ramincr wrote:
Andre Smirnov
March 4, 2017 at 11:43 am
We did not detect any mechanical or software fault with the Super Duty. We did run the truck twice with similar results. We reported the best numbers
Cummins12V98 wrote:
" All three brands do it with much heavier loads than your 5th wheel."
Correct, I think I was saying that. From my experience the VAST majority of Car Haulers are doing go with RAM trucks.
Cummins12V98 wrote:
" All three brands do it with much heavier loads than your 5th wheel."
Correct, I think I was saying that. From my experience the VAST majority of Car Haulers are doing go with RAM trucks.
Cummins12V98 wrote:Huntindog wrote:patriotgrunt wrote:That 30K spec is not a realistic number for Rvers.Lessmore wrote:
Chevies have always been known for outstanding power...all starting back in 1955 with the introduction of the legendary small block Chevy V8. Power and lots of it...has been a bow tie tradition in both gas and diesel engines over the years.
So no....not at all...nope.... I'm not surprised that Chevy came first and Ford was at the tail end.
Some say horse power is horsepower....but in my humble opinion horses are rated differently....there are Shetland horses (blue oval) and then there are Clydesdale's (bow tie). :B
All I can say...is it is a good thing that the Chevy was 'hobbled' with 3.73's to the Ford's 4.10's....or could you imagine what the Chevy times would of been.
Remind my again why these trucks are only pulling 22,800#s? :B
A 30K 5ver will have approx. 7500# pin weight.
None of the trucks are capable of that.
Lots of guys hauling big car trailers. So the upper numbers do apply just not to the masses. If they could pass the SAE test with 30K in tow they sure would have!
Heck my RV is borderline with the GM's.
4x4ord wrote:CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
If all three trucks were putting out their claimed power the Chev would come in about 30 seconds ahead of the Ford but the Ram would have been 2 and a half minutes behind the Ford. The new Duramax is claimed to have 150 lbft of torque and 48 more HP than the previous Duramax, yet it seems to be very comparable to the outgoing model. So it seams to me that both the Ford and GM were not performing anywhere close to where they should have.
4x4ord wrote:CumminsDriver wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
If all three trucks were putting out their claimed power the Chev would come in about 30 seconds ahead of the Ford but the Ram would have been 2 and a half minutes behind the Ford. The new Duramax is claimed to have 150 lbft of torque and 48 more HP than the previous Duramax, yet it seems to be very comparable to the outgoing model. So it seams to me that both the Ford and GM were not performing anywhere close to where they should have.
Huntindog wrote:patriotgrunt wrote:That 30K spec is not a realistic number for Rvers.Lessmore wrote:
Chevies have always been known for outstanding power...all starting back in 1955 with the introduction of the legendary small block Chevy V8. Power and lots of it...has been a bow tie tradition in both gas and diesel engines over the years.
So no....not at all...nope.... I'm not surprised that Chevy came first and Ford was at the tail end.
Some say horse power is horsepower....but in my humble opinion horses are rated differently....there are Shetland horses (blue oval) and then there are Clydesdale's (bow tie). :B
All I can say...is it is a good thing that the Chevy was 'hobbled' with 3.73's to the Ford's 4.10's....or could you imagine what the Chevy times would of been.
Remind my again why these trucks are only pulling 22,800#s? :B
A 30K 5ver will have approx. 7500# pin weight.
None of the trucks are capable of that.
