Forum Discussion
- That sucks. I give some thought every time we tow down mountains on what would I do NOW if the brakes are gone. Merry Christmas guys. chevman
blofgren wrote:
Yes, the Cummins 6.7L is in MANY more applications than just the Ram pickups. We just bought a new sweeper at my work and guess what, it is powered by a Cummins 6.7L just like one of our other sweepers is, along with many of our standby generators, as well as some of our older Ford F-650's. They all get worked hard and all have been extremely reliable.
Are any of them 2019/2020 models? A few months ago Shiner reported here that Cummins is late to the game with updates because they thoroughly test their product before making changes in which I got a eyebrow raise event.
Link- Well 16k is no joke of a load and combined w high altitude, and high temps, I’m sure they all are stressed but really all three trucks can handle that weight no problem and frankly if it takes me 15 min to haul up over the Ike pass, I don’t care.
I’m not going to do that very often. I’m 60 and have only done it twice.
But I agree with what you are saying.
As far as engine cooling, its way too difficult to determine a large cooling system in a Ford = a significant edge. Or one piece of evidence that suggests that the cooling fan came on faster or not.
And I love Ford. But I’m still a Cummins fanboy and I believe over 500,000 miles the Ram will be cheaper to operate and generally easier to repair in large part because of the Cummins.
I mean what’s your opinion about the Cummins that’s 370/850? I’m thinking with 4.10’s that combo will be just awesome for loads under 25k.
Jfyi I would be proud to own a Ford or GM product.
Peace MikeRP wrote:
Question for all of you. Since this is an RV forum, how many of us will ever haul 30,000 lbs up to the IKE tunnel? I think that all three, (Ford, GM, or Ram) could tow 22,000 lbs up the IKE at nearly identical times if traffic and acceleration were the same and the speed limit was adhered to during the test. Time of day maybe an issue on a warm day.
I would bet Cummins standard engine w the Ram tranny would be right in the mix also. The point is probably the percentage of RVers hauling 22,000 lbs is less than 10% and the percentage hauling 30,000 is almost non existent. The other thing that would be interesting to know on the tests that if the cruise control was set on 60 mph would the times have been different?
Another thing, you look at Motorhomes using the 6.7 L Cummins w an Allison, they play this game w HP and tranny size. It always upsets me. For $170,000 you get 300 Hp, for $200,000 you get maybe 340 Hp right up to about 380 Hp for $ 300,000. But you buy a Ram pickup and get 400 hp for $80,000.
That’s why I own a fifth wheel right now. Thursday I rode in a 2013 Chevy LT DRW. Nice truck. Quiet and the Allison acts way different than the Aisin. GM is not playing this rating game, wonder why? Without Cummins, Ram would have been out of business years ago.
All of them are great trucks today, its the best for RVers.
It used to be that the RVs were heavy and took more power to pull than what the pickups could generate and so we had to put up with slow moving trucks going up the hills. I agree that for most of us our trucks have more than enough power to pull our RVs up most highway grades. However, even with my 16k fiver I have been on some mountain passes where my Ford is not able to hold the speed limit. As well I think there is an increasing number of RVers who are purchasing large toy haulers that might put these engines to work.ShinerBock wrote:
And again, you are making an assumption based on cooling capacities without knowing the cooling requirements of each engine which will not be the same. Why do you keep posting this passive aggressive BS in a thread about a Cummins engine? You already stated that you would never buy one and think they are not a good engine so why continue to dog on other people's engine choices? What is your agenda here?
I have said I would buy a Cummins equipped Ram .... I priced one out very recently. I currently own Cummins equipped trucks and equipment. I pointed out that the Cummins 6.7 is a good engine.
If one engine is shown to be more fuel efficient at max power than the other it means that more of the fuel's energy is going to do work and less is being wasted out the tail pipe and into the cooling system. I am only pointing out that, on the Ike run, by using more fuel to do less work, the Cummins demonstrated that it is less efficient than the Powerstroke. It is wasting more heat energy out its exhaust and into its cooling system than the Ford is. It's possible that steel pistons on the Ford allow it to operate at hotter temperatures than the Cummins which might be some of how it is gaining efficiency. Regardless, the Cummins needs more overall cooling than the Powerstroke to sustain an equal level of power and I am not aware of any reason to believe the Ram would be capable of cooling to the same degree as the Ford.
You talk about the heat soaking issue of an intercooler and mentioned using an intercooler in short burst applications such as tractor pulls. You're absolutely right. For something like a tractor pull I see why someone would choose an intercooler over an air to air. Rather than waste power running a fan to draw air through the air to air they can put the heat energy into water... they are only pulling for seconds so they don't have to cool that water. What I am pointing out comparing the charge air systems of Ford vs Ram is that the air to water cooler (secondary radiator) on the Ford is significantly larger than the air to air on the Ram. I believe the Ram aftercooler is unobstructed which allows it to be more efficient where as the Ford has a massive primary radiator that the secondary radiator is positioned in front of. This positioning of the radiators will limit the air flow through the secondary rad which may require more use of the cooling fan on the Ford vs the Ram. They are different designs and so it is not an apples to apples comparison, but, it just seems reasonable to look at the cooling systems of the two trucks and come away thinking the Ford might have a significant edge over the Ram.- Yes, the Cummins 6.7L is in MANY more applications than just the Ram pickups. We just bought a new sweeper at my work and guess what, it is powered by a Cummins 6.7L just like one of our other sweepers is, along with many of our standby generators, as well as some of our older Ford F-650's. They all get worked hard and all have been extremely reliable.
FishOnOne wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
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.
Yeah it's the same thing when the 2015 Ram fan kicked on at (19:20) when pulling a load but the other brands didn't. So I guess since the rams fan kicked on, and with slower times it must have defueled. Who would have thought...LOL
Link
Exactly, that is just what I have been stating. All modern computer controlled diesel engines have parameters to defuel the engine if different temps get too hot or things like turbo speeds get too fast. Some more than others or at different temps than others. For example, I can pull a load at a high power level in the morning with the Texas winter temps at 40F, but later in the day when the temps get up to 75F I may not be able to hold the same power level. If you read my posts in this thread, nowhere did I ever state that it is just the Powerstroke that has to defuel. This is not a brand bias thing. So I am not sure why the LOL.....- I’ve never heard Detroit is more reliable than Cummins. Cummins has wide application across all industries because they have built a reputation for flexibility and long term reliability. I know CAT has been very reliable and we’ve used those in generators also going on 25 years. Lots of competition in those sectors from MTU, Koehler, Generac, Cummins, Volvo, Wartisila and many others in the small to large diesel generator business.
I love Cummins flexibility in those markets and they are very competitive in the industrial market and that makes them very competitive in the utility market.
All that means to me is that Cummins has a vested interest to stay competitive w Ford and Duramax in power and reliability And they have the long term resources to make sure Ram is successful.
I do see a small generator with the blue oval on it at Home Depot! Live and learn.
And here I just bought a predator.
Mike ShinerBock wrote:
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.
Yeah it's the same thing when the 2015 Ram fan kicked on at (19:20) when pulling a load but the other brands didn't. So I guess since the rams fan kicked on, and with slower times it must have defueled and the others didn't. Who would have thought...LOL
Link4x4ord wrote:
It could be that Cummins sells lots of engines but I know that in days past (prior to emissions) the Cat was considered a far more reliable engine than the Cummins and in more recent years the Detroit is considered much more reliable than the Cummins. The 6.7 seems to be a good engine but I'm not aware of anything special about it.
Shiner I'm not suggesting there is not more to it than size of cooling system components but when the engine that is proving to be more efficient (ie the Ike run demonstrated that the Ford used less fuel to climb the hill than the Ram) also has a greater capacity for cooling you've got to recognize there is a good chance that the Ford can sustain significantly more power than the Ram can on a hot day.
Again, look at the details and stop making assumptions. The reason why Cat was more reliable was because unlike Cummins who didn't want to design an engine twice, they only designed (or basically retrofitted) their engine to just meet the 2007 emissions and would have a to redesign the engine even further in 2010. This was going to cost a lot of money so they decided to exit the market and focus on equipment which had lower emissions standards and they made more money on.
Detroit did something similar and also used carbon credits earned from other areas in Daimler Group to keep their old design for a few more years.
Cummins on the other hand, since it does not have a parent company to give them carbon credits and only make engines so they can't just up and leave the market for another industry, made the decision to meet 2010 emissions in 2007 so they only had to design the engine once. As with any new technology, this had a lot of growing pains until it can be perfected. Detroit finally ran out of credits meaning they would have to finally redesign their engine which had a lot of growing pains as well. All while Cummins already came out of these growing pains and started to make their units with more power and reliability.
In regards to seeming more reliable, and actually being more reliable. That again is an opinion unless you actually have the repair/downtime data. I can't even make a statement saying that Cummins is more reliable than others because I don't have all of the data. If you do then please share because I would love to look at it. I am just kidding, I know you don't and are just saying so for biased reason and want to put in a passive aggressive dig on Cummins.
And again, you are making an assumption based on cooling capacities without knowing the cooling requirements of each engine which will not be the same. Why do you keep posting this passive aggressive BS in a thread about a Cummins engine? You already stated that you would never buy one and think they are not a good engine so why continue to dog on other people's engine choices? What is your agenda here?
