hauling cars, and promo set-ups to conventions on a daily basis would probably love this truck.

i would like to know the cost of that truck they tested

This article is the best case for not building it. If the current trucks already produced can do this already and perform better, then what is the need for this one.


You are aware they still make 4x2 shortbed singlecabs, right? Come October you can have a pick of the new Ram or the current Ford both with up to date V-6s that will get darn good mileage for the somebody that doesn't haul super heavy. Yeah, they might be a foot and a half or so longer if that but same width, then the same configuration you now have, but, they will out pull, out stop, out gas mileage, crash better (better chance you live) and you can actually drive 70-75 mph in one without all the sound of road or wind noise. Like would you take your 1990 Ford on a 4,000 mile trip with 70-75 mph speeds? You would probably be worn out after just 300 miles of that. Meanwhile the guy in the newer model goes 600 or more a day and it's no big deal. I know man, I did my share of long driving with an 83 W-150 Ram. Then figure how much more maintenance you will do, or pay somebody to do, vs. low maintaiance on a newer one. Maybe if you are anywhere it get's warm, you might appreciate A/C, vs. old trucks that mighta had it if it was a higher trim levil. Oh, and if you happen to go into a corner a bit hot with your old truck, enjoy the drama, while these new ones, no biggy. Maybe they will someday do a "then and now" test with say a few 20 or 25 y/o trucks, and chrash test them at the end.

No doubt in the $80,000 range but who the hell is asking for it? Just make a 4500 like the F-450 King Ranch pickup and call it a day. Those that still need/want such a truck can start with a crew cab 4500 or 5500 cab & chassis and seek the aftermarket (or medical advice) and just go nuts! Don't let us stop ye. I know of at least one company already producing Ram 4500/5500 conversion pickups.

Hmmm. The fanboys are no longer brining up the urea-free argument. There is not a single complaint about having to use DEF now. I am shocked.

True fact... primary purchasers of this truck will be people who barely haul anything bigger than what a Tacoma can haul who will immediately put a skyhigh lift on it and semi wheels and train horn so they can feel like a big boy, maybe a pair of trucknuts and an 18" drop hitch ball so they can stilll haul their jetskis or dirt bikes

Cool concept though.

It gets 7.8 mpg and is slower than the GM and Ford. The GCWR they gave is 30k and Ford is 30k in F350 and GM is 29,200. One saving grace was the exhaust brake didn't need to be touched and has a larger gas tank - but gets considerably worse mileage. So for $80,000.00 this Ram does worse in everything except exhaust braking downhill.

The price of Diesel here in Alberta Canada is 1.21 a liter chances of anyone buying something like that here is 0%! U would have to not be all there. 7.8 mpg wtf only dodge could think of something like this. Ford is makeing awesome fuel efficent trucks and dodge is going back to the cave man days shake your head and wonder what are they doing made in china parts to 7.8 mpg trucks like yikes!!

Definitely a market in Australia. Airbag suspension gets away from the gripes about springs. This would be slightly more user friendly than a Japanese/European Light MDT truck, for people towing very heavy caravans or 5th wheels. Horse trailers of the size intended for the long hauler are usually towed by a Light MDT Truck.

It's a great idea. Fahhgettabout HP/Tq, this setup is all about covering distance. Too bad the Ram Cummins always falls short in the mpg dept as that hurts distance. That low profile trailer should tow good. I bet the long wheelbase drives nice once it's underway on the open roads.

That poor Cummins has to be wound up pretty tight with those 4.88 gears, even with the .63 OD. For a GCW around 25k, I would think a smaller gear would be more appropriate. Obviously, if you hook up the max 19k this truck is rated for, it will need that gear. Speed is not what this thing is about- if you want to go fast, the Duramax is the answer. Want to go even faster- fly in and have someone else do the hauling. This truck does what it's supposed to do very well. The airbags and the MegaCab are items RAM should strongly consider for its cab/chassis line-up.

When does the sleeper cab version come out?

It's been a whole 24 hours since the last Fiat article. What took so long?

Tell Fiat not to waste time on something that won't sell in the tens of thousands. Gas isn't getting any cheaper. People need something they can afford to drive. People are buying more of the smaller travel trailers and smaller campers not the ginormous goosenecks. The generation of people that have pensions is disappearing.

MaXx, maybe you should check out


Decent mileage for the monstrosity that it is, but I'm sure the few that would buy this aren't looking to save at the pump. If you need it, it doesn't matter.

It gets 7.8 mpg and is slower than the GM and Ford. The GCWR they gave is 30k and Ford is 30k in F350 and GM is 29,200. One saving grace was the exhaust brake didn't need to be touched and has a larger gas tank - but gets considerably worse mileage. So for $80,000.00 this Ram does worse in everything except exhaust braking downhill.

Posted by: Dave | Apr 17, 2012 2:18:08 PM

2012 for Chevy and GMC GCWR is 30,500 lbs.

Thanks, Johnny. Fiat-Ram loses again.

Go tow that weight even properly equipped with any 3500 ford gm chry w/e brand and tell me how uncomfrotable and how hard that truck has to work then tow that with this and see how stable and pleasant it prob is if your going state to state quit being fan boys and say when somethings nice if this was a GM id still say its a great concept that theyll prob never make problem is GM doesnt even make cool concepts

Even if this truck were to be produced with the exact tow specs of a 350/3500 I'd rather have this truck if I towed for a living or was a "snowbird" pulling a monster RV chasing the sunshine. This is a commercial grade truck or should I say a commercial truck with a civilian body. Makes me wonder if it is a case of 1 ton trucks being "overated" as opposed to this truck being "under-rated". I see quite a few Freightliners pulling big RV's. This truck may have a limited market similar to the Ford F450. I can see this being built and ending up as part of a huge personal and commercial truck line that Fiat will lump under the Ram banner. Cool truck. Someone will buy it.

@Johnny Dose - GCWR of 30,500. Comes in handy being built 500 lb wimpier than the competition ;)

If anyone read the article this truck is expected to be rated in the 37,000 pound rateing. It's rated for 30,000 for concept testing. This is a concept guys! I see a market for this. They just won't sell tens of thousands

I smell a lou, isn't that what they call crappers in england? lou's

Here's your comment Nick. If you look at the DEF used in the 2010 HD Shootout, you'd see at the rate the Ford uses it, if it drove this many miles at that rate, it would use 10 gallons of it. The Chevy, more. But that's not really an apples to apples comparison. Those trucks were driven thru Michigan with I believe 5,000 pounds less weight. I haven't been on both roads but but I'd bet the route out west is alot steeper then anything Michigan has. Also, the 2010 HD shootout they had flatbeds, not this taller trailer. Work it harder and the Chevy and Ford will eat more of it.

That being said, Ram does need to improve on the mileage. But they do offer a cab the others don't.

@johnny doe - in my profession, a "John Doe" is a corpse of unknown identity. Seems fitting that you chose to use that name. It matches the quality of your posts. BTW it is spelled "Loo". Spelling isn't your strong suit. Numbers appear to be a weak point also (like recalling ones odometer).

Actually Ford nor GM would have used anywhere near 10 gallons of DEF. The tank in the Ford holds 5.1 gallons and they didn't even get low over the 2000 miles in the Hurt Locker test.

In the Hurt Locker test the Ram was $115 more costly to operate over 2000 miles than the Ford.

They all had 12,500 lbs trailers.

Now this Long Hauler Ram here gets worse mileage than the Hurt Locker Ram and you have to pay for the DEF. Ram's fuel economy went down using DEF. But a 15,000 lb trailer used here is slightly heavier which could have affected mileage.

It would have been better if the same trailer weights were used.

Flashback: 2011 Heavy-Duty Hurt Locker: Fuel Economy

We measured fuel consumption over almost 2,000 miles of travel with the trailers behind the trucks the entire time. The results exclude segments where we were testing the trucks, such as on the mountain climbs and at Chrysler’s proving grounds. As we’ve seen in earlier tests, the Ford F-350 had the best fuel economy while towing, at 9.5 mpg. The GMC was close behind at 9.1 mpg, or a difference of $22 over 2,000 miles. The Ram had the worst mileage, at 8.5 mpg, costing $115 more to operate than the Ford.

Ford’s and GMC’s DEF systems – used to scrub nitrogen oxide emissions to meet federal regulations – allow the engines to operate more efficiently with less exhaust gas recirculation than the Ram. While DEF runs about $2.99 a gallon and the Ford and GMC have DEF tanks that hold about 8 gallons, it’s well worth the cost. We started out with full DEF levels in both trucks and never had to refill during the trip, and no low-DEF warnings came on.

@Alex, Nick, Lou, Dave, Tim,

Don't call it a comeback. There is a new heavy hauler in town. This is EXACTLY what was needed.

Rams are selling like HOTCAKES!

Ram is taking out Ford in 2012 and beyond!!!!!!!

You heard it here first.





I guess you got me there Tim. But they do need to work on the Mileage. If that was on par, they sure would sell a bit more of them. Can't hurt.

Regardless of what anyone says, I live on a ranch in Texas and we cut and bale hay. We deliver hay to Kansas all the time and this would be the perfect truck. Mainly (unlike ford and gm) cummins is the only diesel motor with an iron head. We have been through 3 fords and 2 Chevrolets and always the heads always cracked I'll pick a ram over anything anyway.

Correction: any day*

Ford falls behind again! Nice truck but not practical compared to the GMC 3500. Ram needs to work on their 1 ton, they aren't to far behind fords hd's but way behind GM's. I bet lou aka "crapper" is seeing nothing but dust from ford falling behind. But when you are as dumb enough to buy a ford all you see is dust.

ram is takeing out ford for 2012 lmap, the new ram sucks, this is a 5500 how come ford does this with the F-450 dodge had to make there truck seem bigger? you guys are idiots for will always out run dodge. in sales and rugidness,

Ram taking out gm and furd in 2012!!!

why even bother with this monster...

wht they need to do is take a 3/4 ton ram and drop another axle yes "tandem".

this truck would be alot faster more fuel efficient and would be trailing those payload and towing numbers...

Not practical compared the the GMC 3500? Have you even seen the interior differences? GM's interior is a work truck, and nothing more. Its sparse and embarrassing for a >$50k truck.

The key features to look at, which Ironically they didn't... is the 37k gcvw, (Concept rated lower). The longer wheelbase. and the durability/longevity of a Cummins engine. The 4.88 gears are a higher gearing then the 3500's are equipped with and that definitely will hurt fuel economy. If you take the time to understand what you are reading, and the purpose for this truck. Then undoubtedly, it is a terrific truck for the job.

Me personally, I'm happy with my 3500 as it fills my needs completely, however, the long hauler is a neat concept with many productive new assets. which being a concept, will most likely filter down to the standard HD line.

Here in Alberta, Canada they would be purchased by rednecks to out-redneck other rednecks. The only problem is it is just another concept without any plans to go into production.

How is Ford falling behind? Again? Am I missing something? Repeat after me, this is a concept with no plans to go into production.

It will go into production in 2012! Ram is taking out Ford in 2012!!!


We've just heard from one of our deep undercover spy shooters who caught what appears to be a "production-ized" pickup based on Ram's Long-Hauler concept.

The truck seen on public roads near Chrysler's Auburn Hills Tech Center is a dead ringer for the over-the-top concept we saw more than six months ago, but the truck's thoroughly redesigned tailgate shows that, at a minimum, Ram planners are fine-tuning the Long-Hauler's design.

Some sources say the Long-Hauler is on the path to production, with one report telling us that Chrysler/Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne is firmly backing the program. This spy photographer says this Long-Hauler prototype has been seen testing on public roads several times, once hauling a massive trailer on a Michigan highway.

Spied! A Production Ram HD Long-Hauler


Re: Icthyology -- Guys, you know that, and I know that, but would you rather I had use the term Cetology instead, which almost nobody knows? The change of terms doesn't change my opinion of these grossly oversized, overpriced trucks that just about as many people need as know what the term Cetology means.

@TRX4 Tom: I know that I just purchased an F-150 XLT Lariat 4x2 with 8' bed and standard cab for $2500 (that's 25 hundred, not thousand) and know I got a great deal. I'm willing to bet anything I can't buy the 2012 Ford equivalent for 10X that much.

The comments to this entry are closed.