BigToe wrote:
On this particular engine it says to decrease the power rating by 3% for every 1000 ft of elevation gain above 300 feet above sea level. That is very significant. If the Powerstroke is similar it is more than enough reason to explain why it didn't climb the hill in 10 minutes. 3% for every thousand feet means a 450 hp engine at 300 ft above sea level becomes a 350 hp engine at 8300 ft above sea level. I wonder if both Powerstroke and Cummins are equally concerned about meeting emissions at 8000 ft elevation?
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.
Grit dog wrote:
Sweet! I knew this one would make 20 pages! Good job boys.
LOL, only shows 10 pages here.............wanna debate that? LOL.
I'll see your 20 pages (or my 10) GD, and raise you another 20 pages by noon Thursday.
BigToe wrote:
I'm not buying the notion that Cummins only certifies engines, irrespective of application.
This thread began with a towing contest between some type of Ford (irrelevant) pitted against a recent model (2017? 2018?) Ram 3500. So to be safe let's look at a 2017 Model Year Ram 3500 with a Cummins ISB 6.7L diesel engine.
Remembering that Cummins only builds engines, not vehicles, we already know that Cummins put the ISB 6.7L engine into many other vehicles in model year 2017 besides the Ram 3500. For example, there is the Ram 2500, 4500, and 5500. There is also the Freightliner M2-106 and 108SD; the International Durastar, Workstar, and new HV series; the Autocar ACMD XPert (small refuse truck), ACX XPeditor (big refuse truck) and ACTT XSpotter (yard goat); the BlueBird Vision and All American (school buses); the dozens of motorhome manufacturers who outfit their class A coaches with the ISB 6.7L; the dozens of stationary power applications, off road equipment, airport shuttle busses, municipal busses... you get the idea.
Yes, I get the idea because I used to work for Cummins on the very same engines you are talking about.
BigToe wrote:
In fact, you established the idea, in this thread, that Cummins builds and certifies the engine without respect to the vehicle, "because they cannot control the intake and exhaust system that the engine will be put in."
You misread what I stated. I never aid that Cummins certifies engines without respect to the vehicle. I said "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." Which is a fact because Ram designs the intake not Cummins.
I followed this up by saying"This does not mean that Cummins(or any other engine manufacturer) cannot simulate the intake and exhaust system that these engines are going in" meaning that Cummins can(and has) utilized the intake and exhaust of the truck the engine will be going in for power certification.
BigToe wrote:
The notion that Cummins is certifying engines for Ram pickups as engines only, without regard to the regulated emission system components of the vehicle, is not supported by the 34 page application that Cummins submitted to the EPA back in 2015 to get their engine in the RAM 3500 certified for model year 2017, nor the hundreds of applications that Cummins submits every year, for every Engine Family number, of every Engine they make, whether for destined for fire apparatus, compressor duty, or racing Fords up mountains with trailer in tow.
The very fact that the engine is certified under J1995, which can only be done by an engine manufacturer, is proof to what I am telling you. Again, you are misreading what I stated. By me saying that Cummins tests the engine, you are thinking that i am saying that they are testing the engine only. This cannot be done per J1995 and you have to take the intake and exhaust into consideration when certifying these engine at different power levels. This can be simulated in a test cell.
This is very close to what those tests cells look like.
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.
