Since 2005, the Power Wagon has existed as an extreme off-road version of the heavy duty Ram 2500. With locking differentials, skid plates, disconnecting sway bars, all-terrain tires, softer springs and a front winch, the Ram Power Wagon has been the biggest, toughest off-roader in Chrysler’s lineup for two decades now. Still, one thing has always seemed a bit off: Why doesn’t the Power Wagon offer the Ram 2500’s optional Cummins turbodiesel? After all, it’s a ridiculously torquey motor that you’d think would be perfect for low-speed rock crawling. Well, for 2027, after all these years, the Power Wagon finally gets the Cummins, but to pull this off Ram had to make some changes to what the Power Wagon is.
First things first: What took Ram so long? You’d think there’s no better engine for rock-crawling than a diesel, which offers tons of low-end torque for slowly navigating technical obstacles without having to spin up tires. The answer, and the reason why Stellantis executive Tim Kuniskis had to tell his team to just “to make it happen,” has to do with the sheer size of the motor.
A Cummins 6.7 (juggles hands) is massive, and not just the long inline-six block and exhaust aftertreatment systems, but especially the cooling module, which interferes with the space at the front of the vehicle that would normally be “package-protected” for a factory winch that has been a big part of the Power Wagon’s identity since the beginning.
“There’s been a shift in the way people are thinking at Stellantis,” Ram product development chief Doug Killian told me in our interview. “‘Let’s just go do this’ [Kuniskis said]. We got the encouragement to go make a Power Wagon with a diesel…Of course we’ve been hearing it for decades. We were holding the winch maybe more sacred than it should have been. Can the power wagon evolve? Of course.”
And so the Power Wagon now has the coveted big C on its fenders, but in order to fit the legendary mill, the Power Wagon has had to evolve from what folks are used to. Let’s get into that.
The Diesel Power Wagon Is A Different Power Wagon Than The Gas Truck
After I chatted with Killian, it became clear to me that, actually, the Cummins turbodiesel is probably not the ideal off-road engine. Sure, the thing produces a crazy 1,075 lb-ft of torque, and torque is generally good for rock crawling, but let’s all be honest: The much lighter and smaller 6.4-liter HEMI gas motor makes plenty of grunt at 429 lb-ft. Combined with short transmission (4.71:1 first gear) and axle gearing (4.10:1), plus a low-range transfer case (2.64:1), the gas truck’s 51:1 crawl ratio means it offers plenty of low-speed precision to help it traverse most technical obstacles.
So why bother putting a Cummins diesel into the Power Wagon if it’s going to just weigh the truck down, take up a bunch of packaging space, and cause potential stability concerns that need to be fixed by reducing ground clearance (more on that later)? I think part of it is just the fact that people love the Cummins diesel engine to the point where many refer to their Ram HD truck as, simply “The Cummins.” Those C badges on the truck offer a cool-factor that, in many folks’ eyes, is unmatched in the industry.
So Ram found itself with a tough question. Should it try to maximize absolute off-road capability knowing that, if we’re being honest, the truck would cost far more than the gas alternative without being a whole lot better off-road? Or should the pricier diesel truck offer something the gas truck does not: specifically, much, much more towing and payload?
Ram chose the latter option.
Image: Ram”A Cummins isn’t a Cummins without over 1000 ft-lbs of torque in this application,” Doug Killian told me during our Microsoft Teams interview. “We’re not going to take [the Cummins engine’s] DNA out of it in order to make it a Power Wagon…so what really is sacred is, the intercooler and the radiator are absolutely critical to making the Cummins make that amount of power and torque…to put the power down for long periods of time and [handle] the heat [while] towing.”
To maximize towing, the truck needs a humongous cooling module, which is heavy and takes up space at the front of the vehicle. This means the factory winch option had to go. “The winch isn’t really what makes the Power Wagon the Power Wagon because, frankly, it’s optional,” said Killian. “And a winch is something you can easily do in the aftermarket.”
Though packaging the front sway bar disconnect system wasn’t trivial, Ram managed to keep that feature. “What really makes Power Wagon Power Wagon…it’s about getting that torque to the ground,” the Ram development engineer continued.
“We didn’t have a locking front axle with a Cummins…that was engineering challenge #1… to get that 3.42 ratio 9.25 axle with a locker…We had to engineer that essentially from the ground up, and that’s what took a fair amount of time,” Killian told me.
Ram already had a locking rear axle and a transfer case that it could use, but that front axle had to be beefed up with a larger axle housing with more tube section, plus upgraded axle shafts. This is required not just because of the added torque but because of the added weight; the Cummins weighs 1,000 pounds more than the 6.4-liter gas motor.
1000 pounds!
“Getting that amount of mass over the front axle really changed the character of how the truck behaved off-road,” Killian told me, saying his team had expected more on-road understeer as a result of the heavy motor up front, but the change in off-road demeanor was a surprise. “Now you get that much more torque to work with, and now you’ve got that much normal force on each tire, and then you take the [front] stabilizer bar disconnect…you can imagine that we can spread that normal force between the two tires, and we can lock each axle,” Killian said.
He went on: “We got out to Moab [and found] the gas Power Wagon is like a billy-goat…it’s got enough torque. It’s got enough articulation. When the diesel started to hit some of these same [obstacles], it was almost like it was clawing its way up. It just had a different behavior climbing up these obstacles than the gas power wagon…the extra thousand pounds grabbing the ground made a difference.”
As impressive as its traction capability may be, with its three-link locked solid front axle, five-link locked solid rear axle, and front sway bar disconnect, the reality is that the diesel Power Wagon isn’t meant to be as much of a rock-climbing billygoat as the gas truck, and that has a lot to do with Ram’s desire to offer good payload and towing.
Take a look at the gas Power Wagon’s figures above, and you’ll see: They’re far from impressive. The payload figure of 1,570 is half that of any other Ram 2500, and the 10,530 pound towing figure is about 2/3 that of non-Power Wagon 2500s. “Kind of a dealbreaker for some people,” Killian admitted. He’s not wrong; check out a few threads I found on this topic:
The Cummins Power Wagon went a different route. Instead of compromising payload and towing, it chose to make some off-road compromises, including to that front winch, to articulation and to ground clearance.
“The ride height of the diesel is about an inch and a half lower than the gas Power Wagon,” Killian told me (per official specs from Ram, the diesel offers 13.2-inches of clearance to the gas truck’s 14.2 — so about an inch, but the diesel has 1″ taller tires, so suspension height is indeed about 1.5″ lower). That lower ride height helps the truck maintain impressive towing and payload specs. “It’s the dynamic stability that was really the limiting factor on the gas Power Wagon,” Killian said.
“Keeping that center of gravity low [is important] with the diesel powertrain,” he told me. “We looked at [raising the ride height],” he continued, though the team had some driveshaft angle issues and they’d need a different tire. Those were solvable problems, but Killian’s team wasn’t sure they were worth tackling. “We kinda got to this philosophical discussion of, if we’re doing a new Power Wagon, why not have it do something different than the gas Power Wagon is doing…almost creating a Power Wagon portfolio.”
“We took it in a different direction [than the gas Power Wagon] intentionally. Because if we raised the ride height, we put load D-rating tires on it, and we made it more top heavy, less stable, it was almost like ‘what’s the point?’ So we’re opening it up to a different type of potential by having that [higher] payload.”
Killian told me that the lower ride height allowed Ram to maintain dynamic stability for SAE J2807, the towing and payload standard that all Ram trucks are designed to meet. The Cummins Power Wagon is rated to tow “nearly 20,000 pounds [with] a payload capacity of almost 3,000 pounds.”
In addition to giving up an inch of ground clearance (and 3 degrees of approach angle — 26, down from 29) over the gas truck, the Cummins also loses some articulation despite also having the same suspension geometry and a disconnecting front sway bar.
“Spring rates are higher on a diesel than a gas because of the weight of the engine. Due to the spring rates, the gas Power Wagon will have better articulation…the gas Power Wagon is going to have a better RTI, but it won’t have the payload and towing.”
Are The Off-Road Compromises Worth It?
Less ground clearance, less articulation, worse approach angle, more weight — it’s clear that the Cummins Power Wagon is actually going to be less capable off-road than the gas truck, which costs about $13,000 less than the $88,570 Cummins Power Wagon. But that gas truck comes with huge payload and towing compromises, so maybe the Cummins Power Wagon offers a happy medium.
Of course, there’s already the Cummins Ram Rebel. “The Rebel does good things, but we were still truck with the ability to get that torque down over the front axle…the difference between the Rebel and the Power Wagon diesel [off-road] was the ability to just claw its way up over obstacles and hills and ditches and that sort of things,” Killian told me in our discussion. I myself am skeptical that a disconnecting sway bar and a front locker are going to yield significantly more off-road capability in a truck that is likely limited by its geometry, but I’ll have to drive them both to find out.
When the original Ram 2500 Power Wagon came out in 2005, I was 13 years old. I distinctly remember being disappointed that there was no Cummins. “What the heck; that would be perfect!” I remember thinking. “It would be the ultimate truck!”
The diehard off-roader in me doesn’t feel that way anymore, as the compromises are glaring. The heavy engine requiring stiff springs that reduce articulation and requiring a lower ride height to maintain dynamic stability to get the most out of the engine’s towing/payload capabilities…it’s a hard pill to swallow. And part of me thinks it would have been cool to make the towing/payload compromises to keep the Power Wagon a pure rock-crawler so it can stand out more from, say, the F-250 Tremor. The Ram 2500 Rebel could then be the truck for those wanting a bit more off-road capability from their Cummins, without giving up so much towing/hauling capability.
But overall, I’m still pumped that we finally have a Cummins Power Wagon, even if it’s now less of a rock crawler and more of an overlander.
angry birds pig nostrils grille
Hear me out: 4BT (well, the modern equivalent of the 4BT). Personally, I cringe whenever I hear about people swapping 4BTs into Jeeps and other small off-road trucks, as they’re just too heavy for that application.
But for this? It might be perfect. If we assume 2/3 the cylinders = 2/3 of everything else, then that’s still 715 ft-lb of torque for significantly less extra weight (it’ll still be a boat anchor, but at least it’s not a ship anchor), and it might solve their packaging problems as well, as you won’t be generating as much heat and so you don’t need as much cooling capacity (or you can move the radiator further back since the engine is shorter).
I’m no 4BT expert, but a quick search shows max torque is around 420lb/ft. Also only 150hp.. that truck would be a slug with the 4BT.
I’ve got a diesel Colorado ZR2, 180hp and 370lb/ft and I definitely need to plan my highway passes. It is great off road, low range is almost unnecessary.
I said “the modern equivalent of the 4BT”. The 4BT was a cut down 6BT, and the 6BT is what Dodge started out with in the ’90s. It has evolved a LOT to become the engine that Ram uses today, but I don’t have the modern designations memorized. So what I’m really saying is to use a cut-down version of the current six cylinder engine.
BTW, your diesel Colorado uses a 2.8l engine originally designed by VM Motori (if you go back far enough), and is actually a cousin of the Jeep Liberty CRD engine. Point being that it is much smaller and lighter than a cut-down Cummins would be (4.5l and much beefier construction).
Yeah I know all about my LWN. Mine has been pretty solid, but GM screwed with the design enough to make long term reliability a roll of the dice.
As for the Cummins, it looks like the ISB4.5 is the modern equivalent, with a max rated torque at 630lb/ft. They also still weigh 860lbs, so I’d probably trade the extra 140lbs for another 400lb/ft of torque.
https://www.cumminsperformance.com/conversions/cummins-4-5-conversion/
The site you linked gives the gross weight of an ISB4.5 stationary engine as 390 kg (860 lb), but that removing the stationary equipment drops “around 40 kg”, so it’s closer to 350 kg (770 lb). Also, you can cut a little more weight out of the drivetrain, suspension, cooling, and exhaust systems (probably not a lot, especially considering economies for manufacturing, but still). Given no other source (and the fact that finding engine weights is surprisingly difficult outside of certain circles) I’m guessing you based the “extra 140lbs” on this line in the article:
…which isn’t giving the weight of the 6.7l engine as 1000 lb, but rather that the entire truck weighs 1000 lb more when equipped with the diesel. Actual weight savings of using the four cylinder is hard to say with the limited information I can scrounge, but going off of the (admittedly way over-simplified) assumption of 2/3, then the gross weight of a 6.7 would be 1155 lb, so the 4.5 would save 385 lb gross (and probably more net).
The Cummins website does indeed list the ISB4.5 as having 627 lb-ft of torque, but they also list the ISB6.7 as having up to 885 lb-ft of torque. Which is interesting as the high output Ram version is listed as having 1075 lb-ft. That’s roughly 20% more torque, so if you apply that to the ISB4.5, then that’s 762 lb-ft (or if you go with my original 2/3 estimate, 715 lb-ft).
These things would suck trying to roll rock trails and fire roads through the San Bernadino NF. Too long, too wide, too heavy, too much.
They’d kill rolling your tow hauler into places like Glamis or Oceano Dunes. You wouldn’t need the tow pig Power Wagon, but the way Ram is going about setting it up, it would be hella fine.
So yeah, there’s a niche for these that would scratch a Power Wagons fans itch. Nice to have the choice.
My father had a ’72 Kenworth with a 350 Cummins and a 13-speed Fuller Roadranger transmission. 350 was a reference to its horsepower. I don’t know which version of the Cummins it had, but the torque was enough to easily get an 80,000-pound tractor and trailer combination up to speed.
The Kenworth was a huge upgrade from the IH with a 8V-71 Detroit Diesel. It had 318 HP and didn’t have as much torque.
350 cummins was 350 HP (factory), and usually 1,100 lbs or so of torque. They could be turned up, but obviously reliability became an issue at some point.
Yeah. Dad never felt the need to tweak his. It was perfectly adequate as delivered from the factory. And reliability was paramount.
I don’t know how these modern pickup chassis are putting 1,100 LBs of torque to the ground through two tires. Obviously tires are better than they were in the past, but that’s not a lot of contact patch.
I saw an ad on TV the other day for the 777 HP RAM TRX being able to go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Who needs a pickup that can allegedly do that? My ’01 Jetta TDI, once chipped got to 60 in just a little under 10 seconds. And my current ’17 Accord V6 gets there in under six seconds, if need be. I rarely plant my foot. I try to pay attention and merge into a gap. Rather than force one.
I want to be mad, but DT getting any sort of pop-culture adjacent joke is so shocking that I’ll allow it.
Okay this HAS to be an uncredited editor note, no way DT knew that!
the only correlation i have with 6-7 was that 6 was afraid of 7 because 7-8-9. i’m only 43 and everytime the xray students in my hospital program use new lingo, i look at them the way red forman looked at people on that 70’s show. i used to be cool man.
Such a crazy amount of compromise for an inferior powertrain.
Diesel needs to die.
Uh oh… now you’ve done it. You’re gonna get the diesel bros on your ass…
Never done much heavy towing, have you?
No! And neither have 90% of the rest of the folks buying 3/4 ton diesels.
Well, until you’ve got some experience maybe don’t be too judgmental about those who like diesel trucks. Mine has spent about 85% of its life with 13,000 lbs of race cars and trailer following close behind. I’m not a “diesel bro”, but I recognize the right tool for the job.
Around here, 90% of 3/4 ton trucks are used for work. Even the Tesla service “ranger” drives an F250 🙂
The extra initial purchase cost, maintenance costs ,fuel being higher priced ,upkeep where I live is basically forcing contractors etc to go back to gas unless they are towing a super heavy load.Even the loggers who illegally run off-road diesel fuel ( cheaper)are going to gassers because of the limp mode and no start once it goes on the countdown.
No question at all diesels have their place but for the vast majority it seems to be about bragging rights more than anything.
Man, you need a lighter race car. Maybe fiberglass body panels?
Maybe it’s a beefy trailer?
I’ve towed a 2001 Jetta and a 2017 Accord on dollies behind an F350 U-Haul van, and it had no problem going up 6% grades, either time. But I did have some sympathy for the engine and transmission during those climbs, because it sometimes had to downshift a gear or two and was pretty wound out.
I’m sure I’ll see these in the parking lot at Costco, but I probably won’t see them at Wilco or Grain Growers. That’s because the farmers are going to buy the optimal towing and hauling rig, and not the offroading rig. I’m sure RAM will still sell loads to tradesmen who want the badge.
I’m not going to buy one because I’m poor and cheap and do my offroading on a bicycle. Besides my old 1/2 ton does all the towing and hauling I need with no loan payments.
So you know how there’s the old adage that a contractor will buy a base work truck, while the foreman will buy an expensive truck that’ll never get dirty? That kinda goes for farmers too. I guarantee there’ll be plenty of middle-age and up farmers and ranchers that will buy one of these as a new
toywork truck.So basically it exists for people who want power wagon stickers on their tow pig
Neverminds, I read that chart totally wrong.
My feeling exactly. I think they should have figured out a new branding for this, especially given the power wagon’s military heritage.
The entire truck market is now aimed at posers and it’s quite depressing.
I’ve got a 2010 Dodge 2500 with the 6.7 and I live near Moab. I cannot imagine taking that beast down any real trails. It’s way too big and way too heavy. It’s great for towing a 13,000 lb trailer across the country. Something like 85% of my mileage has been with a trailer on the hitch. But offroading? I’ll stick with my XJ, thank you. Even that has an easier time than modern Wranglers, which have outgrown the trails that were built with much smaller rigs.
The real market for the diesel Power Wagon is in that picture of it towing 5 side by sides (what’s that, a $200k payload?). Drag your offroad toys to the trailhead using your offroady turbodiesel and you have all the street…er, trail cred with your friends!
The Best looking Power Wagons were the tradesmen trucks with the Power wagon option. essentially ridding the thing of the walrus Grill and the Stickers. Also getting you Vinyl Seats and Carpetless floors if optioned correctly.
But even then, you were looking at 60K or more trucks and Gas Only. but also even then, the soft and lifted suspension killed towing capacity.
For a guy that likes the style of off road trucks, that only needed to haul maybe one 18 foot trailer with a Jeep and maybe some weekend cargo in the bed, this was perfectly fine.
The Rebel was pretty much same as this new thing, but I imagine the name change will make the people that want to spend the money on a more capable offroad rig, but will never actually take them beyond the ORVA Parking area, this will all be a boon to the offroaders of a decade from now.
Decent 1 ton front axles are getting harder to find and a beefed up one from one of these trucks sounds like a decent option. Sell as many as you can Stellantis. I want a cheap one with not a lot of off road use for a future project jeep or better yet Bronco SAS.
You speak with experience and wisdom. Running a leviathan off road takes away most of the enjoyment IMHO.
It would be great if diesels didn’t go into limp mode over emissions issues and either leave you stranded or won’t start once it’s shut off.
Theres A eco diesel in our shop right now that has a def tank sending unit issue so it’s on the count down to not starting.
Our 12000 dollar snap on scan tool can’t do a reset so it’s off to the dealer for a reset then an approximately 60 mile drive cycle to reset…..as long as the temp is above 19 degrees and it’s 8 outside now .btw you can’t buy the sending unit by itself.
I could have sworn that already existed but I don’t pay much attention to packages and trims. There is probably someone that wants it but I don’t see the point of all these full size off road trucks. I’ve seen rapters stuck in ditches with broken suspension or a arms where a regular old truck will just climb out of it. Full size trucks are too big for off roading now they have been too big for sand for decades but now they are too big for just about anything other then a field.
Too big for the trails I go down, regardless of what they stuff under the hood. A 4Runner is pushing width limits on a lot of trails and the length of a full size pickup is a b*tch in the tighter sections.
Same I can think of exact places my JKU just fits.
A truck is a tool first. If you want an off road toy for trail running, get a Jeep. A 2500 is WAY too big to do anything fun off road anyway. This is excellent for people who live in terrain that need to actually do things. I don’t know about heavy towing off road, but that payload capacity is a godsend.
There are a lot of people that need 4WD a significant part of the year due to rain.
A newer 4wd Chevy got stuck on flat ground in the pastures here during monsoons and had to be pulled out.
The valley is pretty flat and catches rain, but in less than an hour away, the geography gets dynamic really quickly.
I think they could detune this model and still have a viable truck.
I have a 98 Cummins with probably 600 lbs of torque, and that’s pretty adequate.
Two wheel drive even with limited slip only goes so far. In some ways, an anti-offroad truck. Yesterday a tractor started slipping sideways on a hill where that was inconvenient, and I realized my truck has enough power to pull it out. That’s new!
I got a 4WD 1500 with a 318 in it, that will be my low traction option here.
Probably weighs half what the heavy hauler does.
Physics always wins.
This sort of thing just seems insanely stupid to me. Taking something this big and heavy off-road is just a recipe for the recovery guys getting to make payments on nicer boats. If you need a truck, buy a normal truck and use the damned thing to tow a Jeep to where you want to go off-roading. At least when the Jeep breaks you will still have a ride home.
But of course, most of them will go no further offroad than parking on a lawn anyway.
Maybe a better use of your time would be figuring out why you’re such a toxic hater, rather than leaving your bile on every article about a vehicle that doesn’t perfectly align with your idea of what other people should be allowed to enjoy.
ROFL! You are adorable.
You’re a sad, angry man. Try some cardio and sunlight.
Maybe its because Kevin, like many others don’t feel safe walking or cycling anymore because of massive, oversized, fuel swilling monstrosities like this that have taken over the streets of America.
Is that enough reason for you? Is should be.
I barely feel safe in my modestly-sized cars anymore with these 3-4+ ton monstrosities being driven around by asshats like they are sports cars because they have more horsepower than brains.
Anything over 5-6Klbs should require a CDL.
I don’t see this as an improvement in any manner. Have to wonder how the extra weight up front, effects the rear traction. In snow it obviously makes it significantly worse, I’d imagine without a bunch of extra gear in the bed, its not going to do that well.
They should have just put a high powered gasser in it, got the tq up to 5-600lbs. And people would have been happy with no compromise.
I am very much not a seasoned off-roader, but yea, towing capacity and off road capabilities are going to be at odds. Towing always needs super heavy springs and lower, wider footprints, versus the off roader needing to be small, high off the ground and soft springs. I laughed a bit when they said the (gas) Power wagon is a Billy goat, as those are still giant trucks compared to the Wranglers and Broncos of the world which seem much more Billygoat-ish. I know the comparison was against the Cummins though.
Glad they are pushing the limits of the “do everything Truck” idea, I wouldn’t kick either one out of my driveway even if it would just be to tow 3000lb car/2000lb trailer.
Even a Bronco or Wrangler is pushing it, especially the former where it’s a crying shame Ford with their clean sheet of paper didn’t have the guts to make it the size of a Suzuki Jimny.
Yes My JKU is just! small enough for the trails I go on and I still get brushed by plants on both sides while overlanding. As cool as they are Power Wagons are enormous.
This truck may have some compromises, but it doesn’t matter. It is a toy first and a truck second. It doesn’t have to be as good at towing, hauling, or off roading as other trucks. People buy this truck because it cool, even if other trucks are objectively better (also, it is worth noting this truck has way more utility than most people actually need – those that genuinely need to haul 3,000 lbs. in the bed or do serious rock crawling should buy a different truck).
I personally love this thing and would consider buying one. My only objection is the price tag. You can get an F250 Tremor XLT diesel for $75k. That presumably is a lower-spec truck than the Power Wagon, but I doubt the extra $13k buys enough useful options to warrant the higher price tag.
Better yet, get an F250 XL with the XL Off Road Package for $65K and skip the douchey black wheels and dad-bro decals.
That’s basically what I did when I bought my truck.
I have a 2021 XLT with the FX4 package. I added an aftermarket leveling kit and off-road running boards. At this point it is nearly identical to the Tremor but with 33 inch tires and without the decals (I dislike decals so I tend to remove them anyway). My truck was $62k plus a few hundred for the leveling kit and running boards when a comparable tremor XLT was over $70k.
I like the douchey black wheels, though (I know I am in the minority on that), but aftermarket wheels (or used stock Tremor wheels) aren’t expensive.
This is why the Power Wagon’s price tag is such a problem. My truck is functionally identical to the Ram but less than 3/4 the price.
Badges come off.
The 4-5 inch exhaust isn’t too subtle, but proper truck guys won’t be fooled anyway.
I agree that the Tremor makes more sense, because it’s a more equal combo of tow pig and off-roaders, but this does have front locker and swy bar disconnect over the Ford
I think a lot of the comments are overthinking it, your thoughts are like mine. It can do the towing/payload thing, it can do some off road stuff, it has the benefits of a diesel. Sure, why not? It’s not my cup of tea but I can see the appeal.
Definitely go for the Power Wagon. The only thing cooler than all that clatter and a big C badge on the fender is being able to tell the cashier at CVS that you spent $100k on it.
FWIW the SD Tremor matches better to the Power Wagon when you Spec a Lariat. My neighbor bought one and it was $93k with the HO Powerstroke
It’s about damn time. No make a winch option that fits the front of the bumper and make it a “Direct Connection”.
I really like the Powerwagon. In my overlanding group there is one going around from person to person because people discover it is just too enormous for trails.
The size and price is just too much for me. I am glad the diesel is there and they worked on the front axle to support the extra 1/2 ton.
I do not think I will ever be rich enough to rock crawl something that costs $90K and is that wide and heavy.
Be an influencer.
Honestly the Ram I want is the Laramie 2500 6 Seat Mega Cab with a 6.7L Cummins GAS ENGINE aka the B6.7 Octane and DRW setup.
Frankly I think Ram offers the least compromised heavy duty trucks in terms of ride quality and such with the rear air suspension and such, the mega cab is nice, and DRW is nice for towing.
Give it the Cummins 6.7 Gas engine and a DRW option and I’ll buy one tomorrow.
isn’t the 6.7 gas down like 200hp compared to the v8 and way heavier?
If you’re comparing it to the engine in the the TRX it’s -402HP and +60lbs of torque.
If you’re comparing it to the standard 6.4 Hemi it’s -110 hp and + 231lbs of torque.
I’m betting the Cummins will last a lot longer and require less major service (not oil changes) than either of Ram’s gas V8s.
Also the Mega Cabs are not available with a gas engine, only the 6.7 diesel, I imagine fitment wise the 6.7 Octane would bolt on, it would need a bit more work to make it work programming and plumbing wise, but I’m not buying a new diesel, that’s for sure.
Yet another example of more equalling less.
This version of the Power Wagon is fine. Not everyone needs or wants a rock crawler.
Really, the original Power Wagon was meant to haul stuff in the bed or a trailer off-road, in muddy conditions, on farms or construction sites which is more or less what this version is going to be set up for. A little more in keeping with the military WC truck that the original was based on — brute force for getting through all kinds of rough conditions. It will do fine for construction, oilfield work, farming, etc. Of course, many will be driven for commuting and to go to the mall, so there’s that…
Now, can we talk about just what the hell is going on with that grille? The design makes absolutely no sense. Can we just go back to some sort of egg-crate look or the old Dodge “crosshair” grilles?
And the side graphic is based on the late ’70s one, at which point it was a pure appearance package available with any Dodge 4×4 powertrain.
(Make mine a Slant Six)
Yeah, this exactly. The front locker should be the ticket for avoiding getting stuck / getting un-stuck on mud, snow, or deep sand.
Which one? I count at least six grilles in that grille.
Can we all take a deep breath and about four steps back from this ridiculous grille maximalism that’s taken over? It’s like three barbecue grills being crushed in from four sides, with three other vehicles’ front-ends worth of lights bodged into corners and anywhere else. Hey Ram: it looks like shit. Same goes for you, GMC/Chevy, with your hideous disparate five-layer shit sandwich grilles.
Thanks Murica! The world wouldn’t have done it without ya.
America. Fuck yeah.
This is the perfect truck for overlanding. Just throw in a camper and off you go.
I think this is the market right here. I have honestly passed on a Power Wagon because of the lack of diesel and lack of payload. This one comes from the factory with the right specs and much cheaper than doing an AEV Prospector/XL.