Ram HD 1000 lb-ft MPG loop

ShinerBock wrote:
Actually what I initially stated that was that the difference between each rating had more to do with emissions and up selling to another hp level rather than reliability.

Working for an actual engine manufacturers, personally tuning/moding, and wolring with many tunners in the industry works as a defence for me especially versus some one who has absolutely none and is basing their assumptions on zero experience. I am sorry that you take the word of no experience over someone with experience, but it kine explains a lot.

Again, I can ask you the same thing. Back up your statements that the reason for the power decrease between the GVWRs is for reliability and not emissions.

Here is actual Ram engineer saying exactly what I am trying to tell you. LINK

I didn't say emissions was a non-issue, I asked what proof / reasoning you have that a lower engine tune doesn't ALSO yield longer engine life?

Again, we're talking 200hp vs 300hp, both emissions certified.

No, not always. Only when someone is trying to tell me I am wrong and they have absolutely no idea what they or talking about or have any real world experience on the matter. They never actually tested engines to see what they can handle or pushed them to their absolute limits to see where their weak link lies yet they like to tell others how the cow eats the cabbage.

I challenge anyone who makes a statement based only on their "experience".

I'm an engineer, who believe in numbers, equations, models, and laws of thermodynamics. And if you really have the experience you claim, you'd have no problems backing it up.

That's how we design / invent things you techs then put on a test bench, press a few buttons, and brag about how many years you've done that :P

No, that is incorrect. A 200 hp is NOT a 300 hp engine at 66% throttle. They both achieve their peak hp at the exact same rpm. The difference is how much fuel being delivered, injection timing, VG vane position at peak, and air being added. How the engine is being used along with maintenance, and how many cold starts the engine has has more off effect on engine internals than a power range from 200 hp to 300 hp or even up to 500 hp.

What you described is exactly "66% throttle". You realize TP doesn't imply rpm right?

At a constant rpm, if I fuel at just over 66%, with proportional air mass density, then I achieve 66% power output.

I'm asking you, holding ALL other constants (cold start, maintenance, etc.), do you agree one engine at 66% power output last longer?

As I said, the internal of a 6.7L can handle way more than what the turbos built for emissions and HPFP can force upon it. If something is built to withstand 800+ hp, then what does it matter if you send 200 hp through it or 300 hp. Neither will have any major effect or at least enough of an effect on longevity to make any significant difference.

As I explained, metal properties don't work like that.

If your ultimate breaking point is 850 hp, it doesn't mean the engine has constant life from 150hp to 849hp.

Yes, and this is what I am tring to tell you about the internals of the 6.7L. The breaking point is way more than 200 hp, 300 hp or even 500 hp. Internally, the weakest link are the head bolts, to around 550 hp, but the rest can handle over 800 hp all day every day. How do I know? Because I seen it in the test cells.

Read what I wrote above. I don't doubt you know what the breaking limit is, but you don't seem to understate how material properties / engine life behave under that breaking point.

You mean logic based on zero experience or knowledge on how much the internals of a 6.7L can actually handle

And your logic is based on not completely understanding what you saw - you see some numbers from the test bench, spoke with a few engineers, but you can't explain why things happen.

You get defensive when your statements are challenged, and the only backup you have is "I worked, I saw, I know".