Pickuptrucks.com Hurtlocker Test

[rbattelle]

In case you haven't seen it yet, check out this test from Pickuptrucks.com.



Pretty disappointing that the Dodge didn't do better. The fuel economy was particularly hurtful.



What do you guys think?



-Ryan

 

[rscurtis]

I think it's time for the Ram to use SCR like the other two trucks. I said many months ago in another thread that the new GMC would be a contender- looks like I was right.

 

[WOT]

I thing dodge needs to step up with a true commercial manual tray capable of using the full 800ft lbs all day long, without "tuning down" to protect things. Something with specs around the 1000ft lbs mark would really be nice.

 

[HBarlow]

I don't read crap published by magazines such as that with articles written by boy journalists who have never owned or used a truck for what our Dodges are intended for and do very well.

My complete satisfaction with my '08 Ram 3500 quad cab and chassis is not influenced in any way by anything written and published by advertising revenue based magazines.

 

[rbattelle]

I liked the series of tests they ran, particularly the speed over grades. In particular because that's how a lot of truck owners judge each other.

It's very interesting to see the Sierra do so well considering its power and torque aren't as good as either the Ford or Dodge. Is that, perhaps, a commentary on the importance of engine/transmission matching? Certainly it shows that raw power and torque numbers do not a good truck make. It's the total package.

Meanwhile the Dodge pretty much got crushed, despite being the lightest overall. I can't help wondering how much of that has to do with having 50 fewer hp, and how much has to do with engine/transmission matching.

Sure seems like that Sierra would be a great buy, considering it not only mopped the floor with the competition, but is also cheaper!

-Ryan

 

[Bob4x4]

Having driven a duramax loaner for a few weeks,daily driving,light off roading,and trailer towing duties I was impressed with some areas and very disapointed in others.

The integral trailer brake controller had me almost ready to aim for a ditch rather than plowing into a car when it barely applied the brakes in a panic stop situation. The truck's abs reacted as bad as our 2nd gen's. My 3rd gen would have been tottaly non-dramatic in the same situation.

The seats were far more comfortable and form fitting than mine. The trans shift strategy was very impressive both up and down steep twisty mountain roads while towing. The mileage was dismal compred to either of my CTDs. No i did not measure but the trips were the same as I do in my Dodge's.

The power delivery was very disapointing off road,it was akin to driving a race ported 2 stroke-all on or nothing.

The experience made me happy to own a Dodge... ..... but it would be nice to have a modern 6spd auto instead of my 4spd

 

[rbattelle]

The mileage was dismal compred to either of my CTDs.

That was one of the interesting findings in the referenced test - fuel economy was the worst on the Dodge. Considering the fact that the engine also made the least power of the three, efficiency on the Dodge must be abysmal to be beaten so handily by two V8s (10% worse than the Ford, and 6% worse than GM).

Since all three vehicles were nearly the same total weight through the test (certainly they differed by <10%), we can safely say that it took the same amount of energy to get each to the top of any given grade. Differences in fuel economy are therefore closely correlated to overall efficiency, which must be on the order of 10% lower in the case of the Dodge. One might then conclude that in terms of the economy of hauling a given mass over a given route, the Dodge is the least efficient of the three. In other words, if you're going to buy a truck to haul things, the Dodge is the worst choice you can make in terms of fuel costs.

The ratio of maximum engine power to total weight, which I figure plays heavily on the grades, looks like this:

Ford = 0. 0144 hp/lb
GM = 0. 0144 hp/lb
Dodge = 0. 0128 hp/lb

So the Dodge is ~11% lower power-to-weight than the other two. This is on the same order as the difference in fuel economy between the Dodge and the Ford, although I won't suggest this is the reason the Dodge achieved worse fuel economy.

-Ryan

 

[BNH4221]

I don't read crap published by magazines such as that with articles written by boy journalists who have never owned or used a truck for what our Dodges are intended for and do very well.



My complete satisfaction with my '08 Ram 3500 quad cab and chassis is not influenced in any way by anything written and published by advertising revenue based magazines.

While I tend to agree with you, it was entertaining reading and gave some interesting information. Do what you want with it.



Steve

 

[Dl5treez]

That was one of the interesting findings in the referenced test - fuel economy was the worst on the Dodge. Considering the fact that the engine also made the least power of the three, efficiency on the Dodge must be abysmal to be beaten so handily by two V8s (10% worse than the Ford, and 6% worse than GM).



Since all three vehicles were nearly the same total weight through the test (certainly they differed by <10%), we can safely say that it took the same amount of energy to get each to the top of any given grade. Differences in fuel economy are therefore closely correlated to overall efficiency, which must be on the order of 10% lower in the case of the Dodge. One might then conclude that in terms of the economy of hauling a given mass over a given route, the Dodge is the least efficient of the three. In other words, if you're going to buy a truck to haul things, the Dodge is the worst choice you can make in terms of fuel costs.



The ratio of maximum engine power to total weight, which I figure plays heavily on the grades, looks like this:



Ford = 0. 0144 hp/lb

GM = 0. 0144 hp/lb

Dodge = 0. 0128 hp/lb



So the Dodge is ~11% lower power-to-weight than the other two. This is on the same order as the difference in fuel economy between the Dodge and the Ford, although I won't suggest this is the reason the Dodge achieved worse fuel economy.



-Ryan

That's not the first test where I've seen Dodge/Cummins fuel economy numbers lower than those of the (back then) Ford/IH and GM/Duramax offerings.



... IMHO the technique for driving each engine is different, and few (if any) of the magazine journalists who perform the tests will acknowledge that or take it into account.



There is plenty of fuel economy in the Dodge, if the driver does their part... . but truthfully all of the mileage numbers were abysmal...

 

[rbattelle]

... IMHO the technique for driving each engine is different

Fair enough.



Would've been pretty sweet of they had tested both the 68RFE and a G56 truck.



-Ryan

 

[Wingate]

The fuel economy was particularly hurtful.



What do you guys think?



-Ryan

I think that I like my 06 5. 9L that much better.



But seriously... I give absolutely no consideration to what a magazine article, (or online article) says about anything that choose to purchase. I am NOT a "follower".

TBH. . I did not read the entire article... to me its just fluff. I DO question whether anybody ( Ford, GM or Dodge owner) would load THEIR truck to max. GCWR and hold it on the floor for 10 miles up a steep hill??

If you are going to use this for the foundation for a "TEST" then you must continue the test until all trucks are blown up... Not sure why it matters which truck can drag race to the top of the hill once if it blows up on attempt #10???