Big Three road tests

For the last time............:R.............or maybe not, {B torque is not power. If it were, the Ram would have beat the hell out of the Bow Tie and Blue Oval.

Everyone of the trucks has it's strong points and it's weaker (comparative) points. Each buyer makes a judgement call on which of those points is important to HIM for the way (S)HE will use the vehicle. Over the years I have bought 3 "big" diesel trucks, and I shopped all brands with an open mind each time. Shopping by name badge just makes no sense to me. If you do that, then you've let the TV commercials do your thinking for you, or "I drive 'cuz my Daddy always did." Blind stupidity.

I've decided that if I could buy the "perfect" truck, it would have a Cummins diesel, GM running gear/suspension, Ford cabin, and an Allison transmission. But nobody is building that truck, so I just research each time that I need a new one, based on MY NEEDS, not of which one impressed a magazine flunky.

Mich,

What does a hundred foot lbs of torque amount to? That's what the Ford and the Ram had on the Duramax. The Ford even had more HP. I understand about weight. But I would think a hundred foot lbs would make up for a bit of weight difference.

The fuel mileage for the Ram and Ford empty is a long way off of what I have read before. Yes it seems the DMAX usually has the advantage in MPG. The DMAX numbers in this test seem proper. But the Ram and Ford don't. And this is a area in which the driver could make a great deal of difference

Then the comparing of the 2nd class Ram to the top of the line Duramax and Ford doesn't seem correct to me. As I said, why not run the Ram against the 6.6 dmax in the van? Is the difference in the van and Ram too obvious?

As said by others 1/4 mile means nothing. Running up hill tests in traffic means nothing. I recall another test where the ram lost. But it was loaded to max capacity which was thousands of pounds greater than the Ford or the Dmax. They justified this because they were rated to do that work and none of them were overloaded..

Well, no mention was made of the fact that the Ram got 30,000 pounds to the top of the hill in one trip. To get the same weight up, the others would need two trips. As a business person that would be a huge added expense.

The one way trip was about 8 minutes for the Ford and Dmax, the ram in neighborhood of being the slowest by 60 seconds or so. Lets say the Ram took 12 minutes. The other trucks, would take a minimum of 21 minutes to make the same haul. And that isn't counting turn around time.

I am not pointing fingers at this article in a vacuum.

I just think these tests have gotten out of hand. We are customers no matter what brand we drive. And if we see something that doesn't look right. We should call these testers on the value of their product.

I have said this in another post. I came back to posting here because I was interested in buying a vehicle in the next year or so. I feel as if I am more confused now than before.

Afraid to buy anything because I can hear me whisper to myself. "I told you so". :o
:)

Interesting read....

Whatever, the majority vows for the big Ford best.

Buddylam, unfortunately you lost me in your explanation. The Ford is rated at 440 hp and ran 16.5, GM 397 hp and ran 16. and ram at 370 hp and ran 16.9. From a straight drag racing perspective the general rule has always been 100 pounds equals about .1 seconds in the quarter. So without knowing the curb weights you can not draw any hard conclusions. The results seem to bear out the specs. Ram was slowest with the least Hp (not a bad thing), and Ford has always been known as a little heavy compared with the others so the GM / Ford results don't jump out as odd.

But of course I could be completly missing your point. Wouldn't be the first time I was confused about something.

Ron3rd wrote:

NC Hauler wrote:
Aw shucks...my truck came in 3rd...Does all I ask it to do so reckon I'll keep it:)

NC, your Cummins sucks! The magazine said so :)

I know it, dogonit...but I'm not going to tell my truck or let it read the review (I didn't read it either, leafed through it and saw the Ram finished last behind the Chevy/GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi pick up trucks...Believe it JUST beat out the old VW diesel pick up truck from years back..:)....good news on that one .

Yeah I'm going to keep the old beat up, ugly, underpowered loud diesel engine, and loud enough EB (per another review), to drive one bongers.

Yeah, I'll just avoid trying to see how fast I can take off from a dead start to see how fast I can do it, or race up the side of a mountain while towing my 5er...nope, I'll just take my time and hope I don't break down while towing or while commuting to work it to work.....

NC Hauler wrote:
Aw shucks...my truck came in 3rd...Does all I ask it to do so reckon I'll keep it:)

NC, your Cummins sucks! The magazine said so :)

I didn't even watch the video because like NC, my truck does all I ask of it and I'm happy. That's all that matters right?

I do often wonder though, with everything now days handled by computer why don't these manufactures tune these engines to hold max torque all the way to the max RPM that they set. Example, the Cummins makes 865 lbft at 1,750 I believe, If the engine can hold the cylinder pressures at that RPM then why wouldn't they at 2,900? Having the flat torque line would be a heck of a pulling engine. Cooling maybe?

Aw shucks...my truck came in 3rd...Does all I ask it to do so reckon I'll keep it:)