Forum Discussion
192 Replies
Cummins12V98 wrote:
JustLabs wrote:
Some of you take this stuff way too seriously.
Yea, easy for you to say! Your team won.
I couldn't care less that GM won. I've had Ford,Dodge and GM. I drove all three before I bought my GM. I'll drive all three the next time I buy a new truck.
Life is too short to get this worked up over a truck.catfishmontana wrote:
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.
Just wanted to point out, the fact that the Ram starts to reel the other two trucks back in in the tests shows that it has a horsepower advantage. The only other way it could catch up is aerodynamics.......and that's not what is happening. LOL
Just let him keep gloating on the victory Derrick, hopefully some sales will follow. Pretty sure a Chevy version would not have done as well as the Cadillac version for GM. Congrats again GMC guys :BTurtle n Peeps wrote:
It would have been negligible. Gearing does not make horsepower. Shorter gearing would have kept the big 6 in the power band slightly better but that's about it. And with a 6 speed I do mean slightly.
Would it have made a difference? Yes; but only a few seconds. The difference in fuel economy would have been more than negligible though.
I wish they would have put all 3 on a chassis dyno to see how much power is lost through the drive train. Crank horsepower is meaningless.
It does not make power, but it does increase or decrease the power depending on the ratio.
850 ft/lbs in direct they 3.73's is 3170 ft/lbs to the wheel, 4.10's would put 3485ft/lbs to the wheel, 9.9%, for the same engine output and fuel consumption. That is the difference in 775 ft/lbs or 850 ft/lbs for the same gearing. At 2500 rpms that is like an additional 35hp... So yes it does make a difference.
I also don't believe that the difference in rpms, 9.9%, is going to make a huge difference in fuel economy on a modern HPCR engine, 20 years ago absolutely.
Gearing is very important, but many people only thing that the rear end ratio is important. Ford engineers know this, and that is why the trans gears are lower than the other transmissions. Report a higher rear end, but end up with the same overall gearing and you get good marketing with good gearing. IMHO perception is also why they built a V-8 from the ground up when an I-6 is a better design, just ask any trucker.
I agree compleaty on the dyno, I think Ford would have dropped a bit and GM/Ram would have been closer, just a guess based on stock dyno sheets I have seen.Cummins12V98 wrote:
Since they reduced the potential performance of the RAM and Ford trucks by making them all use the 3:73's do you think the results would be the same if they all three offered their BEST towing package?
I sure would like to see all the trucks with different drivetrain specs tested. The Dodge website confuses me. I can build a 3500 truck over 100 different ways?Turtle n Peeps wrote:
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.
I'll play.
It would have been negligible. Gearing does not make horsepower. Shorter gearing would have kept the big 6 in the power band slightly better but that's about it. And with a 6 speed I do mean slightly.
Would it have made a difference? Yes; but only a few seconds. The difference in fuel economy would have been more than negligible though.
I wish they would have put all 3 on a chassis dyno to see how much power is lost through the drive train. Crank horsepower is meaningless.
Thanks!
I can tell you from personal experience in 2012 I hit 304 out of 350 advertised HP on a Vegas Dyno. The 2012 Ford with 50 more HP only did 23 more than me.
So I would bet the GM would hit at least the same percentage as my RAM or more.NC Hauler wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
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
My Longhorn Ram doesn't have "synthetic leather":h..I KNOW the Laramie Limited doesn't have "synthetic leather" and Mine is genuine leather....the rest I don't really care about:)
Hey give it to the Ford...I picked them to win any way, and had Chevy in 2nd....Ram was last...no matter how they finished....
The leather in our Longhorns is what you would find in the top of the line luxury cars. Now the Laramie that's a different story.JustLabs wrote:
Some of you take this stuff way too seriously.
Yea, easy for you to say! Your team won.NC Hauler wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
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
My Longhorn Ram doesn't have "synthetic leather":h..I KNOW the Laramie Limited doesn't have "synthetic leather" and Mine is genuine leather....the rest I don't really care about:)
Hey give it to the Ford...I picked them to win any way, and had Chevy in 2nd....Ram was last...no matter how they finished....
Thats the way I thought the results would have been also.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.
Just wanted to point out, the fact that the Ram starts to reel the other two trucks back in in the tests shows that it has a horsepower advantage. The only other way it could catch up is aerodynamics.......and that's not what is happening. LOLCummins12V98 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.
I'll play.
It would have been negligible. Gearing does not make horsepower. Shorter gearing would have kept the big 6 in the power band slightly better but that's about it. And with a 6 speed I do mean slightly.
Would it have made a difference? Yes; but only a few seconds. The difference in fuel economy would have been more than negligible though.
I wish they would have put all 3 on a chassis dyno to see how much power is lost through the drive train. Crank horsepower is meaningless.
