New Ram/Cummins vs GM/Duramax on the IKE

ShinerBock wrote:

ACZL wrote:
Didn't watch the vid, but amazes me that they cannot get the same specs for trucks to do a sxs comparo. Don't see how a fair comparo can be done otherwise.

If you watched the first minute of the video, you probably would not be amazed about how they could not get the same truck with the same specs because they tell you why.

However, a true specs for specs purely does not exist especially now with 10-speed transmissions in the mix. A trans with more gears(i.e. 10 speed) and a taller rear gear ratio(3.42) is equivalent in terms of torque multiplication as a trans with less gears(6 speed) and a shorter rear gear ratio(4.10) due to the being able to have shorter trans gears with a better spread the more gears you have.

Careful, the 4:10 is magic it doesn't matter what the final drive ratio is with different transmissions. At least that seems to be the consensus here. The 10 speed did not beat the 6 speed in a drag race so clearly not better. Just like daily driving a two speed Powerglide is better than a 6 speed because they can do the quarter mile in the same time. Or it could be, some do not understand the Ike test parameters and others are so brand loyal their brain stops processing information and rather make excuses for the results.

Cummins12V98 wrote:


How many here still think the “BRANDED” 10 speed is the Savior???

When Ram/Cummins uses a 10 speed it will be the savior just like the CP4 is OK now that Ram is using it.

wowens79 wrote:
I think we ought to just be happy that we have 3 beastly heavy duty brands that can easily drag 16k lbs up that up and control it down the hill. I don't think any of them are a bad choice.

Agreed!

The RAM had a payload of 5600# and a GVWR of 14,000# = truck weighs 8400# empty.

The Chevy had a payload of 3600# and a GVWR of 11,300# = truck weighs 7700# empty.

So the RAM 3500 DRW had an extra 700# to lug up the hill.

Either way, the performance was so close (2 seconds difference over 8 miles) I'd call it a draw.

I think we ought to just be happy that we have 3 beastly heavy duty brands that can easily drag 16k lbs up that up and control it down the hill. I don't think any of them are a bad choice.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
The 10 speed with lower combined load should have stomped the measly 6 speed with 6 tires dragging the road.

Same downhill braking. GM should have been better with lighter load and higher revving engine to give more braking HP.

Heavier combined load but better economy.

How many here still think the “BRANDED” 10 speed is the Savior???

The extra 100 foot/pounds in the RAM certainly didn't carry the day. Your trusting the DIC to decide who has better fuel economy when they are separated by tenths of a gallon? Certainly you know better.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Don’t forget RAM is much heavier.

Would you just stop. They are even at that weight. Look at it like the extra gears did not make the GM pickup any faster up the hill, or that the 100 extra pound/feet from RAM didnt buy anything. Your endless RAM excuses really get old.

As for watching fat dudes pull up Ike for the uptenth time, when they are running all DRW's pulling 30K plus up the hill, that should be worth enduring another run up the Ike to see. For 12V98's sake, RAM better win, or we will all have to endure more excuses and he might develop a drinking problem.

Don’t forget RAM is much heavier.

Grit dog wrote:

IdaD wrote:
I'm kinda maxed out on how many times I can watch some fat guys drive up a hill.

Lol

So which truck had more balls. I can’t watch ....

Ram 3500 6 speed 4:10 gear DRW - 8:25 and showing 3.6 mpg

GM 2500 10 speed 3.42 gear SRW - 8:24 and showing 3.4 mpg

Both towing 16k

IdaD wrote:
I'm kinda maxed out on how many times I can watch some fat guys drive up a hill.

Lol

So which truck had more balls. I can’t watch ....