BigToe wrote:ShinerBock wrote:
"Cummins uses J1995 just like all engine manufactures that only make an engine and cannot control the intake and exhaust system of the vehicle the engine will be put in."
(Please see yellow arrows in photos below)
Does Cummins identify, on any literature, website, or federally mandated document, that the 6.7L destined for pickups is certified per J1995, similar to how Cummins identified in the brochures of the two different M11s above as being certified per J1349?ShinerBock wrote:
"Even vehicle manufacturers test their engines the same way, but have to go by J1349 since they make the entire vehicle and not just the engine.
Ford makes their own engine, as well as the entire vehicle it goes in. Yet Ford doesn't "have to go by J1349". In fact, Ford refuses to altogether it appears, even while GM embraces a step toward common accountability and independent 3rd party auditing of the procedure and methodology used in the adherence to the standard. In fact, SAE suggests that following either procedure is voluntary, but in order to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349", a manufacturer must use the test procedure outlined in SAE J2723. No such requirement is made for advertising J1995.
Is it possible that Cummins does use J1349, like the older (predating the emergence of SAE J2723) Cummins brochures above indicate... but is prohibited from advertising it, because Cummins, like Ford, doesn't want to pay a third party independent verifier to monitor the testing procedure per SAE J2723?ShinerBock wrote:
"The only reason why SAE came up with the new J2723 requiring a witness was so that they can get money from the manufacturers which in turn makes our vehicles a little more expensive
Perhaps at this point, we should see if we can at least find some common ground that we can agree on, so that I can make better progress in trying to make sense out of what you are suggesting, that you believe I am misinterpreting.
Can we at least agree that SAE J1995 is commonly referred to as the test for gross horsepower without engine driven accessories, exhaust systems, or emissions control devices? And can we also agree that SAE J1349 is commonly referred to as the test for net horsepower, still measured at the flywheel, but inclusive of the induction, exhaust, and after treatment systems as the engine would be expected to be configured in use?
And can we at least agree than neither J1995 nor J1349 take into consideration drivetrain losses? And, unlike some common misconceptions out there on the net, we both can agree than neither J1995 nor J1349 refer to any measurement of horsepower at the wheels, where the rubber meets the road or the dyno rollers?
If we can agree on all that, then can we take another look at that 2017 Ram Cummins 3500HD that is the subject of the video in the original post briefly? I have not seen that video, nor am I the least bit interested in, but I do remain very interested in trying to understand and reconcile what I may or may not have misunderstood you to be suggesting, compared to what I read in the Cummins application to the EPA and CARB for this 6.7L engine, where a horsepower rating, induction system, and exhaust system all must be certified in an "in use" configuration.
Here is the cover letter Cummins sent to the EPA...
I underlined "in use", because that is a critical term in emissions parlance. In use is not gross power of the engine in a vacuum, without regard for induction and exhaust and after treatment. In use is as the engine will be configured for use on the highway, which is what the EPA is concerned about.
So let's look at the alphabet soup that the engine is surrounded by in use:
That will take a moment or two to read. It no doubt took a lot longer to test... but Cummins tested and certified it. Cummins applied for the approval. Cummins will be the VW paying the fines if Cummins got it wrong. This is why the idea that Cummins would certify to the EPA the gross HP level of the motor, while simultaneously certifying that that Gross HP number applies with all the induction, exhaust, and aftertreatment systems included... doesn't make sense to me.
It seems more likely that Cummins would follow the SAE J1349 standard, as Cummins own literature suggests that they are given to do, for the purpose of accurately determining a HP level to a Federal agency that has the power to stop the sale of their vehicles, force a recall and retrofit of their vehicles, and levy a fine of up to $10,000 per vehicle per day, if the certified numbers don't match up with what can be independently verified.
Here are the horsepower levels Cummins submitted with their certification:
Speaking of liability, I can easily see why Cummins wouldn't advertise that they use J1349 to determine net horsepower, since they could then be sued by the SAE, since the SAE owns the rights to the standards. Because of 50 years of bogus claims by vehicle manufacturers in marketing materials, the SAE has had to continue to close the loop holes that manufacturers have found to circumvent the fundamental idea behind a standard. Which is to create a standard. A foundation for fair comparison.
Apparently, manufacturers cannot be trusted to watch the hens without spiriting off with a few eggs, so J2723, requiring an independent witness to verify the manufacturer's adherence to the test procedures outlined in J1349, was developed to re level the playing field once again, with stricter oversight. The cost of that oversight is borne by the manufacturer, who will of course pass it on to the consumer. But to claim adherence to J1349, the witness must be paid to watch.
Otherwise, no advertising J1349. However, that doesn't automatically mean that Cummins is going to report to the EPA some HP numbers that are determined separately from the induction, exhaust, and after treatment systems included in the same certification.
ROFLMAO.......Holy mother of Mariah.
Big Toe
You are getting mixed up with the "gross" and "net" power ratings terminology which is one of the reasons I why hate that it is stated that way. When people think of gross, they think that the engine is only being tested. While this used to be the case pre-emissions, this is not the case post emissions.
Instead of thinking of J1995 as "gross" power ratings. Think of it as an "as shipped" engine power rating which includes all devices that make it emissions legal. For example, if you go into Cummins Quickserve and input my 2014 2500s engine serial number, it will show all components that came with an "as shipped" engine to Ram.
You will notice below that the aftertreatment device is apart of the "as shipped" engine.
Then if you breakdown the aftertreatment device you will see what catalyst come with the engine.
I believe Cummins gets these aftertreatment devices from another supplier for the pickups, but I know they make them themselves for the larger engines, fire pumps, and gen sets.
So think of J1995 as an "as shipped" engine power rating rather than a "gross" power rating.
You are getting mixed up with the "gross" and "net" power ratings terminology which is one of the reasons I why hate that it is stated that way. When people think of gross, they think that the engine is only being tested. While this used to be the case pre-emissions, this is not the case post emissions.
Instead of thinking of J1995 as "gross" power ratings. Think of it as an "as shipped" engine power rating which includes all devices that make it emissions legal. For example, if you go into Cummins Quickserve and input my 2014 2500s engine serial number, it will show all components that came with an "as shipped" engine to Ram.
You will notice below that the aftertreatment device is apart of the "as shipped" engine.
Then if you breakdown the aftertreatment device you will see what catalyst come with the engine.
I believe Cummins gets these aftertreatment devices from another supplier for the pickups, but I know they make them themselves for the larger engines, fire pumps, and gen sets.
So think of J1995 as an "as shipped" engine power rating rather than a "gross" power rating.
