Forum Discussion
127 Replies
FishOnOne wrote:
Greene728 wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
blofgren wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
jtallon wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
My parents finally traded their '05 Duramax for a new '16 Duramax yesterday. They wanted a two wheel drive truck and after my dad saw the pictures of the hood scoop he didn't like so they went truck shopping at the local dealer. They test drove a Ram Cummins and the Chevy Duramax and decided on the Chevrolet because of more responsive power, transmission shift quality and just a better ride.
Funny how people's priorities are different.
765ft/lbs of torque in the '16 was sufficient for them, I suppose? Given they're essentially the same truck, I'd have waited a bit, and taken the additional power of the '17, and learned to accept the hood scoop. But everyone sees things differently, I guess.
Did they look at the '17 F350?
Best of luck to them. They should be very happy with the Chevy!
Coming from a 05 they should notice a nice improvement in towing performance but it'll be interesting what the fuel economy will be. Plus he always said my Ford towed better than his Chevy so he's probably thinking this new Chevy should be on par with my Ford.
They only looked at the Ram and Chevy. The dealer they purchased the truck was a dealer my mom worked at since the early sixty's. She's been retired for ~15 years now and the dealer still gave them employee discount.
For me I would have wanted the increase in power like yourself.
They didn't look at the Ford? I'm absolutely stunned given the trouble free service you've had from yours. You need to mix up stronger batches of blue Koolaid at the family functions. ;)
And before anyone gets their undies in a knot, I'm kidding! :B. I wish them the very best with their new truck.
LOL.... There truck was 11 years old and the only wrench it saw was a new set of shocks and a oil drain plug seal, but it only had ~ 55k miles.
Where was it traded?
I'll bet it brings a premium in price!!!
Don Elliot Autoworld... It has ~56k miles.
Link
More information for Green728. That 05 truck sold in 2 days. :W- It's the area under the useable torque curve that is as or more important than peak HP.
very easy for someone with less horsepower but a broader torque curve to give better performance other than maybe peak speed.
As an example my 97SL500 has 25 more HP 325, vs 300 than the engine in later models but a not as broad a torque curve, more peaky. Same body, same weight, same transmission, and acceleration for both cars is vertually identical. later model might give up some top speed but both are limited to 155mph, which they both will do. 4x4ord wrote:
In 2011 the Duramax blew the doors off the all new 400 hp Powerstroke. At the time of reading how GMC disgraced Ford I was in the market for a new truck. Even though I had always preferred GMC trucks I still ended up buying my first Ford in 2011. 6 years later I still look forward to hearing who is going to be the first one up the hill but it won't affect me in the least as to which truck I buy next. Nor will tow rating numbers. Fuel economy could possibly sway my decision from one manufacturer to another.
Good post. My #1 consideration when buying was long term reliability because I intend to keep this truck for a very long time. At my age I could care less who is at the top of the pass first!- In 2011 the Duramax blew the doors off the all new 400 hp Powerstroke. At the time of reading how GMC disgraced Ford I was in the market for a new truck. Even though I had always preferred GMC trucks I still ended up buying my first Ford in 2011. 6 years later I still look forward to hearing who is going to be the first one up the hill but it won't affect me in the least as to which truck I buy next. Nor will tow rating numbers. Fuel economy could possibly sway my decision from one manufacturer to another.
FishOnOne wrote:
ib516 wrote:
Interesting that GM chose not to get into the "tow rating numbers war" that Ford and Ram are in. Staying pretty conservative on their numbers - same as the previous year.
GM's sales pitch is to have the best towing confidence and not to have the best tow rating.
And Ram's is to have the best towing reliability. :)FishOnOne wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Are the farmers/ranchers waiting in line for a non DPF 6.0? ;)
Yes especially the 05-07 models that are not beat to a pulp. My BIL flew to Arizona to purchase a 07 5.9 Dodge because everything around here was just beat up and still asking for crazy prices. We purchased a 05 5.9 Dodge and a 03 Super Duty 7.3 just by a phone call from my cousin that's been on watch for any good trade ins at the dealer he works at. You have to move quick or these trucks get sucked up.
I know and totally believe that they are lined up for 5.9L Cummins and 7.3L Fords but I certainly don't believe they are lined up for 6.0L Fords. And this is speaking from an experienced 6.0L owner. :M- Here's a little explanation regarding SAE certified HP.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
Are Ram's numbers bogus? They use J1995.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/08/are-the-2016-ram-hd-s-output-figures-bogus-.html Flashman wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
spud1957 wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
If the 440 hp rating of the Powerstroke is not SAE flywheel hp what else would it be?
I have no idea, they sure did not use SAE on the tow ratings except for the 450. That's why I am asking.
GM is very clear about SAE Flywheel horsepower. Seems they always did well with "less power".
Ford uses SAE J1349 and I also believe GM does as well. They have been using that standard for some time. What standard does Ram use?
Ford is using SAE for towing for 2017. The ratings basically stayed the same or increased from the non SAE ratings. With Ram using it they still put in fine print that the weight ratings are an estimate only. If you want to hang your hat on these ratings, fill your boots.
S
LMAO.... And cummins24 don't pizz in my boots and tell me it's raining! :W
I guess it is time to close another thread due to old fish.
What a uber Ford fan boy - despite all evidence to the contrary.
Who are you? :WFishOnOne wrote:
spud1957 wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
If the 440 hp rating of the Powerstroke is not SAE flywheel hp what else would it be?
I have no idea, they sure did not use SAE on the tow ratings except for the 450. That's why I am asking.
GM is very clear about SAE Flywheel horsepower. Seems they always did well with "less power".
Ford uses SAE J1349 and I also believe GM does as well. They have been using that standard for some time. What standard does Ram use?
Ford is using SAE for towing for 2017. The ratings basically stayed the same or increased from the non SAE ratings. With Ram using it they still put in fine print that the weight ratings are an estimate only. If you want to hang your hat on these ratings, fill your boots.
S
LMAO.... And cummins24 don't pizz in my boots and tell me it's raining! :W
I guess it is time to close another thread due to old fish.
What a uber Ford fan boy - despite all evidence to the contrary.Cummins12V98 wrote:
There has been lots of speculation since 2011 or so as to why that is.
GM is very clear about SAE Flywheel horsepower. Seems they always did well with "less power".
Many at first (and some still) think that GM was sandbagging their ratings. This never made any sense to me, as that would sacrifice sales to those that want to buy the truck with the most power.
Quite a few think that the Allison has much less power loss. I never really bought into that. It may have been true in the past, but the Ram and Fords offerings are much improved over what they had. I doubt there is much difference anymore.
One of the hill climb tests I read did it different. They ran the trucks at the same time together rather than seperate timed runs. They wrote that at certain times, the Ford seemed like it had more power as it was able to pull away from the GM... But these incidences were brief. Overall, the GM was faster.
Later I read here on this forum about GM being the only one that followed the SAE protocols for Dyno testing. That was an eye opener for me.
With todays computer controlled motors, it is pretty easy for a motors power to be increased briefly until the computer detects imminent damage, and reduces the power.
SAE testing is very specific, as to the duration a motor must produce the rated power. Not using SAE dyno standards would allow for a higher HP/TQ figure to be obtained... Hence the term "advertised power"
This fits in with what the magazine testers observed, and explains why GM was so confident in the Dmaxs power ratings.
So that is what I have come to believe after trying to understand why the GM was winning all the hill climbs with less power.
IOW, the Ford had advertised power, and the GM had real power. Only one counts when climbing a hill
