Battle of the heavy weights

Hannibal wrote:
Don't take it so personal NC. It's not meant like that. You're a nice guy. I have no desire to sour your mood. And trust me, I'm not running 80mph up any grade but I have seen WOT on many grades with my gassers and diesels. If WOT maintains 50mph, that's what we run traffic and speed limit permitting. Most loaded OTR tractor trailer trucks are down to a crawl running against the governor WOT on ever grade they climb. Won't hurt a thing.

Hannibal wrote:

Me Again wrote:

Hannibal wrote:


Any truck that can't pull a grade WOT without overheating anything needs to go back to the drawing board. Every truck I've owned over the past 25 years has seen extended WOT without any ill affects. Way back in '84, my Isuzu P'up diesel saw high rpm WOT from Virginia to Sarasota towing a box U-Haul trailer. Not even a hint of trouble. Your fear of using a truck's full potential isn't an engine weakness. Those trucks are fine. If not, they're flawed.

Driving with the diesel pedal to the floor a lot more than gas power vehicles is one of the first things a new diesel vehicle owner has to get use to.

Years ago I drove a 350 Detroit 8V71 with a 13 speed road ranger tranny. It was against the governor at 2100, drop to 1800 and you down shifted down a gear and back against the governor.

With my 2001.5 Dodge/Cummins on hills like and including the Davis Dam hill(which I have pulled a couple times), I have to come out of overdrive, at which point it is as much pedal needed to maintain the engine in or above the torque sweet spot, which is 2000-2200. 2500-2600 and near or on the floor is common for me on such hills. It is using the truck and engine as intended. So I pull such hills at 45 to 55 MPH depending on how I feel at the time and schedule of how many miles I am trying to make that day. Running above that sweet spot uses a little more fuel, but I average 12.2-12.5 on long trips, so running up a 7 mile hill fast does not effect a 1700 trip that much.

In the West if I am trying to do a 400-500 mile down, then I try to keep it in my 62-63 mph comfort zone as much as possible.

Chris

I'm glad someone gets it! It's quite aggravating on a grade or rolling hills to get stuck behind someone gas or diesel who's afraid to run their truck at or near peak horsepower. Won't hurt a thing. I've heard 19,000 rpm Formula One racers howling but I've never heard a 3k rpm diesel or 5k rpm gasser scream. Nor have I ever seen or heard of one flying apart because of being run in their normal operating rpm range. If that were the case, boat engines gas and diesel would never make it. RPMaphobia is not common sense. It's irrational fear of something normal and harmless.

Me Again wrote:

Hannibal wrote:


Any truck that can't pull a grade WOT without overheating anything needs to go back to the drawing board. Every truck I've owned over the past 25 years has seen extended WOT without any ill affects. Way back in '84, my Isuzu P'up diesel saw high rpm WOT from Virginia to Sarasota towing a box U-Haul trailer. Not even a hint of trouble. Your fear of using a truck's full potential isn't an engine weakness. Those trucks are fine. If not, they're flawed.

Driving with the diesel pedal to the floor a lot more than gas power vehicles is one of the first things a new diesel vehicle owner has to get use to.

Years ago I drove a 350 Detroit 8V71 with a 13 speed road ranger tranny. It was against the governor at 2100, drop to 1800 and you down shifted down a gear and back against the governor.

With my 2001.5 Dodge/Cummins on hills like and including the Davis Dam hill(which I have pulled a couple times), I have to come out of overdrive, at which point it is as much pedal needed to maintain the engine in or above the torque sweet spot, which is 2000-2200. 2500-2600 and near or on the floor is common for me on such hills. It is using the truck and engine as intended. So I pull such hills at 45 to 55 MPH depending on how I feel at the time and schedule of how many miles I am trying to make that day. Running above that sweet spot uses a little more fuel, but I average 12.2-12.5 on long trips, so running up a 7 mile hill fast does not effect a 1700 trip that much.

In the West if I am trying to do a 400-500 mile down, then I try to keep it in my 62-63 mph comfort zone as much as possible.

Chris

Huntindog wrote:
Not to mention that this 2015 "concept" vehicle may never make it as a production model. If the endurance testing doesn't go well, then the "tune" will be changed to a lower power setting, and the production 2015 will not have the power that was demonstrated in this "test".

ib516 wrote:
The fact is, Ford likely tested their current truck against the new 850tq Cummins powered RAM, realized they would get spanked in the next magazine test, so redesigned and re-engineered the 6.7L diesel to be put in their "2015" model, and ran a few tests. Then they realized that their next model will "beat" the competition's current model :S so they made up a little commercial.

It's good advertising. What kind of an automaker would spend all that time and money to film a commercial unless they "won"? If the 2013 or 2014 version of the 6.7L diesel Ford offers could "beat" the competition, they would have ran that in their ad. What I take from that is that they came up short. I also take that the 2015 Superduty powerplant is likely harder on fuel but produces more power than the 2013 Cummins engine. I also think that the Ford with a 4.30 axle and uprated, but not available engine will "beat" the competitions 3.73 and 4.10 behind engines that are available. That is also a :S "no duh" moment.

Sometimes what is not there is just as important as what is there.

ib516 wrote:
The fact is, Ford likely tested their current truck against the new 850tq Cummins powered RAM, realized they would get spanked in the next magazine test, so redesigned and re-engineered the 6.7L diesel to be put in their "2015" model, and ran a few tests. Then they realized that their next model will "beat" the competition's current model :S so they made up a little commercial.

It's good advertising. What kind of an automaker would spend all that time and money to film a commercial unless they "won"? If the 2013 or 2014 version of the 6.7L diesel Ford offers could "beat" the competition, they would have ran that in their ad. What I take from that is that they came up short. I also take that the 2015 Superduty powerplant is likely harder on fuel but produces more power than the 2013 Cummins engine. I also think that the Ford with a 4.30 axle and uprated, but not available engine will "beat" the competitions 3.73 and 4.10 behind engines that are available. That is also a :S "no duh" moment.

Sometimes what is not there is just as important as what is there.

ib516 wrote:
The fact is, Ford likely tested their current truck against the new 850tq Cummins powered RAM, realized they would get spanked in the next magazine test, so redesigned and re-engineered the 6.7L diesel to be put in their "2015" model, and ran a few tests. Then they realized that their next model will "beat" the competition's current model :S so they made up a little commercial.

It's good advertising. What kind of an automaker would spend all that time and money to film a commercial unless they "won"? If the 2013 or 2014 version of the 6.7L diesel Ford offers could "beat" the competition, they would have ran that in their ad. What I take from that is that they came up short. I also take that the 2015 Superduty powerplant is likely harder on fuel but produces more power than the 2013 Cummins engine. I also think that the Ford with a 4.30 axle and uprated, but not available engine will "beat" the competitions 3.73 and 4.10 behind engines that are available. That is also a :S "no duh" moment.

Sometimes what is not there is just as important as what is there.

john&bet wrote:
If you think those trucks were working hard, try driving farm grain trucks from 50+ years ago with full loads of grain. Dodge slant 6 and Sudebaker 365cid flat heads with straight cut gears. Job done and did not break them. Love my 325hp CTD I-6. JME.