What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ram Ups GVWR on 2500 CTD to 11,040 lbs

johanh13

johanh13

Well-Known Member
Messages
616
Reaction score
483
Points
63
Location
Texas
Andre at TFL just broke this news! They basically just re-certified it, there are no hardware changes of any kind; applies to Ram 2500 with diesel engine built after May 2025... FYI, this has nothing to do with coil springs

1751492326650.png
 
Last edited:
B

Thread '2025 2500 with 11,040 GVWR/over 3k diesel payload?!'

Has anybody else seen this payload/towing chart and can you explain how one obtains the new for 2025 11,040 GVWR on the 2500?
"* Applies to vehicles produced with sales code Z2K/Z7G/Z3Y"
but I can't figure out what those sales codes mean and when I build I can't see anything that looks like it would effect this. This is HUGE for the fifth wheel guys that want to keep the nice riding 2500 suspension but are concerned about payload for a...
  • Like
 
Oops, I guess this is 'old news' ? Can't believe I missed it... SMH
 
I heard a rumor there would be a HO option for the 2500's. I thought maybe this was related somehow?
 
johnmyster said:
The Ram 2500 has coil springs
Click to expand...
I see this debate come up a lot, and it's a great example of how vehicle ratings work. People used to point to the Ram 2500's 10,000 lb GVWR and blame the coil springs for being "weak." But the hardware tells a different story.
The REAR COIL springs themselves have always given the axle a 6,040 lb load rating. Combined with the 6,000 lb front axle, the components have a total capacity of 12,040 lbs.
The best part is, Ram recently proved this point for us. On the newer models, they officially raised the GVWR to 11,040 lbs. They achieved this without changing the REAR COIL springs. All they did was certify the existing, capable hardware to a higher number. So yes, the REAR COILS can absolutely handle the weight—and now Ram's own GVWR reflects that reality much more closely.
 
Last edited:
johanh13 said:
I see this debate come up a lot, and it's a great example of how vehicle ratings work. People used to point to the Ram 2500's 10,000 lb GVWR and blame the coil springs for being "weak." But the hardware tells a different story.
The REAR COIL springs themselves have always given the axle a 6,040 lb load rating. Combined with the 6,000 lb front axle, the components have a total capacity of 12,040 lbs.
The best part is, Ram recently proved this point for us. On the newer models, they officially raised the GVWR to 11,040 lbs. They achieved this without changing the REAR COIL springs. All they did was certify the existing, capable hardware to a higher number. So yes, the REAR COILS can absolutely handle the weight—and now Ram's own GVWR reflects that reality much more closely.
Click to expand...
The rear coils were part of a 6k rated system before, and are part of a 6k rated system now. I'm not sure what your point is. The axle certification (that doesn't exist) didn't change. The GVWR changed, which means...

The truck is now certified to the DOT requirements for a class 3 vehicle instead of a class 2. We always knew the 10k cap was an administrative derate. This is not new news. The GVWR on a 2500 has always been irrelevant because those who needed more could step up to a 3500 SRW for a trivial additional expense.

We also know the 3500 SRW configuration gets a 7k rated rear axle, and we know 6k is less than 7k. Same axle. Same hubs/bearings. Same brakes. Same wheel/tires. Same frame. Only suspension differences. But Ram isn't "certifying" a vehicle according to a back axle rating. They're doing it to a GVWR that places it in a new vehicle classification.

So it does have to do with coil springs. If Ram was comfortable with the 4 link setup at 7k, they'd put it on the 3500 SRW.
 
Last edited:
johnmyster said:
The rear coils were part of a 6k rated system before, and are part of a 6k rated system now. I'm not sure what your point is. The axle certification (that doesn't exist) didn't change. The GVWR changed, which means...

The truck is now certified to the DOT requirements for a class 3 vehicle instead of a class 2. We always knew the 10k cap was an administrative derate. This is not new news. The GVWR on a 2500 has always been irrelevant because those who needed more could step up to a 3500 SRW for a trivial additional expense.

We also know the 3500 SRW configuration gets a 7k rated rear axle, and we know 6k is less than 7k. Same axle. Same hubs/bearings. Same brakes. Same wheel/tires. Same frame. Only suspension differences. But Ram isn't "certifying" a vehicle according to a back axle rating. They're doing it to a GVWR that places it in a new vehicle classification.

So it does have to do with coil springs. If Ram was comfortable with the 4 link setup at 7k, they'd put it on the 3500 SRW.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the forest for the trees, and you actually made my point for me.

You say the 10,000 lb GVWR was always an "administrative derate." I agree. That means the argument that the coil springs were physically too weak was never true.

This debate was never about Class 2 vs. Class 3, or whether a 3500 can haul more. It was about whether the 2500's coils were capable. By raising the GVWR by over 1,000 lbs with the same exact suspension, Ram officially confirms the coils were never the issue...
 
johanh13 said:
I think you are missing the forest for the trees, and you actually made my point for me.

You say the 10,000 lb GVWR was always an "administrative derate." I agree. That means the argument that the coil springs were physically too weak was never true.

This debate was never about Class 2 vs. Class 3, or whether a 3500 can haul more. It was about whether the 2500's coils were capable. By raising the GVWR by over 1,000 lbs with the same exact suspension, Ram officially confirms the coils were never the issue...
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the tree (the rear axle tree) for the forest. "Too weak for what" is the question.

We always knew the diesel 2500's payload rating was artificially low due to the curb weight, which is largely carried on the front axle and counts against the 10k administrative gross rating. We've known this for >25 years of HD diesel pickups from three different manufacturers. We also always knew the back half was strong enough to carry 6k, based on the factory rating.

The rear axle was always rated at 6k-ish. Nobody ever said the coil springs were too weak/soft to carry 6k. That's what they're rated for. This actually proves that Ram's opinion of the rear suspension hasn't changed in 12 years. 6000-6500 RAWR in 2014. 6000-6390 in 2020. Same in 2024. Same now. No change.

What you miss is that although the 2500 front plus rear sum was 12,040 (or even more), the truck was never tested (braking, stability, crash) at that weight, or against any different requirements for class 3 vs class 2. So it was never about the axle rating (weak coil springs) but about the gross rating. It was gross rated, tested, and certified at 10k. The truck wouldn't have been tested at 12k even if the combined axle rating was such. That said, it was low hanging fruit because the 3500 SRW with minor hardware differences was tested up the 12,400.

My 3500 is rated 6k front, 7k rear, 12,400 gross. We've never thought the rear was "too weak" for 7k just because 12,400 < 13,000.

Don't get me wrong, the updated GVWR is a good thing and if I was buying a new truck, I'd buy a 2500 6.7 megacab rambox with 11k rating and then add airbags to more comfortably roll at ~6k +/- rear axle weight.
 
Last edited:
johnmyster said:
I think you're missing the tree (the rear axle tree) for the forest. "Too weak for what" is the question.

We always knew the diesel 2500's payload rating was artificially low due to the curb weight, which is largely carried on the front axle and counts against the 10k administrative gross rating. We've known this for >25 years of HD diesel pickups from three different manufacturers. We also always knew the back half was strong enough to carry 6k, based on the factory rating.

The rear axle was always rated at 6k-ish. Nobody ever said the coil springs were too weak/soft to carry 6k. That's what they're rated for. This actually proves that Ram's opinion of the rear suspension hasn't changed in 12 years. 6000-6500 RAWR in 2014. 6000-6390 in 2020. Same in 2024. Same now. No change.

My 3500 is rated 6k front, 7k rear, 12,400 total. We've never thought the rear was "too weak" for 7k just because 12,400 < 13,000.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with your premise that "Nobody ever said the coil springs were too weak/soft to carry 6k."

While knowledgeable people like you and I might understand the GAWR and GVWR specifics, the widespread, simplified argument among truck enthusiasts has always been that "Ram uses coils, so it can't haul as much" or "coils are weaker than leafs." That is the specific myth we are addressing.

You are correct that the rear axle's rating itself hasn't changed. But that fact doesn't diminish my point; it strengthens it. The consistency of the ~6,000 lb rear axle rating proves that Ram has been confident in that coil spring system all along.

The recent GVWR increase isn't "no change." It's Ram publicly acknowledging that the overall package, supported by that very same coil suspension, is far more capable than the old 10k sticker let on.
 
johanh13 said:
The consistency of the ~6,000 lb rear axle rating proves that Ram has been confident in that coil spring system all along.
Click to expand...
Your bottom line is that in the past, people doubted the 6k rating because of the 10k rating, but now, the 6k rating means something because of the 11k rating.

I guess now I understand.
 
johnmyster said:
Your bottom line is that in the past, people doubted the 6k rating because of the 10k rating, but now, the 6k rating means something because of the 11k rating.

I guess now I understand.
Click to expand...
BTW, are there any photos of your rig ? Your sig looks impressive with all the mods
 
H3LZSN1P3R said:
There is no SO for the pickups its just one engine so yes the 2500s automatically get the HO
Click to expand...
I thought I had read that the SO was the cummins with the 68rfe (or whatever it's designated as now) versus the HO being a cummins with an Aisin?
 
johanh13 said:
BTW, are there any photos of your rig ? Your sig looks impressive with all the mods
Click to expand...
It's just a mundane, stock looking, low mileage, well maintained, two-tone grandpa truck with chrome bumpers, chrome mirrors, chrome door handles, chrome wheel to wheel running boards, rubber mud flaps, and a 7,000 pound rear axle rating.
 
McHenry2500 said:
I thought I had read that the SO was the cummins with the 68rfe (or whatever it's designated as now) versus the HO being a cummins with an Aisin?
Click to expand...

2025+ Cummins trucks are a redesigned 6.7L with a ZF 8-speed trans.

All engines are the same across 2500/3500 pickups. Essentially all the "HO" @ 435/1075.

13-24 trucks were 2500 SO/68RFE, 3500 SO/68RFE, or 3500 HO/AISIN.
 
In Pa the increased gvwr would increase registration fee from $278 to $423 per year. Going from class 4b (up to 11,001 lbs) to class 5 if registered at the max gvwr.
 
Diputs said:
In Pa the increased gvwr would increase registration fee from $278 to $423 per year. Going from class 4b (up to 11,001 lbs) to class 5 if registered at the max gvwr.
Click to expand...
Here in Texas I am able to register my 5500's at below their 19,500 lbs GVWR...
 
Diputs said:
In Pa the increased gvwr would increase registration fee from $278 to $423 per year. Going from class 4b (up to 11,001 lbs) to class 5 if registered at the max gvwr.
Click to expand...
Does PA require registration at GVWR?

My truck is down registered.

As far as I’m aware, lots of states allow one to down register (or up register) as desired, as long as the registration weight is above the curb weight that shows up in their system. This is not limited to light duty pickups…quite common for larger equipment that is essentially pay by the pound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top