Forum Discussion
- Oh
4x4ord wrote:
I realize that altitude, ambient temperature, barometric pressure and humidity make a difference to power output and that goes for both Ford and Ram. You claim at warmer temperatures, say 80 degrees, the Ram might make more HP than the Ford .... maybe, but why? I am saying I am not aware of a reason, are you? Like I said it seems reasonable to me to expect the more efficient engine with a larger cooling capacity to make more HP at hotter temperatures, especially when it has already proved to make more hp at lower temperatures.
Let's take the brand bias out of the equation here and think about what would happen to my truck running its 475 rwhp tune versus the heavy tow 400 rwhp tune.
In very cold 30F temps going up the Ike, my truck can probably sustain the 475 rwhp tune or at least more horsepower that the 400 rwhp tune. Remember, the 400 rwhp tune is just that. It is tuned conservatively for a reason and will not inject more fuel to make more power than that now matter how well it can sustain that power. Adversely, the 475 rwhp tune will inject more fuel to make more power allowing it to go up the hill much faster.
Now imagine each tune going up the Ike at 80F. What would happen? Would I need to back down the 400 rwhp heavy tow tune? No, and I could not back it down even further even if I had to. Would I need to back down the 475 rwhp tune? Yes, I would probably have to back it down to my 400 rwhp heavy tow tune shortly after starting. I may be able to utilize the the 475 rwhp on the onramp at the start of the test to get a good 30-60 mph head start, but I would eventually have to back it down to my 400 rwhp as temps got hot.
Now, will the times of my 400 rwhp tune at both temps change that much? How about my 475 rwhp tune will it's time change that much between the two temps?
I would also not be soo sure about the larger cooling capacity thing. For one, the Superduty has two separate cooling systems, one for the main cooling system that cools the engine, EGR cooler, and so on. The other is for the water to air intercooler which these types of intercoolers tend to get heat soaked under sustained loads very quickly. I know with my truck towing the cattle trailer or tractor between properties versus my father in laws 2019 F350, his fan will kick on way before mine will. Sometimes, mine does even need to kick on while his has already kicked on half way through the trip.- I realize that altitude, ambient temperature, barometric pressure and humidity make a difference to power output and that goes for both Ford and Ram. You claim at warmer temperatures, say 80 degrees, the Ram might make more HP than the Ford .... maybe, but why? I am saying I am not aware of a reason, are you? Like I said it seems reasonable to me to expect the more efficient engine with a larger cooling capacity to make more HP at hotter temperatures, especially when it has already proved to make more hp at lower temperatures.
4x4ord wrote:
I realize that you believe the Powerstroke will defuel more than the Cummins, maybe your right ... but there is certainly reason to think the Powerstroke will always be making more power than the Cummins. According to TFL the Powerstroke made it to the top of the hill on less fuel than the Ram. The extra fuel that the Ram used was lost as heat through its cooling system and/or out the tailpipe. Because the Powerstroke is more efficient it would require less cooling to make an equal amount of power. Unless Ram has very recently increased the capacity of its cooling system I believe the Ford has a significantly greater potential for cooling between its radiators and charge air cooling system. So although it is possible that the Ford will defuel more than the Cummins does on an 80 degree day, I'm not aware of any reason to expect there to be an outside temperature where the Ram would make equal power to the Ford. It really would be interesting to see how warm the outside air temperature could get before the trucks start defueling.
Given your knowledge and assumptions of vehicles thus far, I can see how you wouldn't be aware of a reason. Because to you, things like ambient temperature, air density, barometric pressure, humidity, and so on have no effect on an engines power output, and you believe that an engine should make the same power at 10k ft that it does at sea level.FishOnOne wrote:
We now know that the '17 truck was slower due to transmission gear selection/gearing. It was slow from the start so defueling was not the issue like you were mentioning back then.
Right. Is that the same thing that happened in 2018 when they towed 28.5k on the same day(in hotter weather than 30F)? Rated at 65 more horsepower, the 450 hp PSD that got 11:43 should have mopped the floor with the 385 hp Cummins that got 11:41.
2018 Ram 3500 HD vs 2018 Ford F350 vs World’s Toughest XXL Towing Test (Video)
Like I said, tow the same trailer in the same condition at temps above 60F or 80F and those high power levels cannot be sustained like they can in 30F. Although the 2020 does have the edge with the 10-speed.
EDIT: Although I will say that a trans not holding gears or shifting too much is a good indicator that the engine is defueling.ShinerBock wrote:
If you knew that, then why did you say... "I’m just saying that Cummins doesn’t appear to be anymore honest than Ford in how they rate their engine"? Anyone who knows that you loose power at altitude would know that the small loses you stated would be due to altitude, not defueling or overrating numbers.
Like I said, do the same test at 80F and see what happens. My bet is that one engine will have to defuel considerably more than the other. You will likely have the same scenario in 2017 where the 440 HP PSD was a few seconds behind the 385 CTD. However, due to to the 10-speed, the PSD would likely fair better rather than being a little behind.
I have calculated the power required to climb the Eisenhower pass in 620 seconds and so I know these engines had to be putting out very close to their rated numbers... I don't want to complicate our discussion with how much power they make at sea level vs on top a mountain.
I realize that you believe the Powerstroke will defuel more than the Cummins, maybe your right ... but there is certainly reason to think the Powerstroke will always be making more power than the Cummins. According to TFL the Powerstroke made it to the top of the hill on less fuel than the Ram. The extra fuel that the Ram used was lost as heat through its cooling system and/or out the tailpipe. Because the Powerstroke is more efficient it would require less cooling to make an equal amount of power. Unless Ram has very recently increased the capacity of its cooling system I believe the Ford has a significantly greater potential for cooling between its radiators and charge air cooling system. So although it is possible that the Ford will defuel more than the Cummins does on an 80 degree day, I'm not aware of any reason to expect there to be an outside temperature where the Ram would make equal power to the Ford. It really would be interesting to see how warm the outside air temperature could get before the trucks start defueling.ShinerBock wrote:
If you knew that, then why did you say... "I’m just saying that Cummins doesn’t appear to be anymore honest than Ford in how they rate their engine"? Anyone who knows that you loose power at altitude would know that the small loses you stated would be due to altitude, not defueling or overrating numbers.
Like I said, do the same test at 80F and see what happens. My bet is that one engine will have to defuel considerably more than the other. You will likely have the same scenario in 2017 where the 440 HP PSD was a few seconds behind the 385 CTD. However, due to to the 10-speed, the PSD would likely fair better rather than being a little behind.
We now know that the '17 truck was slower due to transmission gear selection/gearing. It was slow from the start so defueling was not the issue like you were mentioning back then.- If you knew that, then why did you say... "I’m just saying that Cummins doesn’t appear to be anymore honest than Ford in how they rate their engine"? Anyone who knows that you loose power at altitude would know that the small loses you stated would be due to altitude, not defueling or overrating numbers.
Like I said, do the same test at 80F and see what happens. My bet is that one engine will have to defuel considerably more than the other. You will likely have the same scenario in 2017 where the 440 HP PSD was a few seconds behind the 385 CTD. However, due to to the 10-speed, the PSD would likely fair better rather than being a little behind. - I realize an engine doesn’t make as much power at the top of a mountain as it does at sea level. I’m not debating that. The Powerstroke performed to exactly as expected based on the performance and rating of the Ram. You claim that a deleted Ram can make 500 sustainable Hp yet Ford over rates theirs at 475. My point is that I’m not seeing any evidence to suggest Fords factory rating relative to its performance is any worse than Rams factory rating relative to its performance. Maybe if TFL conducted a test at 80 degrees the Ford would take 12 minutes and the Ram would take 13 .... I don’t know. It would be interesting to see. If I had to bet, based on what we’ve seen from how the trucks performed at 30 degrees I’d bet on the Ford being first to the top by a pretty good margin.
- You don't know much about engines and it shows. If you honestly expect to get the same rated power that you would at sea level at 10k feet above see level then you probably need to go read some more on how engines work. Specifically the part where every 1,000 ft above sea level robs about 3% of the power from N/A engines and between .5-1.5% on turbocharged engines depending on how efficient the turbo is at that altitude. Turbocharged engines may no loose as much power as N/A engines do at altitude, but they still do loose some power.
And as I said in the thread specifically about those runs several moths ago, I bet those times would be way different at 80F instead of 30F which I am guessing that the temp was since it is snowing and it has to be at least 32F to snow. I have now doubts one would pull more power to keep the temps in check than the other.
