Ford 6.7L 1050 ft lbs TQ at 1,600 rpm, 475 HP at 2,800 rpm
Ford 6.7L checks in at 1,050 ft lbs TQ at 1,600 rpm, 475 HP at 2,800 rpm
Forum Discussion
166 Replies
Cummins12V98 wrote:
What is the net time it takes to complete the course at the posted speed limit???
What was the GM's time and what was the RAM's time?
Then let's talk why GM didn't mop the floor.
What is the speed limit?
Does the clock start at a point they are already at the speed limit?
I think the speed limit is 60. So if it is exactly 8 miles obviously a perfect run is 8 minutes if the clock starts at a line they are already at the speed limit.
Maybe this puts it in perspective. The real question is why are you losing sleep over an essential dead heat and within the margin of error for a perfect run.RCMAN46 wrote:
" the Duramax should have mopped the floor with the Cummins on the last supper Ike test instead of being less than a 15 second difference."
The major reason for the close times both trucks were able to run most of the hill at the speed limit set by the test. So depending on the accuracy of the speedometers used and how close to the speed limit the driver held the trucks to could easily result in a 15 second difference in an 8 mile run.
We need to load the units such they are not able to obtain the speed limit imposed to find which can make the most power up the hill. If this can not be done find a steeper or longer hill for the tests.
Not in the videos I saw in the 2017 tow test where they did all three at once.
The times were 10:28(with a red light at the end) for the 385hp rated Cummins and 10:17 for the 445hp rated Duramax. If they were able to do 60 mph most of the way up, then their time would have been closer to 8:00 since that is 60 mph in 8 miles. At 10:28 over 8 miles, the average speed would be 45.86 mph for the Cummins and at 10:17 the average speed is 46.68 mph for the Duramax. That is less than 1 mph difference yet the Duramax had 60 more peak horsepower.- What is the net time it takes to complete the course at the posted speed limit???
What was the GM's time and what was the RAM's time?
Then let's talk why GM didn't mop the floor. - " the Duramax should have mopped the floor with the Cummins on the last supper Ike test instead of being less than a 15 second difference."
The major reason for the close times both trucks were able to run most of the hill at the speed limit set by the test. So depending on the accuracy of the speedometers used and how close to the speed limit the driver held the trucks to could easily result in a 15 second difference in an 8 mile run.
We need to load the units such they are not able to obtain the speed limit imposed to find which can make the most power up the hill. If this can not be done find a steeper or longer hill for the tests. - "After all, with a 60 hp advantage, the Duramax should have mopped the floor with the Cummins on the last supper Ike test instead of being less than a 15 second difference."
Let's not forget the GM's combined weight was less, oh yea combined with the new Allison "Branded" trans with all the magic gears. ;) 4x4ord wrote:
I think the stock turbo on the '15-'16 Powerstrokes has been proven reliable with after market tuning producing up to 580 rwhp. I believe Ford has increased the size of the turbo twice since then and we are only talking about providing enough air for about 400 rear wheel hp. Ford has made some significant changes to the 2020 engine in order to push the power to a new level. So although it's possible that they are just fudging numbers to claim best in class power it certainly is within reason to think this new engine will actually live up to its claims.
I thought we were talking about sustained 520 hp under high load(towing) with a Cat C13/15 versus a PSD?
My tuned with stock fuel and air could make well over 500hp at the wheels, but that does not mean it can sustain that amount of power under high load for very long. Neither can a supposedly 580 rwhp PSD. Also, as I said, I have not seen the compressor mapping of the new PSD to say for certain. There are also other factors that come into play when talking about sustainable EGT's at a certain power level like intake flow, intercooler efficiency, and exhaust flow.
While the turbo is the major piece of the puzzle, it is not the only piece.
Again, not saying that it isn't feasible that Ford may have addressed these issues to be able to sustain 475 hp, but it doesn't look like it from what I have read. I guess we will have to see the next Ike because the Ford should mop the floor with the Cummins with a 75 hp advantage.Huntindog wrote:
I already knew that... I wanted to see if you did as well.
Having an SAE witness to the testing IS important. It means that there will be no funny buisiness in the testing.
Not having the witness means that they are basically self testing.
My company has many processes that they self validate monthly. Every 6 months or so a higher level of management comes in and does the validation... The previous months high scores always shrink a lot. Some of our more critical processes entail a outside 3rd party coming in to do the validation.... That is when you really see a true score.
I liken this to what SAE does when it witnesses a test.
It is human nature to want a good score.... And when the fox is watching the henhouse, that is what will happen.
And that is why some manufacturers have come up short so often in the IKE tests, despite having higher power numbers.
I really don't care if they have a witness or not. Probably because I don't care too much about stock power numbers since there is a 99.99999% chance that I will dyno and tune the vehicle myself within the first 10-20k miles of ownership.
Having personally witnessed these test myself at Cummins, I am worried about them fudging the numbers just to get the highest horsepower numbers. I can't speak for Ford. Not saying they do or don't, just that I have never seen it with my own eyes.
In regards to the ike test, that is what we are discussing here. Ford may very well have more short burst horsepower than the Duramax and Cummins, but may not be able to sustain that power for as long of time. There is a huge difference between the power an engine can make on a single short burst dyno run versus an eight mile up hill under high load. After all, with a 60 hp advantage, the Duramax should have mopped the floor with the Cummins on the last supper Ike test instead of being less than a 15 second difference.ShinerBock wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
If our C15 Cat makes 550 horsepower with about 40 psi of boost at 1400 rpm it would seem likely that a 6.7 spinning 2800 rpm would require similar boost to have similar airflow per hp if it were making 475 hp. Is there some reason to think that 38-40 psi should be unobtainable out of a stock 6.7 turbo?
That depends on the efficiency of the turbo which is effected by many things. I don't have a compressor map of a the new PSD turbo to be able say yes or no. It may be able to make 40 psi of boost, but it may be over spinning to do it. Just because two turbos are able to create 40 psi of boost, does not mean they have the same amount of air flow at 40 psi. There is a point where the blade of the turbo is spinning too fast and it is chomping through the air which reduces air flow. A larger turbo will generally have more air flow at 40 psi than a smaller one at 40 psi.
There is also the CFM of the exhaust as well. The big trucks have much larger exhaust and emissions equipment allowing for less restrictions in exhaust flow.
I think the stock turbo on the '15-'16 Powerstrokes has been proven reliable with after market tuning producing up to 580 rwhp. I believe Ford has increased the size of the turbo twice since then and we are only talking about providing enough air for about 400 rear wheel hp. Ford has made some significant changes to the 2020 engine in order to push the power to a new level. So although it's possible that they are just fudging numbers to claim best in class power it certainly is within reason to think this new engine will actually live up to its claims.ShinerBock wrote:
I already knew that... I wanted to see if you did as well.Huntindog wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
The J2723 that GM uses still uses either J1995 or J1349 as their dyno standard, but has an extra validation step.
What is the extra step?
Just an extra certification process that consist of giving SAE more money to have an SAE certified witness. Basically, you are paying SAE more for the right to say it is "Certified to SAE J1349” or “Certified to SAE J1995."
Engine Power Test Code - Engine Power and Torque Certification J2723_201509
Having an SAE witness to the testing IS important. It means that there will be no funny buisiness in the testing.
Not having the witness means that they are basically self testing.
My company has many processes that they self validate monthly. Every 6 months or so a higher level of management comes in and does the validation... The previous months high scores always shrink a lot. Some of our more critical processes entail a outside 3rd party coming in to do the validation.... That is when you really see a true score.
I liken this to what SAE does when it witnesses a test.
It is human nature to want a good score.... And when the fox is watching the henhouse, that is what will happen.
And that is why some manufacturers have come up short so often in the IKE tests, despite having higher power numbers.Huntindog wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
The J2723 that GM uses still uses either J1995 or J1349 as their dyno standard, but has an extra validation step.
What is the extra step?
Just an extra certification process that consist of giving SAE more money to have an SAE certified witness. Basically, you are paying SAE more for the right to say it is "Certified to SAE J1349” or “Certified to SAE J1995."
Engine Power Test Code - Engine Power and Torque Certification J2723_201509
