2015 Ford F-350 0-60 MPH Test
Man this thing is strong... Some comments made that compared this F350 to a RAM 2500.
0-60 Times:
Ford F350 DRW - 8.17 sec
RAM 2500 SRW - 8.9 sec
Link
0-60 Times:
Ford F350 DRW - 8.17 sec
RAM 2500 SRW - 8.9 sec
Link
Forum Discussion
ShinerBock wrote:
I'm with you on most of your post.... But did you see the one where the Ford tailgate buckeld when the frame twisted?ib516 wrote:
So 70hp/60tq and steeper gears buys you 0.73 of a second. Impressive powertrain, and I mean that. The 6.7L is strong.
Now if Ford would just update the cheap hard plastic interior by rubbermaid, and the twisty 1999 frame.
That and the fact that the Ford 6R140 also has a much shorter first and second gear that the 68RFE. The 6.7L V8 Powerstroke also has a longer rev range than the 6.7L Cummins meaning you stay in gear longer instead of shifting and wasting time in a 0-60.
I drive a 2014 Ram 2500 Cummins and even used to work at Cummins, but that the Scorpion 6.7L is a beast as well. If my only desire out of my truck was 0-60 speeds then that would have probably been my choice, but other factors that I thought Cummins/Ram did a little better is what turned me towards buying the Ram like the auto exhaust brake and better fuel mileage to name a few. Still, there is no denying that that 6.7L Scorpion is more powerful. Although my truck is tuned and is making way more power than that stock Powerstroke. I really don't think I would want my truck being any quicker than it now.
On that frame twist comment. There is a reason why the Ford bed frame has more flex than the Rams and the GM and Ram marketing team that posts those videos knows this. It has to do with the fact that the Fords frame is a C channel frame just like every Semi-truck you see flying down the road, and the Rams frame is a fully boxed frame. Fully boxed frames are more rigid than C-channel frames and hardly flex in comparison to a C-channel. Does this mean a C-channel frame is weaker than a fully boxed frame? No, not at all. The C-channel frame has thicker wall sections which is where it gets its strength, but this makes them heavier. The major benefit of a fully boxed frame is that it is lighter because it has thinner wall thickness, but gets its strength by being fully boxed to compensate. However, the major downside to a fully boxed frame is how much harder it is to up fit things like a utility beds for fleet buyers, and we all know how much Ford caters to their fleet buyers. This is why Ram 4500 and 5500 cab and chassis models have the very same C-channel bed frame that Ford uses so it can easily be upfitted. Ford uses the same frame with their cab and chassis models as the do with their pick up models while Ram uses a fully boxed frame on their pick up models and a C-channel bed frame in the cab and chassis models.
This is why you never hear Ram or GM say that the Ford frame is "weaker" in any of those videos. Because they know it isn't and the flex is just an inherent property of a C-channel frame versus a fully boxed frame. All that they are doing is good job at marketing and selling to people that don't know any better.
That will ruin your day for sure. And yes, I have had my truck in those kinds of situations lots of times.- I think uzz all drunk. :B
I've been next to this thing and it can REV!!
Listen at 20! Sounds pretty quick to me.
If I remember right, I think Brad said this ol rattler ingests 100 LBS of boost! I don't know about this engine, but I know the old one was an old 12 valve. :E Lessmore wrote:
blofgren wrote:
The inline 6 cylinder design of the Cummins is not designed to make RPM's fast; it is designed to pull a heavy load with massive torque which it does extremely well. I
.
I know many say that, but I do question whether an inline six is not designed to make rpm's fast. BMW after all has a long tradition of making high performance inline sixes. The Jaguar inline six was well regarded both as a high performance street engine and a racing engine for decades. The inline six design is known to be inherently smooth...and as far as it's ability to rev quickly through it's range, I don't think it is at a disadvantage, when compared to V type engines.
...snipped...
I think there is some mis-understanding here. It isn't the I-6 design of the Cummins that make it such a lazy revver, it's the fact that it has a huge stroke and a very heavy lower end (due to accomodating that huge stroke) that makes it lazy to rev. Compared to the Duramax or Powerstroke, the Cummins motor has a 124 mm stroke. The Powerstroke has a 107 mm stroke, Duramax is 99mm. Doesn't sound like much difference, but when you factor the leverage from the center moment of the crank to what that translates in piston speed, the Cummins motor has the pistons moving pretty fast and it still takes a while to fully complete that stroke. This is why, relatively speaking, the Powerstroke and Duramax motors are rev happy and seem more responsive.
Now if you build a shorter stroke engine, you lower peak piston velocity so you can rev higher and lighter. You also have much more of the combustion force acting throughout the whole stroke. Chances are, if you're really oversquare, you're still burning fuel and spitting it out the exhaust as it's still expanding at a good clip. This is why F-1 cars and Lamborghini's spit fire through the mufflers when they're flooring it around a race track. So there's give and take on a design when deciding bore and stroke. Having a longer stroke (within reason) tends to make more use of the energy in a given charge of air and be more efficient.ib516 wrote:
So 70hp/60tq and steeper gears buys you 0.73 of a second. Impressive powertrain, and I mean that. The 6.7L is strong.
Now if Ford would just update the cheap hard plastic interior by rubbermaid, and the twisty 1999 frame.
That and the fact that the Ford 6R140 also has a much shorter first and second gear that the 68RFE. The 6.7L V8 Powerstroke also has a longer rev range than the 6.7L Cummins meaning you stay in gear longer instead of shifting and wasting time in a 0-60.
I drive a 2014 Ram 2500 Cummins and even used to work at Cummins, but that the Scorpion 6.7L is a beast as well. If my only desire out of my truck was 0-60 speeds then that would have probably been my choice, but other factors that I thought Cummins/Ram did a little better is what turned me towards buying the Ram like the auto exhaust brake and better fuel mileage to name a few. Still, there is no denying that that 6.7L Scorpion is more powerful. Although my truck is tuned and is making way more power than that stock Powerstroke. I really don't think I would want my truck being any quicker than it now.
On that frame twist comment. There is a reason why the Ford bed frame has more flex than the Rams and the GM and Ram marketing team that posts those videos knows this. It has to do with the fact that the Fords frame is a C channel frame just like every Semi-truck you see flying down the road, and the Rams frame is a fully boxed frame. Fully boxed frames are more rigid than C-channel frames and hardly flex in comparison to a C-channel. Does this mean a C-channel frame is weaker than a fully boxed frame? No, not at all. The C-channel frame has thicker wall sections which is where it gets its strength, but this makes them heavier. The major benefit of a fully boxed frame is that it is lighter because it has thinner wall thickness, but gets its strength by being fully boxed to compensate. However, the major downside to a fully boxed frame is how much harder it is to up fit things like a utility beds for fleet buyers, and we all know how much Ford caters to their fleet buyers. This is why Ram 4500 and 5500 cab and chassis models have the very same C-channel bed frame that Ford uses so it can easily be upfitted. Ford uses the same frame with their cab and chassis models as the do with their pick up models while Ram uses a fully boxed frame on their pick up models and a C-channel bed frame in the cab and chassis models.
This is why you never hear Ram or GM say that the Ford frame is "weaker" in any of those videos. Because they know it isn't and the flex is just an inherent property of a C-channel frame versus a fully boxed frame. All that they are doing is good job at marketing and selling to people that don't know any better.blofgren wrote:
The inline 6 cylinder design of the Cummins is not designed to make RPM's fast; it is designed to pull a heavy load with massive torque which it does extremely well. I
.
I know many say that, but I do question whether an inline six is not designed to make rpm's fast. BMW after all has a long tradition of making high performance inline sixes. The Jaguar inline six was well regarded both as a high performance street engine and a racing engine for decades. The inline six design is known to be inherently smooth...and as far as it's ability to rev quickly through it's range, I don't think it is at a disadvantage, when compared to V type engines.
On another question raised throughout this thread, I do think truck diesels have an advantage if they develop the power needed to accelerate quickly up to speed on the highway. I don't think many would equate a one ton diesel powered RAM, Ford or GM truck as a hot rod....but it is nice to have the 'punch' to move a heavy load up to speed or on a mountain road in towing vehicles.ib516 wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
0-60 Times:
Ford F350 440hp/860lb-ft 3.73 DRW - 8.17 sec
RAM 2500 370hp/800lb-ft 3.42 SRW - 8.9 sec
So 70hp/60tq and steeper gears buys you 0.73 of a second. Impressive powertrain, and I mean that. The 6.7L is strong.
Now if Ford would just update the cheap hard plastic interior by rubbermaid, and the twisty 1999 frame.
The hard plastic vs the soft touch materials is somewhat debatable. My experience has been the hard plastic dash's in my Fords (not all brands)is much more durable long term than the soft touch materials. Also the frame has received several upgrades since 1999.ScottG wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
agesilaus wrote:
There is a video showing a stock F350 6.7L doing 183 mph on the Bonneville flats, it's on youtube somewhere
The math just does not work out on that.
I think it had a aftermarket turbo and a tuner.
And it would have to have some more gearing.
The truck did have a different rear end so I'm sure the gearing there is to support the high speeds.FishOnOne wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
agesilaus wrote:
There is a video showing a stock F350 6.7L doing 183 mph on the Bonneville flats, it's on youtube somewhere
The math just does not work out on that.
I think it had a aftermarket turbo and a tuner.
And it would have to have some more gearing.- The inline 6 cylinder design of the Cummins is not designed to make RPM's fast; it is designed to pull a heavy load with massive torque which it does extremely well. I didn't buy my truck to drag race; I bought it to pull my 15,500 lb fiver.
And he mentioned the question about longevity in the video which is exactly the main reason I did not buy the Ford. I plan on keeping my truck a very long time and bought the tried and true Cummins. - I give it to Ford, they are faster then my 370 hp 800 tq Ram..... Hell with 440hp should they not? Add in the 3.73 ratio versus the 3.41 you better be faster.
Ford has a better handle on tranny set ups and one day Ram will understand how to get the full power of their engines pass through the gear box and until then, Ram will always be slower. Just like the playground, someone will always be faster the same way someone will always be tougher.
