Forum Discussion
158 Replies
mich800 wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
4X, how much do you think these 10 speeds help with the Diesel engines compared to their previous 6 speeds? Lets say the Ford with todays HP/TQ with 6 speed would it do as well as the 10 speed or???
It will do better in a variety of situations compared to the previous version. This does not equal better in any one or every specific test.
If you focus on one test as a proxy for usefulness you are missing the bigger picture of technological advancements.
I agree, I was curious his opinion on that specific situation.
I guess my thinking is how much of the time are we using all these gears, do they make much of a difference?
Cruising down the highway in high gear 6 or 10 speeds any difference?
Pulling a 6% grade for 5 miles make much difference? Once you are in your gear at a given grade that does not change.
To me the fact we have/had 6 equally spaced gears was the most improvement we all have seen. Now "I" think most of it is advertising and not that much is to be gained.Cummins12V98 wrote:
4X, how much do you think these 10 speeds help with the Diesel engines compared to their previous 6 speeds? Lets say the Ford with todays HP/TQ with 6 speed would it do as well as the 10 speed or???
I would like to see a Dyno test showing hp to the rear tires while showing speeds from 15mph to 75mph with the two transmissions. I expect that the 10 speed would have much smaller dips at shift points and therefore higher average hp to the ground. But I hate to assume anything.Cummins12V98 wrote:
4X, how much do you think these 10 speeds help with the Diesel engines compared to their previous 6 speeds? Lets say the Ford with todays HP/TQ with 6 speed would it do as well as the 10 speed or???
It will do better in a variety of situations compared to the previous version. This does not equal better in any one or every specific test.
If you focus on one test as a proxy for usefulness you are missing the bigger picture of technological advancements.ib516 wrote:
They posted a "raw and unedited" of that video which has some more detail. In summary, the Ford's cooling fan is quite noisy, and the GM was outperformed pretty handily. The GM dropped to 38 mph for quite a bit of the video, and the Ford was ~40 to 45 mph most of the time.
LINK
I haven't watched that yet. Still weird to me they left out how is the Ford was in the main video. That's a standard test they always do, yet ignored it here.
And like others have said, want to see this test when it's 95 degrees out. I do all my pulling in the summer.- 4X, how much do you think these 10 speeds help with the Diesel engines compared to their previous 6 speeds? Lets say the Ford with todays HP/TQ with 6 speed would it do as well as the 10 speed or???
Cummins12V98 wrote:
" I kind of hope that they will run the Ram in cold temps just like this test because hotter temps would effect the outcome even more, but I doubt it."
Running the RAM on different days may or may not help it. They should have waited to do all three at the same time.
With the RAM VS GM towing the same 16k and basically having the same times makes no sense to me. The GM should have smoked the RAM because the RAM had 6 tires and more weight to pull and the GM was lighter and had the be all 10 speed FAUX Allison.
The GM should have beat the Ford up the hill in this test. At 2600 rpm, which is typically where the Duramax was running, it should have made more power than the Powerstroke could running at the 2200 rpm it ran at.
Even with the Ford running such low rpm I don't think the Ram will make the run in 10:20, but I do think it will beat the GM.- I think one factor that many people overlook here is that the power numbers for the trucks are not constant and they are always changing. Many things can alter these numbers like temps, turbo efficiencies and so on. You can have one truck that is great for short burst runs making a lot of horsepower unloaded, but cannot sustain that same power output. This is why some trucks may be hot rods when unloaded or in short loaded runs, but they are more effected when loaded especially over long distances because it cannot keep those high power levels for long periods of time.
There are also trucks that are more effected by altitude due to their turbo sizing and efficiency while others aren't. You can also have one truck that is great in cold temps, but not so great in warmer temps where it cannot sustain the same power output it can in colder weather. There are many factors that play into how much power a certain engine makes in certain conditions, and not all engines are effected the same way. Cummins12V98 wrote:
" With the RAM VS GM towing the same 16k and basically having the same times makes no sense to me. The GM should have smoked the RAM because the RAM had 6 tires and more weight to pull and the GM was lighter and had the be all 10 speed FAUX Allison.
This makes complete sense to me. Because the towed weight is less than half the towing capabilities of the respective drivetrains, and TFL limits the max speed up the IKE to the posted speed limit, the results of all three trucks will be tied!
Question is, at what weight would the respective trucks start to slow down below the posted speed limit? We don’t know that answers, but we know the times up the IKE are different at 30,000 lbs. Maybe it’s 20000 lbs or 25000 lbs, it would be fun to know. But like I said before who care if it takes 1-2 minutes longer up the IKE with a load that 99% of RVers will never tow!
All three trucks are powerhouses and I think we ought to start looking at life cycle costs to own and operate these trucks for RVers.
Peace- " I kind of hope that they will run the Ram in cold temps just like this test because hotter temps would effect the outcome even more, but I doubt it."
Running the RAM on different days may or may not help it. They should have waited to do all three at the same time.
With the RAM VS GM towing the same 16k and basically having the same times makes no sense to me. The GM should have smoked the RAM because the RAM had 6 tires and more weight to pull and the GM was lighter and had the be all 10 speed FAUX Allison. ShinerBock wrote:
I am in Phoenix AZ....80s is winter for us.Huntindog wrote:
I think in hot weather, it will be a different test.
For the first time, I have seen, the Ford performed the way one would expect according to it's ratings..... BUT.... It was cold and wet.
So what I always felt was the reason for Fords previous lackluster performances was less/no factor::: Defueling to protect the motor.
With all of the cooling enhancements GM introduced this year, I would expect it to do much better against the competition in hot conditions.
There are some other factors that may be in play as well. I just don't have enough info at this point to make a good call on them.
Yep. I would wager that if the outside temps were in the 50s or 60s then the times would have identical and if the temps were in the 80s then the GM would have had it. The coolant temps were already in the 220s according to their comment and they would have not doubt been much higher in hotter weather since it has to keep the engine heat and hot compressed air coming from the turbo cool. There will eventually be a point that it will not be able to keep up and the intake air temps will increase which will also increase EGT's and engine temps causing it to cut power.
Since air cooled intercoolers on the Ram and GM trucks rely on outside air to keep them cool, they are not effected by coolant temps so they can sustain higher power levels for longer intervals. They are ,however, more effected by heat soaking in stop in go city driving where there is not enough air going over them to to keep them cool. I kind of hope that they will run the Ram in cold temps just like this test because hotter temps would effect the outcome even more, but I doubt it.
Summer? Daytimes always 100+, 110-115 is pretty common
