Duramax Torque will be 620 lb/ft.

[JACummins2500]

"Duramax Torque will be 620 lb/ft. "... ... maybe so, but they still have the sissy IFS. :-laf

Greg

I am not selling them! Believe me, I am not a fan of the engine. I am just reporting what the 2006 fleet guide is telling me!

 

[DLeno]

re: torque and horsepower...



power can be measured directly without a formula by using any apparatus capable of measuring work output and elapsed time. why? because that is the definition of power (work/time). the dynojet comes the closest to this direct measurement of power because it can measure both work and time with great precision. The dynojet measures power directly from the rate of acceleration experienced by a roller of known (and fixed) inertia. It then calculates torque using Newtons 2nd law of motion.



Of course, horsepower can also be obtained via calculations using other measured quantities. Example, a Mustang. The Mustang dynamometer measures the torque directly experienced by the rollers and then calculates horsepower.

 

[thejeepdude]

power can be measured directly without a formula by using any apparatus capable of measuring work output and elapsed time.

Just because you don't see the machine use the formula doesn't mean it's not there. I see your point, but technically any measurement that involves the measuring of more than one physical property or relationship thereof requires a formula of some sort. Overly simplified, the dynojet's formula is still "x mass moved x amount in x time"... like you said, it's measuring work and time and combining the two in some manner... the manner = formula. I guess it's all semantics.

 

[Hermansdiesel]

I just got my 2006 GM fleet guide. The torque for the Duramax will be 620 lb/ft for the 2006 model year when equipped with an automatic. Wonder what Dodge/Cummins will do about that. The ISB is good for 660 lb/ft. How about the 48RE?

Here we go again another marketing torque war between GM and Dodge. Now let see how long Dodge keeps the current 610 lb/ft torque rating?



Herman

 

[ttreibel]

I guess we will just have to wait and see until some new stocker DMX's hit the dynos. Then we can compare the numbers, until then it's just smoke and mirrors

 

[robert4570]

Here we go again , the manufacturers numbers war.

Next year the 6. 0's will surpass DMAX by say 5 ft lbs then Cummins it by 5 and so on.

I've pondered replacing my 600 with a Cummins N-14 :--) ,top that GM.

That should end it.



What the heck , it sells trucks .

 

[hasselbach]

Actually, no one has ever measured torque without a formula, either... that's why it's pound*feet... so it's just a simpler formula. HP just adds time to the equation... 1HP = 33000pound*feet/MIN

Not true, Torque is a measurment of effort, torque is not a formula, HP is a measurement of effort over a period of time and hence a formula.

 

[DLeno]

Just because you don't see the machine use the formula doesn't mean it's not there. I see your point, but technically any measurement that involves the measuring of more than one physical property or relationship thereof requires a formula of some sort. Overly simplified, the dynojet's formula is still "x mass moved x amount in x time"... like you said, it's measuring work and time and combining the two in some manner... the manner = formula. I guess it's all semantics.

Yea I see your point that there's a little semantics involved, but consider that just because a physical quantity can be broken down to an equivalent mathematical components doesn't mean the original quantity cannot be measured directly. similarly, just because mathematical components exist doesn't mean that only those low level components can be measured. for example, both energy and power can be measured directly with analog instruments not involving a computation. We all have energy meters on the sides of of our houses that happen to be calibrated in watt-hours but could be calibrated in Joules if the mfg wanted.





I don' want to drift the thread away from the good old mfg torque wars. I just wanted to point out that work per unit time is a direct measurement of power, because that is the definition of power. So for the dynojet there is no computation (in that sense) because its native measurement is the physical quantity of power. Of course, conversion to particular units of interest (in our case, horsepower) requires a calculation (and the dynojet uses a torque calculation to do this), but the inherant technology inside the Dynojet is its ability to directly measure power in the native physical units of power (work per unit time). The computation to arrive at torque is a forumula involving force = mass times acceleration.



The reason this point is worth making (my opinion) is to contrast with the th the Mustang, which measures torque directly at the rear wheels. it then computes power by multiplying torque and rpm together according to the relationship:



HP = (torque x rpm)/5252



So for the Mustang, it cannot measure power without using a formula.



Note: this discussion is not about accuracy, it is about technology...

 

[hasselbach]

Like Ford said in the 60's, HP sells cars, but you feel torque.

 

[Tim]

We have been thru this before!!!



Torque is measured.

Horsepower is just a number from a formula.

Remember, HP needs rpm to look good.

A good tuner can put the torque several places.



Repeat, no one has ever measured horsepower without a formula.

Torque without horsepower is worthless.

Not true, Torque is a measurment of effort, torque is not a formula, HP is a measurement of effort over a period of time and hence a formula.

Exactly. Torque over a time constant = amount of meaningful work that has been accomplished. You can apply all the twisting force you want but if you can't accomplish work at a meaningful rate, you've made no horsepower.



Horsepower is the only way to measure the amount of work done by a mechanical device like an engine. Torque is just a number. The torque peak is where the engine is most efficient at burning fuel. The horsepower peak is where the engine is capable of doing the most work, at the highest rate of speed.

Like Ford said in the 60's, HP sells cars, but you feel torque.

You can certainly feel, and see, the needle on your speedometer moving, too.

 

[NWhitney]

Like Ford said in the 60's, HP sells cars, but you feel torque.

HP sells cars, Torque wins races!! I think that was Carol Shelby.

 

[hasselbach]

HP sells cars, Torque wins races!! I think that was Carol Shelby.

yeah, I think you are right.



Ford said, "what wins on Sunday, sells on Monday. . "

 

[ttreibel]

yeah, I think you are right.



Ford said, "what wins on Sunday, sells on Monday. . "

I think that was said when they use to race "STOCK" cars... ... ... I sure wish that would happen again... ...

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Duramax Torque will be 620 lb/ft. "... ... maybe so, but they still have the sissy IFS. :-laf

Greg

HMMmmm - my '02 also has that "sissy" IFS, and I suppose I *could* get away from that with a 4x4 - IF I wanted all the other miseries of suspension and drivetrain ills that go with it...

 

[RustyJC]

Yep, both my previous 1996 3500 and my current 2002 3500 use that "sissy IFS". No "pull to the right", no "death wobble", no "Luke's link track bar fixes"... ... it certainly makes driving boring!! :-laf



rusty

 

[gsbrockman]

RustyJC & Gary - K7GLD... ... ... .

None of the 4x4 RAM 2500's or 3500's have IFS..... The 4x4 GM 2500's & 3500's have IFS... . that was the point I was trying to make. I apologize if I stepped on anyones toes.

Greg

 

[RustyJC]

Greg,



No problem!! :-laf We knew what you were getting at!



Rusty

 

[lmills]

2wd trucks?????? Never heard of one. A truck usually has 4wd. J/K

 

[RustyJC]

It all depends. There are a lot of advantages using a 2WD dually to tow a 5th wheel here in the South. If you look in our RV campgrounds here in Texas, you'll find a lot (if not most) of the trucks are 2WD.



Different horses for different courses.



Rusty

 

[LesStallings]

If its not paved, I've got no interest in taking my gooseneck there...