Ar69rc Upgraded for 1000lb/ft torque?

[DeansRedRam]

Curiosity is getting the best of me sitting here watching 6 Mega Watts being distributed here at work..

I know there was one revision of the Aisin transmission in 13? I can't remember the specific year but it used to be a AS68RC and then upgraded to a AS69RC. Not really sure what was upgraded maybe converter(s), output shafts, etc.

My truck is an 18 and makes 930lb/ft torque, now is the transmission in my truck the same as the ones in the 19s making 1000lb/ft torque? I would sure hope that is the case, would give me a good sense of security knowing my transmission can handle more than my engine makes in stock form.

 

[cerberusiam]

It is all smoke and mirrors, if they tried to run a true 1000 ft\lbs uncontrolled thru any of these transmissions the guts would be on the ground right there. It is a game to make the numbers come up on an engine dyno, regardless if they can actually be achieved or used in a platform.

 

[Ozymandias]

So it is.

 

[NIsaacs]

This copy and paste is from the "2.5" TDR article:

"Behind the more powerful 6.7-liter Cummins, Aisin six-speed automatic transmission delivers improved towing capability, NVH and fuel economy via hardware and software upgrades"

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/2-5-i-was-at-bar-last-night.265813/

 

[John Jensen]

DeansRedRam's question is, " is the transmission in my truck the same as the ones in the 19s making 1000lb/ft torque?".

 

[Wiredawg]

It is all smoke and mirrors, if they tried to run a true 1000 ft\lbs uncontrolled thru any of these transmissions the guts would be on the ground right there. It is a game to make the numbers come up on an engine dyno, regardless if they can actually be achieved or used in a platform.

I hear a LOT of it doesn't put out 1000Lbft of torque... What DOES is put out? In the math world, and some of this is math, if you say the answer is WRONG, there's an obligation to give the right answer.

FWIW, I don't recall all this when the HO was rated a mere 930LbFt of torque? Is that smoke and mirrors too?

When did the advertised torque on Cummins engines quit being as advertised?

 

[cerberusiam]

The ratings as opposed to actual installed in a platform has always been nothing but a number for bragging rights, actually trying to get to those numbers sitting in the seat of the truck is almost impossible to do and impossible to quantify. Think about it, how do you accurately measure HP or TQ on the road? Any result is going to be SWAG with every possible parameter affected by a myriad of things.

The advertised numbers are flywheel HP at sea level and optimum climate, plus all the safeties off because there is nothing to save on an engine dyno. How does this really apply to how the truck is used an driven? They are giving the POTENTIAL numbers under optimal conditions, not actual numbers in real world conditions.

The answer to "What does it put out?" is only enough power to do the work requested. Since diesel are load based, a better question is how do you measure the work done to assess what the truck actually put out for power. If you want to see ACTUAL at the wheels, tie it on a dyno, convince the transmission to stay in high gear and lockup and see what you can actually get for numbers. You will be surprised, and disappointed.

 

[Wiredawg]

So, this is a yes or no question... does the truck EVER put out 1000lbft of TQ in a real world situation, IYHO?

EDIT: Cerb, in your original response to OP, was the take away no worries for his transmission and that max TQ is a smoke and mirrors number?

Just trying to connect the dots on that. I'm familiar with dynos on Cummins and know that we normally use a fraction of the power.

I see you upgraded your 2005. Did you baseline the power on it (dyno) and did you see or were you trying to see max Cummins advertised HP and TQ. And did you have a power improvement strategy (target HP and TQ)? and did you verify it with dyno again?

 

[Wiredawg]

In the early 2000s, It was fairly common to see dynos at TDR events along with vendors selling performance products. It was not uncommon to see stock trucks seeing numbers close to their HP/TQ ratings. So, I understand engine loading, the fact that in real operating conditions, may SELDOM see those numbers and that its neither surprising nor disappointing how little power it takes these trucks to operate. For my part, the numbers dont matter.... my truck excels as what I purchased it for... pulling a heavy trailer. I've never thought this dosen't feel like its putting out 750Lb ft of TQ, unlike many who own a 19 to 20 HO saying it doesn't feel like its 1000lbft of TQ.

EDIT, I actually think the transmission input shaft on a truck COULD see 1000lbt ft or close to it rolling as the combo of engine loading and speed sensor reading enough to reduce or stop TQ mgt towing heavy.

My observation is there seems to be more effort to play down the 400HP/1000TQ numbers than in the past. It seems to be characterized as smoke and mirrors when in fact automotive HP/TQ reporting of crank power is an industry standard. I guess this gets lost in the noise.

In the end, it makes for interesting discussion, and to be honest, what we do here.

Cheers, Ron

 

[JR]

Does everyone remember this?

As advertised (hp/tq), not exactly.

If there's any solace, the Fword and govt motors faired much worse.

 

[Wiredawg]

Does everyone remember this?

As advertised (hp/tq), not exactly.

If there's any solace, the Fword and govt motors faired much worse.

JR,

Thanks for posting. I like the numbers and I like where Ram placed with TQ. Those numbers are a consistent percentage of advertised power, and makes sense when you lose some through the drivetrain.

An interesting fact of no one has noticed neither Ram nor Cummins post HP/TQ graphs as they did previously.

Thanks again for posting.

Cheers, Ron

 

[AH64ID]

Yes the graphs went away many years ago, I think around mid 2011 when the 6.7 bumped up to 800 lb/ft.

The torque curves aren’t flat anymore so they aren’t as good of marketing. It doesn’t mean they don’t tow better, it just means the graph isn’t as sexy.

As for the video the guys sound like idiots when they compare the wheel numbers vs flywheel numbers. If they don’t understand the difference they shouldn’t be making these videos.

Torque management does exist in lower gears but the full power of the engine can be had in upper gears. It’s easy to see with a OBDII monitor. I’ll see my load go to 100% in upper gears but not lower ones. You can also see it limit at various rpms. So full power is available under the proper conditions.

I don’t recall anything being upgraded on the AS69RC from 18-19 aside from electronics. It’s likely thou that parts were changed over the years to improve reliability. Nothing big just new revisions.

 

[EZeis]

Curiosity is getting the best of me sitting here watching 6 Mega Watts being distributed here at work..

I know there was one revision of the Aisin transmission in 13? I can't remember the specific year but it used to be a AS68RC and then upgraded to a AS69RC. Not really sure what was upgraded maybe converter(s), output shafts, etc.

My truck is an 18 and makes 930lb/ft torque, now is the transmission in my truck the same as the ones in the 19s making 1000lb/ft torque? I would sure hope that is the case, would give me a good sense of security knowing my transmission can handle more than my engine makes in stock form.

Cogeneration plant?

Earl

 

[HPSimpson]

JR
Thanks for posting the torque numbers and the graph very interesting results, Ram did what I though was really good numbers.

 

[DeansRedRam]

Cogeneration plant?

Earl

Actually a sewage treatment plant that consumes too much power to pull from the grid.

 

[DeansRedRam]

Yes the graphs went away many years ago, I think around mid 2011 when the 6.7 bumped up to 800 lb/ft.

The torque curves aren’t flat anymore so they aren’t as good of marketing. It doesn’t mean they don’t tow better, it just means the graph isn’t as sexy.

As for the video the guys sound like idiots when they compare the wheel numbers vs flywheel numbers. If they don’t understand the difference they shouldn’t be making these videos.

Torque management does exist in lower gears but the full power of the engine can be had in upper gears. It’s easy to see with a OBDII monitor. I’ll see my load go to 100% in upper gears but not lower ones. You can also see it limit at various rpms. So full power is available under the proper conditions.

I don’t recall anything being upgraded on the AS69RC from 18-19 aside from electronics. It’s likely thou that parts were changed over the years to improve reliability. Nothing big just new revisions.

I would imagine small various upgrades. I was told that the 5R110 that was behind the 6.0 PS was upgraded to handle the increased power for when they stuck it behind the 6.4PS.

 

[EZeis]

Actually a sewage treatment plant that consumes too much power to pull from the grid.

Cool what does it run on? Ch4 from the sewage? I manage 7 dual fuel landfill gas cogeneration plants.


Earl

 

[DeansRedRam]

Cool what does it run on? Ch4 from the sewage? I manage 7 dual fuel landfill gas cogeneration plants.


Earl

We run 3 Slow Speeds at any given time. Two of them run solely on Natural Gas, while the third runs on a blend of Methane from sewage and Natural Gas.

 

[EZeis]

We run 3 Slow Speeds at any given time. Two of them run solely on Natural Gas, while the third runs on a blend of Methane from sewage and Natural Gas.

My largest plant has 48 Detroit 60 series diesel engines. 16mw but about 5 mw on landfill gas.

Earl

 

[DeansRedRam]

My largest plant has 48 Detroit 60 series diesel engines. 16mw but about 5 mw on landfill gas.

Earl

Wow! 48?! That's gotta be one loud engine room. I wonder why they would have so many smaller engines instead of some much larger slow or medium speeds.

Are they hiring? Trying to get out of commie New York... hahah