03 cummins performance

[2003Cummins4Me]

I am looking to buy a new truck and i have done quite a bit of research, and my two choices are the powerstroke 6. 0 and the new cummins. But due to the reliability issues with the powerstroke i think thats out of the question now. But my next concern is the pickuptruck.com review. I just dont see why the cummins got its *ss beat so bad, its not like the ford has that much more hp and tq to make that much difference. Also, correct me if im wrong, but the cummins can be modded much easier/cheaper and be more reliable than the others... so what would be the most hp/tq without compromising the integrity of the motor? would 400hp-500hp, 800ft-lbs-900ft-lbs be a reasonable figure? and what kind of performance could i expect such as 1/4 mile, 0-60?

 

[RMcCulloch]

Look at the differential gearing!

The Dodge was running a 4. 10 and the others were running 3. 73s.



Whoever spec'd the truck for the "test" guessed wrong.



As to a maximum HP/Torque, it's a bit early to say.

 

[KLockliear]

400, 500... whatever you want. We've got the parts to do that with the '03 Cummins now. No problem. Our truck is making 503hp/1060tq to the wheels with off-the-shelf parts.



I think it's gonna be a while before a 6. 0l can do that.



With an automatic, I'd expect around 14. 0's or so in the 1/4.

 

[JyRO]

Only my opinion...

The Dodge was running a 4. 10 and the others were running 3. 73s. Whoever spec'd the truck for the "test" guessed wrong.

Personally, I think the 4. 10's would've given an advantage in most cases.



I work for a MAJOR automotive company, in design. I won't say which, but I will say that its not Ford. I have enough experience with early development that it seems *likely* to me that that particular 6. 0 may have been hand built. And along with that hand build aspect a few *minor* tweaks could've easily be included. Seems to me like that 6. 0 wasn't in production at the time of that test, was it? Regardless of the fact that it was in production or not, hand built and tweaked would definitly be my suspicion.



Yeah, at first I thought the 6. 0 would dominate. Based on that test. But I'd buy a 1st gen Ram 12V Cummins with 215 h. p. all freakin' day long, RIGHT NOW, rather than put up with the crap those Lemmings buying the 6. 0 are putting up with.



Any Ford loyalists (or Chevy for that matter) who feel that driving a Dodge would be a traitorous act, and would buy a 6. 0 with its current track history... I say, "Burn'em dern'em, that'll learn'em. "



- JyRO

 

[2003Cummins4Me]

KLockliear... what do you have done to your truck that has 500/1000? I looked at the diesel dynamics website, a lot of interesting stuff, how does the electronic fuel management work? does it just increase fuel pressure or does it adjust timing as well? I would probably be interested in getting everything available for it... as for the gears in the test, I know in drag racing (ive owned a few) the 4. 10's would be better to have rather than the 3. 73's. Now does this create different results because we are talking about diesels and not higher revving gassers?

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Yes it does Cummins4me. I have 4. 10's and drag race regularly and wish I had 3. 55's. 4. 10's are so short that I'm through the rev range that makes power too quickly. I'm in 5th gear around the 1/8th mile. It also looks like they had a particularly poor running Dodge based on my experience. My 235 hp truck with a 5 sp (stock) did nearly as good as their HO in the 1/4 mile.

 

[JyRO]

Your opinion...

Steve,



With your CTD drag racing experience, and assuming you read that test report from a while back, do you think that CTD truck would've performed better with 3. 73's in their tests? I can see why you'd want 3. 54 for dragging empty, but some of the tests they did led me to believe that they were better off with the 4. 10's ... but maybe I'm wrong.



And lastly, I agree with you. The CTD in that test was probably a little low on the power from the factory. Back when I raced motorcycles, there were these 2 guys that looked like twin brothers. Same weight, height, etc. if you didn't know, you'd think they were at least brothers. They also had identical 900RR's. Same year, color, etc. But when they raced (generally from about 10 mph to 150+), it was no comparison. One dude's bike would just walk right away from the other. So I'd have to assume that not all ISB's perform the same, everything else being equal. Production tolerances, yada yada yada.



- JyRO

 

[KLockliear]

Originally posted by 2003Cummins4Me

KLockliear... what do you have done to your truck that has 500/1000? I looked at the diesel dynamics website, a lot of interesting stuff, how does the electronic fuel management work? does it just increase fuel pressure or does it adjust timing as well?

Currently we do not have a timing box for the '03. Our truck has our airbox, turbo, gauges, exhaust, fuel pusher pump kit, Stage 3 injectors and our rail pressure only - True Torque Power Module. makes 503/1060 or so.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

The reason for wanting the taller gears is because you are wound out with the 4. 10's by the end of the quarter. Our engines begin defueling at 2700 rpm. I'm at 2850 with my oversized tires at the end of the quarter. With the taller gears I'd still be in 4th gear at the end of the quarter which would save me an entire shift. I'm not sure what tire size they had on the truck in their test but I'm pretty sure it's smaller than my 285's which would make the problem even worse. I also noted that they had no 0-90 mph numbers for the dodge - that's probably because it's wrung out. Comparing the 0-60, 0-70, and 0-80 numbers shows the gearing issue IMO (this is just the 6 speed trucks to compare apples to apples):



<table border="1"><tr><td>truck</td><td>0-60</td><td>0-70</td><td>difference in seconds</td><td>difference in percentage</td><td>0-80</td><td>difference in seconds</td><td>difference in percentage</td></tr><tr><td>Dodge</td><td>12. 46</td><td>16. 86</td><td>4. 4</td><td>26. 1%</td><td>23. 52</td><td>6. 66</td><td>28. 3%</td></tr><tr><td>Ford</td><td>9. 45</td><td>12. 44</td><td>2. 99</td><td>24%</td><td>15. 8</td><td>3. 36</td><td>21. 2%</td></tr></table>



What you can see there is that the Ford was right in the meat of it's powerband at that point (better performance percentage wise between 70-80 than 60-70) and the Dodge was past it (worse performance between 70-80 than 60-70). That would be right around the end of the 1/4 mile.



I also noted that the Dodge weighs 740 lbs more than the comparably equipped Ford and 957 lbs more than the comparably equipped Chevy. Wonder where that weight comes from? Not all of it is in the engine. There's some beef missing there somewhere. JMHO