2025 Ram Heavy Duty To Get New ZF Powerline® 8-Speed

[redriderbob]

2025 Ram Heavy Duty To Get New ZF Powerline® 8-Speed​

Ram Will Finally Get Rid Of The Aging 68RFE From Its Lineup...​

In a pivotal move for the Ram Truck brand, the upcoming 2025 Ram Heavy Duty and Chassis Cab lineup is poised to adopt the cutting-edge ZF Powerline® 8-speed automatic transmission across all models. This transformative decision comes after much speculation and is backed by reliable sources close to MoparInsiders.com and HDRams.com. It sheds light on the long-awaited replacement for the controversial Chrysler 68RFE 6-speed automatic transmission.

2025 Ram Heavy Duty To Get New ZF Powerline® 8-Speed - HD Rams

In a pivotal move for the Ram Truck brand, the upcoming 2025 Ram 2500 / 3500 Heavy Duty and Chassis Cab lineup is poised to adopt the cutting-edge ZF Powerline® 8-speed automatic transmission across all models. This transformative decision comes after much speculation and is backed by reliable...

hdrams.com

 

[UglyViking]

A little concerning that the trans supports up to 1k torque, considering the current HO puts out 1075 ft-lbs.

 

[Jimmy07]

A little concerning that the trans supports up to 1k torque, considering the current HO puts out 1075 ft-lbs.

Which transmission is used in the HO trucks, and which transmission is the ZF replacing? How much torque is the SO?

 

[ETX Ram]

22's are 850 ft lbs.

 

[UglyViking]

Which transmission is used in the HO trucks, and which transmission is the ZF replacing? How much torque is the SO?

I think it's uncertain for sure, but I've heard that Aisin is no more according to data released from Aisin, and obviously FCA already released the news about the end of the 68rfe, while ZF announced the new plant (expanded plant?)

Either way, it you look at this quote from the above (emphasis mine):

"the upcoming 2025 Ram Heavy Duty and Chassis Cab lineup is poised to adopt the cutting-edge ZF Powerline® 8-speed automatic transmission across all models."

It would appear that they are trimming down trans options. I suppose time will tell. Obviously the SO has 850 and the HO has 1075, I know the numbers, I'm just stating that as I read it, the Aisin is going away in favor of the ZF. Now, my guess is that the 1k torque number is a guess, misprint, etc. and that the "limit" is actually much higher. I can't see Ram willing to drop their HO truck down to under 1k considering they were the first to get to 1k and Ford is now at 1200lbs.

22's are 850 ft lbs.

SO is 850, HO is 1075.

 

[mbarber84]

In the PACCAR TX-8 brochure, it’s listed as capable of handling of 1,050 lb-ft of torque input. Thats also at max GCWR of 57,000 pounds. I’m sure ZF / Ram will play the numbers game a little and get it to where the specs will match the application. Im fairly certain Ram is going to use the ZF to replace both the 68RFE and the AS69RC. Moving to a one transmission platform makes great logistical sense and will eliminate the durability concerns of the 68RFE, while at the same time improving on the previous durability and performance of the Aisin. The ZF boasts some really impressive performance updates such as 2nd gear no-load starts and nuetral idle. If the 10% fuel efficiency they’re boasting comes true, it’ll be quite the game changer for long haul / heavy hauling applications. This transmission is already out on the road in PACCAR applications like Kenworth and Peterbilt medium duty trucks, so it’s already logging road time and data.

 

[Ostracize]

Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of how transmission companies market their capacity/capabilities... But I would think that the 1050 lb/ft torque rating is related to the 57k GCWR. Meaning the grabbing force of the cluches if charted out across the weight range would show that the 1050 tq rating would be quite a bit higher at say something like 35k GCWR. What that tq number would be... I'm not sure but if I'm thinking correctly it would be plenty for a consumer HD application.

 

[Ostracize]

In the PACCAR TX-8 brochure, it’s listed as capable of handling of 1,050 lb-ft of torque input. Thats also at max GCWR of 57,000 pounds. I’m sure ZF / Ram will play the numbers game a little and get it to where the specs will match the application. Im fairly certain Ram is going to use the ZF to replace both the 68RFE and the AS69RC. Moving to a one transmission platform makes great logistical sense and will eliminate the durability concerns of the 68RFE, while at the same time improving on the previous durability and performance of the Aisin. The ZF boasts some really impressive performance updates such as 2nd gear no-load starts and nuetral idle. If the 10% fuel efficiency they’re boasting comes true, it’ll be quite the game changer for long haul / heavy hauling applications. This transmission is already out on the road in PACCAR applications like Kenworth and Peterbilt medium duty trucks, so it’s already logging road time and data. View attachment 70397View attachment 70398

.... Also the "lifetime filter" which personally made me stare at my screen like a dog listens to a high pitch whistle lol.

 

[mbarber84]

Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of how transmission companies market their capacity/capabilities... But I would think that the 1050 lb/ft torque rating is related to the 57k GCWR. Meaning the grabbing force of the cluches if charted out across the weight range would show that the 1050 tq rating would be quite a bit higher at say something like 35k GCWR. What that tq number would be... I'm not sure but if I'm thinking correctly it would be plenty for a consumer HD application.

Agreed. We shall see what happens. With any luck we’re probably going to find out rather soon.

 

[Grateful Dad]

Hopefully this is finally happening

 

[redriderbob]

Hopefully this is finally happening

It is. We have more exciting news coming... stay tuned.

 

[redriderbob]

Which transmission is used in the HO trucks, and which transmission is the ZF replacing? How much torque is the SO?

The ZF will be standard across the lineup for 2025.

 

[k.m. henry]

The ZF will be standard across the lineup for 2025.

So those who speculate that ZF and Ram have managed to get a higher torque rating for the hd Rams are correct, certainly Ram isn't going to go backwards with the torque output. I think perhaps there's finally some good news on the hd truck front.

 

[LegendaryLawman]

So those who speculate that ZF and Ram have managed to get a higher torque rating for the hd Rams are correct, certainly Ram isn't going to go backwards with the torque output. I think perhaps there's finally some good news on the hd truck front.

The grass isn’t always greener on the other side- mark my word on this new trans.

1000 lbs or torque vs 1200 lbs is like saying mine is big and yours is a little bigger but it accomplishes the same thing, lol. It’s just a sales gimmick.

 

[Grateful Dad]

Ram needs to go the way of GM and stop chasing the stupid “number’s crown”……. Make the CTD with somewhere around 450 HP and 950 ft/lbs and call it a day, the trans should be able to reliably hold that all day long. The crazy high torque numbers are nice but if the trans needs torque management to keep itself alive what’s the point? Give me a torque level the trans can handle without the nannies and let’s F’n Go!

 

[k.m. henry]

The grass isn’t always greener on the other side- mark my word on this new trans.

1000 lbs or torque vs 1200 lbs is like saying mine is big and yours is a little bigger but it accomplishes the same thing, lol. It’s just a sales gimmick.

I don't disagree that the big torque numbers are basically a gimmick but I still think the ZF transmission should be a more robust transmission than the 68rfe.It seems to be working out well in the PACCAR twins medium duty trucks.

 

[LegendaryLawman]

I don't disagree that the big torque numbers are basically a gimmick but I still think the ZF transmission should be a more robust transmission than the 68rfe.It seems to be working out well in the PACCAR twins medium duty trucks.

I don’t doubt it has some better qualities than the 68rfe in the clutch dept and overall durability stock for stock. I just personally don’t see it being far better in most situations. partly a personal opinion- I don’t want auto park nor an electronic dash shifter. Some cases if you needed a PTO it would be bonus- I don’t nor do most customers. Far harder to service at home, no dipstick, likely more expensive to mod or rebuild. I just see more negatives than positives.

Truck with much larger tires or tuned, might make more sense but you’re still stuck with the other negatives (atleast in my opinion). Life is a choice I guess lol,

 

[AH64ID]

Ram needs to go the way of GM and stop chasing the stupid “number’s crown”……. Make the CTD with somewhere around 450 HP and 950 ft/lbs and call it a day, the trans should be able to reliably hold that all day long. The crazy high torque numbers are nice but if the trans needs torque management to keep itself alive what’s the point? Give me a torque level the trans can handle without the nannies and let’s F’n Go!

I think you’d be surprised at how low of torque the rest of the drivetrain can handle unlimited when multiplied thru the lower transmission gears. To forgo torque management altogether we’d likely be set back 20+ years in torque and while we wouldn’t notice it too much in lower gears it would really be felt at highway speeds.

It’s not just the transmission that needs to be able to handle it. The transfer case, u-joints, driveshafts, and both axles all have limits that are a big part of the torque management.

 

[LegendaryLawman]

That’s where you see manufacturers skimp- not just ram but everyone- saving .12 cents on a cheaper u joint that causes frustration down the road.

I was bored last night and read something about the new ZF trans. Supposedly part of the fuel economy “savings” is a feature called “start-stop”. It basically shifts the trans from drive to neutral every time vehicle comes to a complete stop. Sounds like the engine start stop the industry went to on everything to meet Obama’s CAFE standards. I find this the most annoying feature on new cars and it turned a $200 starter into a $1000 starter with extra wear and tear.

The integration of a similar feature in the transmission will likely cause addition wear on the transmission and just complicates it which likely will increase cost to save a little fuel. I know .gov has caused this problem and the manufacturers have their hands forced, but it’s still frustrating.

 

[Grateful Dad]

I think you’d be surprised at how low of torque the rest of the drivetrain can handle unlimited when multiplied thru the lower transmission gears. To forgo torque management altogether we’d likely be set back 20+ years in torque and while we wouldn’t notice it too much in lower gears it would really be felt at highway speeds.

It’s not just the transmission that needs to be able to handle it. The transfer case, u-joints, driveshafts, and both axles all have limits that are a big part of the torque management.

I have no doubt every single vehicle on the road has some type of torque management to some degree, hell, my wife’s Honda Pilot dead pedals in a few situations and it’s infuriating. Some bit of torque management might be needed but when it’s so much so you don’t get the full 1,075 ft lbs what’s the point of chasing these silly numbers? Most folks don’t buy these trucks to stop light race or race up the Ike, just say’n. As to the rest of the driveline, the trans is the weak link. I’ve seen way too many examples of highly modified diesels on huge tire doing stupid things like boosted 4 wheel drive launches on stock axles and tcases, those components will take a good bit of power.