28,500 lbs Ford vs Ram 1 ton DRW

spoon059 wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
Some folks need more hobbies......

No kidding. Even for RV.net, this has gotten way off topic and out of control. Goodness gracious people...

Hope the both of you find a hobby you enjoy, as it might give you less time to criticize others enjoying theirs.


Shinerbock, thank you very much for continuing to take the time to help me understand what you are saying about Cummins engine testing.

Without asking you to be redundant, I'll have to admit I'm still struggling with how Cummins can certify a horsepower level to the EPA using a gross horsepower flywheel test standard (J1995)of the engine only with no appurtenant emissions equipment attached. I just don't understand how that would fly with the feds, so to speak.

It would certainly be understandable if non Californians didn't get why the horsepower number that a diesel engine manufacturer certifies to the EPA is important, and for towing RV's, it isn't important at all.

But when it comes to off road diesel equipment, such as tractors, back hoes, skid steers, skip loaders, graders, pavers, grinders, cranes, pile drivers, drill rigs, generators... an endless list of diesel powered industrial equipment needed to build and maintain the industry and infrastructure that enables folks to enjoy RVing and their yet to be found hobbies... that horsepower number has been extremely important ever since 2010, and will continue to be important, with significant financial impact, over the next 5 or 6 years.

I have to determine the manufacturer's horsepower rating for each piece of equipment in the fleet that I oversee, and add all of the horsepower numbers up. The cumulative amount of horsepower under operation is a significant determining factor in the compliance schedule and Tier level matriculation. The higher the cumulative horsepower under operation, the more significant the financial impact of forced retirement of lower Tier equipment. So it's a big deal to me. More than just a hobby.

I have to rely on the representations of the engine manufacturer, but quite often, I've run into conflicts where two horsepower ratings are provided for the same engine family number, or two engine family numbers are provided for the same engine... not in the books, but on labels permanently affixed to the engine. It is not my intent to drift too far into the weeds on my details, so bringing it back to the discussion at hand...

If an engine manufacturer uses a gross power measurement methodology to determine horsepower for purposes of marketing, and uses a net power measurement methodology for purposes of emissions certification, then I would want to be aware of it, because I would use the smaller of the two numbers in the fleet calculation of cumulative horsepower under operation.

But I do not see this with the on road Cummins diesel engine as fitted to the Ram 3500. There is only one horsepower rating per transmission and calibration submitted. Since that horsepower rating is certified with emissions, I'm still struggling to understand how a test methodology without emissions could be used.

This is why your post caught my eye, on an otherwise typical Ford vs Ram vs Chevy thread. Once you brought up certification standards, my interest perked up. The testing standard issue you raised is different than the dyno cert vs chassis cert discrepancy between chassis cabs (incomplete 450/550/650/750 and 4500/5500/6500) versus pickups (completed 250/350/450 and 2500/3500).

Thanks again for your comments. If you can think of any thing else to say or point a link to, without feeling redundant, I'd enjoy seeing or reading it. In the meantime, I'm still sort of stuck in the position where I began on this, albeit as always with an open mind.