Forum Discussion
192 Replies
4x4ord wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
AH64ID wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they could have turned off the torque management.
What do you mean by "torque maagement"?
RAM does not allow full power in the low gears until you are moving along.
None of the engines are allowed to make full power in lower gears.
There isn't a drive-train that would fit and hold full torque off the line, and not cost what a full drag trans costs.
I know the RAM reduces it a lot. I can really feel when it comes on.
Interesting to know how much on each brand. Anyone know?
Where does this idea come from that "none of the engines are allowed to make full power in the lower gears"? does the computer limit fuel until it shifts into 3rd? I have heard people throw this "torque management" term around but have doubts that it refers to limiting torque in lower gears. I think the computer backs off fuel during shifting to avoid slipping the transmission clutches and wonder if this might be what "torque management" refers to?
Torque Management does refer to low gear fueling, there is less total power available in lower gears. Most people never notice it because the gearing reduction makes up for the lower power output, and the trucks still accelerate quickly with a load.
What you are thinking of is called shift defuel and a different ECM control than torque management.
Torque management has been around since the late 90's and occurs in all 3 makes and both manual and automatic transmissions.
EFI live actually has tables you can see that show the max torque available at a certain rpm.
Vehicle engineers have also verified this.
The driveline simply cannot handle full torque with the gear reduction of low gears.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Finding a dyno that allows for full power in 2nd or 3rd is very difficult, even the loaded dyno's don't generally have enough load. This is why higher gears make more power, especially on turbo motors.
I have no idea of what you are talking about? Here are lots of people using 3rd gear for dyno'ing. No shortage of dynos that use 3rd gear. In fact, if one has lots of power and a less than stellar clutch, it is the preferred gear so it gives the clutch a little more advantage. It's also a lot safer in autos that can go 150 MPH in 1 to 1.
I clicked your link, nothing on the page was a turbo diesel.. what type of engines is this thread about??? Turbo Diesel's don't dyno in lower gears for a reason. We are not talking about NA gas motors that have power come on much quicker.
Additionally, 3rd gear of how many? 3 of 4 is a VERY different game than 3 of 6. Use ratio's, not gears.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
For the last time. Gears don't make power, turbo motors or not.
Duh.. it increases wheel torque.. as stated, and has been what the discussion is all about. I mistyped power AND then corrected myself.. scroll up and re-read.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Simple example: Given: 1lb-ft @ 5252 RPM. Run this through a 2:1 reduction gear: torque doubles to 2lb-ft but speed halves to 2626 RPM. 1lb-ft at 5252 and 2lb-ft at 2626 both equal one horsepower.
Again, DUH... But which one does more work??? HP is the rate at which work is done, torque is the amount of work. The 2:1 gearing does 2x the work in the same time. How does that not make a vehicle accelerate faster?
It is a simple example, look at your own answer. 2x the torque for the same hp.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
BTW, my link works just fine. It opened up on two different computers.
It didn't open on my ipad or computer??? Not sure on that one.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Still think I'm incorrect? All you have to do is show me a chassis dyno that shows more HP with a shorter gear.
As I already stated.. DO NOT confuse hp for torque.. get off the HP kick, we are talking torque. Both are important when talking towing.Cummins12V98 wrote:
AH64ID wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they could have turned off the torque management.
What do you mean by "torque maagement"?
RAM does not allow full power in the low gears until you are moving along.
None of the engines are allowed to make full power in lower gears.
There isn't a drive-train that would fit and hold full torque off the line, and not cost what a full drag trans costs.
I know the RAM reduces it a lot. I can really feel when it comes on.
Interesting to know how much on each brand. Anyone know?
Where does this idea come from that "none of the engines are allowed to make full power in the lower gears"? does the computer limit fuel until it shifts into 3rd? I have heard people throw this "torque management" term around but have doubts that it refers to limiting torque in lower gears. I think the computer backs off fuel during shifting to avoid slipping the transmission clutches and wonder if this might be what "torque management" refers to?Finding a dyno that allows for full power in 2nd or 3rd is very difficult, even the loaded dyno's don't generally have enough load. This is why higher gears make more power, especially on turbo motors.
I am well aware of how it works, but nonetheless your link doesn't work.
I have no idea of what you are talking about? Here are lots of people using 3rd gear for dyno'ing. No shortage of dynos that use 3rd gear. In fact, if one has lots of power and a less than stellar clutch, it is the preferred gear so it gives the clutch a little more advantage. It's also a lot safer in autos that can go 150 MPH in 1 to 1.
For the last time. Gears don't make power, turbo motors or not.
This is easy to see:
Remember that power is force times speed (distance/time). Or, more specific for our needs, power is torque times RPM. Changing the gear ratio will alter the output torque , but it will affect output speed exactly opposite, so power stays the same.
Simple example: Given: 1lb-ft @ 5252 RPM. Run this through a 2:1 reduction gear: torque doubles to 2lb-ft but speed halves to 2626 RPM. 1lb-ft at 5252 and 2lb-ft at 2626 both equal one horsepower.
NO POWER IS GAINED. None, nada, zero. I don't know how many times I have to say it. GEARS DON"T MAKE POWER! This is why the Ram would have gained next to nothing with a 6 speed and 4:10 in this test. What is gained in acceleration it is lost in wheel speed as the above math example points out.
BTW, my link works just fine. It opened up on two different computers.
Still think I'm incorrect? All you have to do is show me a chassis dyno that shows more HP with a shorter gear.4x4ord wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
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.
Nope. My Laramie has real leather.
Sorry, I mistakenly thought they tested a Ram Laramie rather than the the Laramie Limited. It could very well be that the Laramie Limited uses genuine leather....it sure is a nice interior. I think whether you're talking Ford, GMC, Ram, Mercedes, or Jaguar most leather interiors use synthetic leather. Some put a scrap of genuine leather in the center of the seat cushion so they can advertise genuine leather seats. For many uses synthetic leather might make sense.
Laramie Limited has genuine leather, just as the Longhorn...and as stated earlier, the Laramie Limited is the heaviest of all the other Rams, but it's loaded with everything one could purchase as an option...personally I thought it would cost more than what it did.Cummins12V98 wrote:
It took me a while to understand why I could still pull every grade along I-5 border to border at 55 or more with the 3:42's at near 29K. It's gearing. But I found out it does not like to take off on a steep hill from a start. That is why my next RAM (not Dodge) will have 4:10's.
When I went on the TDR and told of my purchase and what I was towing you would have thought the sky was falling! I did have a price from the dealer to swap front and rear diffs to 4:10 for $1,500 but decided not to after seeing how the truck performed.
I have been thinking lately I may just go ahead and do the gear swap if RAM does not get the air ride in the 3500 dually's soon.
I tow loads close to 40,000 lbs with 3.55 gears and 20" wheels (34" tall tires) and I honestly have a hard time believing how easy the Ford makes the task of getting going seem. You put the truck in drive and touch the accelerator and it takes off as though you're not hooked to anything. Our GM on the other hand does let you know you have a huge load hooked up that you're trying to get going. The Duramax revs and you slowly start moving until the trailer wheels drop in a hole or need to climb over a mole hill causing the truck to almost stop. Part of the difference is the lower 1st gear ratio that the Ford transmission has but I believe much of it is the torque converter. The Aisin transmission has a lower 1st gear (3.74:1) than your 68RFE (3.23:1) so the Aisin mated with a 3.73 rear end would have a very similar 1st gear ratio as your 68RFE mated to 4.10 rear gears and very similar as well to my Ford's 1st gear mated to the 3.55 rear end.4x4ord wrote:
goducks10 wrote:
Isn't it apples to apples? Using 3.73 or 4.10 in all would've delivered the same results. IMO they should all have the same rear gears and tranny gearing, that way you would really see which truck puts the power to the ground the best. But in the end it's really all about what they can tow. And that's where GM falls short in the HD segment and probably why they lack in 1 ton sales. It's a great light duty tow truck but when you really need to haul the big stuff you gotta go Ford or Ram.
There really is no absolute apples to apples because the transmission ratios are all different, but having all run 3.73 gears certainly makes sense in this case. If, however, the trailers had been much heavier it would have made perfect sense to run the gear ratio that the manufacturer recommends for that particular weight. If you want to compare trucks you compare what each manufacturer has to offer for your application. If Ram suggests that a 4.10 rear end is better for a heavier trailer than a 3.73 and Chevy says "we just offer a 3.73" then comparing the 4.10 to the 3.73 makes perfect sense for that heavier trailer application.
I was referring to those that think the Ram got shorted cause it didn't have the 4.10. My thinking is all should play on level ground and that you need everything to be equal for a fair test. Giving all 3.73 or 4.10 would still deliver the same results IMO. The tranny gearing is the only variable left. Except for engine tuning and that isn't changeable like gears.
It just boils down to how each truck is packaged and the buyer picks the package that works best for them.chevman wrote:
why are we not happy with how great the trucks were and not whining about silly stuff?
I have been thinking the same thing! I have thought that I would really hate to know how one of these trucks tows considering how well my van tows, and it has the grocery getting 3.42 axle that a fair share of people think isn't made for towing.
Every time I hook my trailer up to the van I tell it not to listen to what the others are saying about it's rear axle size, and that it doesn't look cool.dshelley wrote:
It seems the Chevy received a few extra points for making it completely through the test without a single recall.
I was thinking it was because the chev didn't have the death wobble.
talk is cheap and I just proved it. why are we not happy with how great the trucks were and not whining about silly stuff?
chevmandshelley wrote:
It seems the Chevy received a few extra points for making it completely through the test without a single recall.
LOL :B
