Forum Discussion
41 Replies
FishOnOne wrote:
Bedlam wrote:
Like others have posted, the focus should have been on temperatures generated instead of speed. I'm perfectly happy coming in behind the pack knowing I can continue on without heat or mechanical issues in my older 6.0 PSD that everyone loves to hate. I have been lucky that reliability has been a strong point of my truck (even if some think it is an enigma) while still giving me sufficient power to climb hills under load comfortably all while being 100% stock.
The emissions complexity and initial cost of current diesels is swaying me toward a gasoline engine in my next truck even though I love diesels. The push has been for ever increasing performance without efficiency gains which also drives up operating costs. I think it's pretty sad when a diesel diehard is looking to abandon the technology due to the direction the manufacturers and marketing are pointed.
I had a 6.0 PSD and traded it for a 6.7 PSD and I can honestly say my 6.7 PSD outperforms (big time) and makes better fuel economy than my 6.0 PSD so I'm not the least disappointed with my current emissions equipped diesel so far.
In addition I think this kind of test with a gas powered truck would really differentiate the performance difference between a diesel and gas powered truck. Let's just say it would "separate the men from the boys"! :B
If you were to have the 6.2 GM with a turbo charger then you may have to rethink your statement.
Comparing a turbo charged engine to a non turbo charged is no comparing apples to apples!
Turbo charged gas engines in larger displacement most likely will bi in the future trucks.- lets see, one has about 25K lbs total wt, with say 90 aq ft of frontal area, about 150hp to go 60 on a level. Then an additional 60 or so per 1% grade, so a 5% grade needs 450 hp to hold 60 mph........which of these rigs has 450hp?
any way, not surprised ANY of the big 3 diesels trying to move 25K lbs is in the 40 mph range frankly! None of them have the HP to hold a hill like that at 60 mph.
Marty RamTC wrote:
No it's not tow ratings, but it can form the basis for them...Huntindog wrote:
RamTC wrote:
Here ya go.travelnutz wrote:
Huntindog,
Qoute:
"It's been a couple of years but, it was brought up about how Ford and Dodge came up with their power numbers vs. GM.
GM was the ONLY one to rate the power by the stringent SAE method.
I forget the particulars, but basically think peak vs. continuous power. That explains how a lower rated truck such as the GM can win these contests."
BINGO!!!! You win 1st place!
And if the engine is stripped on a test stand or the output measured at the drive wheel!
Where's this info coming from? Motor Trend reports that all three HD's still use their own in house numbers for 2015, not the J8207 rating your implying on this HD thread.
SAE certified dyno tests
Thanks, I mistakenly thought the reference was about Tow ratings.
More importantly it is a unbiased approach,that shows who is really telling the truth, and who is blowing smoke.
And based on the performance of the road tests being done at that time, it proves that blowing smoke, doesn't get the load up the mountain.
It takes REAL power to do that.- The DEF tank location sucks, even if it does not affect performance off road, it simply looks bad. The rest of the truck, I am pretty happy with. I wish I could get the interior leather of the High Country without the colored bumpers, but the GMC HD All Terrain Package looks real good, looking forward to seeing it in person.
Bedlam wrote:
Like others have posted, the focus should have been on temperatures generated instead of speed. I'm perfectly happy coming in behind the pack knowing I can continue on without heat or mechanical issues in my older 6.0 PSD that everyone loves to hate. I have been lucky that reliability has been a strong point of my truck (even if some think it is an enigma) while still giving me sufficient power to climb hills under load comfortably all while being 100% stock.
The emissions complexity and initial cost of current diesels is swaying me toward a gasoline engine in my next truck even though I love diesels. The push has been for ever increasing performance without efficiency gains which also drives up operating costs. I think it's pretty sad when a diesel diehard is looking to abandon the technology due to the direction the manufacturers and marketing are pointed.
I had a 6.0 PSD and traded it for a 6.7 PSD and I can honestly say my 6.7 PSD outperforms (big time) and makes better fuel economy than my 6.0 PSD so I'm not the least disappointed with my current emissions equipped diesel so far.
In addition I think this kind of test with a gas powered truck would really differentiate the performance difference between a diesel and gas powered truck. Let's just say it would "separate the men from the boys"! :BHuntindog wrote:
RamTC wrote:
Here ya go.travelnutz wrote:
Huntindog,
Qoute:
"It's been a couple of years but, it was brought up about how Ford and Dodge came up with their power numbers vs. GM.
GM was the ONLY one to rate the power by the stringent SAE method.
I forget the particulars, but basically think peak vs. continuous power. That explains how a lower rated truck such as the GM can win these contests."
BINGO!!!! You win 1st place!
And if the engine is stripped on a test stand or the output measured at the drive wheel!
Where's this info coming from? Motor Trend reports that all three HD's still use their own in house numbers for 2015, not the J8207 rating your implying on this HD thread.
SAE certified dyno tests
Thanks, I mistakenly thought the reference was about Tow ratings.RamTC wrote:
Here ya go.travelnutz wrote:
Huntindog,
Qoute:
"It's been a couple of years but, it was brought up about how Ford and Dodge came up with their power numbers vs. GM.
GM was the ONLY one to rate the power by the stringent SAE method.
I forget the particulars, but basically think peak vs. continuous power. That explains how a lower rated truck such as the GM can win these contests."
BINGO!!!! You win 1st place!
And if the engine is stripped on a test stand or the output measured at the drive wheel!
Where's this info coming from? Motor Trend reports that all three HD's still use their own in house numbers for 2015, not the J8207 rating your implying on this HD thread.
SAE certified dyno teststravelnutz wrote:
Huntindog,
Qoute:
"It's been a couple of years but, it was brought up about how Ford and Dodge came up with their power numbers vs. GM.
GM was the ONLY one to rate the power by the stringent SAE method.
I forget the particulars, but basically think peak vs. continuous power. That explains how a lower rated truck such as the GM can win these contests."
BINGO!!!! You win 1st place!
And if the engine is stripped on a test stand or the output measured at the drive wheel!
Where's this info coming from? Motor Trend reports that all three HD's still use their own in house numbers for 2015, not the J8207 rating your implying on this HD thread.- Huntindog,
Qoute:
"It's been a couple of years but, it was brought up about how Ford and Dodge came up with their power numbers vs. GM.
GM was the ONLY one to rate the power by the stringent SAE method.
I forget the particulars, but basically think peak vs. continuous power. That explains how a lower rated truck such as the GM can win these contests."
BINGO!!!! You win 1st place!
And if the engine is stripped on a test stand or the output measured at the drive wheel! ib516 wrote:
The only thing I absolutely can't wrap my head around when it comes to the GM Duramax is that dang DEF tank hanging down just waiting to be knocked off by a chunk of ice, rock, etc. They really need to rethink that placement.
I take my truck places 95% of the population wouldn't take a CCLB truck. In three years of boondocking,hunting,fishing,etc, there isn't a mark on the tank.
If for some reason you thought you needed it,you can buy a skid plate for the DEF tank.
