Lessmore wrote:
There are so many posts on this thread that I don't know who said the following:
'HP goes up, duty cycle goes down'.
But it does make some sense to me. Case in point, the Ford 6 liter PSD. Without getting into yet another negative Ford 6 liter thread, I've wondered a few things about Ford's version of this, what I believe was an International engine design.
Didn't IH also use this engine in their medium duty trucks, but much detuned from the version Ford was using ?
Wasn't the IH version pretty reliable in it's less tuned, less HP version than the Ford 6 liter ?
The question I ask, is did Ford hop up the base IH engine, because Ford was involved in a diesel HP war with GM and Dodge ?
You know the old saying of..' for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction.'
This is of course, Newton's third law of motion in physics.
As a result of the action of Ford souping up the IH engine...did the Ford 6 liter PSD...experience an equal and opposite reaction...in that the duty cycle went down...compared to the IH ?
Was there too much additional stress on the Ford version of the 6 liter PSD....through souping up...more so than what this engine was originally designed to handle ?
Furthermore to reinforce this point....was the Ford version of the IH engine...namely the Ford 6 liter PSD...duty cycle rated, by Ford, at around 250,000 miles...compared to the Dodge Cummins engine duty cycle, rated at 350,000 miles ?
In other words...'HP goes up, duty cycle goes down'.
I dunno. I'm not a Mechanical Engineer, just a curious regular guy who is for the most part so baffled by things mechanical, that I have trouble finding the hood latch on my son's Jeep. :B
The tunes they are putting on the pickups are definitely for lighter duty cycles. Look at the specifications for the same engines put into the chassis cabs to see the difference. My 2015 Ram 5500 with Cummins and Aisin has a 325 hp and 750 ft lb rating verses the 2015 Ram 3500 pickup with same engine and transmission at 385 hp and 865 ft lb rating.
