Forum Discussion
192 Replies
- I just read over the scoring sheet a little closer and have to admit there is some stuff that make the results a little off in my mind. For example the Ford was on top the Davis Dam run almost a minute ahead of the Chevy and 1.25 minutes ahead of the Ram. That's like a mile in front and it gained only 10 points?? Then on the subjective scoring Aaron Bragman was very biased toward the Ram. These trucks are not that different ... 65 points for overall value for the Ford and 80 for the more expensive Ram .... give me a break ... I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system. I would throw out Aaron's scores and call the results very close but a little less biased:
GMC...2827
Ford...2766
Ram...2706 - To add to this desired testing theme:
1. Let each manufacturer configure the truck to what they think is the ideal hauler. As long as the options and combinations are available to the buyer, I say it is fair to compare them. If someone complains their choice of vehicle does not have a comparable option, that sounds like poor optioning choices by that manufacturer that should reflect in the results.
2. I would like to see the tests all hauling the same payload. If one truck is built heavier than another, that weight penalty is on the manufacturer. I want see how each truck does with 10K or 15K lbs and not be adjusted because one truck is portlier than another.
3. Adjust each brake controller bias properly for the trailer instead of using the mid range setting. Some controllers will have ranges that span differently than others so why try to use the scale as absolute?
4. Let's get some heat metrics from the engine, transmission and brakes after each run so we can compare efficiencies.
5. How about some standing starts from steeper grades? How many of you have had to stop on steep drives or approaches and then get rolling?
6. Let's see more testing of low speed (15 to 30 mph), mid speed (25 to 45 mph) and high speed (45 to 65 mph) passing on flats and inclines. Take distance measurements instead of time. If you get stuck behind a semi on a grade, does your truck have enough reserve to safely pass it or will you be following the semi the rest of the way up the hill? bobx2 wrote:
My take on it is that they wanted to take out the arguing over who had an advantage because of, well, anything that would be an advantage, such as different gearing. They made it as heads up as possible for equal testing.
I agree that was the intent, but when you have different transmissions it doesn't work out that way. The Ford trans with 3.73's is lower than the Ram Aisin would be with 4.10's in all but 1st and 6th.. so it's not really as fair as it looks.
Just an observation and I think the GCWR's where all close enough that it was a fair test.
I would have liked to see a rolling acceleration. I also would have like to see the hill climb at a moving, say 65 mph vs a stopped start at the on-ramp. Not sure what the outcome would be, if any different, but that's a more realistic test IMHO.
I also would have liked to see mileage data for the entire trip, run the trucks a mile or two apart and give the entire report.- really go ducks !! must feel threatened huh ??
Cummins12V98 wrote:
bobx2 wrote:
"Don't forget they dumbed the test down for GM. Let them all put their best 350/3500 out there and see what happens.
"
Not that this has anything to do with my previous post, which was obviously way over the heads of some members here, but how do you figured they "dumbed down" the test? I can only assume you are talking about making them all run the same rear gear? By making all the trucks as close to identical as possible, it makes the testing even more accurate. It was about as close to "apples to apples" as you will ever get for real world testing.
Denial is not just a river. :)
I am not denying any of the results. Maybe how they did a couple. If you are going to see what a one ton dually can do why not test the best they have to offer. I understand why they did what they did but so far no one has commented on how the test would have turned out with them all offering their best performer.
Kind of like when they dumbed down the fire fighters tests they had to pass because of what females can contribute. Maybe not the best comparison but close.
My take on it is that they wanted to take out the arguing over who had an advantage because of, well, anything that would be an advantage, such as different gearing. They made it as heads up as possible for equal testing. Really can't even speculate on how the tests would have turned out had all the trucks been different. Maybe fun to talk about, but it would all be guess work without another test to actually prove anything out.
Not gonna touch the fire fighter comment......- Well it'll be interesting to see if GM can make up their low 1 ton sales this year. In 2013 GM was dead last with Ram selling almost twice as many 1 tons as GM did. Ford spanked both. All you GM 1 ton lovers can enjoy your win but remember there are far fewer of you than Ram and Ford 1 ton owners.
travelnutz wrote:
I love seeing all the excuses posted by the Ram/Cummins pom pom boys. There was never any question as to what the results would be in the tests to anyone with an educated brain. Some try to lie their way thru their losses and failures in life in the real world while some others obviously only tell the truth. Absolutely no surprize that GM diesel trucks were voted and proven number 1 over and over as usual and is/was done with no excuses needed like the other two and their banner boys constantly utter! They have nothing else to show for their lacking choice/choices.
The GM costs 6% less than the Ram and is less than the Ford. GM's better riding and quieter. Gives approx 10% better fuel economy when hauling. The GM wins everytime but still the Ram slug boys with Ram's artificial and bogus as usual HP and Torque fictitious claimed power numbers is proven to be wrong again as usual as was Ford. Words are cheap and have no meaning as actual real world performance and testing gives the real and honest FACTS! The honestly and Sanction Certified much lower HP and torque of the GM says it all in tests. Must be some like to pay more for their trucks at purchase and then continue to pay more everytime they drive them. Then at the day of reckoning, the killer nail is when they even get less when they sell or trade their trucks away. What ever happened to learning a real "ejamacation" anyway?
How about the huge difference in brake temps going dowwnhill?
You blind and misled boys humor me so much and please keep it up! I like the laughs...
I'll just let you in on a little secret of sorts for the 2016 model year HD diesel trucks. The actual GM performances will be even far greater than these in this test and leave you scratching your already sore bleeding head. A little hinting has been done already in print media.
Good grief. In reality, anybody with an "educated brain" knows that all of these trucks have a variety of distinct pluses and minuses. Figure out which minuses you are willing to live with and which you aren't, and pick a truck.
And you might re-read the test - the scoring was actually close. I actually drove a new duramax recently because I'm in the market for a new truck and it's definitely snappy off the line - much more so than the Ram and it seemed to be about on a par with the F250. But there were a few minuses that ultimately eliminated the GM for me - the DEF tank placement is just terrible, I don't like the suspension setup (weak front end), and subjectively I don't really like the way it looks very much. Also, fair or not, I'm not feeling too confident about GM products lately with all the issues they've been having.bobx2 wrote:
"Don't forget they dumbed the test down for GM. Let them all put their best 350/3500 out there and see what happens.
"
Not that this has anything to do with my previous post, which was obviously way over the heads of some members here, but how do you figured they "dumbed down" the test? I can only assume you are talking about making them all run the same rear gear? By making all the trucks as close to identical as possible, it makes the testing even more accurate. It was about as close to "apples to apples" as you will ever get for real world testing.
Denial is not just a river. :)
I am not denying any of the results. Maybe how they did a couple. If you are going to see what a one ton dually can do why not test the best they have to offer. I understand why they did what they did but so far no one has commented on how the test would have turned out with them all offering their best performer.
Kind of like when they dumbed down the fire fighters tests they had to pass because of what females can contribute. Maybe not the best comparison but close.- I didn't think the whining was going to me this bad. Most of us agree the trucks are very close. I have never sat with our street group during a happy hour during the winter and truck or engines even came up. I know we are all old but more important issues to talk about. Like their golf game.
chevman - "Don't forget they dumbed the test down for GM. Let them all put their best 350/3500 out there and see what happens.
"
Not that this has anything to do with my previous post, which was obviously way over the heads of some members here, but how do you figured they "dumbed down" the test? I can only assume you are talking about making them all run the same rear gear? By making all the trucks as close to identical as possible, it makes the testing even more accurate. It was about as close to "apples to apples" as you will ever get for real world testing.
Denial is not just a river. :)
