The Big Three's New Diesels put on a Dyno

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Especially those that think they "know" how a dyno works and cry foul because their favorite wasn't the best.

I can see that you are smarting over your "Fords lack of a cold air intake" theory being questioned/debunked, by the Ford/Ram 30K Ike test results being inconsistent with the other test.

What else do you KNOW?:B

On the contrary, I don't see it being debunked in an form or fashion and the only one that questioned it doesn't have an answer himself so......

I also KNOW quiet a bit actually. Like how dynos work and how it is very hard for them to be inconsistent from one vehicle to the next unless there was an issue with the vehicle itself. I KNOW that some people think dyno runs from other dynomometers ran on different days and at different altitudes are valid dynos to compare to this one when that is far from a valid comparison. I KNOW the guys at ATS know what they are doing and have ran dynos for many diesel competitions and review sites including Truck Trend, Diesel Power, Pickuptruck.com, and many more. I KNOW that not one of the three the Duramax runs shown at 8:57 of the video broke 772 lb-ft.

If you want to play this game, I'll be your huckleberry.

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
Especially those that think they "know" how a dyno works and cry foul because their favorite wasn't the best.

I can see that you are smarting over your "Fords lack of a cold air intake" theory being questioned/debunked, by the Ford/Ram 30K Ike test results being inconsistent with the other test.

What else do you KNOW?:B

ShinerBock wrote:
Especially those that think they "know" how a dyno works and cry foul because their favorite wasn't the best.

FishOnOne wrote:

blofgren wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

blofgren wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
Here's a theory. All three trucks ran up the hill in about the same time, therefore they were all three putting about the same power to the ground during the run. The Duramax likely ran up in a lower gear than the other two trucks and likely revved a little higher. If the trucks were making the power that the manufacturers claim the Ram would have been significantly behind the other two. I believe the more refined engines, the new Duramax and Powerstroke were not making the kind of power they should have because the computers were slightly limiting the max fuel delivery on account of the high altitude....lower oxygen. Maybe in order to keep emission levels in check? Obviously if more fuel would have been injected in any of those engines they would have performed better. I would really have liked to see the outgoing Duramax involved in the challenge.

I agree with you as to why the GM won over the Ram. It was in a lower gear at higher rpm making a lot more power. Although it should have been more than just fifteen seconds ahead with its rated power numbers. With traffic, 15 seconds is basically equal time in my book.

The performance of the Ford in the test is more of a head scratcher and I am still thinking it was computer programmed defueling due to high exhaust gas temps. Adding power(more fuel) to any diesel increase EGT's very quickly. With my brother's 450whp(estimated 515hp at the crank) custom tune on his 2012 F350, he can get to 1,200°F EGT's in a matter of seconds at WOT. What decreases EGT's is lower intake temps and a free flowing exhaust. There is not much the manufacturers can do about exhaust back pressure due to the emissions regulations, but they can do something about the intake temps.

Currently Ford is only one without a front air intake which greatly reduces intake temps. GM has it's hood scoop and Ram has it's active air through the grille. IIRC, I wanna say that for every 1°F you lower your intake temp then you lower EGT's by 10-20°F, but I cannot remember the correct numbers. The Ford is also the only one of the three that has a liquid cooled intercooler which are good and efficient with normal driving or towing, but they get heat soaked under long periods of load like the Ike tests. If that intercooler got heat soaked, then the Ford's EGT's would have skyrocketed requiring the ECM to defuel to cool them down on top of already having less power due to hot incoming air.

This actually makes a lot of sense. It's surprising that Ford hasn't addressed the intake air issue, though.

The Ford pulling 30k lbs up the Ike didn't have a intake air issue and I believe it outperformed the ram with similar fuel economy.

OK so what is the explanation for these results?

I don't know...

blofgren wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

blofgren wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
Here's a theory. All three trucks ran up the hill in about the same time, therefore they were all three putting about the same power to the ground during the run. The Duramax likely ran up in a lower gear than the other two trucks and likely revved a little higher. If the trucks were making the power that the manufacturers claim the Ram would have been significantly behind the other two. I believe the more refined engines, the new Duramax and Powerstroke were not making the kind of power they should have because the computers were slightly limiting the max fuel delivery on account of the high altitude....lower oxygen. Maybe in order to keep emission levels in check? Obviously if more fuel would have been injected in any of those engines they would have performed better. I would really have liked to see the outgoing Duramax involved in the challenge.

I agree with you as to why the GM won over the Ram. It was in a lower gear at higher rpm making a lot more power. Although it should have been more than just fifteen seconds ahead with its rated power numbers. With traffic, 15 seconds is basically equal time in my book.

The performance of the Ford in the test is more of a head scratcher and I am still thinking it was computer programmed defueling due to high exhaust gas temps. Adding power(more fuel) to any diesel increase EGT's very quickly. With my brother's 450whp(estimated 515hp at the crank) custom tune on his 2012 F350, he can get to 1,200°F EGT's in a matter of seconds at WOT. What decreases EGT's is lower intake temps and a free flowing exhaust. There is not much the manufacturers can do about exhaust back pressure due to the emissions regulations, but they can do something about the intake temps.

Currently Ford is only one without a front air intake which greatly reduces intake temps. GM has it's hood scoop and Ram has it's active air through the grille. IIRC, I wanna say that for every 1°F you lower your intake temp then you lower EGT's by 10-20°F, but I cannot remember the correct numbers. The Ford is also the only one of the three that has a liquid cooled intercooler which are good and efficient with normal driving or towing, but they get heat soaked under long periods of load like the Ike tests. If that intercooler got heat soaked, then the Ford's EGT's would have skyrocketed requiring the ECM to defuel to cool them down on top of already having less power due to hot incoming air.

This actually makes a lot of sense. It's surprising that Ford hasn't addressed the intake air issue, though.

The Ford pulling 30k lbs up the Ike didn't have a intake air issue and I believe it outperformed the ram with similar fuel economy.

OK so what is the explanation for these results?