Forum Discussion
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
ib516 wrote:
ksss wrote:
I would like to also know the ambient air temp as well as coolant and tranny temp of the these trucks when they reach the top. That to me tells me more about the capacity of the pickup than does speed/time up the hill alone.
Exactly. The video lacked those kinds of details which I was wanting to know.
There is a reason they did this where they did this and when they did this. I would bet money it was no accident there was snow around when they did this test.
There was a reason they did not do this test on a 105 degree day on the Cajon pass.
There is a reason boats with the same engine as trucks are rated at a way higher HP and way higher duty cycle.
It's easy to make any HP you want. It's extremely difficult to handle the thermal load for that high HP. Ever see the fan or radiator size on a 6.7 Ford, 6.7 Dodge or 6.6 Chevy? :E
The reason they tested the truck when and where they did is because guys do all their tests on the same section of highway. Probably because they're based out of Colorado.ib516 wrote:
ksss wrote:
I would like to also know the ambient air temp as well as coolant and tranny temp of the these trucks when they reach the top. That to me tells me more about the capacity of the pickup than does speed/time up the hill alone.
Exactly. The video lacked those kinds of details which I was wanting to know.
There is a reason they did this where they did this and when they did this. I would bet money it was no accident there was snow around when they did this test.
There was a reason they did not do this test on a 105 degree day on the Cajon pass.
There is a reason boats with the same engine as trucks are rated at a way higher HP and way higher duty cycle.
It's easy to make any HP you want. It's extremely difficult to handle the thermal load for that high HP. Ever see the fan or radiator size on a 6.7 Ford, 6.7 Dodge or 6.6 Chevy? :E- 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. - Yes DEF is mostly water so it freezes. All the 2500/3500 diesel trucks from the big 3 have heated DEF tanks (more complexity).
ib516 wrote:
...
I do think GM is going to be forced to bump up the power in the next model year as they are pretty far behind for advertising bragging rights.
You are right, but it's so stupid really.
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.
Heh, exactly my thought when I first saw it. And it's so exposed to the cold, doesn't DEF freeze? or do they have anti-freeze for it?ksss wrote:
I would like to also know the ambient air temp as well as coolant and tranny temp of the these trucks when they reach the top. That to me tells me more about the capacity of the pickup than does speed/time up the hill alone.
Exactly. The video lacked those kinds of details which I was wanting to know.- I also think it is possible that GM is underrating these engines a little bit. I saw a company, I think it was Alligator Performance, that had run a 2015 on the dyno and stock the numbers were really good! Like almost what GM claimed for HP and Torque, but at the rear wheels.
brulaz wrote:
I think also the GM rep claimed in that earlier Canadian tow-off article that GM does a better job of torque management, getting the torque to the ground. He claimed that torque at the wheels, not at the engine was where GM excelled.
Whatever, they all look good to me. Would love to have new one, but the initial price, complexity of the emissions system, quality of diesel fuel vs fuel pump issues ... maybe in a few years when I'm looking for a new truck things will be different.
Agreed on both points.
When I was truck shopping a few months ago, I drove a new RAM 3500 with the 850tq Cummins. Floored from a dead stop, I wasn't impressed - given the 850tq rating I was expecting more. My mildly tuned 5.9L Cummins would have walked away from it -- especially off the line. I don't know for sure, but I think the huge tq numbers have to be cut at the knees in the lower gears to prevent parts breakage. It sure felt like it to my butt dyno anyway.
I know they all (Ford GM RAM) tq manage to some extent, but despite being way down on power (on paper) the Duramax isn't left as far behind as one would think given the huge disparity in the advertised numbers.
I do think GM is going to be forced to bump up the power in the next model year as they are pretty far behind for advertising bragging rights.
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 think also the GM rep claimed in that earlier Canadian tow-off article that GM does a better job of torque management, getting the torque to the ground. He claimed that torque at the wheels, not at the engine was where GM excelled.
Whatever, they all look good to me. Would love to have new one, but the initial price, complexity of the emissions system, quality of diesel fuel vs fuel pump issues ... maybe in a few years when I'm looking for a new truck things will be different. - 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.
