I'm guessing Ford will announce the power and torque rating for the 2017 Powerstroke sometime soon. Just for fun, anyone want to post their guess as to what the new rating will be? I was thinking 475 hp and 930 torque but Im beginning to think they might want to make a bigger statement. Ram is already at 900 so it will most likely be more than that. Will they want to see how the new chassis holds up before cranking out 1000 lbft of torque? A 14% increase in power and torque would make nice round numbers of 500 HP and 980 lbft of torque......but if they are going to go to 980 maybe they might just as well take the plunge and make a new 1000 lbft bench mark. Maybe its not that easy with meeting emission requirements? What do you think?

Rumor is close to 500HP and 1,000 ft/lbs of torque.

Find the torque ratings for the transmission, transfer case and rear axle and you will find your max engine torque number...

My thoughts are what will keep the tire from leaving the wheel. Might need a bead lock set up like RC cars have. chevman

SoCalDesertRider wrote:Find the torque ratings for the transmission, transfer case and rear axle and you will find your max engine torque number...My understanding is that the 140 in the 6R140 indicates the torque value that was designed into the transmission. In 2013 H&S fed fuel to an otherwise stock Powerstoke. (not sure about the turbo) The transmission began to slip at over 1600 lb ft of torque. I think in 2015 Ford beefed up the 6R140 slightly.edit: the 140 signifies 1400 ftlbs

If they offer the stroke with 500hp, I will test drive one :C

Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

Dr_Holiday
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
Something to consider. My 2012 Ram has reported 800ft and something like 300hp. I've read reports that it will not unleash all 800ft/lbs until its in 2nd or 3rd gear to reduce heat in the trans and dif.

I'm with most others, my Truck has pulled my camper weighing just shy of 14k/lbs all over north america. Up the Eisenhower pass twice, On I-40 from Ashville to Knoxville countless times (far worse than Eisenhower pass) and i've never once NEEDED more power. I could keep up with the flow of cars and SUVs but chose to stay in the right lane with the trucks and other RVs and had plenty of peddle if and when i needed to pull out to pass a slow moving truck or camper.
SoCalDesertRid1
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
I'd rather have enough power, and twice the fuel mileage. We'll never see that though.

EPA doesn't require fuel mileage reporting on the window sticker of new pickups heavier than a 1/2-ton model. Therefore, there is no race to higher and higher fuel mileage among the manufacturers.

Power will always go up and up and up and fuel mileage stay roughly the same.
Bionic_Man
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
On topic, I will also venture that Ford will advertise close to 500/1000. Maybe they come out at 480/975 so they can up the output when the competitors follow.

I for one like watching the power wars. Today's trucks have twice the power at a similar MPG to the older, pre-emissions trucks. What isn't to like about that?

That said, I do believe there is much truth to the thought that happiness isn't having what you want, but wanting what you have. For those that always must have the most powerful truck on the market, you will be upgrading almost every year. My goal is to have a reliable truck that I like (which I do), and save some $$$ so that someday I can retire. But that is just me.
Me_Again
Explorer III
Jul 11, 2016
boshog wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Huntingdog
I agree but remind you that all three brands test to different sae standards if I remember correctly. Having said that the ford is the fastest up the hill while pulling a load with the current trucks.

It is ridiculous that they have to compare these tugs as "who is fastest up the hill". Which of you has ever seen a guy at the end of your towing destination with a checked flag.

Give me reliability, fuel economy, and creature features for the long-haul days.

I just love it when someone post a fishy story about beating another guy up a hill or from a stop light! How does this fisherman know that the other guys was competing with him or was not being slapped in the side of his head by his DW?

All three of the diesel towing machines will get the job done. Some more reliably than other. With three available one will be the most reliable, one second and one last.

This year brand X may have the highest marketing numbers, next year it may be a different one. Who cares? Like I said earlier and someone else said. Give me better MPG towing, as all three will get you there most of the time!

When it does not get you there, why do some go on attack against the other brands instead of just omitting that their brand has had issues. Any Ford fan that fails to omit that the 6.0 and 6.4 where not the best is living in an altered universe.

Then there is application of warranties. From everything I have read, it appears that GM may be the winner there with RAM second and Ford last.

In ever area there is First, Second and last. For many things like looks and comfort, they become personal to each consumer rating them first, second and last in their "book"!

Time to grow up and move on! They are are good most of the time.
4x4ord
Explorer III
Jul 11, 2016
Does SAE standards not stipulate dyno tests to measure advertised HP. Putting a truck in drive and flooring it up a hill does not measure peak HP. I remember being passed by a gasoline powered pickup pulling a big fifth wheel while going up a long steep grade with my Powerstroke. When the truck pulled out to pass me I already had my foot to the floor. I knew my engine was only making about 200 HP at the rpm it was running at and if had wanted to race I would have to manually shift the transmission to a lower gear. I had nothing to prove and didn't bother racing, my point is that peak HP is at 2900 rpm on the Powerstroke and the transmission shift points are not programmed for racing.
boshog
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
FishOnOne wrote:
Huntingdog
I agree but remind you that all three brands test to different sae standards if I remember correctly. Having said that the ford is the fastest up the hill while pulling a load with the current trucks.

It is ridiculous that they have to compare these tugs as "who is fastest up the hill". Which of you has ever seen a guy at the end of your towing destination with a checked flag.

Give me reliability, fuel economy, and creature features for the long-haul days.
dodge_guy
Explorer II
Jul 11, 2016
The bigger question is, what type of issues is this one going to have?
FishOnOne
Nomad
Jul 11, 2016
Huntingdog
I agree but remind you that all three brands test to different sae standards if I remember correctly. Having said that the ford is the fastest up the hill while pulling a load with the current trucks.
Huntindog
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
FishOnOne wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
shepstone wrote:
Flashman wrote:
gmcsmoke wrote:
claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford.

True that.

Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...
GM.
Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought.
I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers."

The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD.

Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out.
GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards....

As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things.

I remember the Chevy laying the 2011 Ford to waste on the first hill climb tests but it did it with less power. Here is a link to one of the dyno runs on the three trucks from back in 2011.

Here's a copy/past summary of that dyno run:

Regardless of which transmission gear we tested the trucks in, the power rankings were all the same. The 2011 Ford F-350 with the 6.7L Power Stroke made the most horsepower and torque, followed by the 2012 GMC Sierra 3500 with the LML 6.6L Duramax, and the new 2011 ½ Ram 3500 with the 800-lb-ft calibration came in third.

We know some of you are going to be shocked by this data (we were), but based on seven other tests we ran these three trucks through—those numbers are the real deal.
That data is not to SAE standards.

Does it make a difference? Yes.

Bottom line is, it takes a certain amount of power t move a given load up a hill at a certain speed. More power will get it done at a higher speed. It is that simple. No matter what the advertised rating is, the hill remains as steep and long as ever. If one truck is rated by a more lenient standard that produces a higher number, it WILL be slower that a truck that was tested to a stricter standard.

The hill is not impressed with ratings. It just laughs as it says, show me what you got.
Huntindog
Explorer
Jul 11, 2016
4x4ord wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
shepstone wrote:
Flashman wrote:
gmcsmoke wrote:
claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford.

True that.

Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...
GM.
Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought.
I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers."

The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD.

Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out.
GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards....

As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things.

I remember the Chevy laying the 2011 Ford to waste on the first hill climb tests but it did it with less power. Here is a link to one of the dyno runs on the three trucks from back in 2011.
The problem with Dyno testing todays computerized motors is that different dyno criteria can yield different results.

SAE Dyno specs are the most stringent I know of. It specifies the duration that a power level must be maintained. This matters when climbing a hill.
Motors not tested to SAE standards can use any number they want, as they can set up a motor to put out more power for a short period of time, before pulling the power back to avoid damage.

So the difference is much like a continuous vs peak rating... A higher continuous rating will get you up the entire hill faster vs a peak rated motor being faster for part of the hill.

Although it is possible I find it highly unlikely that Ford would design the new 6.7 Powerstroke to be much stronger than the Duramax (just look at the size of the rods and crank, the compacted graphite block, the massive radiator) and then tune it to deliver 3 more horsepower that only lasts momentarily just to say they have the higher numbers. I had both a 2010 Duramax and a 2011 Powerstroke. On the hills the GM was eager to downshift and rev to 3000 rpm where it made its 397 HP where as the Ford would lug along in a higher gear at 1300 rpm where it made about 200 HP. When racing trucks up hills it is pretty easy to select a trailer weight and grade that will exploit the Ford's laid back attitude.
Your 2010 Dmax did NOT have 397 HP. That did not happen until the 2011 models.

Both Ford and GM raised the bar for 2011...

So it is no suprise that your 2011 PSD outperformed your 2010 Dmax...