Big Three road tests

[BlackSilver]

Found this review on line, of the three heavy duty pickups.

[blofgren]

NC Hauler wrote:

Ron3rd wrote:

NC Hauler wrote:
Aw shucks...my truck came in 3rd...Does all I ask it to do so reckon I'll keep it:)

NC, your Cummins sucks! The magazine said so 🙂

I know it, dogonit...but I'm not going to tell my truck or let it read the review (I didn't read it either, leafed through it and saw the Ram finished last behind the Chevy/GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi pick up trucks...Believe it JUST beat out the old VW diesel pick up truck from years back..:)....good news on that one .

Yeah I'm going to keep the old beat up, ugly, underpowered loud diesel engine, and loud enough EB (per another review), to drive one bongers.

Yeah, I'll just avoid trying to see how fast I can take off from a dead start to see how fast I can do it, or race up the side of a mountain while towing my 5er...nope, I'll just take my time and hope I don't break down while towing or while commuting to work it to work.....

LOL, x2. I have no regrets in my choice of truck at all. I have full confidence that I have the most reliable powertrain for the long haul.

[NC_Hauler]

Wow, the HP/TQ wars are still going on, but this time it seems to be all about "interpretation". And it all doesn't matter, it's a moot point on the OP's subject....Chevy/GM 1st, Ford 2nd. and Ram last....ALL the bantering back and forth over what is HP and what is TQ really doesn't matter to most, again, they drive and tow with it every day and KNOW what they have and how it performs for them....You get in your truck, turn the key, start it up and drive it. Only other thing that matters to me is how good the truck looks, inside and out and how comfortable it is...higher the mpg, the better, but anyone that buys a 1 ton crew cab, long bed,4X4 dually, REALLY isn't all that concerned about mpg...you know, like that would be a deal breaker:R

So if one likes how their truck performs, what others say about it, or when test show results that aren't "complimentary" of one's truck, who cares? Not very many are going to run out and trade trucks because of the results of some test....it is what it is. If all that was the case, I'd NEVER left the #1 Chevy/GMC winners..the D/A combo and went to RAM...heck, I like them both. (I'm a "for the underdog" kind of a guy:)).

just my .02, and probably not even worth half that much...:)

[mich800]

buddyIam wrote:
Turtle,

This is what stinks

Dang, Ford has torque converter lock up down to 900 RPM, (I like that) and by fare the lowest 1st gear.

3.97
2.32
1.82
1.15
0.86
0.67

It also had the highest torque 860 and HP 440.

This stuff doesn't make sense.

Then also why did they choose to test the lower power version of the Cummins with lower rated 68RFE?

I believe hp ratings are still flywheel correct? So the Ford with no 1:1 makes getting rear wheel hp measurments more difficult. At least from a comparison standpoint between other vehicles that are tested at 1:1.

[Sport45]

Horsepower is the only indicator of power we need. Look at the HP at whatever rpm you want and you're done.

Set two engines at the same rpm and the one with the most horsepower is developing the most torque. Easy-peasy. If one makes horsepower at a different rpm change the gears so it can operate at that rpm.

[Mvander]

Anyone notice the Ford was a single rear wheel?

[4x4ord]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
For the last time............:R.............or maybe not, {B torque is not power. If it were, the Ram would have beat the hell out of the Bow Tie and Blue Oval.

When talking engines that are working at a specific rpm, torque is power as far as I'm concerned. For instance if I know one engine is capable of making 800 lb ft of torque at 1700 rpm and another is capable of making 860 at that same rpm obviously the one capable of 860 is able to produce more power at 1700 rpm. When comparing the engines at 2900 rpm the max power output is a better indicator of power.

[Sport45]

buddyIam wrote:
The 5252 number is not exact. It's just a number that is used in all HP calculations. It was a steam engine salesman's pitch to sell steam engines. 😄

Okay, I'll take the bait. You keep throwing that out like mentioning it enough will make it correct.

One horsepower is standardized at 33,000 lb?ft/min. It was base by Mr Watt on what he perceived one individual horse could do. That horse is long dead and beating it won't make it stand up and prove whether he had that much power or not. It's not the only standard we use based on an inexact measurement. The inch was the length of three barleycorns. Our railroad gauge is based on the rear of other long-deceased horses.

As you mentioned power is a function of torque times speed. Since we measure torque in lb-ft we need to get speed in a dimensionless (other than time) unit. To do this we understand that the circumference of any circle is 2xpixradius. A radian is the length of an arc divided by the radius of that arc. This means there are 2xpi radians in a full revolution. So 33,000 lb-ft/min and divide it by 2xpi (6.283) radians/min you get the constant 5252 which is used to convert lb-?ft-rev/min to HP.

Now we all know that a horse can only run so fast and harnessing a bunch of them together won't make them go any faster. But if you want to haul a loaded hay wagon to the top of a hill adding horses helps. 🙂

(The math is much easier for a linear calculation where force = mass times acceleration. Work is force times distance and power is work divided by time.)

[Cummins12V98]

rjstractor wrote:

buddylam wrote:

The difference in HP could be the result of higher RPM of a very small amount.

Now if the Alison first gear was very low compared to the Ford and Ram. The DMAX would create a great deal of torque in first gear that might lead to a initial lead that might be insurmountable within a 1/4 mile.

I'll say it a different way. Something stinks.

Either the tests are faulty.
The Dmax is under rated.
The Ford and Ram are over rated.

None of the 3 above have anything to do with my sisters or hookers.

It appears the customer is being deceived in some form. That is what concerns me.

Something that no doubt is a factor is torque management. I don't know how exactly the computers manage it, but you can almost guarantee that none of those trucks have full torque available in first gear. If they did they would need huge driveshafts and axles to avoid drivetrain damage at the hands of a driver lacking common sense. I imagine that is why the Ram Cummins with a 6 speed manual is derated quite a bit from automatic models. I'll bet a software change or two could up the hp and torque to the same as an automatic, but the driver would have to have brains enough to not drop the hammer in low gear with a 20K trailer in tow!

BINGO! We have a winner.

RAM has huge torque down low with the inline 6 that is why they do use torque management.

[Cummins12V98]

BlackSilver wrote:
Wow! You guys act like somebody called your sister a hooker.

They're just stupid trucks, not a religion!

Sorry I posted the link.

Hey ya get what ya pay for on here!

[buddyIam]

Turtle,

If Ford is lying then something does stink correct. I find it hard to believe that ford could lie about such a thing as that and not be called on it. It certainly would be easy for these testers to call ford on the numbers. They could rent a dyno and run them on it instead of running a 1/4 mile. But you may be right.

They were all 2015 trucks so the ford would have been the single turbo.

For the ram it is not just that they didn't run the aisin. The aisin also has a higher power cummins with it.

Then there is the mpg numbers. Differences that I haven't seen in tests before. I think it's a given that the dmax gets better mpg. Just not like seen in this test.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

No, the ford has the most power, the ram the most torque in the high horsepower version. But ford was also higher in torque than the ram that was tested

Here let me fix that for you. Ford "claims" the most power. Real life test after test and this test clearly shows this is a lie.

Dodge has the least amount of power. Both stated and in real life. This is why they are the slowest in test after test.
No surprise there.

I have no idea why they didn't test a Ram with the Asian tranny? Doesn't really make any difference. The Chevy had the highest gear ratio tranny and still beat everybody soundly towing and solo. The higher HP Ram would have been closer but the Chevy still put out more HP on paper and in real life.

And to the people that say you don't want anymore HP.........you're not the average customer. How do I know this? How many Duramax's do you think GM would sell if they only had 300 HP like the original ones came out with?

BTW, does anybody know if the Ford was the one with the new single wheel updated turbo?

[buddyIam]

RCMAN

Alpar has it as 1.84 second. Diesel hub has it that way also. Don't no where I got the 3.27 from. I may have been cross eyed.

Yea, I got the Aisin and Alison mixed up I guess. That is a big drop. But that isn't the transmission that was tested.

[RCMAN46]

buddyIam wrote:


Boy, Alison sure takes a big jump from 1st to 2nd

The Ram Aisin and the 68RFE both have a larger jump from 1st to 2nd than the Alison.

Alison change is 1.7127
Aisin change is 1.875
68RFE is 1.765

Bottom line the Alison probably matches the Duramax HP curve better than the Ram transmissions match the Cummins HP curve.

[RCMAN46]

buddyIam wrote:
I found it. The 68RFE is:
3.27
1.84
1.41
1.00
.82
.63
reverse is 4.44

I found the 68RFE to be
3.23
1.83
1.41
1.00
.81
.62
R 4.44
68RFE

[buddyIam]

Turtle,

This is what stinks

Dang, Ford has torque converter lock up down to 900 RPM, (I like that) and by fare the lowest 1st gear.

3.97
2.32
1.82
1.15
0.86
0.67

It also had the highest torque 860 and HP 440.

This stuff doesn't make sense.

Then also why did they choose to test the lower power version of the Cummins with lower rated 68RFE?