Forum Discussion
184 Replies
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Watched a few videos now. One says the AISIN is "upgraded" and another says "all new" and another says "electronics are improved".
Anyone know exactly what the truth is?
And what's up with that short dip stick. It looks like it will hit the cab- Watched a few videos now. One says the AISIN is "upgraded" and another says "all new" and another says "electronics are improved".
Anyone know exactly what the truth is? RobertRyan wrote:
\
They can afford your Pickups, well logically it would be a contradiction, if I you infer I was to say there was no demand for your Pickup Trucks but companies are doing conversions on them in Australia:h.? logically flawed thinking on your part No demand for the point of view of the manufacturers very true indeed. HD Pickups have as you pointed out have an extremely tiny demand in Australia and outside North America. What demand there is done by small conversion outfits
Again, you said their was NO demand which means NONE. I said this was false which it clearly is since now saying there is some demand so I am not sure why you keep rebutting.RoyJ wrote:
Perhaps I should've been more clear from the start - any time I say "the engine tune is maxed out", or "Cummins had to do hardware change to squeeze out 15 hp", I'm doing so under the assumption that it must pass emissions in the first place.
We all know the 2018 Cummins long block itself, if tuned to 1989 standards, can easily hit 500 hp, PLUS deliver 250k miles of reliable service. So I assumed it was obvious that meeting emissions is the very first requirement to even get out of the factory door.
I said this from the beginning so why do you keep rebutting what I am saying?RoyJ wrote:
While different emissions certifications is one of the reasons, it's far from the ONLY reason you won't see a 385 or 400hp ISB from Cummins in commercial application. The predominant reason is duty cycle, a fancy way of saying it won't meet longevity targets at the intended use.
Actually in the case of 400 hp.... Yes, emissions is the ONLY reason why the ISB will not see 400 hp in a commercial application. You can run about 450-475 hp(390-415 rwhp) heavy loads all day long without running into to higher temps or reducing long term reliability. I have seen it in the tests cells when I worked at Cummins and I have seen it with the many hot shoters that I know who run this power level with hundreds of thousands of miles on their trucks.
Now if you were talking 500 hp(440 rwhp), then I would say yes that these power levels will start to reduce longevity with the stock turbo. You would probably be fine towing moderate loads, but heavy loads will cause temps to get to unsafe levels.RoyJ wrote:
Pickups, RVs, and fire apparatus has the lowest duty cycle; this is where you see 350hp ISBs and 650 hp ISXs. Next would be a Class 4 / 5 truck, then school bus, then city bus / tour coach, then line haul trucks, then heavy spec trucks, then heavy machinery (be luck to see a 240hp ISB on an excavator), and finally gen sets, where you see the most conservative rating.
I know the medium/heavy duty market. I have worked in it for more than two decades. Should I find the video of the Ram engineer stating that the reduced power between the the pickup and cab/chassis trucks is mainly do to emissions certifications than duty cycle?RoyJ wrote:
If you insist dyno certification is the ONLY reason behind a 200hp ISB genset, and 400hp pickup, you'll have to show me some Cummins documents stating so.
I never said this. Where did I say this? In fact, my exact words were "I worked at Cummins and can honestly tell you that while reliability is high on the list, it is not the most important thing, passing emissions is." Meaning that while reliability is high on the list when tuning an engine, it is not the main reasons. Meeting emissions is. You can still increase the power output(to an extent) from factory levels without reducing long term reliability.- Sigh... I miss camping season...
- "I expect the new Ram to come in DEAD LAST in the next Ike run. Why? Because the Powerstroke and Duramax has consistently dynoed more, plus GM is getting the 9-speed. But that's my point, it doesn't mean the Ram has worse "towing performance". "
May want to do some research
2018 Ram 3500 HD vs Ford F350 vs World's Toughest XXL Towing Test!
RAM 11.41 seconds 2.7mpg
Ford 11.43 seconds 2.4mpg
ATS Dyno 2017
ShinerBock wrote:
RobertRyan wrote:
ShinerBock wrote:
RobertRyan wrote:
No there is no demand for US Pickups, nice niche product though, that is "course not coarse." HD Pickup market Globally is a misnomer, very few are sold anywhere outside NA.What percentage Cummins who knows ? Your best bet for Cummins demand is the NA market
I would not say no demand because that would imply that there is none. There is demand and there are sales outside the US even if there few. Most regions cannot affordour trucks or their infrastructure do not support them.
Also, you cannot mix up global Cummins pickup demands for global engine demands which is what I was talking about earlier in the post you quoted. Cummins has a strong market share globally with their engines and just recently removed the EGR, "not DEF", from their global engines since global NOx emissions are less strict than US.
I did NOT SAY it had a strong market share globally, you just added that. As far as demand for HD Pickups globally extremely tiny, not nonexistent, never said that
They can afford and the infrastructure does support your Pickups, but they are not what they want
You stated "No there is no demand for US Pickups" above. You said no demand(not tiny demand) which is false. According to Ford, 98% of their fulls size trucks are sold in North America which leaves over 21,000 units sold outside NA.
Not a big number compared to the over 2,900,000 trucks sold in the US in 2018, but considering the small amount of less than 238,000 commercial vehicles(aka pickups) sold in Australia in 2018, that is not bad. It probably would have made it in the top ten Australian pickups with that many units sold.
There is demand, just not big because they can't afford our big trucks, the can't afford the fuel for them, they have increased tax on engine size, and/or most do not have the infrastructure to support them. Fact is, the market for our full size pickup is growing in Australia. Just ask the guys at American Vehicle Sales in Victoria. Well over $120k for a full size half ton pickup that we pay $40-50k for? I feel sorry for you guys. That is like us paying $90k for a half ton in US dollars.
They can afford your Pickups, well logically it would be a contradiction, if I you infer I was to say there was no demand for your Pickup Trucks but companies are doing conversions on them in Australia:h.? logically flawed thinking on your part No demand for the point of view of the manufacturers very true indeed. HD Pickups have as you pointed out have an extremely tiny demand in Australia and outside North America. What demand there is done by small conversion outfitsShinerBock wrote:
Because stock engines are tuned(or de-tuned) to meet emissions. They can safely increase power with hurting reliability, but they can't do it AND meet emissions. The notion that stock engines are maxed out in power due to reliability reason is completely false for most engines these days.
No, an ISB 6.7L is no where near maxed out. I have seen it in the dyno test cells at Cummins when I worked there and in the after market. Heck, mine makes over 500 rwhp even with the emissions intact. However, as I said before it cannot do it AND meet emissions.
The reason you have never seen 385 hp in the commercial world is because those engines have to go through different dyno certifications. A pickup goes through what is called a chassis dyno certification since the vehicle it will be going is complete and an incomplete truck(no bed) goes trough what is called an engine dyno certification because the chassis it is going in is not complete leaving the factory. These two certifications have different regulation depending on the emissions bin and tier of the truck it is going in.
It has more to do with emissions rather than duty cycle. Duty cycle will not hurt the engine at higher power levels since the engine will de-fuel(cut power) if any of the sensors detect any of the temps will hurt the engine.
Perhaps I should've been more clear from the start - any time I say "the engine tune is maxed out", or "Cummins had to do hardware change to squeeze out 15 hp", I'm doing so under the assumption that it must pass emissions in the first place.
We all know the 2018 Cummins long block itself, if tuned to 1989 standards, can easily hit 500 hp, PLUS deliver 250k miles of reliable service. So I assumed it was obvious that meeting emissions is the very first requirement to even get out of the factory door.
While different emissions certifications is one of the reasons, it's far from the ONLY reason you won't see a 385 or 400hp ISB from Cummins in commercial application. The predominant reason is duty cycle, a fancy way of saying it won't meet longevity targets at the intended use.
Pickups, RVs, and fire apparatus has the lowest duty cycle; this is where you see 350hp ISBs and 650 hp ISXs. Next would be a Class 4 / 5 truck, then school bus, then city bus / tour coach, then line haul trucks, then heavy spec trucks, then heavy machinery (be luck to see a 240hp ISB on an excavator), and finally gen sets, where you see the most conservative rating.
If you insist dyno certification is the ONLY reason behind a 200hp ISB genset, and 400hp pickup, you'll have to show me some Cummins documents stating so.ksss wrote:
Because Ram had to continue to increase chassis strength several times doesn't mean GM needs to. Maybe GM built their chassis with increases in mind and Ram didn't, I don't know and neither do you. If you want to move the goal posts that is fine and discuss longevity that is fine as well. The point I am making is that from a performance standpoint, the GM HD's have proved year after year regardless of what the engine ratings are they are at least competitive if they don't win outright, which they usually do. You may not think those Ike runs have value and that is fine, but it is the only venue that compares these trucks in a uniform way. I know they don't take everything into account, but I am not sure how chassis durability could ever be incorporated into them. I would imagine if they did and Ram lost that segment we would be talking about some other unmeasured segment.
No one moved the goal post - I stated from the get-go there's more tow ratings than performance.
You're the one hanging onto the idea that since GM has the most powerful engine, that obviously implies better towing capacity.
I've grossed 160k hauling B-trains in the BC rockies. I guarantee that combo would absolutely get destroyed on the Ike run. Does that mean a Pete 379 has poor towing performance?
I expect the new Ram to come in DEAD LAST in the next Ike run. Why? Because the Powerstroke and Duramax has consistently dynoed more, plus GM is getting the 9-speed. But that's my point, it doesn't mean the Ram has worse "towing performance".Cummins 12V98 wrote:
Look it up, it's the repeated launch on grade forward and reverse. I am sure that is the one it can't pass. SAE J2807
You are SURE of that?
Were you a witness to it failing such a test? Is it written anywhere that it failed such a test.
That being the case... You have an OPINION. While I respect your right to have an OPINION.... Stating it as fact as you constantly do crosses the line.
And please treat those of us with differing OPINIONS the respect that you would like yours to have.
