Ram Releases Tow Ratings for 2014 Ram 1500 Gas and Diesel V-6

21 Red Ram II

By Aaron Bragman

Ram has fired the latest shot in the ongoing trailer tow ratings wars, releasing the latest specs for its new 2014 Pentastar and EcoDiesel V-6 pickup trucks.

The 2014 Ram 1500 equipped with the Pentastar 3.6-liter V-6 will now receive a maximum tow rating of 7,450 pounds, thanks in large part to the addition of a stronger parking gear in the standard TorqueFlite eight-speed transmission. Ram claims the Pentastar-equipped 1500 pickup is now best in class for towing capacity. By comparison, the 2014 Chevy Silverado 4.3-liter V-6 can tow 7,200 pounds, and the Ford F-150 3.7-liter V-6 can pull 6,950 pounds.

If you're interested in V-8 grunt with better-than-V-6 fuel economy, you'll want the EcoDiesel 3.0-liter V-6 which, when dropped into the 4x2 long-bed Ram 1500, will be rated to tow 9,200 pounds. Ram says that this approaches the V-8 capabilities of competitor pickups, but will deliver much better than 25 mpg on the highway, beating the current fuel economy champ — Ram's own Pentastar V-6/eight-speed combination.

Of course, tow ratings being what they are with none of half-ton makers fully adhering to the Society of Automotive Engineers' J2807 towing standards (Toyota being the only exception), expect Ford and GM to come up with magic improvements to bolster their own numbers in the coming months as the game of one-upmanship continues.



As HemiLOL pointed out, at least Ram is being "realistic" with its ratings. Since Ram is going to put springs on the 2500"s I suspect that those trucks will have slightly lower ratings than the previous 2500's but will take up the slack from the 1500's lower rated capacities. The 3500's will be left to do the heavy lifting.
If Ram puts coils on the Power Wagon, and the Ecodiesel under the hood with the 8 speed in between, I'd have to side with zviera with picking a great retirement truck for hunting, fishing and backcountry play.

Wow phillyguy you sure had a logical rebuttle...... I've seen your other comments you're just a Ram fanboy, the definition of partisan trolling. I don't have any bias, i'm just stating facts, and that is that Ram throws ratings out of it's ass. I would do the same if another manufacturer was do to that.

Read my comment, Ram is not the least bit realistic wth their tow ratings. Just because they lower the ratings for coil for the HD doesn't mean they are using realistic rating. Ford lowered it's capacity for the V6 F-150, and the F-350 with another leaf spring over the 250 has significantly higher payload capacity. All truck manufacturers lower and raise towing, and hauling depending on suspension, frame powertrain etc. When Ford raised the towing capacity of the GCWR of it's F-Series for 2008, they upgraded the leaf springs, used thicker gauge steel for their frame, upgraded to a dual path air intake, and upgraded the transmission cooling. Ram actually increased the tow rating to their COIL Ram from 9100 to well over 10,000 pounds - higher than other makes leaf spring capacity with no modifications at all to the truck... Yeah really realistic.

The Ram HD rating are the sheer opposite of realistic. The Ram 3500 has the same frame strength and number of crossmembers as the F-450, and it has a less capable transmission. And with lower gearing in the transmission for the Ford, the torque to the wheels is about the same in botg trucks Yet Ram pulls out a huge number like 30,000. And now of course they raise the towing of the V6 to be best in class, and the Ram 1500 uses coil.
All automakers do this towing hyperinflation but currently Ram is to a whole nother level. If Ford or GM or Toyota did this, I would be on here saying the same thing.

@ RalphM, How come Ram is at the top of the hill in the latest test with the same trailer weight as Ford, G.M. and Toyota?
How come people that test the Ram compared to Ford say the Ram tows better? More confident. Isn't the ford and Chevy's tow rating higher? :O

If Ram increases the tow limits on it's coil sprung rams by a 1 000lbs the load is coming from the rear of the chassis and not distributed from both sides of the spring.

This does complicate things when looking at stresses.

Considering most wouldn't tow these kinds of weight frequently it shouldn't matter to much. Most pickups run around empty.


All you do on here is insult anyone who questions or doesn't like Ram. You're the absolute last person who should be talking about bias. You are the biggest polluter of this website. Go blow yourself up with poop.


It was said in the Chrysler press release of the 2500s that the payload and towing numbers actually slightly increased because the link/coil setup is lighter then the leaf springs it replaces.

@ RalphM

My comment to you was complete, you posted a piece of partisan nonsense and I called you out on it.

You wrote "Ram changes it's trucks towing capacities like a girl changes clothes. They're just pulling high numbers out of their ass and comming up with some lame reason for it, and sometimes no reason at all."

Then went on to justify how Ford was so much better about tow ratings. Not only did you leave out the the "magical" increase in 3.7L V6 F150 tow rating by 600 lbs that occurred in 2013, you outright lied and said that Ford "lowered" their V6 tow rating? Go check their website genius, still says 6400 lbs with a GCWR of 11700 lbs. We could go on and discuss the edmunds tow comparison in which a V6 Ram outdid the higher GCWR F150, or discuss the PUTC trailer results. No matter which way you cut it Ford's numbers are *at least* as fallacious as everyone else's.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. I stand by my original statement Ford *absolutely* makes up their tow ratings at least as much as Ram does.

And in conclusion, an obvious partisan poster such as yourself shouldn't accuse others of being fanboys, particularly when it is obviously not true. It makes it that much easier for everyone else to pick you out for the idiot troll that you are.

Lol you are funny, that has nothing to do with what I said.

But on that topic wasn't it the F-150 that won the shootout :) They were actually a little easy on the Ram regarding acceleration. Virtually every other road test the Tundra is the quickest to 60. Car and driver tested the '13 Ram to 60 at 6.9, and the Tundra 6.3 seconds. And I haven't seen a lot of reviews say that the Ram is more capable.

Aand actually Ram now has the highest listed towing capacity so.......

What I was saying is that the towing numbers game is bullshit, and Ram pulling numbers out of their ass. Ram just upgraded it's frame strength to the F-450 and yet for some reason it can tow more. The Silverado V6 and F150 V6 can tow just as much as the Ram structurally, and also engine wise, because the GM and Ford V6's have more torque. But at least when Ford upgraded the Super Duty's towing they upgraded the frame strength and size, and suspension beyond the compeditors not simply on par. The towing standard should be regulated for both Half-ton and HD so that manufacturers can put their money where their mouth is.

By the way, you guys think that everyone is against Ram for some damn reason, and yet most of the comments on here are people talking about how Ram is so much better bla bla bla. PUTC usually spends more time covering Ram than any other truck manufacturer. Ram isn't the underdog, now that their with Fiat, and Fiat handling all of their foreign product lines; Chrysler actually has more time and money to spend in North America than Ford Motor Company as was in the Detroit Free Press newspaper a couple of weeks ago

@RalphM, At the State Fair of Texas, Ford has just announced — without so much as changing a bolt on the current regular cab 2013 F-150 4x2 with the 3.7-liter V-6 — that the previous tow rating of 6,100 pounds is now 6,700 pounds, 200 pounds more than the brand-new Ram 1500. (Remember our "magical spring dust" story some years back?)

Ford, without so much as changing a bolt. lol

Ralphy, you are drunk on ford's kool aid! or should I say high on ford's magic spring dust. Stay thirsty my friend.

Jason I am not sure who you are or why you are here, but go ahead and crawl back underneath wherever you came from.

RalphM, you will never hear me claim that everyone here is against Ram, there are more pro Ram trolls here than anti Ram trolls, I suspect that the pro-Ram trolls have brought out the anti-Ram trolls. I detest all of them.

I am well aware of the B.S. involved in towing rankings, but no manufacturer (Big3) is better than any other. I am very disappointed in Ram for not adhering to J2807 for the new 1500 ecodiesel. It would have been an excellent opportunity to put that into action.

@Phillyguy - I suspect that there are Ram truck owners that feel "picked on" because of an identity crisis.
- They went from Dodge trucks to Dodge Ram to just Ram.
- They went through 2 bailouts.
- They went from being American owned to German owned to Italian owned.
- and last but not least, once Fiat buys out VEBA and once the merger he (Marchionne) plans for Fiat and Chrysler goes through, Sergio Marchionne says that Fiat-Chrysler could be registered as a corporation in the Netherlands, not Italy or the United States.

Talk about confusion.

The only way to test how good a vehicle is at towing is to have a long term test.

A lot of the towing figures doesn't mean a vehicle is better or safer at towing. It just means the manufacturer will cover any damages caused by towing the maximum recommended weights.

@Everyone else,
There is so much bickering about horsepower, torque, towing, etc on this site. Most of the bickering is based on misbeliefs, opinions and outright distortion of information to try and support ones view on what is the better product.

Each and all manufacturers make competitive vehicles. So on average the difference between them can be how someone on the production line is feeling on a particular day and how much attention they are giving.

Like I stated about how the Ranger/BT50 increased their tow limits by 350lbs, there is some engineering, but just enough to take on the competition. Oh, zveria, I did meet up with the engineer and I do understand engineering.

How this meeting came about was I pushed Mazda to send him out because I had already went to the Mazda dealer in Darwin for some warranty work and the work was unsatisfactory. So I made a huge fuss over driving 3 times to the dealer which equates to 2 200km of driving for no results. The Mazda 'call centre guy' asked what I did for a living as well, I explained my issue with the vehicle and Mazda came to the same conclusion I did. I'm grateful Mazda did do this.

The cracking Navara chassis is caused by aftermarket airbag fitment by Grey Nomads, who in many instances don't have much of a clue other than what they read on the internet on how to tow heavy loads.

Also, most of the weener banging and trolling is done by guys who probably haven't got a pot to piss in let alone a pickup. All they know is what they read on their favourite fanboi sites, which probably is misleading.

Rather than this bull$hit debating why don't you guys provide accurate information that is useful to others. You aren't saleman, so quit the crap.

Well, diesels is where it's at if the MPG figures are at or near 30 and the tow ratings of 8500 plus.
This is just the beginnings of the diesel engine creeping in to the main stream.
The city boys are going to find out what us boys in the country has always known...........torque and MPG's.

@Southern IL man
I read on another site where the journalist got hold of a diesel FWD Fiat Ducato van and had a GVM of 10 thousand pounds and returned a bit over 26mpg. That was going at highway speeds and in the hills.

I think a lot of the banter on this site is done by the show boys who want a pickup to look cool in not for work.

There would be quite a few RVers, businesses, farmers, etc who would be interested in a diesel pickup. They mightn't be the quickest vehicles around like a V8 but they will do the job, especially loaded, that's when they shine.

Even for daily driving and commuting they will outperform a gas engine.


This eco-diesel sounds like a winner. It was gutsy for RAM to be the first out with a half-ton diesel. It is gutsy for GM to spend the resources they are to field a mid-size truck. Ford may regret holding back on both.

Questions: I recall years ago being told by a mechanic that a diesel is not good for short trip applications-something about they need to get up to operating temperature and stay there. Anyone know if that is still true? Or did technology advances i the last 20 years do away with that issue?

@RalphDM: the Ford has better cooling then the Ram 8 speed? Say what you want, Edmunds towed with both, and guess what Ralph? The Ford (a brand new one in the SPRINGTIME) OVERHEATED when they made a second run at GCWR. So you're wrong there. I haven't seen the cogs you talk of in the Ford and Ram trans, but if you came up with that theory about the Ford cooling better, well, you are already half wrong in what you said. I wouldn't expect much out of you.

@FRANK: you really don't get it, Ram was not just talking about single cab trucks there, but thats all you thought they said, maybe it's all your limited vision can see? As for single cab long beds, there are a good deal to be had if your ass looked around some.

Since "none of half-ton makers fully adhering to the Society of Automotive Engineers' J2807 towing standards" except Toyota. I was just wondering if they could start this article with once upon a time...like all the other fairy tales.

Hey BAFO: Mazda ever fix their poor springs? You call blow smoke all you want. Most of us get it that if you have a heavier cab, or 4x4 or more options, or all of the above, it affects the capabilities. Except for you and your Mazda buddy. Oh well, the ratings "over there" are unrealistic to here.

@ TRX 4 Tom
Yes, they fix them, I had mine measured and there was a 10mm difference between them. Which in the scheme of things isn't that great. You'd get that on a larger number of vehicles.

We did discuss the springing issue, there was a batch of incorrectly tempered springs that went out on the Rangers and BT50s. The biggest issue was when the vehicles were loaded and the sagging occured.

I think they weren't tempered correctly. All springs sag, but when there is a difference in setting the springs there isn't much the owner can do other than get the springs reset.

I do think you would have the exact issue in the US with the setting of springs.

What's happening is they are trying to make 'car' like comfort with truck springs. If we have light loads on the springs of 2 000lbs or less it would be easier to manufacturer the springs.

I do agree the spring sagging shouldn't have occurred, but it did.

I'm also not going to bet embroiled in your fanboi style of tit for tat bull$hit. Nice try, though Thomas.

@ Mike G.
If you drive to work and the run is less than 15 minutes I would buy a gas engine at the moment.

Cummins is currently developing a light diesel that is supposed to heat up quicker. Diesels are where gas engines were in the late 80s and early 90s.

I do know my diesel is down slightly on power also for the first 5 minutes. But I don't worry too much as I don't rev it out above a couple grand or so until the engine has warmed up. I also drove a gas engine that way.

@Mike G
That issue has been taken care of. I'm amazed how quick my tractor at work gets to operating range. It a Freightliner with a Detroit Diesel in it and it gets up to temperature in just 5 mins of idling. My 2000 F-250 gets up to operating temps in just a mile of driving. I'm sure they advanced that since my truck is 14 yrs old. (purchased 09/1999)

As far the "how long it takes to break even for the extra cost of the diesel", maybe you might want to see how the towing mileage goes?

You also gotta consider that if it is alot more enjoyable because it makes all its torque at only 2000 rpm, it's gonna downshift less, and should be smoother. I sure don't imagine them using the exact gear ratios as the hemi has, more like 2.94s and 3.21s...maybe 3.55s.

But if you want to believe a Gm 5.3 or Ford Egoboost will tow better or with more confidance, well believe what you want, lol!

Oh, MSN AUTOS tested the v-6 GM with a light trailer they said it pretty much sucked, oops, I meant it bucked...and barely got moving!

I acknowledge that Ram has never stated that their trucks meet SAE J2807, however who's to say that the trucks weren't designed to this level from the get-go? It could be that they HAVE designed the current tow ratings to SAE J2807, knowing that everyone would assume the ratings would come down when they "comply" with SAE J2807. How shocked would Ford and GM be if the 30,000 lbs tow rating for the Heavy Duty was in compliance the whole time?

If you look at Ram's website for the heavy duty trucks, they have videos (Hot Test) that show them doing performance testing on the Heavy Duties on the very Davis Dam run that is included in SAE J2807. Ram didn't just up the tow ratings for the Heavy Duties without making significant changes. They added a second radiator, second transmission cooler, and Ram Active Air intake to keep the engine temperatures in check. The Fast Lane Truck tested the 0-60 MPH times for a 2013 Ram 3500 towing a 17,000 lb trailer in Colorado. Granted this was roughly HALF the tow rating, but the aceeleration at 5,000 FT elevation was 27.94 sec, well below the 40 sec allowed for DRW trucks with GVWR over 13,000 lbs per SAE J2807. Factor out the 5,000 FT elevation and add another 11,000 lbs, the Ram 3500 might just reach 0-60 MPH with a 28,000 lb trailer in less than 40 seconds. We'll never know until some publication tests it.

Perhaps that is something for the magazines to test...

To that end, the next time PickupTrucks.com does the Hurt Locker Comparison, they should replicate the requirements of the SAE J2807 standards as a testing point. Load a flatbed trailer up to each truck's rated TWR and perform the tests per SAE J2807. While the manufacturers might not be willing to fully back SAE J2807 (a standard they had a hand in developing), the media can hold their collective feet to the fire by tested the trucks and reporting if the trucks pass or fail against the standard. If a truck fails the SAE J2807 test, we'll at least know that the Marketing Department has more pull than the Engineering Department, and the consumers can take this into consideration when it's time to shell out $50,000+ for a new truck...

@ DieselDoug - great last comment. Truck magazines should test to SAE J2807. If a company says they can tow XXX load, then it should be tested at that load.
I think that they should also test to a standard max trailer weight among test units for comparison sake.

I do find one sore point when it comes to testing. Most testing of late, especially with HD's is focused on towing. Sure guys buy these trucks to tow, but most of the work trucks I see are HD's with the box filled with fuel tanks, tools, parts and supplies for heavy equipment.
They should also test with a max load and test on gravel roads and even some job sites or simulated job sites.

Wow, BAFO, I didn't know I was writing with fanoi style tit for tat, I talking about people your way way over rating stuff. But go ahead and play your fanboi card, Allen.

Lol, one day they will load one of your tiny trucks to GVWR as well as some trucks from here in the states, you can pick the brand, Alley. Then we will see how over rated your crap is.

It's a shame that people have to be such a**hats to each other around here.
Instead of getting wrapped around the axle about max tow ratings, let's look at what really happens: Over 90% of 1/2-ton truck owners use the vehicle as a daily driver, with limited (couple times per year) to occasional (2-4 times per month) towing in the 500-6,000 pound range (yard/utility trailers, boats, and up to 20-something foot camper or cargo trailers. That's well within range of ALL the 1/2-ton trucks; so, if I can do it on a truck rated around 9,000 lbs vs one rated around 7,500, simple math says I'm not pushing the truck to near it's maximum capacity so it won't wear out as quickly. Also, if I can to those weights with MPG in the mid/high teens or higher (diesel) vs. low teens or single digits, (V-6/V-8 gas), I'll take the diesel. Personally, I only need a 2.5 MPG improvement over my current truck to make the $0.40 (average in my area) increase in diesel fuel break even.
As for recouping the extra costs of the diesel - hogwash. How many of you analyzed the increased cost of your navigation system and decided how many miles you'd have to drive before it was more cost-feasible than a $200 tom-tom GPS, OR found similar numbers to justify the Hemi over the V6?

Guys ! I just pulled my 22 ft In closed trailer with my 1800 GW trike and a 4seater side by side both weigh in at 2800 lbs, the trailer weighs in at 3900 lbs , total of of 5700 plus the box of the truck was full and some other stuff in the trailer, making the weight around 6200 lbs, my 2014 ecodiesel was just super! I pulled the trailer from Nanaimo bc to Yuma az. Not a problem , oh yes and I averaged 16 to 17 mi./ gal doing around 110 to 120 km/hr. And that's a fact jack!!!

I would just like to tell you all what the ecodiesel can pull with no prob. I have a new 25 ft toy hauler with a 1800 gold wing trike , with a little water and all our camping stuff it is about 8200 lbs . My Eco diesel 1/2 ton pulls it with NO prob.and I get good fuel mi, and when I'm not pulling I get really good mi, unlike the Eco boost!!

And yes I do get 38 mi/ gal hwy, NOT 32 or 30 , BUT 38 , you have to own one to know what your talking about!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.