800 punds of torque coming soon!

[CBlack]

I wonder when the naysayers will show up to denounce this announcement.

 

[HBarlow]

I know you guys are enjoying a good laugh at my expense and don't mind at all. Be my guest, enjoy!

When you guys get as old as dirt as I am you'll find it easier to resist the performance tempation. Joe Donnelly installed Bosch RV275 injectors in my '01 when it was only a few months old and that was the only modification ever done to that engine. The same injectors are still in it today.

 

[mwilson]

Harvey,

In the event that a set of the above mentioned "Rubber Testicles" become one of your new desires Seth sells them here in Blue or Red.



They also feature LED lighting in them for that extra touch of class after dark... ... ... ... ... Seriously:-laf



One of the ladies that works in accounting just can't leave the display alone, I believe we have made her self-conscious about it so now she is operating on the sly.



I have refrained from installing them on either of my trucks because I already have one set that gets kicked way more than is really necessary... ... ... ... :-laf



Sorry, I just could not let it slide on by.



Mike.

 

[HBarlow]

Thanks for the offer but I've been okay with the set I've had for a very long time.

 

[AClayton]

I know you guys are enjoying a good laugh at my expense and don't mind at all. Be my guest, enjoy!



When you guys get as old as dirt as I am you'll find it easier to resist the performance tempation. Joe Donnelly installed Bosch RV275 injectors in my '01 when it was only a few months old and that was the only modification ever done to that engine. The same injectors are still in it today.

Some people just have the performance bug and others could care less. Unfortunately, I have been the one that always had to tinker! It has cost me more money and time than I care to admit to in the process. I've learned a lot from it but my education has cost me big time over the yrs. After sinking so much money into my current truck and having to pay for repairs from rippin' and rarin', I soon realized that I had to slow down a little.



I'm always the one in the RV caravan with something to prove just because my truck can make that hill without slowing. The others I pass could care less and they probably think I'm nuts:-laf When I here the loud pipes of a souped-up race engine it makes me crazy. To others it is an annoying noise and they wish it would just go away!



I can't help it!! Btw, I'm 43 which should be old enough to know better!





Alan

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Hey guys, I just posted my full story that I think will answer most of your questions - link is at the top of the page. I'll also be following up with some emails with some other questions and to tidy up some details so if you have others let me know and I'll do my best.



-Steve

 

[Prairie Dog]

Can someone explain the math of being able to go to 800 torque without changing the HP or RPM specs?

 

[AH64ID]

Can someone explain the math of being able to go to 800 torque without changing the HP or RPM specs?

The difference between hp and tq is a math equasion. Any and all engines run the same equasion, and at 5252 rpms the tq and hp are the same.



So TQ = HP*5252/rpms

and HP = TQ*rpms/5252



So what Cummins did was up the fueling in the low-mid range rpm, and leave the top rpm fueling the same.



So to gain 150 ft/lbs at 1500 rpms what they also gained 42hp at 1500 rpms.



If you think about the equasion you can see why diesels typically have 2x the tq as they do hp, its about rpms. At 2626 rpms tq is doube hp, on every engine. If you don't make a lot of hp down low you don't have tq down low. And based on rpms its takes very little hp at low rpms to make a lot of tq. . Lets look at 300 hp and various rpms.



300 hp at 1,000 rpms is 1575 ft/lbs

300 hp at 1,500 rpms is 1050 ft/lbs

300 hp at 2,000 rpms is 788 ft/lbs

300 hp at 2,500 rpms is 630 ft/lbs

300 hp at 3,000 rpms is 525 ft/lbs

300 hp at 3,500 rpms is 450 ft/lbs

300 hp at 4,000 rpms is 394 ft/lbs

300 hp at 4,500 rpms is 350 ft/lbs

300 hp at 5,000 rpms is 315 ft/lbs

300 hp at 5,500 rpms is 286 ft/lbs

300 hp at 6,000 rpms is 263 ft/lbs

300 hp at 6,500 rpms is 243 ft/lbs

300 hp at 7,000 rpms is 225 ft/lbs

300 hp at 7,500 rpms is 210 ft/lbs

300 hp at 8,000 rpms is 197 ft/lbs

300 hp at 8,500 rpms is 185 ft/lbs

300 hp at 9,000 rpms is 175 ft/lbs

300 hp at 9,500 rpms is 165 ft/lbs

300 hp at 10,000 rpms is 157 ft/lbs



Kinda extensive, but it shows what rpms do for tq.



The reason that a diesel is so great for towing is they make hp down low, and thus can get a load moving easier. Then to maintain speed they can do so at lower rpms, which reduces fuel consumption, NVH, engine wear, and allows for less gear reduction. In all honesty if you had a 4cyl honda motor that made 300hp at 10,000 rpms and a Cummins that makes 300 hp at 2,000 rpms and they both are geared to turn their repective (10,000 or 2,000) rpms at 65 mph they both would have the same amount of tq to the ground and both would pull the hill the same. But to do that the Honda would take 5 times more gear reduction, which takes a lot of space, makes a lot of heat, and takes more power to spin...



Ain't math great.

 

[SNiebaum]

The difference between hp and tq is a math equasion. Any and all engines run the same equasion, and at 5252 rpms the tq and hp are the same.



So TQ = HP*5252/rpms

and HP = TQ*rpms/5252



So what Cummins did was up the fueling in the low-mid range rpm, and leave the top rpm fueling the same.

this concept is best demonstrated by the 'dyno' graph of this new powertrain as posted in the pickuptrucks.com press release coverage.



#ad




As you can see with the new tuning, the engine quickly makes 800lb-ft and then starts a steady decline back to the current 650lb-ft of torque... coincidentally, that's also where the peak horsepower occurs. Several things are apparent by looking at these power curves... first and foremost, the 6. 7L was/is being held back by a combination of emissions and drivetrain. The initial power rating of 650lb-ft was being maintained for almost 1400rpm... If the current torque rating were being maintained (this might prove to be a difficult task while maintaining emissions) until peak horsepower, this engine would easily make 430hp... Even at that, I think the engine is still being held back on it's peak torque rating. With the new rate of rise in initial torque, I don't think 850-900lb-ft is out of order for this engine. Again though, emissions, longevity and drivetrain robustness will all determine the next phase in development for the 6. 7L.



I do think the ball is in Ram's court now... they must do something to up the capability of the G56 powertrain.



I guess we'll see what Ford and GM do to counter the new elevated Ram tow ratings.

 

[AH64ID]

As you can see with the new tuning, the engine quickly makes 800lb-ft and then starts a steady decline back to the current 650lb-ft of torque... coincidentally, that's also where the peak horsepower occurs. Several things are apparent by looking at these power curves... first and foremost, the 6. 7L was/is being held back by a combination of emissions and drivetrain. The initial power rating of 650lb-ft was being maintained for almost 1400rpm... If the current torque rating were being maintained (this might prove to be a difficult task while maintaining emissions) until peak horsepower, this engine would easily make 430hp... Even at that, I think the engine is still being held back on it's peak torque rating. With the new rate of rise in initial torque, I don't think 850-900lb-ft is out of order for this engine. Again though, emissions, longevity and drivetrain robustness will all determine the next phase in development for the 6. 7L.



I do think the ball is in Ram's court now... they must do something to up the capability of the G56 powertrain.



I guess we'll see what Ford and GM do to counter the new elevated Ram tow ratings.

I agree, the HO 6. 7 has the "worst" tq curve of any Cummins since 1998. I really hope its actually flatter than that, but who knows. If it's not I am going to guess they are at a turbo/EGT limit at upper rpms. But there is no reason the tq curve shouldn't be flat. That tq curve is no very smooth at all!



It's a start, but I think it needs improvement. It may take some mechanical changes, but hey thats life.



I am by no means stating the power is bad, 700 ft/lbs at 2500 rpms is great. . but it looks like a bandaid, not like the best diesel eninge on the market.

 

[Prairie Dog]

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.

 

[AH64ID]

The HO 6. 7 drops to 700 ft/lbs at approx 2500 rpms

The PS 6. 7 drops to 700 ft/lbs at approx 2750 rpms

The GM 6. 6 drops to 700 ft/lbs at approx 2700 rpms

 

[AWeiman]

Hey guys, I just posted my full story that I think will answer most of your questions - link is at the top of the page. I'll also be following up with some emails with some other questions and to tidy up some details so if you have others let me know and I'll do my best.



-Steve

very good read. was nice to read that the 6. 7 has experienced few growing pains. 280,000 and still tests like a new motor very impressive. i will admit i have been somewhat skeptical since the 6. 7 came with all the extra emmissons crap, but after reading that i would not be scared at all to own one. shame on me for doubting cummins.

 

[craiggo]

I understand your reaction but I don't want a box for power increase, I was thinking more of clearing alarms should any start showing up.

Hey Harvey,



I assume you already know this but, since nobody else posted it, I thought I would. You can get the Edge Insight CS/CTS which is nothing more than a digital display that can clear codes. I had one of these (older models) on my Ford 6. 0 and I loved it.



(edited to topic)

• Sounds user-defined audible alerts



Scan Tool

Capture and record even more information about the vehicle’s performance with the Insight’s scan tool feature.

• Displays and clears diagnostic trouble codes with full text description*

• Displays peak values such as speed and RPM*



Just an FYI if you didn't know.



Craig

 

[OldRetiredAFGuy]

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

 

[HBarlow]

Hey Harvey,

I assume you already know this but, since nobody else posted it, I thought I would. You can get the Edge Insight CS/CTS which is nothing more than a digital display that can clear codes. I had one of these (older models) on my Ford 6. 0 and I loved it.

(edited to topic)
• Sounds user-defined audible alerts

Scan Tool
Capture and record even more information about the vehicle's performance with the Insight's scan tool feature.
• Displays and clears diagnostic trouble codes with full text description*
• Displays peak values such as speed and RPM*

Just an FYI if you didn't know.

Craig

Craig,

No, I didn't know and thanks for posting it. I probably know less about Edge EZ and Smarty products than any other TDR member.

Is that the box that some members use instead of ordinary analog gauges on a two or three gauge panel?

 

[craiggo]

Yes it is and, admittedly, the one I had before was not as elaborate as this newer model and I wish it were. The hardest part of the installation was running the wire from the ODBII port to the top of the dash.

I always kept he manual for it with the truck when I took it in for warranty work and called out that it was gauges only. I never had any trouble. You simply plugged in a USB cable to it and uploaded your configurations. By that I mean you select what you wanted to see on each screen and there were like 4 different screens. Unfortunately, in my case with the 6. 0 Ford, it could clear codes but not clean oil off the driveway.

You could set alarms for temps or rev point (really just about on anything). Monitor anything running on the system. I also believe these will tell you when they are going into regen also. Should you go that route, I'd like to hear you experience with it. I'd be very surprised if you were disappointed.

 

[CUMMINZ]

I have been saying for a couple of years that the 3500 duallys were good for much more than what they were rated. Mine with the Smarty is still on top of the HO advertisements. I would wait on 2012 models.

 

[retirednak]

Its nice to hear we will be getting a boost in torque dept for the Cummins. One thing I'd like to know is,will we see an increase in fuel economy. I know we don't buy our HD trucks to commute with,most use them to work. But it would be nice to get better fuel mileage in our rigs. I love my '03,but have been disappointed in the fuel mileage. We've thought of buying a new Ram,but with fuel prices the way they are,the new truck idea has been put on hold. My brother in-laws new GMC dually gets an honest hand calculated 20-21 mpg empty,14-15 mpg pulling his enclosed toy hauler. Myself,I wouldn't own a GM diesel. Its a nightmare under the hood and I think the front suspension is junk.

Suppose we'll ever see a boost in economy,or will it continue to drop as they load more emissions crap?

 

[MChrist]

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?