2014 Ultimate 1 Ton Challenge results

The results don't really surprise me. The Duramax is tuned to be aggressive. It will rev a little higher and is eager to downshift and run at the rpm where it makes power. The Ford is tuned to be more laid back. The fact that the Chevy can save me fuel might be enough to put another bow tie in my garage.

I would have like to have seen how often each of these trucks went into regen during testing. THat more than anything will affect mileage on these trucks.

I doubt all trucks started off their testing after just having completed a regen cycle.

Really all three of these trucks should have been outfitted with an Edge Insight CTS so we could see vital parameters like EGT, engine temp, trans temps, and regen status.

N-Trouble wrote:
If there is one thing you can learn from these tests is that manufacturer rated output numbers are meaningless when it comes to real world towing. They're just paper figures and that's all.

Exactly. Where did all the extra ponies go that Ford has?
Congrats to GM for winning this years award.
In the end they all seem to stack up really nicely. Like Marty says, pick the one that fits your butt the best, or better yet the one the DW likes....

Good win for the Duramax. Lowest power numbers on paper, but does really well in "real world" conditions. Really not a bad choice among the three - just "different" personalities. Pick the one you like best, or the one that has a dealer in your area you like and trust. All these things can be more important to people than a second or two time difference in a drag race scenario.

Case in point - my wife's cousin. He drives a 2003 F350 SRW with the 6.0L diesel in it. I bug him all the time about how much cash he has dumped into that thing to keep it running over 180,000 miles. He says he buys Fords because the small town near where he has his ranch has one dealership - a Ford dealership. He hates the thought of driving to the next town 30- 45 min away to get warranty service. Makes perfect sense.

The testers did the same thing for all three vehicles for the fuel... so I don't get the issue.
The Duramax is down what- 50 hp and 100 pounds of torque? That power comes form somewhere- more fuel! The GM truck just vastly outperformed in average mpg because it has less power and therefore burns less fuel.

As for the def- it is a factor for me. Not the cost- it's the aggravation of having to get it and put it in the truck. Not a deciding factor but it figures into the equation. Heck- I remember when a lot of guys were championing the Ram because it was the last one that did not need DEF. Now that it needs it (a lot of it) they claim it is a non-factor.

The Allison has always been a really good/efficient transmission when it comes to getting the power outback and that must explain why the GM can even stay in the same zip code as the other two trucks which have far more hp/torque. However, the guys did say the Ram was buttery smooth.

Can't wait to see what the Ford is like when its frame/chassis is made out of aluminum!

Cummins12V98 wrote:
"using the same pump and same filling methods for each, allowing the pump mechanism to click off automatically the first time; then we'd manually fill with one more click after that."

Sorry but that is no way to determine accurately fuel consumption. Same goes for DEF usage.

Then what is your suggestion for how they should have determined mileage???

It doesn't matter whether the tank fills completely as long as it is consistent between fillings your starting from the same starting point each time.

gmcsmoke wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

gmcsmoke wrote:
lol at the upcoming butthurt.

Two things I don't like about the Ram, 32 gallon fuel tank and DEF consumption.

I agree on the 32 gal part. Not big enough of a deal to change. Just need fuel 30 miles sooner than I already do.

Rear axles may be the same but transmission ratios are different and how about diameter of tires?

and that could be a comprise on the DEF tank. I'd like to see cummins improve emissions to reduce the amount used. If done the fuel tank could be increased.

32 gal is because of DEF tank.

Problem with these tests is one click/two click on tank fill is not accurate. How was the DEF filled?

Example on my Dually I fill diesel tank to the top but a few seconds later it's not full. On my 98 full is full.

Def is so cheap in reality it's no biggie to me.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

gmcsmoke wrote:
lol at the upcoming butthurt.

Two things I don't like about the Ram, 32 gallon fuel tank and DEF consumption.

I agree on the 32 gal part. Not big enough of a deal to change. Just need fuel 30 miles sooner than I already do.

Rear axles may be the same but transmission ratios are different and how about diameter of tires?

and that could be a comprise on the DEF tank. I'd like to see cummins improve emissions to reduce the amount used. If done the fuel tank could be increased.

"using the same pump and same filling methods for each, allowing the pump mechanism to click off automatically the first time; then we'd manually fill with one more click after that."

Sorry but that is no way to determine accurately fuel consumption. Same goes for DEF usage.

I am sure they are all very close so that is a non issue as far as I am concerned.

Off the line performance "RAM has always struggled" . The fact the RAM has so much low end torque they have to limit torque. Even with my measly 800# torque and limited output down low I can get my 29K load moving with ease even with 3:42 gears. So that is a non issue for me also.

I don't like the 32 gallon tank but not a deal breaker. Carry a backup 5 in the tool box.

What I like is how well the exhaust brake with the separate modes works and the service brake stopping distances.

I also like the interior. Limited/Longhorn are top quality and very comfortable.

Transmission gearing/tire size probably comes into play, not sure who it benefits.

I understand the 3:73 comparison but If I am in the Dually market I want to know what each trucks BEST performer would be and how that truck compares to the others.

What this really shows is FORD claims higher ratings than they actually perform and GM underestimates their performance and RAM does what they claim and back it up with the SAE J2806 ratings.

Buy what you like, if RAM was not available it would be GM for me, just would have a hard time getting used to the looks!

Wow- I don't think anyone picked the GM vehicle to win. Think what its gonna drive/tow like with the eight speed and bump in torque/HP next year!

The biggest thing that jumped out at me was the brake temperatures. That is an important safety consideration for me! My trailer actually weighs over 20k and I usually have the wife and kids with me. The 2-3 mpg better fuel mileage is a nice tidbit too!

I was also blown away by how the Ram was able to turn it on big time and basically catch up after the controlled "slow" starts off the line. That has to be good/better for the drivetrain!

Congrats to all of the big three! Will still look at all of them but I will probably get another GM truck. :)