Manufacturers Continue to Ignore SAE Standards

Towing J2807 Ford Ram II

In what could turn out to be one of the strangest chapters in pickup truck history, manufacturers look as if they will continue to ignore the Society of Automotive Engineers’ towing standards — which they all agreed on for the 2013 model year — for at least one more year.

As we've covered here before, the SAE J2807 towing standards were settled more than a year ago, and it looked like new-truck buyers were going to be able to compare any half-ton and three-quarter-ton pickup truck (as well as quite a few other one-ton trucks) tow ratings with direct competitors. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

In one of the most exhaustive articles written on the subject, Automotive News charted the history of the SAE-designated panel and where it stands today. And after repeated attempts to contact someone at SAE, Automotive News concluded that we're likely to stay in this standoff, where none of the manufacturers — except Toyota, which adopted the testing protocols two years ago — will use the new procedures and ratings unless everyone does.

In all likelihood, half-ton ratings will drop only a few hundred pounds; three-quarter-ton trucks could, depending on the configuration, drop several thousand pounds; and the strongest one-ton pullers will be over the 13,000-pound gross vehicle weight rating of the requirement, so they'll not be included — for now.

Whether or not a story like this will be enough to get the truck makers back to the table to figure this out remains to be seen. In fact, we've even played with the idea of an informal lunch to take care of this. All we know is that there needs to be some way to allow consumers to cut through the towing hype and hyperbole of the commercials and marketing materials to truthfully see how each truck compares with any other.

At the heart of the issue is the safety of the driver, and we're guessing manufacturers can understand that putting current or potential customers at risk is not a good idea.



Funny Jake, you bust on Lou for being a troll yet personally attack Oxi. In the real world that is called being a hypocrite. Also funny is the whole threatening to get Lou banned. Really??? You have that much clout??? Hmmmm.

Honestly, either grow up or go away.

@ hemi lol ,

Why do you call the Ford 6.2 a dinosaur motor ?
Did you know duel overhead cams are disastrous in trucks,even in cars way too many extra parts that dont hold up as good or as reliable (Toyota has the worlds worst record for blowing up V-8 and V-6 engines)
The 6.2 is a good motor and quicker than the Eco-Boost 150 and Tundra (tundra has 4.30 gearing add that in other trucks and the Tundra would be 2 seconds to 60 slower than a Hemi Ram or 6.2 Ford !since the Tundra with its 4.30's is already 0.5 to 1 second slower).Furthermore,All the tests show the Ecoboost 150 are tested in a different trim level lighter f-150 truck then a 6.2 f-150 truck they test.

By the way,your name hemi lol is insulting and ignorant as the HEMI is the worlds best engine,Ford,Toyota,GM all use the Chrysler Hemi in top fuel drag racing as any drag boat also has a Chrysler Hemi !

I am tired of people bashing Mopar,and yet when a Dodge guy posts something against the other brands,you guys immediately come out and cry about so-called Ram Spam,just inconsistent bs by jealous uneducated people,that are tired of seeing the tail lights of a Ram truck at the street light races and your family members saying man,your truck is ugly,why didnt you buy a good looking truck like the RAM !


the 6.2 IS a dinosaur motor! its a cheap cheap engine to build so thats why they do it. its 2 valves per cylinder on an SOHC motor. its a cast iron boat anchor of a block so it gets crappy economy and it doesnt make its mythical 434lb ft until its SCREAMING at 4500rpm.

BTW, its SLOWER than a tundra, PERIOD. already been proven many times over!

IF you in fact knew very much about trucks (judging by your above post your behind the curve) you would know that the rear diff MEANS NOTHING unless you consider the transmission gearing in which case the FORD IS STEEPER THAN THE TUNDRA!! your sadly misinformed.

my name was around LONG before the ram spam crap and i have NEVER made a post saying so i just ignore them.

i have NEVER lined up against a ram and lost, INCLUDING a run against a reg cab 2wd hemi!

Finally the engines in drag cars and drag boats ect. ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A HEMI THATS IN PRODUCTION! those engines are ONLY based off of some of the foundation ideas of the 426 hemi WHICH I LIKE! the motors they produce now are NOT like the 426 of yesteryear so stop makin it sound as if they do.

OH i forgot to mention the Dual overhead cams you speak of are SO RELIABLE that JD power lists those crappy toyotas you talk about at the top of the list EVERY YEAR for reliability, which makes you either uninformed or a blind fanboi

and because i forgot to mention it!

1. OHV engine has a cam with 16 lifters, 16 pushrods 16 rocker arms 16 springs and 16 valves driven by a chain. including the chain thats 92 moving parts!!!!!!

2. DOHC engine has 4 cams 32 spings and 32 valves and a chain to drive it. thats 69 moving parts!!!!!!! YOU apparently failed math if you think a DOHC has more moving parts or AGAIN you just dont know what your talking about

TRX 4 Tom
If this standard if enforced by an outside agency it could see something along the lines of the "unintended acceleration"debacle on a massive scale. Whole law practices could survive on the litigation.

The only reason gm and dodge don't doit is because of ford the looser??

@hemi lol: turbos shut off? Really? Sounds like you seen too many movies!

Like Lone Wolf McQuede, where Chuck Norris "turns on" the blower on his Ramcharger. Too many fast and furious movies?

Maybe you meant to say the computer pulls out boost, or timming?? Or both?

If and and butt's. Toyota had a 4 star safety rating and changed nothing but some how became a 5 star safety rating.

Toyota has had so many recalls the last 4 yrs can anyone remember them all. Toyota has put back millions of dollars for law suits of there unintended acc lawsuits they are faceing.

Toyota paid the highest fine in the history of the automobile for failing to report safety defects in a timely matter.

Toyota has always skipped by the recall policy by calling them toyota safety enhancements.It sure sounds good that way.

The tundra commercials say the toyota tundra has the biggest brakes in a half ton but fail to say they don't stop the best.

cr continue to rate toyota tundra high on there list Anyone who has ever been in the back seat of a tundra on a rough interstate can contest that it can literally send you into the roof of the truck with out the seat belt on.

Anyone who has ever towed with a tundra will tell you it gets even worse in the back seat with a trailer behind you.

I owned a tundra. I know ! It was by far the most over hyped thing I have ever owned. The quality just wasn't there. Toyota people will tell you that the frame isn't a problem and its all a lie deceived by ford in the quality test.Pull up any independent view and it will show how bad the tundra actually does flexing and how harsh the ride can be in the back seat of the tundra.

Ford dodge chevy and toyota and even nissan will do anything to one up each other and thats competition but how cr can put any toyota at the top of any test baffles me.

Any one who would take cr's surveys serious over real car and truck magazines is a joke in itself. I think i'll put my confidence behind and other truck oriented mag's and not a co that how no doubt been on the receiving end of a gift or two from toyota.

I thought the name of this article was "Manufacturers Continue to Ignore SAE Standards". Most of these posts seem to be about bashing other trucks and spouting out both factual and fictional stats. Since I'm in the market for a new truck, I'm actually interested in why some manufacturers don't want to adopt these standards other than the standards themselves must be flawed.

@Toyota/Honda/Nissan LOL !!: What is it that folks don't get it that although the Tundra has more gear in the differential, the Ford with 3.73 has more gear in 1st gear, which is a much lower (numerically higher) starting ratio? The Tundra even has a slightly numerically lower final gear in 6th then the Ford. Less rpm. You have to look at more then the diff gear. I would take the Tundra 6 speed anyday over a Ford or GM 6 speed. Better spaced gears and more reliable.

But I do have to agree with hemi lol. The 6.2 is an old dinasour, and it just makes the power it does because it is big.

I do like my current hemi, but the constant comparisons of old and new hemi is old. They aren't much the same, accept the valve configuration. It is a modern day engine, built to run strong, and then get good mileage when you don't need all the power. It also lets it

I love it that Cotton Owens just got into the Nascar Hall of Fame. When his grandson gave his speech, he said Cotton had lived his life by the 4 unwavoring principles that he held sacred : Family, God, Country, and the 426 Hemi! So yeah, they kicked alot of butt! But it's just not the same engine. The hemi of the 50s was a luxory car engine turned hot rod/Nascar/dragster. The one of the 60s-70s was just a romping stomping, if your protesting, you must have got a woop'n!

@Hemi lol, it is a well-known fact that OHV engines are better than DOHC for low-end torque, something trucks need. Overhead camshafts also make the engines physically larger. DOHC engines are less efficient because they have more moving parts, so OHV engines tend to get better fuel economy.

@@Toyota/Honda/Nissan LOL
I have to agree with TRX 4 Tom and HemiLOL. The 6.2 Ford is an anachronism. Cast iron block and SOHC is old school when you compare it to the 5.0, or the 3.5 EB. The 5.7 IForce is also more advanced.
The reason why RamSpam comes up is because of the volumes of "Ram Spam" that was pumped into this site over the last 6 months or so.
A fine example of "out of touch" commentary is the constant worship and mention of the 426 Elephant block. It dominates drag racing because of rules. It also has little in common with what is in a Ram pickup.

@paul - hard to believe you. I know a couple who have a Tundra and pull a 10,000 lb camper trailer. They have a couple of little kids too. I wonder where they ride? Strapped to the hood? and he drives transport trucks for a living. They love the truck. I do not know a single person with a Tundra that has any of the complaints posted on this site or by you. The only real complaint has been a rougher ride than the competition, especially empty and especially with the TRD OffRoad package.

What I did not like about the Tundra was it rode rougher, cost considerably more money, and did not have options I wanted.
That is why I purchased an F150 SuperCrew 6.5 box 4x4. It was the only truck that approached the Tundra in quality (JD Power and CR Reports).

Consumer Reports does test vehicles but their reliability data is based on surveyed data. Same goes for JD Power. Both give the Tundra great ratings.

You may of got stuck with a lemon IF you actually owned a Tundra. Why get mad at Toyota if you were suckered by PR.
Caveat emptor.

That is the whole point of SAE J2807 is to remove PR from the ratings.

Wow, so many people jealous of the Ford 6.2l engine that their only option is to talk bad of it so they feel better about their pathetic engines. Your insecurities are showing and it's embarassing.

@ hemi lol You got to calm down. Everytime you type something you ignore some facts. You forgot a few parts in your I force engine. What about the followers/tappets/lifters or what ever Toyota calls them. Is it a single chain or has it got three chains. If its one there needs to be an idler sprocket, if there is more than one chain than there needs to be a tensioner and a guide for each chain. Don't forget each link in the chain(s) is a moving part. Do the math again. This time add ALL the parts needed to make a DOHC work. Which engine has less?


No, that is a well-known myth that a OHV engine makes more torque. How does an engine know what is actuating the valves?

OHV engines are often larger in displacement than the competitive OHC engines, and size helps produce torque.

OHV engines get better fuel economy too?! Then why doesn't EVERY manufacturer--especially for cars made specifically for fuel economy using them? Cause they don't.

You are right, however, they are physically smaller--and cheap to make. That is the main reason they are used... .

@ Ford 6.2 FTW!

Yeah, I'm so jealous of the 6.2 Ford engine that I chose to buy a brand new 2010 F150 with 5.4 instead of the 2011 6.2 that was available at the same time.

There are better engines out their.

Toyota's numbers are underrated. I saw one pull a space shuttle.......

Oh, and to comment on the actual subject--any manufacturer that is too scared to follow such a common sense standard such as this so the customer is better informed is simply chicksh!t.

Only a completed rube wouldn't want accurate comparable information.

@Robert Ryan: are speaking of the guy with one axle on his dual axle trailer, with bumper hitch instead of a reciever hitch?

So you are saying just let it go?

@Dav, an engine doesn't have to "know" anything for it to have particular performance characteristics. What a silly comment, that's like saying "how does fire know it is getting enough oxygen for it to keep going?" Or "how does a falling object know when it has reached terminal velocity?"

Anyway, an example of a the same engine using a 2v and 4v setup is Ford's 5.4, although both using OHCs, the 2v was better for low-end torque than the DOHC version used in the 1999 Lincoln Navigators and 2002 Ford Falcon XR8/FPV GT. People complained about its lack of low-end torque... on a long-stroke engine in a light-weight car!

And fuel economy, are you serious? You don't believe that more moving parts = more friction = greater efficiency loss? Well if you can't grasp that concept, you're a lost cause. Just look at the fuel economy advantage of the Chevy 5.3 over other V8s as one example. I don't love that particular engine, but they do have their advantages. Then there is the Tundra with DOHC and woeful fuel economy. Why do you think GM developed a new 4.3L OHV V6 for its trucks instead of using the DOHC 3.6? It could have even bored/stroked the 3.6 to 4.3 if DOHC was going to add power and torque with no compromise to fuel economy. No, they wanted low-end torque, not just MORE torque and better fuel econ than what the DOHC would have given.

Another GM example is the Holden Commodore. The old 3.8 OHV V6 gave it better fuel econ than the newer 3.6 DOHC.

OHC are used to reduce costs and it provide better actuation of the valve train.

OHC engines tend to be more reliable at higher rpms as well.

The general higher rpms that an engine operates the higher the torque and power curve moves up the graph.

The rpm at where you get peak torque has nothing to do with the mechanical link to provide valve actuation ie, OHV vs OHC. It is provided by inlet/exhaust tuning, porting, valve timing ie lead, lag and overlap.

The reason OHV engines are still common in the US is that there wasn't the competition to develop better engines. It is cheaper to continue on with old technology.

You know more cubes theory.

No generally. I can just picture all the people lining up to have law suits because they had an accident towing. I shudder to think about it.

@Robert Ryan: I'm just saying they could be more preventive before the accident happens. This person I am talking about is just not even thinking logically. A trailer with one axle missing? Accident waiting to happen.

I've also been in an accident where I did nothing illegal, but my employers truck wouldn't stop worth a crap. I ended up with a ticket.

@Dav.. seriously? GM is the last remaining OE to use OHV engines in their trucks...and guess what? They have had the best fuel economy of any fullsize truck for YEARS. And as junky as the GM trucks are, the engines are the shining light for them...they make gobs of power, sip fuel, and last forever. OHV is king.

I don't know why anybody would buy the 6.2 unless your pulling heavy trailers all day long in which case you should get a diesel anyway. The 6.2 sucks gas and is slower then the ecoboost or at least the same. I think the 6.2 will be gone in a couple years anyway, its not a hot seller.

WXman: guess what? have you ever heard of an engine called the Hemi? that is also an OHV! so it is not just GM that makes them, but there are others out there, do your homework.

Very true Rick! We need more diesels! Ram 1500 crew with 3.0 V6 diesel, 8 speed auto, and 6.5' bed would be a big seller.

Did you know chevy made a hemi.I diden't either until I saw one at barrett jackson.They made one to combat chryslers nascar hemi.

Yes lou I did own a tundra and the ride was horrific in the back seats.The quality just wasn't there like in the fords i've owned.You may not agree but that my take on the tundra I owned.They have a long way to go to get to ford truck quality.

I'm a bit surprised Toyota hasn't made a bigger marketing effort out of adopting SAE standards. The only way the domestics are going to adopt these standards is if they believe it will result in positive marketing. Toyota pushing the value of the standards would help create an enviornment where the general public demands all manufacturers adopt the standards.

So why doesn't the government just mandate the use of J2807? They mandate nearly everything else. Why not this?

@WXman: and guess what, that GM 5.3 didn't get any better mileage then a hemi in the pickup 30K shootout, it got a little less mileage.

Yeah, a lighter truck (less weight cause it didn't have a post between the doors, and maybe less steel in the front frame, considering head on crash data, and an aluminum engine.

Less gear. The Ram had 3.55 gears, the Chevy had 3.42s.

And I would say the GM 6 speed has better spaced ratios then the Ram 6 speed in that shootout, which should only help.

Of course, a smaller engine with a lot less torque and hp available.

But it got less mileage.

Makes you wonder if Ram had went with a gear like a 3.21, similar to Chevys 3.08, and then 3.55s, and not had the 3.92 gears (in the 4x4s), would they have had the better mileage ratings, just for the heck of it?

Glad they didn't do that. GM goes to gearing their stuff down to make mileage, that is their mileage solution, we will just slow the engine down! I remember driving my 2006 Chevy 5.3 310 hp 4x4 ext cab in the hills and thinking "this thing can't get near the rated mileage in any hilly area, it always has to downshift."

Now I have a hemi in a heavier truck that gets better mileage (in the hills), and that's not with little mileage friendly tires my Chevy had, nope, I have more plies on my AT tires. And the ride is much better. And I have more torque and a lower axle ratio (3.92)

Can't wait to see what the new Chevy does, cause my expectations are low!

@paul - my apologies. There is so much bashing going on that when one has a legitimate complaint, it gets lost in the sea of BS.

@wxman - pushrods have little to do with mpg ratings. The design of the entire vehicle has an effect. When I looked at new trucks the chin of the Chevy was a few inches lower than the Ford and slightly lower than the Ram. That alone can account for 0.5 mpg better economy. Both Ram and GMC run cylinder deactivation. IIRC, it is easier and cheeper to do with a pushrod engine.
Companies deliberately tune trucks for better mpg during EPA testing.

Kudos to Toyota for adopting the standards even though it slightly hurt the tow rating on some of their configurations. I'm all for self-imposed standards that better-inform consumers and allow them to make educated decisions, but I'm afraid it might take the government stepping in to get the big 3 to play ball. That's not good for anyone. I hope they fall into line sooner or later before some towing accident occurs and some politician uses it to shove J2807 down everyoine's throat for political gain

Just read an article on ALLPAR about the reason for not using the new standards.
GM, Ford & Ram had agreed to use the new standard on the 2013 models.
Ford decided (last minute) to wait until 2015.
GM & RAM followed Ford's move.
Does Ford have something to hide? Who knows.
Is there new MPG standards for 2015? Maybe thats why Ford put it off until then.
That way when there ratings get lowered, the can blame it on the 2015 regulations.
I'm sure there is a reason for it.

@ Alex..

you wrote

"it is a well-known fact that OHV engines are better than DOHC for low-end torque, something trucks need."

What truck has the lowest V8 torque peak on the market??

hint : tundra at 3600 rpm

@ alex

i will give you credit that a typical "fixed" valve setup DOHC would not produce as much low end torque as an OHV. that is were the validity of your comment ends. The current DOHC engines that Toyota builds for the Tundra have Dual VVT-i. the intake cam can advance/retard its timing 30 degrees either way and the exhaust cam can advance/retard 15 degrees and they do this SEPERATE of each other. I'll give an example everyone can relate to........ Remember back in the day when someone would say that engine is made to tow or that engine is made for a race car? that describes the typical format for which camshaft a person would use for that particular application. Now, fast forward to today and BOTH of those design ideas are achieved with a DOHC with Dual VVT-i. and another thing, having Dual VVT-i ELIMINATES the need for an EGR valve all together! Toyota actually CHOSE to use a liquid cooled Egr on the 4.6 to help achieve even BETTER fuel economy. if you actually knew anyone using a 4.6 i-force you would hear them say the fuel economy is great in them!

HERES AN IDEA MARK WILLIAMS!!!!!!! you should have a SHOOTOUT with everyones intermediate engines! I'll bet the i-force 4.6 would outrun the chev 5.3 in a towing test...........

Alex, heres the stats on torque for these engines

1. GM 6.2 417lb ft. at 4300 rpm
2. gm 5.3 335lb ft. at 4000rpm

3. Toyota 5.7 iforce 401lb ft. at 3600 RPM
4. Toyoat 4.6 iforce 327lb. ft. at 3400 RPM

Someone mentioned does ford have something to hide.....LOL LOL

What do you all think about the FACT that Ford is USING J2807 for the Exploder and Escape But NOT for the F-series?????????

DO I REALLY HAVE TO SAY MORE???????? EVEN MIKE LEVINE ELUDED TO IT that they use J2807 on the explorer and escape BUT THEN he said its not mandatory so they dont on the trucks!!!!!!! LOL LOL BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let me go out to the garage...

Hmm, I see:

-- a 6.0L OHV V8 that makes 385 ft/lbs at 4000 rpms.

--a 5.7L OHC V8 that makes 401 ft/lbs at 3600 rpms.

I better call GM and let them know I must have some defective pushrods! How come it makes less torque than the smaller DOHC V8?

I also wonder why the ubiquitous new whizbang V6 in the Chrysler lineup, the Pentastar, is a DOHC? Don't their engineers know it is a proven fact that OHV engines make more torque and get better MPG?

Check that: the 6.0L OHV V8 that makes 385 ft/lbs at 4400 rpms, not 4000--even higher in the rev range.

@Hemi lol and Tundra 5.7, obviously there are other factors that contribute and I was well aware of the specs you mentioned. Factors include tuning, cam profile, and bore/stroke ratio. The Tundra has a more undersquare design than the Ram, so it is better in that regard for low-end torque than the Hemi's more oversquare design. My bro-in-law has a Tundra, I have driven it, it really doesn't feel that torquey down low. If all else is equal, 2v OHV is better for low end torque, economy, and smaller package, DOHC is better for revving power. Anyway, both engines are irrelevant to me so I don't really care, I wouldn't buy another V8 gasser in a pickup. I'm not really going to think any V8 gasser is awesome compared to a diesel.

Dav, ever heard of the term "when all else is equal" let me know what you think that phrase means. I can see how you inducted your conclusion from that specific example. The Chevy is underpowered - GM has done nothing with it for a decade and it has a shorter stroke than the Tundra. Look, you're just gonna have to try to use some critical thinking here. I just look at facts, I am not trying to praise one car over another. I'm not emotionally invested in a car company, I was simply trying to point you to some basic mechanical facts. If you want to believe that DOHC is better in every single way and has no drawbacks, go for it.

everyone here is talking a peak tq, from what I have seen though, at the dyno I have been to, is the pushrod engines do make less, or the same peak tq as the dohc engines, BUT when you look at the whole curve of power from the lowest to the peak, the pushrod engnes make more at lower rpm than the dohc engines, as the 5.3 makes 210lbft at 1500 and the 4.6 make the same but at 2000rpm, it has been the same in all the engines that have been tuned at the dyno I know localy, the pushrod engines do come on down lower in the rpm range than the ohc, it is just the nature of the beast,and the only engine that has given them a different type of curve is the Ford 5.4 ohc/3valve, it is a real chuger!

Alex: "why did GM develop the new 4.3 instead of using their 3.6 " ???? what are you talking about? the 4.3 engine predates the 3.6 engine by at least 25yrs!!!! and has been used in every GM truck and van for many many yrs!! the only thing "new" about it now, is DI and a better electoronic controls, and VVT! and DOD, but the engine itself goes all the way back to being 3/4 of a 350!, and I think the 1st use was in the 1st gen S-10, and Astro van.

Sandman, I'm talking about the new Gen V version. I guess the aluminum block isn't new then? Obviously GM could have used the DOHC V6 if they wanted. But they didn't.

@ sandman4x4

What 4.6 are you speaking of? Not the Toyota FOR SURE. Now i COMPLETELY understand driveline loss for Dyno at the wheels but at the crank the 4.6 i-force makes 250lb. ft. at 1000 RPM, at 1800 RPM its at 280lb ft. and is a steady climb from 280 to 320lb ft. between 2k-3400 RPM at its peak.

The vortec 5.3 makes about equal torque off the rip but then lags behind the 4.6 by 30lb. ft. up to about 3600 rpm before it get even with it at about 320lb ft. IMO the 4.6 is gonna be a better towing engine than the 5.3

I am NOT talking at the crank! but I was standing right there when the answer came up on the comp. screen! and seen it with my own two eyes, stop all the spin you are sounding like a algor fan! ans then we have the new 5.3 comming soon and we shall see! When there are hot rods and builders lining up to put any toyota engine in their creations, then you can talk, but untill then the Chevy small block is the standard by which all others a judged, for weight, tq hp and performance, the standard fact engins, is held back so far from the feds, do some homework and see just what any LS engine is cappable of, when set loose.

Interesting debate concerning pushrod versus OHC engines. Does the choice of mechanism for valve actuation have any bearing on torque? It has more to do with the overall engine design. Valves do play a role in that design.
THE SBC has been the king of hot-rodders for decades but it has more to do with ease of modification, cost of modification, and availability.
A DOHC engine should in theory be better for racing applications since there is less mass in the valve drivetrain that has to change direction. Having to make a pushrod, valve rockers, cam etc survive all of those changes in direction at higher RPM is prohibitive. Designing a motor with all of its torque down low is a by-product of not having an engine that can live at high RPM for extended periods of time. There is a reason why you don't see pushrods in a formula 1 car.
I think that there is more versatility in a DOHC design since VVT is easier to execute with twin overhead cam designs. Read up on the complexities of Chevy's cam in cam technology and it seems to be overly complex when compared to DOHC.
Harley still sticks with pushrods but in some respects that has to do with the height of an already tall engine. Those V-Twins don't rev all that high either. Their V-Rod engine is OHC and it is the perfromance engine in their lineup. Japanese bikes for the most part have been OHV. They also tend to be considerably more reliable than big V-twins. One could argue that they don't have any torque but that is more related to inline 4 architecture. That is like short stroke versus long stroke motors. 5.4 versus 5.3 immediately comes to mind.

@Lou, very true, there are many variables that contribute to torque characteristics.

Lou: just a samll correction, the V-Rod has DOHC, and most Japanese bikes are now ohc-dohc not just OHV!

The comments to this entry are closed.