Ike Gauntlet 2017 3500s DRW 22,800# load

ShinerBock wrote:
I agree with travelnutz. To add to it, an engine with more hp is useless if you don't have enough torque(engine or via gear multiplication) to be at the rpm to make that power. Some people think that once you take off from a stop then you don't need torque anymore and it is all HP. Well this is completely false because the force pulling you back is usually never constant and is always changing. Basically, HP cannot spin your tires at a certain speed if you do not have enough torque behind that spin to overcome the force that are keeping it from spinning. A vehicle will be limited to a gear and rpm that it has enough torque to overcome the forces holding it back and therefore limiting the amount of HP available and the speed it can go.

As far as the test, it was good but how fast a truck pull a certain amount of weight up a hill is only one factor. Being how close all three were, I don't see it being a major factor.

The truck with the flattest power curve and most torque did the poorest..... this really doesn't make sense. The gear ratios of the TorqShift along with the flat power curve of the Powerstroke should have been able to keep the engine rpm at a level where it produces more HP than the peak horsepower of the Cummins at any point on the hill. No matter how you look at it things don't add up. Even at 2200 rpm the Powerstroke should be producing 380 HP. If the manufactures' HP and torque ratings are honest the Cummins could be coupled to an infinite speed transmission and still wouldn't keep up.

cummins2014 wrote:

SouthpawHD wrote:

JustLabs wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for posting

That's all you are going to say????

Any reason for this post, other than to bait someone into an argument?

And you don't consider yourself a troll...lol

You hit the nail on the head! Even after warnings, it doesn't stop with these two.

I'll second that

I thought we were friends? ;)

SouthpawHD wrote:

JustLabs wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Thanks for posting

That's all you are going to say????

Any reason for this post, other than to bait someone into an argument?

And you don't consider yourself a troll...lol

You hit the nail on the head! Even after warnings, it doesn't stop with these two.

A little late to the party! Things have been scrubbed from this thread you don't see. I was KIDDING Fish because he always has something to say. Guess I should have added a smiley face.

Have a good day!

I agree with travelnutz. To add to it, an engine with more hp is useless if you don't have enough torque(engine or via gear multiplication) to be at the rpm to make that power. Some people think that once you take off from a stop then you don't need torque anymore and it is all HP. Well this is completely false because the force pulling you back is usually never constant and is always changing. Basically, HP cannot spin your tires at a certain speed if you do not have enough torque behind that spin to overcome the force that are keeping it from spinning. A vehicle will be limited to a gear and rpm that it has enough torque to overcome the forces holding it back and therefore limiting the amount of HP available and the speed it can go.

As far as the test, it was good but how fast a truck pull a certain amount of weight up a hill is only one factor. Being how close all three were, I don't see it being a major factor.

4x4ord wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

travelnutz wrote:
Me Again,

DUH! HP is merely a theoretical calculation moniker derived from how fast the TORQUE applied to the drive wheels rotates them thus creating measurable RPM. HP is NOT a direct measurable value! Zero torque = Zero RPM and thus Zero HP could even be calculated. Even 1000 lbs feet torque with zero RPM = zero HP. There is Zero RPM if there's insufficient TORQUE to rotate the wheels. HP is merely a theoretical value calculation, not a measured value!

A "horse" does not have a given pulling or rotational strength value as there are vast differences is sizes and pulling strengths of all the various horses. A given size horse's pulling strength can be actually measured but which horse?

The more FORCE (TORQUE) one applies to wheel shaft, the more RPM's it will turn! No where is the word HP used or even involved to make the wheel turn to any RPM's!

TORQUE and RPM are measurable but NOT HP as it's only a theoretical calculation!

Read the article that meagain posted a link to. Power is the rate of doing work. Neither Rpm nor torque are needed to calculate HP. The formula: HP= torque x rpm/5252 is derived from the definition of horsepower(1 horsepower is the power required to lift 550 lbs 1ft in 1 second). If the formula involving rpm and torque were to be stated accurately it would read HP = torque x rpm x pi/16500.

No matter. It is a well known fact that 4.10 gears will perform better in towing than 3.73s
So obviously, if the DA had 4.10s it would do better.
At one time, the Ram/Cummins was available with 3 different gear ratios, and 3 different tow ratings.
I will leave it up to the math gurus to debate as to why that is.

On this particular hill the Chevy might have been geared right. It started out at 55 mph and averaged about 46 mph so it likely spent a fair amount of time at around 40 mph. With 235/80r17 tires and the 3.73 gears the Duramax would be running 2854 rpm at 40 mph in second gear. If it had had a 4.10 final gear ratio at 40 mph the engine would be turning 2427 rpm in 3rd gear or 3137 in 2nd gear.....In either gear the truck would have slowed down.


Edit: The Ford should have been pretty comfortable at 40 mph with 4.10 final drives. It would have been running in 3rd gear at 2662 Which is pretty close to peak HP.

I doubt the Chevy got down to second gear as it would have to drop down to close to 2100 rpms in 3rd gear before it would shift to second. This would have caused an overall slower average speed and increased the time for the run.

Are you also taking the transmission gear ratios into consideration with your calculations? The Allison has the highest gear ratios of the three transmissions, and along with the 3.73's it is at a disadvantage to the other two with their considerably deeper gearing. A closer comparison would have been if the Ford had 3.55's and the Ram with 3.73's. With Fords and Rams deeper geared transmissions, the final drive ratios would have been much closer, and who knows, maybe the results would have been different.

It would be nice if they included in their testing which gears and rpm's the trucks used for the run, transmission temp, engine temp, and how much the suspension drops in the rear.

Rich

Does this comparison now prove the TFL tests and not a Ford commercial. The race to the top does not describe the quality of an HD Truck, and never has. The performance of a truck is about how well the truck handles the load under extreme conditions.

travelnutz wrote:
transamz9,

Me dun bees thunking yous gitin it!

Quote from your post:

"If you don't have enough torque on the ground to get you to those higher RPM the hp numbers make no difference."

Maybe you can teach some others?

I've always gotten it.

travelnutz wrote:
One more attempt to educate some of you.

You supply adequate "force" (measurable torque) (not HP as it doesn't exist) on a wrench to turn the nut on a bolt when tightening it even to have rotated the nut one revolution in 1 hour. Want to turn the nut one revolution in 10 seconds? Simply apply more force (torque) adequate enough to do so. To turn the nut one full revolution in one second? Apply adequate force (torque) to make it happen! Not once was HP used in any of the 3 examples or in reality. Just need adequate "torque force" to accomplish the task! It's torque from the engine that turns the axle shaft the drive wheels are attached to. No hamsters in a squirrel cage and no horses either! How hard is that to understand?

It's always a huge laughing joke in automotive and engine design and engineering development deartments I've heard repeated over and over so many times in the nearly 40 years of my automotive design and engineering life with all of the Big 3. Quote: "HP moves the load and does the work" Their reply is and always has been that "HP is only for feeling good and gearheads but it's the torque that actually turns the wheels to the RPM's and wanted and moves the load to and at the velocity desired, nothing else!" Heard it over and over and so true! Required TORQUE is what accomplished the work/task that's done!

Without the required torque value, you cannot have any RPM's nor any calculated theoretical HP. Straight from the engine design and development engineers over and over but some backyard know it all's think they know better! Alive and well on the forums too!

HP is a theoretical calculated value but not a measurable value as a theoretical value was used to be the base value of the thought of pulling power of a horse. Horses vary greatly in pulling power just like humans do too. Could have use the pulling power of an ant too but would it be a big carpenter ant or a little biting red ant? Science and math are only to be based on measured known reliable values, not guessed at!

Carry on boys!

At 30 mph the torque on the rear axle of these trucks going up the hill would be around 1675 lbft on each axle (3350 total). At 60 mph the torque would in the neighborhood of 1750 lbft on each axle. The horsepower being transferred through the rearaxle at 30 mph would be around 204 HP. At 60 mph it would be around 425 HP. Torque at rpm equals power.

I finally watched the video. You can't fault any of them from a performance standpoint. They have other pros and cons to consider, so as far as I'm concerned you just pick the pros that matter to you and accept the cons you can live with on whichever and you'll be happy. I am admittedly impressed that the Cummins held serve with the two newer diesels.

If that result says anything to me, it tells me these trucks are complete brutes. Pick your flavor, no power king based off that test.