900 ft lbs of torque

[Tuesdak]

Ok, looks like there is a MPG solution out there in the smaller trucks aside of the Ecodiesel and the 5.0 Cummins. I only comment because the "Baby Duramax" to be offered in the small trucks (that are not that small vs. the old S-10's) I find like 5 cylinder funny. The GM 5 cylinder was a joke for towing let alone get out of it's own way. So here we go again with an under powered GM diesel... Typical numb under powered boring POS...

Regardless looking at the Baby Duramax engine I feel it falls behind the Forgotten IDI power standard. In other words a IDI 200 HP 400 LB FT 6.5 TD out powers it. Now I find that funny in a EPIC FAIL sort of way.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/10...ramax-turbo-diesels-2-5l-xld25-vs-2-8l-xld28/

 

[Mingoglia]

Valid points/arguments for sure, and I agree. I'm not saying that I'm not impressed with the towing/torque/horsepower race, or that I don't support the race to the moon and back...but also that I'm perfectly happy driving my de-rated, lowly 660 lb-ft/350 HP G56 truck. Though I've read about the "torque management" these trucks have, including the manual transmission versions, my '14 2500 with G56 manual sure doesn't drive like its being held back, the seat-of-the-pants driver sensations are very satisfying (and I've owned diesel trucks since 1992, and driven diesels since 1986).

I also agree with your comments regarding medium-duty trucks...the 4500 and 5500 trucks are surely in that class (and always were), and the 3500 maybe be up there too depending on where one sets the bar, surely in towing capacity if not hauling. The GVWRs and GCWRs of modern pickups have long since surpassed the outdated classifications of "1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1-ton".

I can say the route you mentioned is effortless with my '15 with 4.10 gears at 21,900 GVWR, pulling the same size cargo trailer. I ran that route about 3 months back and could maintain any speed I desired. I tend to drive on the edge of what I think the tires will take without blowing up, so we'll leave my "actual" speed for interpretation and just say the tires were brand new and 2 load ranges higher than needed for the trailer, so I had a lot of confidence in them.

 

[dfb]

new truck trailer combo.. hope 3.42s aren't too low….

 

[Newsa]

View attachment 94145 new truck trailer combo.. hope 3.42s aren't too low….

I don’t think 3.42 is too low. At your convenience, fill out your signature. It helps others repond.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Where is my fuel economy?"

Horsepower wars are getting stupid and insurance rates follow.

I just don't see the need for a 1 Ton pickup to enter the Medium Duty truck category with the CDL license required class tow ratings. The HP and TQ levels in the Medium Duty are lower for longer average engine life. Even the Ram Long Hauler is said to have a de-rated engine for longer life at it's intended job of hauling RV's. Less available power means less fuel burned and less food taken off my table from high diesel prices.

Yes I am happy we left the IDI Forgotten Diesel era of 200HP 400 FT Lbs behind, but, 1000 HP and 1000 Ft Lbs just isn't needed. I would rather have better MPG. Sometimes with the proper setup you get your cake and can eat it too as I have seen more power and MPG from a larger turbo on some forgotten diesels.

I have been entirely happy with BOTH the power increase AND MPG in my "upgraded" '02 - power as shown in sig, and 27 mpg empty, 17 towing our 5er in mixed flat/level terrain up here at 5000 ft elevation...

And THAT is the big difference between hotrodding a diesel, vs a gasser - you only use the fuel actually needed to match what that right foot dictates...

 

[AH64ID]

new truck trailer combo.. hope 3.42s aren't too low….

Guessing you mean too high?

 

[BaldwinScott]

dfb: Nice set up you have there. Have you ever checked out the MontanaOwners.com website? Lots of great info there!

 

[SnoKing]

I would like to see dfb's weights. I am pushing mine with a 29' 5th wheel. Snoking

 

[Cummins12V98]

View attachment 94145 new truck trailer combo.. hope 3.42s aren't too low….

28-29K combined towing with the 3:42's with my 11 Dually. ONLY negative was getting the load rolling. I would not hesitate owning a Dually again with 3:42's "IF" it had the Aisin with the lower starting gears. I would limit my combined to around 28K above that 4:10's. I would not even consider the 3:73's.

At 60 mph 3:42's in 5th are running about 1,750rpm and same with 4:10's in 6th. So SNOKING for example said his 3500 SRW with 3:42's stays in 5th when in TH no different than my Dually in 6th.

 

[dfb]

dfb: Nice set up you have there. Have you ever checked out the MontanaOwners.com website? Lots of great info there!

View attachment 94152

Yes!, thanks for asking… We bought the 2015 3610… LOVE it so far… Reason for the question is that I had an 04.5 Cummins Dually. I loved the way it pulled the 5ver. However, hated driving it solo… At 60mph I was at 1950 on the tach… New truck is like 1250 at 60….I had to get rid of the manual. Osteo in knees and just had open back surgery for spinal stenosis related to the Arthritis…

 

[dfb]

Thank You!

 

[dfb]

RV is at 12200 out of the factory.. Plus the rest of the stuff. Food, clothes, tools, satellite dish etc… GVWR of 5ver is 16k lbs….. 5ver is 39 feet…. Montana 3610 legacy…… How does your shorted do? I was going to with a super glide but opted for the anderson ultimate…….
cardinals are very nice btw..

 

[dfb]

Thank You for the information….. I did opt for the Aisin.. Truck takes off strong…. but they have kind of a dead spot in pedal at first...

 

[dfb]

Numerically low, but yes, tall or HIGH gear ratio…. I meant too low numerically….

 

[Cummins12V98]

Thank You for the information….. I did opt for the Aisin.. Truck takes off strong…. but they have kind of a dead spot in pedal at first...

Can you say torque management?

 

[EGroeneveld]

Can you say torque management?

But even with my duals, it will still let me spin the rears pretty good And still is way faster than my 2011 or 2005.

 

[Cummins12V98]

But even with my duals, it will still let me spin the rears pretty good And still is way faster than my 2011 or 2005.

Mine does not seem all that bad, it does not have a "dead" spot but it sure does not have full power right off the line.

 

[Dogpatch]

My GCVWR is 23890 lbs. With 3:42's, she's no hot rod off the line, but I'm happy with it. Not to say I wouldn't be happier with an Aisin and 4:10's, but I'm happy.

 

[Newsa]

My GCVWR is 23890 lbs. With 3:42's, she's no hot rod off the line, but I'm happy with it. Not to say I wouldn't be happier with an Aisin and 4:10's, but I'm happy.

View attachment 94169

Is 23890 the manufacturer suggested GCVWR? Or is that the actual gross? And how much of that is bed/hitch weight?

 

[SnoKing]

Les, have you weighed your rear axle? New Cardinals are noted gor heavy pin weights.

I am at 6750-6950 depending on holding tanks. And slightly over trucks 11,700 GVWR.

I just do not how one could yow 17k traiker that the truck is rated to tow. Hello Rickson! Snoking