GM's Next HD Duramax

larry barnhart wrote:

ib516 wrote:

larry barnhart wrote:
It is funny listening to all of this******about what truck is the fastest. When the Ram lost very badly it was who cares. When the Ram seemed to be the fasted because of the added power now the bragging starts . Ok with me because I need to smile more these days. keep them coming.
chevman

I don't know what you are talking about. In the video I linked, the Ford (2015 mind you) was actually the fastest. I always care who is fastest and has the most power no matter the brand. Here's an extra smile for you buddy --> :B

What I'd REALLY like to see is a shootout between the 2500/250's with gas engines and 4.10 gears. They all have 6 speeds, and all have the same rear gear ratios available - unlike the diesels (Ram 3.42 only in SRW, Ford 3.31 or 3.55, Duramax 3.73 only). That would be a good toe to toe battle. :)

me thinks the videos were earlier than the latest ones. I always said I don't care about speed and still do not.:B


chevman

Yet you care enough to post about it.

ib516 wrote:

larry barnhart wrote:
It is funny listening to all of this******about what truck is the fastest. When the Ram lost very badly it was who cares. When the Ram seemed to be the fasted because of the added power now the bragging starts . Ok with me because I need to smile more these days. keep them coming.
chevman

I don't know what you are talking about. In the video I linked, the Ford (2015 mind you) was actually the fastest. I always care who is fastest and has the most power no matter the brand. Here's an extra smile for you buddy --> :B

What I'd REALLY like to see is a shootout between the 2500/250's with gas engines and 4.10 gears. They all have 6 speeds, and all have the same rear gear ratios available - unlike the diesels (Ram 3.42 only in SRW, Ford 3.31 or 3.55, Duramax 3.73 only). That would be a good toe to toe battle. :)

me thinks the videos were earlier than the latest ones. I always said I don't care about speed and still do not.:B


chevman

larry barnhart wrote:
It is funny listening to all of this******about what truck is the fastest. When the Ram lost very badly it was who cares. When the Ram seemed to be the fasted because of the added power now the bragging starts . Ok with me because I need to smile more these days. keep them coming.
chevman

I don't know what you are talking about. In the video I linked, the Ford (2015 mind you) was actually the fastest. I always care who is fastest and has the most power no matter the brand. Here's an extra smile for you buddy --> :B

What I'd REALLY like to see is a shootout between the 2500/250's with gas engines and 4.10 gears. They all have 6 speeds, and all have the same rear gear ratios available - unlike the diesels (Ram 3.42 only in SRW, Ford 3.31 or 3.55, Duramax 3.73 only). That would be a good toe to toe battle. :)

It is funny listening to all of this******about what truck is the fastest. When the Ram lost very badly it was who cares. When the Ram seemed to be the fasted because of the added power now the bragging starts . Ok with me because I need to smile more these days. keep them coming.
chevman

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
You mean Allison ??

I do. Sorry, fixed it.

You mean Allison ??

ib516 wrote:

...
Good article, I always enjoy those comparisons! :)

Could be in those circumstances with those trucks. They tested 80 Km/h to 100 km/h acceleration with that load (horsepower predominantly), and used a 2500 Ram - which can only be had with the 370hp/800tq engine and 3.42 gears. The Duramax in that test would be 397hp/765tq and have 3.73 gears.

3500 to 3500, where the Ram has the Aisin and 385hp/850tq, the Duramax is left behind.

In the 2014 and 2015s, the Duramax is dead last...like I said.

VIDEO

They also tested initial startup acceleration, and were surprised that the Duramax was slightly faster given its relatively low torque. Then there was a big discussion about how the Duramax didn't need to "torque manage" because it had a stronger Allison tranny. And made the point that it's torque at the wheel that's important, not torque at the engine.

Definitely interesting article. This was my favourite part:

Even GM people admit there’s not a bad heavy-duty pickup to choose from,

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
Thanks fishOnOne for that very recent pull off test. I did not read that one. Numbers being lower and that truck still can kick butt !!

It's because it puts more power to the ground. That how it does all that with less power and torque.

N-Trouble wrote:

Not the Ford/Mike Rowe commercial... At least produce an independent test, not a blue oval coolaid advertisement.

Come up with one that tests 2014 3500 series trucks where it doesn't come in last.

ib516 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:

MARK VANDERBENT wrote:
Those duramax trucks seem to still match or beat the completion even with lower numbers. Sometimes numbers can be all hype.

Not if you check out any recent comparison tests. They are dead last.

The D/A combo is still a good one, but the power numbers need an upgrade.

Perhaps you should read this article.

Good article, I always enjoy those comparisons! :)

Could be in those circumstances with those trucks. They tested 80 Km/h to 100 km/h acceleration with that load (horsepower predominantly), and used a 2500 Ram - which can only be had with the 370hp/800tq engine and 3.42 gears. The Duramax in that test would be 397hp/765tq and have 3.73 gears.

3500 to 3500, where the Ram has the Aisin and 385hp/850tq, the Duramax is left behind.

In the 2014 and 2015s, the Duramax is dead last...like I said.

VIDEO

Not the Ford/Mike Rowe commercial... At least produce an independent test, not a blue oval coolaid advertisement.