Fun While It Lasted

Since January collectively we, the Ram Turbo Diesel faithful, have enjoyed being the King of the Hill with the 400hp/1000torque rated Cummins 6.7 CGI engine.

Oops...fun while it lasted.

Read the news:
2020 Ford Super Duty: 475 Horsepower and 1,050 lb-ft of Torque.

 

This might shed some light:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-0311-drivetrain-power-loss/

I understand driveline losses, and have had stuff on the dyno. I am saying the parasitic losses from the accessories are reflected in the SAE Net Horsepower.

https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

 

I understand driveline losses, and have had stuff on the dyno. I am saying the parasitic losses from the accessories are reflected in the SAE Net Horsepower.

https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

An interesting paragraph or so from your pointer:

"SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
Let’s clear up a couple of common misconceptions about gross and net horsepower ratings:

1. Contrary to some assumptions, net horsepower ratings do NOT measure horsepower at the drive wheels. Both gross and net ratings are at the flywheel and do not reflect power losses in the drivetrain.
2. Because of the vagaries of the old gross ratings, the widespread over- and underrating of different engines, and the considerable differences in the amount of power consumed by different intake/exhaust/accessory configurations (even for different applications of the same basic engine), there is NO reliable formula for converting gross horsepower to net horsepower or vice versa. Sometimes, the difference is as little as 5–10%; sometimes it’s more than 25%. Unless the factory released both gross and net figures for a given engine (which some did, even in the U.S.), the best you can do is make an educated guess based on state of tune and real-world performance testing — keeping in mind that published road tests didn’t necessarily reflect the performance of cars the average consumer could actually buy."

Check out this pointer:

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...r-horsepower-confusion-and-resolution-column/

 

There is not a pickup that’s made that I would pay 100K for! No way, No how!

 

'Twould be very interesting to see each of the big 3 diesel truck, absolutely showroom dead stock, dyno figures...

They did in 2017, see page 3, 10th post from the top.

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/will-fca-and-cummins-raise-to-match-ford.267689/

 

WELL, *I* was asking the poster that made the statement here...

'Twould be very interesting to see each of the big 3 diesel truck, absolutely showroom dead stock, dyno figures...

OTHERWISE, it all becomes "he said, she said"...

AND, lest *I* am accused of loose references to my OWN dyno result, here it is:
View attachment 115836

Add back in a conservative 15% accessory/drivetrain loss, and we have 476 HP, and 1090 ft. lbs flywheel torque...

At least "my" dyno sheet has my name on it Note the difference in torque from one year to the next. Everything is the same, other than a 4" exhaust, turbo back. 5 hp gain and 74 lbs loss.

 

There is not a pickup that’s made that I would pay 100K for! No way, No how!

I'm in your corner brother.

 

Hell, I had a hell of a time trying to convince myself to spend $69K.

 

Let's all remember...our hp/tq is done with 6. They are out there braggin' about pushin' it with 8. Who really has the braggin' rights here?!

 

At least "my" dyno sheet has my name on it Note the difference in torque from one year to the next. Everything is the same, other than a 4" exhaust, turbo back. 5 hp gain and 74 lbs loss.

WELL, as long as I've been on TDR, I've been accused of many things - but never of lying!

Places I've personally dynoed, didn't include name address or related personal info on the printout - so readers can choose to accept my dyno sheet - or not - it's not that big a deal to me...

BUT, interesting how close your dyno sheet is to mine - and I have seen that the later year model trucks than my '02, have to do FAR less mods to achieve far HIGHER dyno readings - sure is lots of potential in these Cummins engines after they leave the factory!

 

They did in 2017, see page 3, 10th post from the top.

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/will-fca-and-cummins-raise-to-match-ford.267689/

Another comparison - later model trucks...

 

"BUT, interesting how close your dyno sheet is to mine - and I have seen that the later year model trucks than my '02, have to do FAR less mods to achieve far HIGHER dyno readings - sure is lots of potential in these Cummins engines after they leave the factory!"



I remember when you built your truck, very good write up, they are real close in power. For the most part, towing or empty I use #5 setting of 5, with #1 setting for smoke control, back down is set for 1350*, it will get the water temp hot on a hot day, towing uphill. I didn't mean anything with the name on the dyno sheet, just getting in a dig before you did I have always admired how clean you keep your truck, mine is kind of a dirt magnet.

 

Another comparison - later model trucks...

I saw this video a few days ago. Suffice to say that the 10 speed transmission made up for the 90 extra lb/ft of torque the dodge had, however the dodge has the extra rotating mass of having two extra wheels and is probably at least 1,000 pounds heavier than the Chevy so it did pretty good I would say. Slap an 8 speed in the Ram and I would be happy. Ram had slightly better mileage with the extra weight and wheels too.

 

Well, we all know that Cummins runs the 6.7 in the RAM at the far upper end of its ability, other uses of this engine have a far lower output then we have.
So just pushing it always closer and maybe beyond its design limits isn't helpful for longevity.

A conservative hp/tq number for a given displacement can be seen on the Class8 Trucks and agricultural equipment, they have ratings to run for thousands of hours at max. Power.

 

I really don’t think the fun is over, or that the limit of the mighty B has been reached.
This marine application is rated at 550/1250. Of course we know that the Marine duty cycle is the toughest of them all. Weather they can land this number and stay in reg on emissions and keep the rest of the truck together remain to be seen.

 

Well, we all know that Cummins runs the 6.7 in the RAM at the far upper end of its ability, other uses of this engine have a far lower output then we have.
So just pushing it always closer and maybe beyond its design limits isn't helpful for longevity.

A conservative hp/tq number for a given displacement can be seen on the Class8 Trucks and agricultural equipment, they have ratings to run for thousands of hours at max. Power.

Sorry Ozy, but if the CTD is being run at the upper end of its limitations than both the Ford and GM engines will be GRENADING any minute now....

There are alot of examples of off-road (qsb) with similar torque ratings. Marine engines put the ISB to shame but it's not exactly a fair comparison given the infinite cooling ability they have.
You attended the same rally I did, the engineers are very confident in this platform and it's ability to handle future upgrades. I took the curly haired fella (lead engineer) as being very sincere and forthcoming. Time will tell!

 

I really don’t think the fun is over, or that the limit of the mighty B has been reached.
This marine application is rated at 550/1250. Of course we know that the Marine duty cycle is the toughest of them all. Weather they can land this number and stay in reg on emissions and keep the rest of the truck together remain to be seen.

View attachment 115869

Pair that with a 13 speed Eaton UltraShift???

 

"BUT, interesting how close your dyno sheet is to mine - and I have seen that the later year model trucks than my '02, have to do FAR less mods to achieve far HIGHER dyno readings - sure is lots of potential in these Cummins engines after they leave the factory!"



I remember when you built your truck, very good write up, they are real close in power. For the most part, towing or empty I use #5 setting of 5, with #1 setting for smoke control, back down is set for 1350*, it will get the water temp hot on a hot day, towing uphill. I didn't mean anything with the name on the dyno sheet, just getting in a dig before you did I have always admired how clean you keep your truck, mine is kind of a dirt magnet.

The one thing I was, and have been careful about, is BALANCED power upgrades - thus, the 4 inch turbo-back 4 inch exhaust with straight-thru muffler, the nanofiber air filter and the stainless intake horn with the intake air heater removed.

I have yet to exceed 1200 degrees EGT, towing, usually with the Edge Comp on 3/3, on the longest and steepest parts of I-80 up over the sierras - usually passing all other similarly loaded truck/RV setups in the process.

As you undoubtedly noticed, your truck and mine meet and exceed the rear-wheel horsepower of the latest and greatest trucks. Not a bad accomplishment for trucks as old as ours...

We both likely pass them all at the fuel pumps, TOO!

 

Gary, everyone knows the VP44 powered trucks are the most power limited 24 valve ever built. Both in factory form and aftermarket. I'm glad your happy with your truck. I was happy with both VP trucks I owned.

 

Gary, everyone knows the VP44 powered trucks are the most power limited 24 valve ever built. Both in factory form and aftermarket. I'm glad your happy with your truck. I was happy with both VP trucks I owned.

My primary intended point has been, that those mainly interested in actual power to the pavement, over the shine and bells and whistles of the late$t and greate$t, might consider the alternative of upgrading what they already have, or a relatively late model used truck - and at the same time, pocket the extra tens of thousands of dollars the new ones are going for...

$70,000 to $100,000 for these latest trucks is sheer madness for most of us ordinary mortals...

In this backwoods area of eastern Oregon, we can buy a nice HOUSE for that kind of money - and IT will go UP in value over the next 20 years, not DOWN...

 

I understand. Unfortunately the configuration of the gen 2 was no longer conducive for my growing family so it was no longer an option for me. They definitely are pricey and I could not justify buying new - so I ended up in a gently used low mileage 2 year old truck. There are things that I miss about my gen 2 but over time I have come to appreciate the capabilities of the newer trucks. There is no denying the front ends are vastly improved, brakes are MUCH better, factory integrated exhaust brake, headlights that you can actually see with, to name a few. You know, all the things we spent untold thousands on "fixing" the gen 2's with are now factory options. Like everything, there's good and bad with change. Just gotta roll with it.