Forum Discussion
184 Replies
ShinerBock wrote:
I said this from the beginning so why do you keep rebutting what I am saying?
Because you keep on quoting emissions this, emissions that, as if I never took it into account.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.
Let's think logical for a moment - if an ISB can be tuned that high, what's the point of Cummins making an ISC, ISL / L9, ISM / ISX13?
If an ISB can make 400hp reliability, at any duty cycle, in any application, the you would see them in city buses instead of ISLs. You'd see them in vocational trucks. In 300 size excavators, dozers, etc.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
While you find me a video, have a look at this please:
https://www.energypower.com.au/theme/energypowercomau/assets/public/File/Industrial%20engine%20ratings%20guide.pdf
It's from CAT. On page 3, you can see how they have 5 classes of duty cycle, from continuous to very intermittent.
On page 18, using C15 as a random example, you can see it's limited to:
- 440 hp continuous
- 540 hp intermittent
- 595 hp occasional max
This is ALL assuming emissions targets are met. What I really want to hear from the Cummins engineer is: was duty cycle a consideration between pickup and chassis cabs?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.
That's why I said to me emissions is a given. Therefore other than emissions reliability vs duty cycle is the predominant reason.
Getting back on topic, I stand by what I said - Cummins altered the block, piston, rods, head, and turbo just to gain 15 hp / 70 lb-ft RELIABLY.
If they didn't have to, believe, they wouldn't have. That's a lot of R&D that could have gone to executive Christmas bonuses, if they could just "turn up the boost" to squeeze out 15hp.- The last test I watched on TFLtruck was the Ram against the Ford pulling 30000 lbs. Ram was literally I second faster but had one more brake application going down. So it was a draw. Chevy wasn’t rated for 30000 so they didn’t do it.
Ram has always not been about speed. I’m not sure a test like that for these trucks even matter. Neither over heated, shut down, or caused a problem on the way down.
I still contend that either of the HD trucks from the big 3 towing heavy is not about performance, because they all are dang good. I think it’s which one you like the best, interior, amenities and number 1 for me was price. I don’t like the Chevy interior at all. I love the Ford all the way around, but I got a Ram, and I’m proud of it, and for whatever reason at the time it was $7000 cheaper on an XLT versus a Bighon similarly equipped and similar sticker price. Who knows why! I don’t but when the time comes to buy again who knows what I’ll have but you all have to admit and I think it’s true these last 6 or 7 years that Ram has, with its performance, handling, CTD and the amazing interiors and electronics, has made Ford and Chevy better.
We are loving in the Golden Age of light trucks. Although they ain’t really light anymore.
And it is fun talking and studying them. ksss wrote:
RoyJ wrote:
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".
Using your analogy, a 379 compared to a T800 and Western Star or Mack of similar hp and torque running the Ike or some other similar test would provide an idea on towing performance. Comparing a 379 to a class three pickups would be silly. Comparing similiar class 8 trucks to EACH OTHER would provide SOME value. It perhaps would not give all the information a buyer would want but it would be much more information than looking at a spec sheet alone.
If you want to overly define the Ike run as not totally comprehensive in towing performance that is fine. However if the Ram does come in last (and I think it will likely be 1 or 2) that does mean that Ram doesnt possess the towing ability that the best scoring truck did. Same with the GM pickup, if it doesn't win it didnt perform as well, I can accept that. Except for the subjective portion of the scoring, it is simply numbers. Faster up to 8 min is better, fewer brake applications is better. Maybe speed up a hill isnt important to you, or the effectiveness of the engine braking coming back down (although I am sure it is if you run the Rockies) but those are all general indications of a vehicles towing performance, whether you personally agree or not. If you have thoughts on a better way of testing these trucks, I would be interested in hearing it, I seriously would.
On a side note, I owned a heavy spec 379 that I ran my Circle R side dump on, 20K front, 46K rears, 444 Cummins and an Eaton 18 speed. One of my favorite trucks. The 444 wasnt that popular around here, some said they were prone to overheating but I never had an issue with mine.
Running a class 8 Freightliner up the Ike against a class 8 Kenworth would provide absolutely no valuable information to me as a buyer of class 8 trucks whatsoever. You can specify the two trucks with identcal powertrains. If they are speced with the same powertrains they will pull the same. Comparing a Cummins to a Paccar, with both engines in Kenworth trucks might be interesting, but I highly doubt there are very many class 8 truck buyers who would put much weight on the outcome when making their decision on which engine to spec.ShinerBock wrote:
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.
You have a reading and comprehension problem- Either way it's all marketing, FCA/RAM does it best! I mean common, even the guys that once said the cp4 is garbage are now calling ok? WTF!
RoyJ wrote:
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".
Using your analogy, a 379 compared to a T800 and Western Star or Mack of similar hp and torque running the Ike or some other similar test would provide an idea on towing performance. Comparing a 379 to a class three pickups would be silly. Comparing similiar class 8 trucks to EACH OTHER would provide SOME value. It perhaps would not give all the information a buyer would want but it would be much more information than looking at a spec sheet alone.
If you want to overly define the Ike run as not totally comprehensive in towing performance that is fine. However if the Ram does come in last (and I think it will likely be 1 or 2) that does mean that Ram doesnt possess the towing ability that the best scoring truck did. Same with the GM pickup, if it doesn't win it didnt perform as well, I can accept that. Except for the subjective portion of the scoring, it is simply numbers. Faster up to 8 min is better, fewer brake applications is better. Maybe speed up a hill isnt important to you, or the effectiveness of the engine braking coming back down (although I am sure it is if you run the Rockies) but those are all general indications of a vehicles towing performance, whether you personally agree or not. If you have thoughts on a better way of testing these trucks, I would be interested in hearing it, I seriously would.
On a side note, I owned a heavy spec 379 that I ran my Circle R side dump on, 20K front, 46K rears, 444 Cummins and an Eaton 18 speed. One of my favorite trucks. The 444 wasnt that popular around here, some said they were prone to overheating but I never had an issue with mine.- Yea, right at the 4 minute he states "equipped with a new transmission... a NEW AISIN transmission" all in the same breath..??.. Then he talks about the new "dual core processor" that will allow faster communication between the engine and transmission ..
Either way you take it, it seams like they are considering it an improvement - Thanks for the link. Kinda think that may be a prop. EyeRoll
FishOnOne wrote:
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
Got a pic?
