Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) Dyno Runs against competition

[JoeBioDiesel]

One of the guys I teach with was at another college for some updated dynomometer training from the Mustang Factory rep. A Ford trainer was there bragging up the new 6. 0. One of the other guys decided to put it to the test. They already had a Cummins and a Ford there. They went to the local dealer to borrow a new Duramax. Here's the results. I never asked what year the Dodge was. They are all stock, and the Chevy and Ford are 2003s. Thought you 24V guys might like this...



Duramax: torque-336 hp-190

Ford(6L) torque-357 hp-220

Dodge(24v) torque-585 hp-227



joe

 

[Mundgyver]

:-laf Somebody, anybody, please! Pinch me:-laf Can you get the hard paper documentation for this I need a copy to just stick on a few hundred windows at the local Ferd and Chubby dealers. :-laf

 

[Cummins4Life]

I saw a brand spankin new 6. 0 dyno about the same. Later on blamed it on the new auto transmission not being easy to dyno correctly and that it was not broke in. But still its pretty funny.

 

[Sticks]

Originally posted by JoeBioDiesel

One of the guys I teach with was at another college for some updated dynomometer training from the Mustang Factory rep. A Ford trainer was there bragging up the new 6. 0. One of the other guys decided to put it to the test. They already had a Cummins and a Ford there. They went to the local dealer to borrow a new Duramax. Here's the results. I never asked what year the Dodge was. They are all stock, and the Chevy and Ford are 2003s. Thought you 24V guys might like this...



Duramax: torque-336 hp-190

Ford(6L) torque-357 hp-220

Dodge(24v) torque-585 hp-227



joe

Oh PLEASE, please, please, get a scan of the original paperwork and post it. Oo. Oo. Oo.

 

[Jeff Knight]

The numbers look good but I think the torque number for the dodge is to high for a stock truck. My HP was 232 with TQ at 475. I think the TQ for the dodge would be more like 485 than 585. Jeff

 

[JoeBioDiesel]

I just got off the phone with a guy who was there. Here's some more info. The Dodge was an 03, automatic, dually. It is not modded and is owned by the Dodge training division. It is one of the trucks they use to train Dodge Technicians. The torque numbers are correct, I asked if the 525 was an error. They said no. They did many pulls over the course of an afternoon with only those trucks and a new hemi (the hemi did a simulated 16 sec 1/4 mile run on the dyno). The dodge got the dyno brake hot enough to melt the air hose to the dyno lift, ending the runs for the day. I am attempting to get hard copy. I don't know if they saved any of the runs, but I know they printed a few off. Don't know who has those printouts though... . we'll see.

Joe

 

[WadePatton]

speaking of dyno runs

I did my first the other day and got two different sets of numbers for each pull. The "unsmoothed" numbers are the highest of course. Is that what everybody runs around and brags with--or do you use the smoothed numbers or average the unsmoothed runs or what?



I take it everybody grabs the biggest # they can find and posts it.



And another question, the jagged curve produced by the dyno--is that simply because of the way the dyno measures power? I mean it has to be. Otherwise we'd herky jerky all the way down the road.



I was on a two-year old Mustang with 1/4 capabilities and all.



FTR I turned:

210. 51/453. 63 smoothed to 203. 0/445. 7 stock baseline.

Then two 5X5 runs of:

341. 78/799. 81 ---335. 9/759. 4 and

343. 41/794. 71 ---334. 1/759. 3



my sig currently reflects an avg. of the big numbers.