Forum Discussion
- Cummins12V98Explorer III" I think that the higher profile of the RV must make a huge difference"
HUGE is correct! - Bionic_ManExplorer
ib516 wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
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.
What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections.
Which honestly still seems high to me. I tow that stretch several times per year. Did it 3 weeks ago with my 12k fiver and my 3k(?) Boat. My truck was between 40-45 most of the way up. I think that the higher profile of the RV must make a huge difference as I have a friend with a 2013 Ford and he is about the same speed.
As a side note, the speeds are about the same regardless if I tow the boat or not. - RCMAN46ExplorerDynos:
Factory Rating/Dyno Measurement
Ram:
HP 385/338
TQ 900/828
Ford:
HP 440/387
TQ 925/806
Chevy:
HP 445/337
TQ 910/771
interesting when the same trucks were tested at the IKE run. - Cummins12V98Explorer III
ib516 wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
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.
What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections.
CORRECT! - ib516Explorer II
Huntindog wrote:
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.
What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections. - ShinerBockExplorer
FishOnOne wrote:
Not sure I agree with this... TFL did a DRW race and the Ford beat the Chevy and Ram unloaded when the trucks could reach there upper rpm range. Put a heavy load and they performed within ~2 seconds in which torque played the major role in which all had similar torque ratings.
Dynos:
Factory Rating/Dyno Measurement
Ram:
HP 385/338
TQ 900/828
Ford:
HP 440/387
TQ 925/806
Chevy:
HP 445/337
TQ 910/771
Link
The turbo tuning of each truck will make a big difference in dyno numbers. Some turbos like to be loaded down to get their best numbers and some don't. It mainly depends on how the VG vane actuation is tuned.
Also, there is a huge difference between short term power on dynos (and 0-60 runs) versus sustained power. These engines will defuel and lower its power output if the temps get too hot so the most important number (to me) is how much power can it sustain pulling a load for a long period of time before the temps get too hot to the point it has to cut fuel and/or inject more exhaust gas to keep NOx within limits both of which will reduce power output. - Cummins12V98Explorer IIIRam:
HP 385/338 88%
TQ 900/828
Ford:
HP 440/387 88%
TQ 925/806
Chevy:
HP 445/337 76%
TQ 910/771
Ford produced much higher % than the other Dyne's I have seen.
I hit 332 of 385 in Vegas a couple months ago. Engine was not as cool as it should have been. - ksssExplorer
Grit dog wrote:
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!
Agree completely. ksss wrote:
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.
Not sure I agree with this... TFL did a DRW race and the Ford beat the Chevy and Ram unloaded when the trucks could reach there upper rpm range. Put a heavy load and they performed within ~2 seconds in which torque played the major role in which all had similar torque ratings.
Dynos:
Factory Rating/Dyno Measurement
Ram:
HP 385/338
TQ 900/828
Ford:
HP 440/387
TQ 925/806
Chevy:
HP 445/337
TQ 910/771
LinkHuntindog wrote:
[COL0000ff]OR=#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.
I agree but I think the fuel mileage on the Duramax might suffer a bit more.
About Travel Trailer Group
44,026 PostsLatest Activity: Feb 23, 2025