2020 Cummins IKE pull

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
So to summarize:

Brake Applications:
Ram: 0 (Auto Brake assisted-unproven theory by Ford fanboys)
Ford: 5
GMC: 9

Time:
Ford: 10:20
Ram: 11:32
GMC: 11:47

MPG:
Ram: 2.5 mpg
Ford: 2.4 mpg
GMC: 2.4 mpg

There, I fixed it for you.

I would still love to see how these trucks do at 80F or even 100F.

I agree with testing at 80F or 100F but I doubt the order of performance would change.

And now your ok with reporting the computer mpg when you have always reported major errors with these systems.

TFL reported the brakes were part of the braking system so if you don't like that or agree with it go debate it with them like you do the Australian.

I feel the result will be similar to last years test if it were 80F. I don't


I have stated before that I don't think the computer is accurate with a lot of stop/starts of the engine. The more start/stops are in the tank average, the more it is off based on my experiences. I have also said it is fairly accurate going from point A to B without turning off the engine.

I like to report all the data(good or bad) and let the people decide for themselves instead of only giving them part of the information because of some bias. Mr Truck has reported many inconstancies before and I doubt this would be the last. After all, he also stated the truck/trailer's brake lights were on and yet they were not. Unproven theory by a Ram fanboy

Just as a reminder that the previous 2020 Ram and GM trucks Ike pull had 2 brake applications with less weight. With 30k lbs the GM had more brake applications but the Ram had less.

Give me a brake... :W

Yeah, because they did not have it on auto like I have been saying for the past two years. Auto works better if the truck is doing the shifting. Full mode is best used if you are shifting manually which they do not do.

I think the Powerstroke will get heat soaked at 80F and would have to cut power just like it looked like it did last year.

Also,it is not an unproven theory that they the brake lights were not one. It shows it in the video when they were behind the truck. And it is not a theory that Mr truck has been wrong before.

I thought the Ram was set to automatic and the cruise control wasn't set on so the system would not apply the brakes.

The Ford wasn't heat soaked as it wasn't pulling as strong from the get go. From what I've been reading this new 2020 pulls really strong compared to the '19.

If Mr. Truck was wrong the chaser truck had plenty of opportunities to see if the brake lights were not on and they could have simply edited Mr. Truck's comment out if he was wrong. There was only very short clips of the chaser truck behind the Ram. So no I don't agree with your theory.

4x4ord wrote:
I went back and watched the 4:00 minute mark of that video. I wonder why the gauge reads up to 240 reverse horsepower a while then drops off to 0? It almost seems as though the gauge starts reading at about 37 mph and it pulls it down to 35 mph then quits displaying. Could it be that while the gauge is displaying a number the wheel brakes are being applied.

240 reverse HP would definitely be slowing the truck. 175 reverse HP at the crankshaft should be enough to hold speed on the steepest part of the hill.

At the 4:00 mark, there is a red light on just over the "D". It goes out just before the -hp drops off to zero At the 6:01 mark it also shows -240 hp of braking, but no red light over the "D". Could the red light mean service brakes are applied?

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
So to summarize:

Brake Applications:
Ram: 0 (Auto Brake assisted-unproven theory by Ford fanboys)
Ford: 5
GMC: 9

Time:
Ford: 10:20
Ram: 11:32
GMC: 11:47

MPG:
Ram: 2.5 mpg
Ford: 2.4 mpg
GMC: 2.4 mpg

There, I fixed it for you.

I would still love to see how these trucks do at 80F or even 100F.

I agree with testing at 80F or 100F but I doubt the order of performance would change.

And now your ok with reporting the computer mpg when you have always reported major errors with these systems.

TFL reported the brakes were part of the braking system so if you don't like that or agree with it go debate it with them like you do the Australian.

I feel the result will be similar to last years test if it were 80F. I don't


I have stated before that I don't think the computer is accurate with a lot of stop/starts of the engine. The more start/stops are in the tank average, the more it is off based on my experiences. I have also said it is fairly accurate going from point A to B without turning off the engine.

I like to report all the data(good or bad) and let the people decide for themselves instead of only giving them part of the information because of some bias. Mr Truck has reported many inconstancies before and I doubt this would be the last. After all, he also stated the truck/trailer's brake lights were on and yet they were not. Unproven theory by a Ram fanboy

Just as a reminder that the previous 2020 Ram and GM trucks Ike pull had 2 brake applications with less weight. With 30k lbs the GM had more brake applications but the Ram had less.

Give me a brake... :W

Likely the Ram wasn't set to cruise on the first test. So it was solely utilizing the exhaust brake to hold back. I think the Ike pull you're referencing had the trucks holding 25000 lbs at 50 mph. If so the engines would have had to generate about 132 reverse HP to keep from accelerating on the steepest part of the grade. The fact the Ram required 2 brake applications on that run indicates that the Cummins exhaust brake is capable of generating something a little less than 132 reverse HP at 2900 rpm (50 mph in 3rd gear). This Ike run, 39000 lbs at 35 mph, requires somewhere close to 175 reverse HP at the crankshaft to hold 35 mph.

ShinerBock wrote:
And it is not a theory that Mr truck has been wrong before.

Yeah, he's consistently grabbing vests that are about three sizes too small.

4x4ord wrote:

What do you mean when it comes on? The normal sound of a Cummins holding 39,000 lbs back to 35 mph on a long steep hill is the sound of the exhaust brake.

That is the sounf of the engine revving at 3,500 rpm.

Double post.

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
So to summarize:

Brake Applications:
Ram: 0 (Auto Brake assisted-unproven theory by Ford fanboys)
Ford: 5
GMC: 9

Time:
Ford: 10:20
Ram: 11:32
GMC: 11:47

MPG:
Ram: 2.5 mpg
Ford: 2.4 mpg
GMC: 2.4 mpg

There, I fixed it for you.

I would still love to see how these trucks do at 80F or even 100F.

I agree with testing at 80F or 100F but I doubt the order of performance would change.

And now your ok with reporting the computer mpg when you have always reported major errors with these systems.

TFL reported the brakes were part of the braking system so if you don't like that or agree with it go debate it with them like you do the Australian.

I feel the result will be similar to last years test if it were 80F. I don't


I have stated before that I don't think the computer is accurate with a lot of stop/starts of the engine. The more start/stops are in the tank average, the more it is off based on my experiences. I have also said it is fairly accurate going from point A to B without turning off the engine.

I like to report all the data(good or bad) and let the people decide for themselves instead of only giving them part of the information because of some bias. Mr Truck has reported many inconstancies before and I doubt this would be the last. After all, he also stated the truck/trailer's brake lights were on and yet they were not. Unproven theory by a Ram fanboy

Just as a reminder that the previous 2020 Ram and GM trucks Ike pull had 2 brake applications with less weight. With 30k lbs the GM had more brake applications but the Ram had less.

Give me a brake... :W

Yeah, because they did not have it on auto like I have been saying for the past two years. Auto works better if the truck is doing the shifting. Full mode is best used if you are shifting manually which they do not do.

I think the Powerstroke will get heat soaked at 80F and would have to cut power just like it looked like it did last year.

Also,it is not an unproven theory that they the brake lights were not one. It shows it in the video when they were behind the truck. And it is not a theory that Mr truck has been wrong before.

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

stsmark wrote:


I was wondering the same thing, it’s like the EB just gets shut off. Seems like it would be tough on some part of the drivetrain. Also if it just shutoff what’s holding the truck back from accelerating if not the brakes?
I find it interesting that neither of them point out how cool that brake hp indication is.

Engine braking at 3,500 rpm is what is trying to hold the truck back when it is off. It cannot with engine braking alone so it starts to gain speed past 35 mph and then the exhaust brake kicks back on to slow it back down to 35 mph then cuts off again. As you can see at of the video 5:56 of the video. Exhaust brake is off, it starts to get to 37 mph and then it kicks back on to slow it down to 35 again.

You can hear the exhaust brake. It's remaining constant. The exhaust brake/engine brake is really the same thing. While the engine is being driven from flywheel it is braking. The degree of braking varies with the speed of the engine and the amount of restriction in the exhaust. The exhaust brake is simply the turbo adjusting to create more restriction in the exhaust. It's like if you had an engine driving a positive displacement water pump and you had an adjustable nozzle on the end of the water hose. You could change the power demand on the engine by opening and closing the nozzle. The engine on these trucks is acting as an air pump and the adjustable turbo is the nozzle.

I'm not saying the exhaust brake is switching on and off when the gauge is displaying a value. I'm suggesting the wheel brakes are being applied to help with braking during the time that the gauge is displaying a value.

I don't here the exhaust brake being on constantly. In fact, I hardly hear it when it comes on in that video. I hear the normal sound of a Cummins(which is noticeably loader than the other trucks) at a high rpm, but I don't hear an exhaust brake being on the whole time.

What do you mean when it comes on? The normal sound of a Cummins holding 39,000 lbs back to 35 mph on a long steep hill is the sound of the exhaust brake.

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
So to summarize:

Brake Applications:
Ram: 0 (Auto Brake assisted-unproven theory by Ford fanboys)
Ford: 5
GMC: 9

Time:
Ford: 10:20
Ram: 11:32
GMC: 11:47

MPG:
Ram: 2.5 mpg
Ford: 2.4 mpg
GMC: 2.4 mpg

There, I fixed it for you.

I would still love to see how these trucks do at 80F or even 100F.

I agree with testing at 80F or 100F but I doubt the order of performance would change.

And now your ok with reporting the computer mpg when you have always reported major errors with these systems.

TFL reported the brakes were part of the braking system so if you don't like that or agree with it go debate it with them like you do the Australian.

I feel the result will be similar to last years test if it were 80F. I don't


I have stated before that I don't think the computer is accurate with a lot of stop/starts of the engine. The more start/stops are in the tank average, the more it is off based on my experiences. I have also said it is fairly accurate going from point A to B without turning off the engine.

I like to report all the data(good or bad) and let the people decide for themselves instead of only giving them part of the information because of some bias. Mr Truck has reported many inconstancies before and I doubt this would be the last. After all, he also stated the truck/trailer's brake lights were on and yet they were not. Unproven theory by a Ram fanboy

Just as a reminder that the previous 2020 Ram and GM trucks Ike pull had 2 brake applications with less weight. With 30k lbs the GM had more brake applications but the Ram had less.

Give me a brake... :W

4x4ord wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

stsmark wrote:


I was wondering the same thing, it’s like the EB just gets shut off. Seems like it would be tough on some part of the drivetrain. Also if it just shutoff what’s holding the truck back from accelerating if not the brakes?
I find it interesting that neither of them point out how cool that brake hp indication is.

Engine braking at 3,500 rpm is what is trying to hold the truck back when it is off. It cannot with engine braking alone so it starts to gain speed past 35 mph and then the exhaust brake kicks back on to slow it back down to 35 mph then cuts off again. As you can see at of the video 5:56 of the video. Exhaust brake is off, it starts to get to 37 mph and then it kicks back on to slow it down to 35 again.

You can hear the exhaust brake. It's remaining constant. The exhaust brake/engine brake is really the same thing. While the engine is being driven from flywheel it is braking. The degree of braking varies with the speed of the engine and the amount of restriction in the exhaust. The exhaust brake is simply the turbo adjusting to create more restriction in the exhaust. It's like if you had an engine driving a positive displacement water pump and you had an adjustable nozzle on the end of the water hose. You could change the power demand on the engine by opening and closing the nozzle. The engine on these trucks is acting as an air pump and the adjustable turbo is the nozzle.

I'm not saying the exhaust brake is switching on and off when the gauge is displaying a value. I'm suggesting the wheel brakes are being applied to help with braking during the time that the gauge is displaying a value.

I don't here the exhaust brake being on constantly. In fact, I hardly hear it when it comes on in that video. I hear the normal sound of a Cummins(which is noticeably loader than the other trucks) at a high rpm, but I don't hear an exhaust brake being on the whole time.