2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Wins Two More

FW PTOTY Winner 1 II

The awards for the newly redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 are still coming in, and it seems both fleet owners and off-road enthusiasts like what Chevy has done to the pickup.

The folks at Bobit Publishing surveyed fleet managers from around the country to determine the winner of the 2013 Fleet Truck of the Year award and found that, among the 36 different trucks evaluated, the 2014 Silverado 1500 got the most votes because of its long list of upgrades, standard features and efficient powertrains.

Likewise, the experts at Four Wheeler magazine found the new Silverado 1500 to be the best in its test, awarding it the 2014 Pickup Truck of the Year honor. The Silverado 1500 competed against the new Ram 2500 and Toyota Tundra.

To read the Fleet Truck of the Year press release, click here.

To read the Four Wheeler Pickup Truck of the Year, click here.

FW PTOTY Winner 2 II



All1 Dude your full of it if you're going to bash the 5.3L then you should be bash on Fords 5.0L cause it has very close numbers to the 5.3L but yet we don't hear a word from you on that.


Even in the videos you post, they tell you that Nissan gears their transmission differently then everyone else, so they can get away useing a more highway friendly looking rear diff ratio. Toyota does the same thing think got 4.30 rear but if I recall right it comes out closer to a 4.10


Just tell the truth dude, you're just here to bash the 5.3L cause its plane as day.

All1 When you start posting test with apples to apples trucks, well then people might start to believe you. Till then keep posting apples to oranges tests and people will keep calling you out.

My bad is then video that tells you bout Nissan trans gearing at 5.44 mins in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xIbVuIuslY

johnny doe When you start posting test with apples to apples trucks, well then people might start to believe you. Till then keep posting apples to oranges tests and people will keep calling you out.

@Sandman four by four: Well maybe you should have looked at the one for 2014 vehicles, with the 6.4, because that's what the Chivy was against?

I guess you chose not to? Why not? It's their biggest gas engine, how much of an even comparison you want?

Yup, the Ram 2500 Tradesman 6.4 holds as much payload as a 4x4 single CAB Shivy (no CANs here!) and then some. Even the crew cab 4x4 has more payload 3170 in the story here, for the Ram crew 6'4" box to Chivy 3066. The only Chivy 2500 gasser with better payload then the 6.4 is the 4x4 crew cab long bed. Who would buy that? 3305 to the Ram same configuration 6.4 4x4, @ 3071.

Keep in mind these are just numbers. Will they all handle it good and stop good? I know which one is newest, and has had more updates, and will continue to be more updated even after the 2015 Chevy cosmetic ugly update to look like a 1500.


@Tom I only posted one test which it wasn't apples to apples but a lot closer to being apples to apples then the tests All1 loves to show, and it was this sites 2013 light duty shoot out.

"Sounds like TRX-4 Tom is mad Ram lost"

johnny doh!

"The reality is there isn't much difference in the trucks overall.

They are built to do the same thing as each other."


The hell you say! There isn't much difference? One has a 3170 pound payload, rides on much taller tires that can hold a lot more and go where the Chivy has 1957 lbs payload has little low pro non off-road tires, the Tundra has a 1440 pound payload, and decent tires at least. Both trucks have a good deal smaller bed, almost 10" less for the Tundra, and 7" less for the narrow Chevy. The Tundra can tow 9600 or so, a real rating, the Chevy they say can 9300. Put 8,500 behind both and I bet you will feel more comfortable towing 12,000 with the 2500 Ram.

Oh shoot, I just realized one person I am talking to, Big Al, never hauls, so he couldn't care.

Really Johnny, they go off bitching about Ram step in height, but at the same time, they mess up the air dam (front valance, as they called it) of the Chevy, while playing. They say it sits too low, but aftermarket kits can fix it, meanwhile they are too lazy to let a bit of air out of tires? They couldn't feed some feed bags or something to put in all trucks to test with weight? I am pretty sure the person who buys a 2500 might have stuff to put in it!

That's why I say, they could've tested SUVs considering all they did. No points for payload or trailer tow?

I wonder how the Chevy might have done on their gas mileage had they drove it after they screwed up the air dam? And the quarter mile testing, how will the Chevy with broken air dam do, and how will it do for both after they raise it, to have an approach and like the Ram and Tundra?

I also question their lack of being able to test a 4.1 geared Ram truck (that's what most their readers would want.) Most into that wouldn't get a 3.73 geared truck. Likewise actually for Chevy, they wouldn't get a 3.73? Might as well test a 4.1 Tundra for that matter.

But this is the same group that last year couldn't find an 8 speed Ram 1500 to test, much less a 3.92 geared one instead of the 3.55 geared 6 speed they tested. Really? Can't find one in Cali? For the sake of their testing, a v-6 3.55 8 speed would have ran just as well, been cheaper, would have had less nose weight and more payload, and since no points are there for trailer tow, why not? But hey, the air suspension still won.

Oh, BTW johnny, I see higher payload numbers on the Silvy's payload then in the LD Shootout, I wonder, since they gained so much stopping distance with just a thousand pounds, this one at 1,947 pounds, how will it stop? Silvys stop good EMPTY, how about loaded?

Oh, look at the autcross, johnny, the Ram smoked the GMs, they were the big time gainers when the wait was added.

Silverados...uch as 1500s, are just pavement trucks for play. I actually have a 1989 4x2 short bed. Lowered with 295 50 15s. A play toy, because that's what Chevys are. I wont work it to hard, but I will make it do a better job of working then the lame brain who lowered it and screwed it up.

Oops, I meant weight was added! I mean, the GM 1500s, start adding weight and they gain the most distance stopping, and auto crossing, as if it wasn't already bad enough!

Yup TRX-4 Tom is mad. He has gone knowingly to compare half ton GM trucks to a 2500 Ram LOL 5 pages later he talks bout the auto cross, the only thing Ram didn't get its but kicked at use tech from GM 40 years ago. Tuff times to be a Ram fan I guess LOL!

@ johnny doe

Thank you so much for bringing up the Ford 5.0L because it just proves my point even more, but I will get to that in a sec after I correct some of your other misinformation. The Toyota Tundra with a 5.7L comes standard with a 4.30 rear ratio as of 2014. In previous models the non-towing package was 4.10 gears and the max towing package had 4.30 rear ratios. As I said before, the whole "3.36 is a 4.10 based on transmission gearing " is a marketing thing and just puts you at certain rpm. No matter how you want to spin it, that pinion turns 3.36 times for every 1 turn of the ring just as the Chevy's pinion turned 3.08 times per every 1 ring turn. You cannot have two ratios. If you don't believe me then look it up and research it yourself.

GM 6L80 6 speed
1st: 4.027 --- 2nd:2.36 --- 3rd:1.53 --- 4th:1.15 --- 5th:0.85 --- 6th:0.66
3.08 rear axle x transmission multiplier. Max 5.3L torque 383 lb-ft
1st: 12.39x --- 2nd:7.26x --- 3rd:4.71x --- 4th:3.54x --- 5th: 2.68x --- 6th: 2.03

Nissan's 5 speed
1st: 3.82 --- 2nd:2.36 --- 3rd:1.51 --- 4th:1.00 --- 5th: 0.83
3.36 rear axle x transmission multiplier. Max 4.0L torque 281 lb-ft
1st: 12.83x --- 2nd:7.92x --- 3rd:5.07x --- 4th:3.36x --- 5th: 2.78x

If you multiply the axle/transmission multiplier by the peak power out of each engine then you would see that even with the Frontier's slight gear advantage, the 5.3L is sending more torque through the drive line in every gear. So what is your next excuse?

Back to the 5.0 and 5.3L. Keep in mind that the 5.0L(360 hp/380lb-ft) is almost identical in power numbers as the 5.3L(355 hp/383 lb-ft) and the GM 6L80 is almost identical to the Ford 6R80 gear for gear. In a crew cab 4wd short bed configuration, Ford rates the 5.0 with a 3.55 axle ratio at 7,700 lbs while GM rates the same truck with their 3.42 axle at 9,600 lbs. With a 3.73 rear axle in both trucks, the 5.0L is rated for 9,300 lbs while the 5.3L with the same gear is rated for 11,200 lbs. Hmmm, whom should I believe. Looks like GM has sprinkled a lot of fairy tow dust on the 5.3L. As I said before, the 5.3L numbers are right in line with Ecoboost gear for gear so GM can say it compares to the Ecoboost, but gets better fuel mileage. It's all about looking good on paper, but as we all know that even though the 5.3L does get better fuel mileage, it is not nearly as capable.

Someone wanted to know any 1/2t that has more off road capability than the PW? well how about the Raptor? more hp tq ground clearance, and oh yea weighs about 1500lbs LESS! not to mention smaller in always except maybe width, nice try.

@TRX4 Tom
My comment is about the actual use of most pickups in the same context as the test was carried out.

You can dispute tow, acceleration, bed size, etc.

But, when looked at logically, most pickups spend a lot of time going no quicker than 75mph, empty, not towing.

So, where can you accelerate 0-60 in 6 seconds without getting a ticket for hooning?

If you aren't carrying a load in the back, does it matter how big the bed is?

If you rarely tow and if you do it's only 2 or 3 tons. Because anymore than that and you tow on a regular basis I would buy an HD. What does the tow figures mean?

I actually see more vans with trailers than pickups when in the States. Most pickups are kept pretty with no scratches in the bed, like my pickup, I baby it, or take good care of it.

The way some of you guys carry on it sort of silly regarding the manufacturers specifications. Yes a manufacturers will rate a vehicle to tow a certain amount by evaluating suspension, chassis, drivetrain, engine, etc. But how often is this capability used by most (not you TRX4 Tom).

That appears to be how this test was carried out. A sensible test on how the average pickup is used by the majority.

If you are buying a real truck for a real business and the truck has to move 5 ton (10 000lbs) of weight for a living 24/7 then you wouldn't even consider a pickup.

You would consider a diesel flat bed.

Lots argue on the capability of pickups and yet they probably will never see the capability.

Remember this article isn't about what TRX4 Tom does with a pickup, but the majority who go to Lowes and loads a few bags of fertiliser and think how well the truck carries a load.

Take the kids to school. Drive to the mall and have to park a 1/4 of mile from the entrance because parking can be a bitch.

Pickups are great, but most aren't used the way you use your truck. Most are SUVs.

allone capable of what? breaking the speed limits? as that is all the difference is, as the Chevy is perfectly capable of doing the job safely, and is known to have done so on the downhill portion also in the tests, maybe it was not as fast up the mountain, but it was able to maintain legal speeds, and on the way down, the grade braking feature in the tow/haul mode prevented the drivers from having to even use the brakes to maintain safe speed all the way down the mountain, while all the others had their brake temps rise to much higher levels.

Yes tommyboy a 3/4 t truck will always tow and haul more than a 1/2!!!!


More capable to atleast be within 5 mph of the speed limit when towing. More capable to have enough power to pass slow moving traffic (like a semi) on a 2 lane road. More capable at lower rpms so you don't have to listen to the engine rev past 5,000 rpm all the way up a mountain. Also, Ford has the same down hill assisted engine braking in tow/haul mode, but you have to tap the brakes twice at the speed you want the truck to stay at. I emailed Roman informing him of this feature. He said he didn't know about it and will use it on the next test.

@All1 - looks like you beat me to the punch.

@Johnnie Doe - i was going to post the exact ratio's as @All1.

I'll add a few things.

The Chevy has a V8, 11.1 compression ratio putting out 355hp@ 5,600 rpm with torque at 383 lb.ft. @4,100 rpm.

The 4.0 V6 Nissan has a 9.7:1 compression ratio with 261 hp@ 5,600 rpm with torque at 281 lb.ft. at 4,000 rpm.

Both engines have max hp at 5,600 rpm. The Chevy has 94hp more and torque wise 102 lb.ft. more.

The Chevy weighs 5,292 and the Nissan 4,557. The Chevy weighs 735 lb more.

Power to weight:
Chevy 1hp to 14.9 lb
Nissan 1hp to 17.5 lb

The Chevy had more power and torque, final gear ratio's aren't that much different and the Chevy had a superior power to weight ratio BUT
How ever you want to slice it, the 5.3 Chevy got out towed by a V6 Nissan.

you do know that is Colorado, and many other states the speed limit while towing is lower? in Call. it is 55mph, same in all the eastern states and in Colorado I believe it is 60 mph. Plus you are not aloud to use the high speed lanes when there are more than 2 in either direction.

Someone wanted to know any 1/2t that has more off road capability than the PW? well how about the Raptor? more hp tq ground clearance, and oh yea weighs about 1500lbs LESS! not to mention smaller in always except maybe width, nice try.

Posted by: sandman4X4 | Jan 10, 2014 3:31:15 PM

Power Wagon
Ground clearance 14.5
35 degree approach
27 degree departure

Ground clearance 11.3
29.8 degree approach
22.85 degree departure

Raptor has no front locker
no winch
no solid front axle
less articulation

The Power wagon will go places the Raptor can't
The Raptor is a Toy
Power Wagon is a tool
Power Wagon weighs 600lb more Not 1500.
Raptor has 1 more horsepower 9ft lbs more torque

@HEMI V8 - do you have any specs on that "underwhelming" 6.4?

Raptor and PowerWagon are different animals meant for different offroad use.

The old Power Wagon came in 3rd place in the PUTC shootout.

That would mean both the Raptor and the Tacoma Baja are more offroad capable than the PW.

Odd thing is that you want one for dunes and the PUTC test said it was the worst truck for the sand hill climb.

Okay lets do this to those of who say the 5.3L doesn't have the towing capability it said to have and compare it to the 5.0L well then I ask you why did the 5.4L have the same tow rating as the EB and 6.2L at over 11,000lbs?

All1 is making a big deal out of the Gauntlet test but it really doesn't prove much. First off for this test to have any validity when comparing the Silverado to the Frontier it needed to be conducted on the same day and as close to the same time as possible. From personal experience I know that trucks pull very different depending on the day and atmospheric conditions. Second thing as stated the Silverado was geared for MPG not towing. Third and conveniently not mentioned by All1 was the fact that they got stuck behind slow moving traffic before the run was completed. Anyone who honestly thinks a Frontier can pull with a 5.3 Silverado is in for a rude awakening.

@TRX4 Tom
I actually got some time to watch the Frontier/Silverado towing the boat.

I was surprised how the Frontier performed. One bonus the Chev had was it did sound nice.

In all honesty I really think a 3.2 diesel Ranger or BT50 could out tow that Chev. They out tow the Navara's we had with the 4 litre gasoline V6s.

@ AD

I agree with you. How Ford figured the 5.4L could tow that much is beyond me as well. I sent an email to Ford to explain how they figured that, and never got a response. Hopefully they leave that magic towing dust in the past. I understand why they don't like the J2807, but atleast it is a standard to keep truck makes from pulling numbers out their @$$ for marketing to ignorant buyers.

" Riding with close to 80 psi in the rear tires of this ¾-ton over rocky and rough desert backroads was unpleasant at times, to say the least. Watching the truck in the sand was downright depressing as axle hop was awful and jarring. This roughness ultimately led to low scores and hampered the performance of the otherwise very capable 2500."

I have already ready covered this! YOU NEED TO AIR DOWN IN SOFT SAND. This is why they have axle hop etc... When i am in the dunes i air down to 15psi min. It's like a different truck. No axle hop and plenty of traction.

What was the tire pressure in the ultimate 4x4 test? With the complaints being axle hop I can tell you. They never aired down. This is basic off road knowledge. ;)

I do understand your liking of Ram products. If it floats your boat, so be it.

My comment was a generalisation in relation to size vs off road ability. The Power Wagon would be a great off roader in situations that it suits.....but the Power Wagon is far from the best off roader around.

It's big, heavy and thirsty. Even as good as the Raptor is off road it only suits a more specific off road style. If the Raptor had a 3.2 diesel and had a better load capacity it would be good.

Here's a 4x4 that would keep on going after a Jeep has broken down, let alone your Power Wagon.


(HemiV8, I'm not even pro Toyota, credit must be given when deserved)


Here is a site (link) which covers much of the 4x4ing we do in Australia. We have endless miles of tracks, you can drive the equivalent from NYC to LA on tracks for most of the journey. That's only the tip of the iceberg.

We have a slightly different 4x4ing culture than you guys. We don't have as many restrictions and population limiting what we can do off roading.

I think it would be right up your alley. Save some money and come over to Australia and drive from Cape York to Perth. It would be holiday to remember.



4x4ing or off roading is a varied as motor vehicle racing. You have everything from drags to endurance racing for cars and off roading offers probably a wider range of styles.

I like long distance, leisurely travel, with challenges. Not to go flat out from point A to point B.

The Raptor and Power Wagons suspension s are made for two different types of off roading. Where one excels the other stumbles and visa versa. There are places where it is best to have Raptor and others a Power Wagon. As with most truck buyers, it depends on what you will use it for toto decide which is best for you. As for me, I am more of a slow speed getting through obstacles off roader that has to tow heavy at times while needing a big payload capacity so the Power Wagon is ideal for me. For someone who mainly does high speed desert off roading that doesn't need as much of a payload capacity then the Raptor is ideal. Just because one is better for you needs doesn't make the other crap for someone elses needs.

If some of you guys seriously think an IFS Raptor is better at rock crawling slow speed off roading than the straight axle Power Wagon then apparently you've never been. I, even as a Ford owner, knows the difference between the two and their strengths and weaknesses. Go get some experience under your belt before you speek as if it were the truth.

A correctly designed IFS for most off roading is superior to a live axled front end.

Live axled front ends are preferred because they are reliable, strong and the cheapest design to provide good wheel articulation.

As you stated, live axles is preferred rock crawling.

To change an IFS for rock crawling would be terribly expensive. Problems of the chassis rails sitting close to the wheel reduces control arm length, which limits articulation.

Look at the Raptors control arms. That's why the Raptor is good at high speed off roading (also dampers, etc play a role).

Cost is why live axles are used.

But, if your not rock crawling a well designed IFS with diff locks, traction aids will get you most any place you want, even up rock ledges.

IFS is safer, provides better control at even very modest speeds, more comfortable.

For most all 4x4ing without crawling up and down cliffs I would recommend a decent IFS.

@ big al

From my real world experiences ofbrock crawling with both, I could not disagree with you more when you say an IFS is better than a straight axle in that environment. I will just leave at that for now because I don't have thebtime right now to type out why I disagree on my phone.

Front IFS. Raptor. Listen for the half shaft to break.


Power Wagon. Solid front axle lockers front and rear 4.56 gears.


Lets see a Raptor do this.


@HEMI V8 - do you have any specs on that "underwhelming" 6.4?



"Many IFS differentials have aluminum housings. These tend to be weaker and less rigid compared to their cast-iron counterparts. A housing that flexes often allows the ring and pinion to become misaligned and possibly break while the flexing is going on. The other potential problem with an aluminum differential housing is fragility in the face of sharp rocks.

The second photo shows two other IFS problems. CV boots are prone to trail damage and wear from age and everyday driving. In this case, a factory Toyota sway bar end link failed at the ball joint. The loose end of the broken link swung down and mangled the CV boot. The other IFS problem in the photo is the dinky diameter of the factory tie rod.

Ball joints can also be a weak point for 4WD IFS vehicles. Fullsize IFS trucks tend to see more of a problem with this than their smaller counterparts, but ball joints can fail and allow knuckles/wheels/tires to leave the front corners of the truck."

hemiveeeight: I am sure the PW has 14.5" if ground clearance somewhere under there, but under the differentials? no way, as a mater of fact where the diff. is in the front of a PW, a Raptor has a lot more clearance there with the IFS, and in the rear? the PW will have less just because of the fact the PW has a much larger diff. and the tires are not any larger would mean the clearance under the rear axel would be even less then on the Raptor it is just facts that is all! and the other advantage with a Raptor is you can still get one without having to go with a Super Crew cab, and a short bed Ext Cab, and all that means is a better break over angle than you can get with a PW with such a longer wheel base. Lets just say both trucks are for different uses, one high speeds, the other lower speeds, I would love to own either of the two, but I need to have more than one vehicle and can not justify spending over 45K on just one truck, although I have been tempted lately, a local Ford dealer with 3 Tremors on his lot has offered me a great trade for my F-150 EB 4x4 reg cab that I have had so many problems with, he has offered me a new black Tremor loaded with everything, 4x4 EB, 4:10 elec lockers, navigation, heated seats, towing, trailer brake control, and beautiful black interior with red piping, all that for 20K + my truck, I am very tempted, have driven the Tremor and love it! the only thing that might stop me is an evil thing in my area called excise tax , that says I will have to pay my town about $2,800 in property tax the first year, and 2k the second, and still around 1k the 3rd, I have to go and talk to the tax man to find out the exact amount before I go for it, but what a nice truck!

"The simplicity, ruggedness, and swapability of the solid axle are second to none.
My biggest gripe with IFS is its complexity. A solid axle has less moving parts and is easier to service, with no crossmembers clogging everything up. I also don’t like that the centersection in many new IFS rigs is made of aluminum. Solid-axle centersections are typically cast iron, which is more durable. Some IFS systems also have weaker steering systems than solid-axle-equipped rigs. The solid-axle steering also isn’t susceptible to extreme camber and toe changes under load and cycle as an IFS rig.

Some IFS rigs utilize torsion bars, which can create a catch point off-road. And when lifting an IFS rig with torsion bars the bars either have to be lowered amidships or raised at the frontend to compensate for the lift. And speaking of lifts, a solid-axle rig is far easier and less expensive to lift than an IFS-equipped rig. And on the subject of modifications, let’s say you’ve added larger tires to your truck or you’re demanding more from it in a work environment. With a solid-axle rig you can get a larger centersection that is capable of handling more abuse by simply swapping in a heavier-duty axle. Not so with IFS. Unless you want to spend a boatload of money to re-engineer your entire IFS system (or swap to a solid axle) you have to stay with the differential that came on your rig.

When it comes to off-road travel, as one side of the solid axle is forced up or down, the other side is forced in the opposite direction. IFS doesn’t operate this way because each side is working independently. This means that the solid axle has more chance of traction than with an IFS rig.

Summary: In most situations the solid axle is the hot ticket for 4x4s, whether they’re used for work or play. The simplicity, ruggedness, and swapability of the solid axle are second to none. –Ken Brubaker"

With the IFS you will a much lower unsprung weight. This in fact makes it quicker for suspension, ie springing and damping to force the wheel down to maintain traction.

But you are correct a live axle is the cheap option.


If you look at value for your dollar. The Power Wagon offers more than the Raptor. Towing,Hauling, Lockers, winch etc..

Both trucks exceed in their purpose. Except the frame's bending on the Raptor's.

If I did not need a truck I would buy a Jeep Rubicon over a Raptor for an ultimate trail rig.

@HEMI V8 - the fact that 4Wheeler said that the 6.4 had underwhelming power and the fact that it was a complaint from of the testers isn't good.

You can rationalize the fact that they did not air down the tires and that affected traction but one would expect a coil suspension to have less wheel hop. They also said that they did not see a big difference between it and a leaf suspension. That also is not good.

Ram may be a victim of trying to over-achieve and by doing so are taking a step backwards.

Maybe they should of held back on releasing the 6.4 and coil sprung 3/4 ton just like they did with the 8 speed, the air ride, the Cherokee, the Ecodiesel..........

hemiv8 You seem to forget one thing in your argument, and that is as soon as you leave the dirt, your live axle is a big negative compared to IFS, and with the IFS you can have rack&pinion steering which is far superior to anything on a live axle. So for that small % of use off-road with the live axle, you give up a better ride, handling and more control that you get from IFS, no to mention weight savings, and ground clearance. Now you have to be honest with yourself, do you plan on ever driving on the road? of not?

@Lou-BC, Air pressure affects ride. 2psi= 1lb of spring rate. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself for you to understand. I experienced axle hop in the dunes in 4 low. 35psi in tires. Took it down to 12psi. No more axle hop, softer ride, more traction. Heavy duty trucks have more air pressure than light duty trucks. So both 4 wheeler and PUTC are guilty of not airing down in there off road test's. What don't you get? My 6.4 hemi will have 4.56 gears. If not from the factory then I will have them installed. The test truck in the above had 3.73 gears.

Axle tramp is caused by torque or twisting of an axle.

A larger heavier vehicle would have more tramp than a lighter vehicle. This is caused by the extra friction between the tyre and the surface it is trying to move against.

Also, higher torque engine will increase axle tramp over a lower torque engine in the same vehicle.

A coil sprung suspension will reduce axle tramp over a leaf sprung vehicle due to its design. A trailing arm reduces the tendency of axle rotation due to torque loads.

A leaf spring will allow more rotation of the axle. When torque is applied to the axle it will rotate until the energy stored in the spring overcomes the torque energy of the axle.

This cause the axle to rotate back to it's original position. Hence the tramp. This will become cyclic and the frequency of the tramp rate varies with the surface friction, vehicle weight, spring/damper rate and applied axle torque.

Tramp rods are an effective way to reduce axle tramp, but in a off road situation they could be restrictive in reducing critical ground clearance near the wheels.

The axle tramp this day and age expecially with a coil sprung setup is due to poor design. Leaf springs, well, axle tramp will always occur until tramp rods or heavier springs are fitted.

When are you going to buy this new Ram?

You've been talking about it for years now.

By the time you buy it CAFE and the EPA will have killed off the truck.

@Big Al, If all goes well. I will be purchasing my wife an SRT Jeep & Power Wagon later this year. ;)

@HEMI V8 - dude, you keep making excuses.

You kept bragging that the 6.4 was going to be vastly superior but they said "underwhelming" power. You dug your own hole there.
The guys at 4Wheeler have driven Ford and Chevy trucks and no doubt with similar gear ratio's to the Ram.

If you need 4.56 axle ratio's to get an empty truck moving with a 400 hp V8, then something is wrong.

@Lou-BC, That 6.4 Hemi will slaughter your gutless pig of a 5.4.

@lou-BC, Further more the 6.4 Hemi get's better fuel mileage than the 5.7 Hemi it replaces. Plus has more horsepower and torque. GET IT. Thus making it better.

@HEMI V8 - more defensiveness. Who cares since you and I will never meet face to face and secondly Ford doesn't make the 5.4 any more.
Funny thing is, none of the truck magazines ever said that the 5.4 was "underwhelming".


"We tested the new engine both unloaded and with an 8900-lb trailer. In both cases, the engine performed admirably, never feeling out-of-breath or overburdened."


@HEMI V8 - "If there was one on-road aspect all judges could easily agree on, it was the underwhelming power from the 6.4L Hemi. With a rating of 410hp and 429 lb-ft of torque, we all felt like there should have been a better power-on-tap feel. Instead, the truck constantly downshifted to provide extra gearing to compensate for the power that just wasn’t there. An eight-speed transmission might be a good answer to the underwhelming power problem, or you could always opt for the torque-rich Cummins diesel option if your funds allow. "

That was with a 3.73 rear.


"Our Big Horn crew cab test unit had the 6.4-liter Hemi and trusted 66RFE six-speed transmission and felt very good on the open rural roads, especially as our route took us up and over the coastal mountains. Some of those canyon roads have a lot of back-to-back twisties and can cause larger transmission to have fits as they try to stay in the right portion of the powerband. For the 6.4 Hemi, the sweet spot seems to be right around 2100 rpm. We found the throttle instantly responsive, with the transmission quick to downshift when we put our foot into it. We’re pretty sure the fact that Ram packaged our Big Horn with 3.73:1 gears didn’t hurt either."

"We found the throttle instantly responsive, with the transmission quick to downshift when we put our foot into it. "

@Lou-BC, "you and I will never meet face to face "

Never say never. Next time you are coming to Disney Land let me know.

The comments to this entry are closed.