Dodge/Ram MegaCab finally has payload capacity in 2013

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 12:24 PM

This is more of a FYI post than anything... but, when I bought my truck last year - what I really wanted was the MegaCab vs. the Crew Cab. For the Mega Cab, I was actually willing to tolerate a short bed truck (sorry, it just don't look right to me). I liked the room behind the seat for carrying extra kid-related crap and the full bench seat would have been nice when carrying 3 people back there. The problem was, the payload capacities (even on the duallys) was quite low (see Ram Body Builder guide for 2012, page 14). Given my own personal philosophy, I had to take these trucks out of the running.

A random comment on RV.NET made me go look at this year's Ram Body Builder guide at the Mega Cabs (page 14). It looks like the payload capacities are up to where you'd expect on a 3500/DRW truck - in the mid-5,000s range. Heck, that's more payload capacity than my 2012 Crew Cab!

I've always scoffed at people who upgraded trucks within a year- but man o' day, does this have me thinking! I'm not sure if I'm

or

or even

!

WEMig · 04-26-2013, 12:54 PM

I'd be really curious to know what Dodge did to gain that much cargo (2000+ lbs) capacity. Was it structural or new fuzzy math?

Rugged Brown · 04-26-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WEMig

I'd be really curious to know what Dodge did to gain that much cargo (2000+ lbs) capacity. Was it structural or new fuzzy math?

They may have adopted the Ford formula.

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 12:58 PM

I have no idea.

The really curious thing was for the 2012s - the MegaCab/Laramie/DRW/4.10gears w/ a short bed had a payload capacity in the 2,000s. But, the Crew Cab/Laramie/DRW/4.10gears had a payload capacity in the 4,000s.

Something under the covers was obviously different between those 2 trucks.

I'm betting that Chrysler listened to the community - we wanted the Mega Cab with the same payload as the Crew Cab. Whatever was different, it seems they changed and made them the same.

Pure guesses, obviously.

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 12:58 PM

And, lets watch the brand bashing... that wasn't the intention of this thread. Let's keep it.

and

and happy.

WEMig · 04-26-2013, 12:59 PM

It made no sense to invest in a 2012 mega cab DRW according to those numbers.

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WEMig

It made no sense to invest in a 2012 mega cab DRW according to those numbers.

That's why we passed and went with the Crew. We really wanted the Mega, but I just couldn't do it.

It's also why I'm excited about the 2013s and am shockingly considering going truck looking.

Len & Cheri · 04-26-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rugged Brown

They may have adopted the Ford formula.

Maybe they should adopt more Ford formulas so Dodge won't be rated as the most dangerous pickup truck?

Lynkage · 04-26-2013, 01:21 PM

Not Dodge bashing but I for one could never understand why the crew was so small.

Both Ford and GM had full size crew's and the Dodge could hardly fit a average size adult.

I am glad E that they have finally made a truck that fits your needs!!

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynkage

Not Dodge bashing but I for one could never understand why the crew was so small.

Both Ford and GM had full size crew's and the Dodge could hardly fit a average size adult.

I am glad E that they have finally made a truck that fits your needs!!

I think the smaller Crew Cabs for Dodge were an older thing. For 2012, we sat in each of the big 3. In the backseat - by measurements, they were all within an inch or four here or there. By feel, though, told some magical other story:
- the Chevy was, by far, the tightest feeling (leg room was cramped)
- the Ford felt like it had the most butt room, but felt tighter in the shoulders area
- the Ram felt tighter than the Ford in the butt, roomier in the shoulders, equal to the Ford in the legs but had this weird amazing amount of head room

We went into truck shopping with a slight towards Dodge because we were trading a Durango that treated us really well. We sat in the Dodges first, then Ford and then Chevy. We didn't believe what we were feeling and felt like we had imagined the roominess feeling of the Dodges, so we went back to them at the end.

For us, we spent more time in the back seat climbing around to see how it felt than we did anywhere else. We regularly carry 6 of us (2 kids, 4 adults) and wanted to be comfy. It's just what fit us best.

But now... the Mega Cab... hmm.

Rugged Brown · 04-26-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynkage

Not Dodge bashing but I for one could never understand why the crew was so small.

Both Ford and GM had full size crew's and the Dodge could hardly fit a average size adult.

I am glad E that they have finally made a truck that fits your needs!!

I think you may be mistaking the quad cab for the crew cab. The quad cab comes with 4 normal doors and quite often gets mistaken for a crew cab. Ther is also a crew cab version which is the same size as ford and chev and a mega cab version which is the largest of all the cabs. I do like the flatter floor surface of the Ford crew cab versus the dodge.

Lynkage · 04-26-2013, 01:36 PM

I have not looked at the Dodges in quite some time (I like Fords myself) but the first crew cabs that were in the newer body style (2005+) were extremely small when the company I work for bought them. Then they introduced the Mega and that was a bit better.

Once again Just my opinion!

**ependydad** · 04-26-2013, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynkage

I have not looked at the Dodges in quite some time (I like Fords myself) but the first crew cabs that were in the newer body style (2005+) were extremely small when the company I work for bought them. Then they introduced the Mega and that was a bit better.

Once again Just my opinion!

Yep - that's it. My 2012 had as roomy of a Crew Cab as the Ford. Different feels to each and each had their pros/cons.

SaskCampers · 04-26-2013, 01:59 PM

I would bet they did nothing other than raise the ratings as the megacab's were always just the short box on a long wheelbase quadcab ( now probably a LB crew) that they used the extra inches gained from the box change to put the new cab on. I really miss the room we had in our megacab and may go back to one someday after the taste of 42 trips for warranty in the first 25 months goes away.

V-Dub · 04-28-2013, 01:32 AM

From reading about it they mention an all-new hydroformed frame. Not sure what that means but I attributed the beefier numbers to that detail. I could be totally off though.

I have no particular brand loyalties but right now I fancy the Rams followed by the Fords. I think what swayed me is the under seat storage, floor storage, and the Rambox. I had a really good experience with Ford though. I traded my '06 Navigator for my current '11 Ram Laramie. Couldn't be happier (except that I didn't have the foresight to get a bigger truck for towing purposes).

V-Dub

prairiecamper · 04-29-2013, 10:37 AM

My truck 2008 ram mega SB. GVWR 9000 Unloaded frt axle 4522 unloaded rear axle 2900 GAWR frt 5200 GAWR rear 6010. Total unloaded axles 7422 Total Gross axles 11210. Wouldn't the carrying capacity be 11210 - 7422 = 3788? Yet payload is 9000 - 7422 = 1578?? Tires are capable of 3195 per wheel all around. I'm guessing it's suspension and frame that make the difference? I understand max trailer as that is probably due to engine, trans, and diffs. Yet there is no difference in the drivetrain of a 3/4 vs. 1 ton! What am I missing?

You may also like: