Forum Discussion
ShinerBock wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Someone please SPLAIN why the 2500 didn’t eat the RAM’s lunch??????
Less advertised torque was compensated by more gears which produced identical performance and fuel economy
Could be.
Or the Dmax's larger turbo is not as efficient as the Cummins' smaller turbo at higher altitudes therefor it looses more power every 1,000 ft than the Cummins does. That is more plausible than GM overstating their power numbers which would put them in serious lawsuit trouble for false advertisement.
I thought Ford's original small turbo on the '11-'14 trucks was the reason for the lack of high altitude performance, and then with the larger turbo in '15 that issue was resolved. Which is the opposite of what your saying.Cummins12V98 wrote:
The 10 speed was going to be the save all, now it's demise is the lowly 3.42's. :R
Right??
Ram finally pulled their head out of their @ss and offered multiple gear ratios for the first time in 6 years and GM inserted theirs....
If I'm buying a truck that cost more than a house in some parts of the country I don't just want it to kick @ss, I want it to kick the most @ss!- With the 60MPH limit for this test.... That was the biggest factor in the outcome. Both trucks were pretty much at the limit the whole way up the hill. With both trucks able to do that, there were very few areas where one could assert an advantage.
Though I would have liked to see a couple of DRWs go at it, I doubt the result would have changed much. With a 16k trailer and a 60 MPH limit... Neither truck will be pushed enough to make a difference. - Agree. Ford typically delivers less of the advertised hp.
FishOnOne wrote:
rhagfo wrote:
Weel seeing how the engines are about the same and the biggest difference is the GM had the 10 speed and 3.42 (Tall gears), and the Ram had the Aisin and 4.10's (Low gears), I would say the 10 speed in a GM 3500 DRW will get better mileage, depending on engine RPMs. I now turn about 1,500 with the Aisin and 3.73's at 60 mph, our old 2001 turned 1,800 RPMs at 60 mph with 3.55's, so final OD is taller.
Assuming the fuel mileage readings are accurate on these two trucks I would have thought the duramax would have made better fuel mileage but that wasn't the case. It will be interesting when the drw trucks will be tested at maximum capacity
This will be the real test. I am not sure what the capacity is for the GM 2020 DRW CC 4X4 but both the Ram, Ford and GM should be in the low 30K if they take it to max capacity.
The GM trucks have traditionally outperformed their spec sheet and historically outperformed both of the other trucks up and down the hill. That is not to say it will be the case this time, but if there is a guilty party when it comes to overpromising and under delivering it is from Ford. Who always has the specs but not often is able to deliver it in performance (to the level the specs would suggest). Again these are new designs and what has been the case in the past may not be this time.Cummins12V98 wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Someone please SPLAIN why the 2500 didn’t eat the RAM’s lunch??????
Less advertised torque was compensated by more gears which produced identical performance and fuel economy
Could be.
Or the Dmax's larger turbo is not as efficient as the Cummins' smaller turbo at higher altitudes therefor it looses more power every 1,000 ft than the Cummins does. That is more plausible than GM overstating their power numbers which would put them in serious lawsuit trouble for false advertisement.FishOnOne wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Someone please SPLAIN why the 2500 didn’t eat the RAM’s lunch??????
Less advertised torque was compensated by more gears which produced identical performance and fuel economy
Could be.Cummins12V98 wrote:
Someone please SPLAIN why the 2500 didn’t eat the RAM’s lunch??????
Less advertised torque was compensated by more gears which produced identical performance and fuel economy- Someone please SPLAIN why the 2500 didn’t eat the RAM’s lunch??????
- Even with a 3.42 and 910 lb-ft, the Dmax is putting more torque to the wheels with the 10-speed than the 4.10 rear gear 1,000 lb-ft Ram 6-speed so has more than enough torque with its advertised numbers. In fact, I would rather have a taller gear with many trans ratios to take better advantage of the narrow diesel powerband. So the gearing of the GM is not an issue at all.
As I said before, other things come into play like different turbocharger efficiencies. How big each turbine/compressor wheel is, how fast it can spin, how many blades it has, and blade profile will have significant impact on performance loss at certain altitudes as well. Some turbos loose more power at altitude than others and smaller turbos generally work better in higher altitude than larger ones.
I can't speak for the Dmax, but I know the turbo on the Cummins 5.9 and 6.7L engines has always been rather small because it is made to be efficient at high altitudes which also limits power potential at lower altitudes. If the L5P has a larger turbo(which I believe it does), then it may have greater power loss in high altitude versus the Cummins and its sustained power(not to be confused with short term power of 0-60 runs) may be less. This is all just assumption on my part because I don't know the specs of the L5P turbo.
