[Allpar News System]

According to a recent Automotive News article by ace reporter Larry Vellequette, the reason the Big Three pickup trucks all measure towing capacity in different ways is because Ford went back on a pledge to move to a standard promulgated by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Mr. Vellequette wrote that automakers adopted the SAE J2807 towing test standard in 2009, and agreed to implement it in 2013 in their product literature. Toyota started out by measuring the Tundra under J2807 when it was launched in 2010 (as a 2011 model); its tow ratings dropped by up to 400 pounds. GM had the new tow ratings in its product literature and vehicle markings as it got ready to launch the 2013 Silverado and Sierra pickups, as GM, Ford, and Ram had agreed; but just before the 2013 launch, Ford announced it would not change its ratings until the 2015 model..

View the original, full post

 

[Mopar392]

I support this tow-rating standard, so this way everybody will know the real tow-rating for their pickup. If they buy the pickup for the tow-rating only, that is.

 

[bumonbox]

I was aware that Ford rated their tow ratings to a different tune. If I am reading this correctly, the companies all agreed to rate by the same standard as prescribed, but Ford has backed out. Ram on the other hand is likely to stay with the adoption. Oh well.

 

[Muther]

Sunds like a good opportunity to do a remake of the Dodge/Ram towing a charger spoof commercial of the Ford commercial.

Not concerned.

In my shop we have nearly identicallay equipped Fords, Dodges (2010 is the newest), and GM's. The Ram's, though their interiors are beat to heck (flat out abuse), can outrun the GM's and the Fords, even if it has more in the bed, and is towing heavier than they are. Haven't driven the newer 2011 and later Rams, but hte old ones simply have more power everywhere than GM/Ford in real world terms.

If the Rams had a weak sport, it was the interiors, again, the newest I have seen is a 2010 with 102k on the clock, which tended to show wear lots quicker than the others. Toyotas are a non starter with us, as they just can't measure up. We use 2500's, and 3500's with the gas engines.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Read the article - Ford, GM, and Ram all opted to not publish the SAE J2807 numbers as Toyota has. Ford says they'll do it in 2015. Ram says essentially that "until Ford does it, we'll wait, too."

 

[bumonbox]

Read the article - Ford, GM, and Ram all opted to not publish the SAE J2807 numbers as Toyota has. Ford says they'll do it in 2015. Ram says essentially that "until Ford does it, we'll wait, too."

Ahh, yeah, i see it now: but said Ram was following GM and Ford’s lead. I think I scimmed to quickly the first time and that part didn't register.

I would be hard pressed to blame them. For not adopting when Ford and Gm won't

 

[AutoTechnician]

What a poor attitude on Ram's part. They should be leaders, not followers.

 

[link3721]

What a poor attitude on Ram's part. They should be leaders, not followers.

At least they have numbers for the standard, although if it wouldn't affect the numbers much as they have said I don't know why they wouldn't just use them.

 

[68RT]

How much stink has been raised recently regarding "I" can pull moere than you ads. You can't sell product using the conservative rating system when the competition is screaming his capacity far exceeds you. Even if you know it is not true. Bean counters look at paperwork first. Commercial is a large part of pickup sales.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

What a poor attitude on Ram's part. They should be leaders, not followers.

No, shame on Ford for backing out of an agreement AFTER Toyota and GM already published their numbers.

Ford should be exposed for this by Ram and GM via advertising. Throw in a Ford Raptor that bent after being used "as advertised".

 

[Mike V.]

No, shame on Ford for backing out of an agreement AFTER Toyota and GM already published their numbers.

Ford should be exposed for this by Ram and GM via advertising. Throw in a Ford Raptor that bent after being used "as advertised".

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Mopar392]

I think to get all truck manufacturers complain with SAE standards, CR, magazines and other publications, when they test these trucks, then need to imply the standards to show the customer and consumer what the real rating is.

 

[AutoTechnician]

No, shame on Ford for backing out of an agreement AFTER Toyota and GM already published their numbers.

Ford should be exposed for this by Ram and GM via advertising. Throw in a Ford Raptor that bent after being used "as advertised".

..and then Ford blasts Ram for also not following the standards. Shame on everyone. Everyone but Ford following the standards would have looked awfully bad on Ford's part.

 

[red-jk]

My bother and I were talking about towing with our respective trucks the other day. He has a F150 King Ranch with a 5.4 in it, and he has issues hitting 55 in a headwind towing his 4500lbs camper. He can't hit 65 at all. He gets 5 to 6 hwy mpg towing. My Ram 1550 Big Horn Hemi pulls my 5500 lbs camper without any problems in any situation. My RAM returns 14/15 hwy mpg towing.

He was thinking he needed a F250 to pull his camper. I told him he needed a MOPAR. We need a standard rating across the board.

 

[fargo59]

having driven an F150 with a 5.4 and a load on it, i sympathize. it was not the most... enthusiastic of powertrains.

 

[TWX]

My bother and I were talking about towing with our respective trucks the other day. He has a F150 King Ranch with a 5.4 in it, and he has issues hitting 55 in a headwind towing his 4500lbs camper. He can't hit 65 at all. He gets 5 to 6 hwy mpg towing. My Ram 1550 Big Horn Hemi pulls my 5500 lbs camper without any problems in any situation. My RAM returns 14/15 hwy mpg towing.

He was thinking he needed a F250 to pull his camper. I told him he needed a MOPAR. We need a standard rating across the board.

That's just weird to me. Years ago a friend needed help loading and hauling a fuselage-era C-body wagon to a junkyard. Granted, no motor or transmission, but it was bodily complete. There was probably 6500lb in cargo and trailer behind his '00 Ram 1500 sport regular cab short bed and it didn't wheeze or struggle with that load. It was just a 5.9L with A518 and a limited slip differential...

Campers are taller and have more wind resistance, but I wouldn't think that it'd be so dramatic as what you describe your brother experiencing.

 

[Muther]

Among commercial buyers this is a non-issue. The commercial buyers already know the score as to what trucks from what manufacturers can do what the best and the worst.

I can't blame Ford for pulling out, it may be dirty pool, but it's legal. I don't blame Ram for following Ford. A little advertising campaign would overcome it easliy. Rams are well known, already, for their towing ability. F-C has been very adept lately, at getting lots of performance in their ad dollars. The best way to deal with this, is to simply do a rea life test, and then advertise it. It has been my experience that a Ram will outpull an equivalent, or even better, truck from Ford, Chevy, Nissan, and Toyota. Gas or Diesel, Auto or Manual, up and down the line. "If you tow, buy a Dodge/Ram" is a colloquialism around these parts.

 

[joe_]

I could be wrong, but what this tells me is, Ford doesn't want people to see the difference in numbers between their current testing standards and the SAE standards. The 2015 F150 is an all-new truck, and by switching to the SAE standard for that model year, the tow ratings can't be compared to the old truck with the old standards.


I had to re-read that section a few times - I think the article was worded poorly. It seems like more emphasis was placed on stating that Ram was only delaying the switch because GM and Ford were delaying rather than making sure it was clearly worded.

 

[bumonbox]

I could be wrong, but what this tells me is, Ford doesn't want people to see the difference in numbers between their current testing standards and the SAE standards. The 2015 F150 is an all-new truck, and by switching to the SAE standard for that model year, the tow ratings can't be compared to the old truck with the old standards.


I had to re-read that section a few times - I think the article was worded poorly. It seems like more emphasis was placed on stating that Ram was only delaying the switch because GM and Ford were delaying rather than making sure it was clearly worded.

This is a good point. I remember when the revised SAE power ratings came about. The "Japan big 3" had to lower the listed numbers on most of their cars. Chrysler saw improved numbers are a fair number of theirs. The thing is, it didn't stop people from asking what changes occurred in the car, it had to be frequently explained that nothing was physically different. Ford in turn, especially if their numbers drop severely (I suspect they would) would have a hard time getting people to understand the it's the same truck as before. This may even give them an opportunity to make improvements for the next truck to lessen the impact of the dropped numbers. I still think it's shady. The Ram is just a freakin fantastic truck. It has been quite consistently so for a while. I'd say it's only Achilles heal is the general feeling about the Chrysler transmission (And to be fair, it's not completely unearned). But other than that, they are darned good trucks

 

[Dave Z]

I can't blame Ford for pulling out, it may be dirty pool, but it's legal.

I can blame them, because it is dirty pool, and I don't care whether it's legal. Bad is what bad does.

I recall Ford's "withdrawal" from factory sponsored racing many years back, which was just a pose to get GM to really withdraw so Ford could have less competition. This is similar. It is hard to believe that they did not agree to the pact solely to get GM to publish lower numbers, while Ford's stayed the same.

In short, I don't believe Ford ever intended to comply, any more than I think they intended to raise their average gas mileage past 30 mpg ten years ago, when they gained plaudits from pundits for promising to do so.