800 punds of torque coming soon!

[retirednak]

I think the fuel economy will remain where it is. I'm surprised that you say you're not impressed with the FE in your '03. Granted, it's a dually and you have a cap. Both draw FE down. But what do you get, hand calculated?

Hand calculated my last tank was 9. 2 mpg. Being winter and all the idle time and crappy fuel,I don't expect to get very good mileage. The best mileage I've ever gotten was 18. 5 mpg on a road trip to Fairbanks and that's using my Smarty and driving at 55 mpg at whole way. I've never seen 18 mpg since. I don't do any city driving to speak of since we live out in the country, its mostly 20 mile- round trips into town at 55-60 mpg. I usually see between 14-15 mpg. The Smarty made the difference for me, was lucky to get close to 15 mpg on road trips. I always write down any changes in my fuel additives to see what works best. My mileage suffers if I don't use Power Service/two stroke oil in my fuel. Its rare if I drive my truck hard,I always try to get the best mpg each tank,except in winter. If we lived in the lower 48 and had nice highways and didn't have to deal with hills and crappy roads,it might make a difference. I'm waiting on our tax return so I can have my trans rebuilt,I'm curious to see if it makes any difference.

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too,as far as torque,power and mileage goes.

 

[HBarlow]

Ok, I see it now. The HP number is the same because it still makes 650 lbFt at the same RPM.
Thats too bad because the competition is able to make more torque up high and they will continue to win the (somewhat silly) race up hills with a load that magazines are so stuck on. Obviously, normal hauling will be a lot more enjoyable with this engine than that of ferd or cheby because we won't need to spin the crap out off this motor all the time to move the load.

You've got it. The important detail to know is that low rpm torque pulls heavy loads over steep mountain grades with ease. High winding V8s will often out accelerate a Cummins but they don't compete in service life or miles to overhaul.

What was not explained above is that dynomometers measure twisting force, torque. They don't measure horsepower. Horsepower is calculated using the equation torque x rpm / 5252 = horsepower. This is the reason why at 5252 rpm torque is equal to horsepower.

 

[SNiebaum]

Not to be the one that brings rain just as the parade vehicles are being staged: My new Feb 2011 Trailer Life issue has an article about the new SAE Standard J2807 for standardized tow ratings (trailering requirement) for cars and trucks, effective 2013. Supposedly, the only company to sign up so far is Toyota, which resulted in a lowering of their tow ratings for some of their vehicles. Does anyone know if this new Dodge (Ram?) announcement is in line with this new standard, or under the old system?



Mike

The press release stated that the new tow ratings were compliant with 2013 SAE Standards...

 

[HBarlow]

Read Ram CEO Fred Diaz's comment on this subject in Greg Whales column, page 76 in TDR magazine issue # 71.

He smoothly avoided any direct criticism of the two brands that compete with Ram but he stated that he and other Ram managers welcome and are completely unconcerned about the new standards "but we do wonder about others. "

I don't have to say it as professionally and diplomatically as the Ram CEO did. I have said all along that Furd and GM's numbers are inflated, basically bogus. He knows they are but didn't say it .

 

[CUMMINZ]

Not to be the one that brings rain just as the parade vehicles are being staged: My new Feb 2011 Trailer Life issue has an article about the new SAE Standard J2807 for standardized tow ratings (trailering requirement) for cars and trucks, effective 2013. Supposedly, the only company to sign up so far is Toyota, which resulted in a lowering of their tow ratings for some of their vehicles. Does anyone know if this new Dodge (Ram?) announcement is in line with this new standard, or under the old system?



Mike

It will be truly interesting to see a long grade test of the big three with a gross of 30k behind.

 

[CBlack]

It will be truly interesting to see a long grade test of the big three with a gross of 30k behind.

That's what I've been thinking. I want to see that stupid test has been in the magazines run again with the new "legal" Ram included.

 

[MA2LA]

I'd have to dig the mag back up but i belive both the furd and chevy had 3. 73 gears. It makes me wonder how the transmissions are geared in those trucks. my 2011 with 4. 10s turns almost the same rpm at 70 as my 06 did with 3. 73 but with out a doubt the 2011 get a load moving very nice even compared to my bombed 06

 

[CUMMINZ]

Dodge will never rate that truck with 30k GCVW with a 3. 73...

 

[NIsaacs]

I don't think I would say never. Look what the last 10 years have done. My guess is a bigger/stronger, clutch/transmission is next, least ways I hope so



Nick

 

[morbius]

If they could package it up as a Mopar or Cummins update, ECM, Torque Convertor ect... As longs as its only a couple of grand (say under $4k) I'd be interested in it. I will NOT put an aftermarket program or chip on it until the motor warranty is gone. I can afford the truck (and fuel) but I do not want to pay for repairs that could have been covered by a warranty.

I would go for this also.

 

[RLHannink]

Ft-lbs is a force unit. HP is a work unit. Pulling the load up the mountain is work. So, the more HP, the faster it will pull the hill. So, in theory and according to physics, the 400 hp trucks will pull the hill faster than the 350 hp truck.



While the torquey Cummins really pounds on the drivetrain down low, to get the load moving, the max work output is still less.



But that's just the thoretical. Real life, the more output at lower rpm, the more useable the truck is. Compare a 475 hp 8v92 2-cycle Detroit and a 475 hp 3406E Caterpillar. It's a real pain in the A to get the loads moving with the Detroits, but the Cats just grab and go. On the big hills, the pulling speed (gradeability, whatever you call it) is the same. (Fuel mileage is a different story).

 

[dlmetzger]

Ft-lbs is a force unit. HP is a work unit.

This is incorrect.

work = force x distance. Example: If it takes 2 lbs of force to move a block 2 feet, you would have done 4 ft-lbs of work (2 lbs x 2 feet).

Power = work/time. In the US we use the unit of horsepower. Horsepower usually calculated from the torque which measured directly from the engine output shaft. Horsepower is then calculated as torque x rpm / 5252.

 

[RLHannink]

Right. I guess I was one unit off. Was trying to say that you can have all the torque you want, it's the hp that is doing the work.



A 200 lb man hanging on a 4 foot long wrench on a bolt that won't turn is 800 ft lbs of torque going on. But zero horsepower: 800 ft-lbs x 0 rpm / 5252 = 0 horsepower



A horse that is somehow raising 550 lbs 1 ft in one second has 1 hp. But no rpm or torque.



So can we say that 1 hp gets more done than 800 ft-lbs of torque?

 

[Prairie Dog]

Hand calculated my last tank was 9. 2 mpg. Being winter and all the idle time and crappy fuel,I don't expect to get very good mileage. The best mileage I've ever gotten was 18. 5 mpg on a road trip to Fairbanks and that's using my Smarty and driving at 55 mpg at whole way. I've never seen 18 mpg since. I don't do any city driving to speak of since we live out in the country, its mostly 20 mile- round trips into town at 55-60 mpg. I usually see between 14-15 mpg. The Smarty made the difference for me, was lucky to get close to 15 mpg on road trips. I always write down any changes in my fuel additives to see what works best. My mileage suffers if I don't use Power Service/two stroke oil in my fuel. Its rare if I drive my truck hard,I always try to get the best mpg each tank,except in winter. If we lived in the lower 48 and had nice highways and didn't have to deal with hills and crappy roads,it might make a difference. I'm waiting on our tax return so I can have my trans rebuilt,I'm curious to see if it makes any difference.
I'd like to have my cake and eat it too,as far as torque,power and mileage goes.

Wow, those are really low numbers. I get 20 mpg mixed driving, 11-12 towing 8K and driving at 55 I get 22-23 ~ all hand calculated. I used to get better but the new ULSD or something has cost me about 10% of the mileage my truck got when new (70k miles now). I've kept up with maint. , adjusted valves, etc but can't get the mileage back.
I don't idle a lot or have a dually so maybe thats the difference.

 

[MChrist]

Prairie Dog, thanks for jumping in. I was waiting for a person with a similar truck to report back. Those numbers sounded low to me too. You mention transmission, retirednak, do you think yours is letting power slip by? Have you had your valves adjusted? I took my '98. 5 3500 C/C to a Cummins shop, and they adjusted a few valves and it helped quite a bit in power and mpg. Only a few were out of adj. at 200,000 HARD miles.

 

[retirednak]

My numbers have been low since I bought the truck in '04 with 40 K+ miles on it. I know my trans is on its last leg and has been giving me troubles for the last yr,trying to nurse it along. Not sure if its the TC or hard parts. I will adjust the valves after the trans gets done. I wouldn't have bought a dually since I don't do any heavy hauling,but it was too good of a deal to pass on. I can't wait to see if the trans is the issue,I'm positive it will make some difference.

 

[PDM]

Was trying to say that you can have all the torque you want, it's the hp that is doing the work.

Wow, I would say you are missing some of the big lessons of past trucking.



When the Ford gas V-8 first came out Ford put them in OTR trucks, and they were terrible truck engines as they lacked torque.



Take a high rpm gas small block muscle-car engine that makes 320HP and put it in a truck and try towing with it. Good luck!

Take the same truck and put the original 160HP Dodge-Cummins in it. You are now in the towing business, even though you only have half the HP.



HP does tell you what your steady-state maximum speed will be on a hill, but try starting a load on a hill with a low torque engine. Also, the Cummins has huge torque all the way down to idle rpm, and so on a hill will maintain speed better than a lower torque engine.



I would say torque is far more important than HP in the vast majority of towing. I have the 97 215HP Cummins, and it's really all the power I've ever needed to tow a 20,000 lb gooseneck. I have an '03 with more power, but I can't say I really needed that extra power, and since the low end torque is very similar between the '97 and '03, so is the towing experience.



Anyway, just trying to say relax and enjoy the best towing powerplant ever offered in a pickup, no matter what the HP version .

 

[AH64ID]

Right. I guess I was one unit off. Was trying to say that you can have all the torque you want, it's the hp that is doing the work.



A 200 lb man hanging on a 4 foot long wrench on a bolt that won't turn is 800 ft lbs of torque going on. But zero horsepower: 800 ft-lbs x 0 rpm / 5252 = 0 horsepower



A horse that is somehow raising 550 lbs 1 ft in one second has 1 hp. But no rpm or torque.



So can we say that 1 hp gets more done than 800 ft-lbs of torque?

You have the equasion but your misisng the point. Considering that an engine at 0 rpms isn't running!



Like your equastion shows hp and tq are directly proportional to each other. The more hp you make at lower rpms means more tq, which is why a diesel pulls hills at lower rpms, enough hp down low to get the job done.



HP does have role, even thou tq is the same at 1800 and 2200 rpms the motor will pull hills better at 2200 rpms from increased hp, and the increased rotational mass.



So no you can't say that 1 hp will do more work than 800 ft/lbs, thats not an apples to apples comparrison. The ratio of hp to tq is for internal combustion engines, so you couldn't try to figure it out with a horse. Where do you think ft/lbs came from? That 1 hp is making 550 ft/lbs and thats work done, which is torque. Tq is what does the work, hp just enables it. Also a man standing on a breaker bar is a static load, a horse pulling a weight has motion, apply motion to the man and there will be hp. . but still not an internal combustion enigne so you can't do the math. If you put 1 horse on that bolt and had it apply it's force and stop it would be making 0 hp as well and still not turning the bolt...

 

[dlmetzger]

Torque is the unit of work (force x distance, lbs-ft). Horsepower is a unit of power or the rate at which the work is done. If you apply 2 lbs of force to a block and move it 2 ft, you've done 4 lb-ft of work. The time it takes you to move the block is a measure of power (work per unit of time).

 

[FATCAT]

Why is the manual transmission always the "Red headed step child" in these power upgrades? The answer to the increased torque and allowing the manual transmission guys partake in this improvement is stairing Dodge in the face ... it is called an Eaton/Fuller FSO-8406A!!!!

Source out the transmission to Eaton and Dodge can have a nice new shiny badge on their trucks next to the Cummins badge that says "Road Ranger".

And no, I'm not full of you-know-what when I make this statement, I am serious! (Maybe a little full of it if I said they should use an 8LL). But come one Dodge! If you can't get a manual that will handle the increased engine numbers from your current manual transmission supplier ... go with Eaton ... what a win-win that would be.