|
The Ford vs. Chevy Horsepower War Rages On
The Ford vs. Chevy Horsepower War Rages On
http://image.dieselpowermag.com/f/te..._on+torque.jpg 397HP Duramax Vs. 400HP Power Stroke'11 Power Stroke Key Features:
Photo Gallery: The Ford vs. Chevy Horsepower War Rages On - Diesel Power Magazine The Ford vs. Chevy Horsepower War Rages On | Digg It | Add to del.icio.us More... |
Bout time you put somethng relevant on!!!!!!!!!!!!! Granted it is old news! and linked to a Mag. :tttt: |
My outlook on the situation:
Congrats to Ford for building their own engine. The numbers are looking really good. I sure hope it works out for them, and have better reliability than the 6.0, and 6.4. BUT, and a huge but, until it has been proven for at least a couple years, or a couple hundred thousand miles, I'm not sold on it. The D-Max has been rocking pretty strong for a goodly few years now. If you told me I had to choose one truck, using the engine as my decision making, I'd leave the blue oval behind. Even though I'm driving away with 3 HP less. 3 HP more is not worth the Urea hassle, especially in cold climates. |
Originally Posted by RAWilliams
(Post 644477)
My outlook on the situation:
Congrats to Ford for building their own engine. The numbers are looking really good. I sure hope it works out for them, and have better reliability than the 6.0, and 6.4. BUT, and a huge but, until it has been proven for at least a couple years, or a couple hundred thousand miles, I'm not sold on it. The D-Max has been rocking pretty strong for a goodly few years now. If you told me I had to choose one truck, using the engine as my decision making, I'd leave the blue oval behind. Even though I'm driving away with 3 HP less. 3 HP more is not worth the Urea hassle, especially in cold climates. |
Yes they have urea,only Cummins has none."The Duramax laid waste to Cummins and Powerstroke" say no more.
|
Ya, Cummins is sucking hind tit for '11, and the D-Max is laying waste. At least that's the way its been in all the reports I have seen.
|
i wonder how much it will take before chrysler quits F****n around and lets cummins crank the engine some more. its like the execs. at dodge are not even in the same class as the ford and gm crews. people want the power that these engines are capable of producing. Ford and GM understand this what is Chryslers problem?
BTW ima die hard Dodge guy and im watchin all this go down in awe that they are fallin so far behind :argh: |
Originally Posted by cumminspwrram59
(Post 644650)
i wonder how much it will take before chrysler quits F****n around and lets cummins crank the engine some more.
|
Also, The Cummins is the only engine entering the 2011 year relatively unchanged. The PSD is brand new and the Duramax has a lot of significant changes. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
Horsepower numbers aren't the whole story. Though that fact escapes most people. When the 6.0 came out it outran the Cummins also. How did that turn out? |
Chrysler/ CUmmins........KNOCK, knock!.....but i know you guys are turning screws;]
|
Cummins holds all the cards, they're the only reason Chrysler has a successful pickup line. Chrysler can't really push them much or Cummins could simply walk away.
What then? Mercedes is out, they dumped Chrysler for a 70% investment loss (Buy $30b, sold $7b). International is a possibility, but they'll be in a worse position than Ford. Cat is not possible, they chickened out of the on-road market because they don't have the engineering talent. Detroit doesn't have any small engines, and if their DD series is anything to go buy it would be a quality/design disaster. Build in-house, HA! |
if that is true than why doesnt the people at cummins see this? the reason i believed that chrysler was holding back is because i read that cummins can put what ever hp/tq the customer wanted. so i figured chrysler was holding back due to warranty issues
|
^^^Na stay with Cummins! sure Ford and chevy might be a little ahead in hp and tq but, not to worry, Cummins hasn't exactly gone to bed. I've seen Cummins put out new Big rig engines and a crazy hot red 6.7 that had a different dressing then the current one. Everyone says Chrysler is lucky cause Cummins..that may be but all three trucks have engines made by someone else. Sure Ford has their'new' engine, Chevy block is made by Isuzu[dont believe marketing hype] the Duramax is Japanese[noting wrong with that] Anywho, most of these trucks get pumped with all kinds of power adders out of the dealership so i guess it's only a question of realliability:c: I only hope Cummins sticks with the I6 why? oh just cause almost every semi in the USA has one:tu:
|
Originally Posted by cumminspwrram59
(Post 645147)
if that is true than why doesnt the people at cummins see this?
so i figured chrysler was holding back due to warranty issues I only hope Cummins sticks with the I6 why? oh just cause almost every semi in the USA has one |
Thats the key there. Outside, the rest of the world uses V8s and V10s in their semis. Even Volkswagen makes successful semis in europe![/QUOTE]
It's true they make some awesome trucks in Eurpoe... they may have more pistons but, smaller rods/pistons then a I6. I mean the i6 design stands the test of time and mileage. Everyone seems to think that if it's a V8 it's automatically more then an I6. Check out FordCummins.com there's a pic there on the right of all three rods[you can see where the strenght comes from]. Then there's the simplicity of working on the I6. Don't get me wrong i'm an enthusiast and i like Ford, Chevy and of course i drive a Dodge. The test i saw of all three pulling a 10.000lbs trailer=Chevy won all the tests other then Ford pulling the trailer :c:uphill |
Originally Posted by PaleHROse
(Post 645186)
It's true they make some awesome trucks in Eurpoe... they may have more pistons but, smaller rods/pistons then a I6. Check out FordCummins.com there's a pic there on the right of all three rods[you can see where the strenght comes from]. |
If you ask me, thats a big difference in sizes, obviously. But think about it, thats just the extra force of 2 pistons spread out across all 6 pistons. It looks like the Cummins rods are built to handle that extra force AND then some!
|
Not really. Ford and Isuzu's engines are made to revv higher, thats how they make their power.
|
Not really. Ford and Isuzu's engines are made to revv higher, thats how they make their power. |
Now something like a cummins, where the curve starts at about, 1,500 rpm. That is how you get something rolling from a standstill.
|
And that is the fundamental difference between the Cummins and the v8s. They want the horsepower because they will pull loads faster and people look at the numbers and go ooooh aaaah! GM and Ford build diesel engines like they are gassers.
Cummins has always had a mindset closer to the heavy Duty trucks. They have always emphasized low end torque and low RPM. It seems to me, that Dodge has always been more of a work truck than the other 2. Not so much in the fact that they work harder or better, but in DCs options that they offered for their trucks. I.E their interiors were always cheaper than the other 2. Even their "top grade" trim packages weren't even close to The Ford or the Chevy's. The trucks have always been lower priced also. Though I noticed that changing these last few years. |
i am still waiting for the fiat logo to show it's face....
|
the fiat logo isn't going to show its face. But either way they'll still have a deal with Cummins.
|
Why is bigger internal parts still mentioned besides the fact that there are far less moving parts? Well: at the present time where mega combustion explosions, combined with trucks pulling Big semi trailers on occasion, and too much alcohol..hehe, strongest thickest internal parts are the difference between moving it or" what the hell was that sound?" ah crap i think it came from under the hoodlol. Let's face it most of the trucks coming off the assembly line get intake, exhaust, boxes, injectors...etc and before you know it you are pushing 600hp 800 tq or more[transmission well that's another issue]. So my point SIX THICK better then 8 thin!:c:
|
Im proud of Dodge and Cummins for saying, screw you and your horsepower. Whats next? 600HP? there is no reasonforthe trucks tohave what they havenow. Did any of you think about how car insurance works? some of the considerations are vehicle weight because of the damage it can do, the value incase it needs to be repaired, and the horsepower, not torque because horsepower determines top speed. I know some of you will think thats torque but its not. That is why an S2000 can go as fast as a mercadies with a supercharges V6. Registration costs are also effected by power. More power means more fuel is used and they rase your taxable amounts. This is why my truck is 500 a year to register as compared to the 700 of a truck only 3 years newer but with 100hp more. It also weighs about 1000 lbs more, but its true. again, I am proud of Dodge for not going with the fad. Ford has a great advertising team but as of 2003 ford has lost sales every year and as each new year comes, more people are buying and repairing older dodges, because they last. Some things are more important then sheer power. How much power do you really need togo 70mph with a trailer? dont forget how much a speeding ticket costs when towing and insurance costs are added. My 2002 SO willtow a trailer with a car at 80mph to vegas no problem, ive done it. It was awsome. Igot to take a tuned racce ready Viper to LVMS. A cummins ISC only has about 280hp adn around 1000 ft lbs, so why build a smaller engine with less torque when you have a bigger engine that will do the same
|
You know there is still the rumor that keeps surfacing up! It went from 7l to now an 8l Hino 1ton Toyota! Thats a Monster! I hope they don't do it, I live with to many Toyota fans that want to rub it in my face! Oh BTW if you put a 1999 5.9l Cummins next to a 7.3l of the same year no modifications rear wheel drive, M/T. The 7.3l will out tow (Reason more cubic inches and 2 extra cylinders)!
The next series of Dodges will get the Urea. They are not totally walking away, and as far as that regenration and the SCR processing. A simple tune cold fix all of that, you don't even have to remove the equipment. |
Originally Posted by PaleHROse
(Post 645468)
Well: at the present time where mega combustion explosions,
Originally Posted by Rustin
(Post 648380)
You know there is still the rumor that keeps surfacing up! It went from 7l to now an 8l Hino 1ton Toyota! Thats a Monster! I hope they don't do it, I live with to many Toyota fans that want to rub it in my face! Oh BTW if you put a 1999 5.9l Cummins next to a 7.3l of the same year no modifications rear wheel drive, M/T. The 7.3l will out tow (Reason more cubic inches and 2 extra cylinders)!
The next series of Dodges will get the Urea. They are not totally walking away, and as far as that regenration and the SCR processing. A simple tune cold fix all of that, you don't even have to remove the equipment. If you put an 02 [7.3 vs a 02 5.9 they both tow about the same. Cubic inches and the number of cylinders hasn't changed. They just increased the fueling, compression and boost. Edit: These dyno graphs would suggest a 99 Cummins 4wd will out tow a 202 7.3 2wd http://www.bankspower.com/products/show/157/43 http://www.bankspower.com/products/show/125/9 Though to be fair, this graph has the PSD clearly tromping the Cummins. http://www.bankspower.com/products/show/140/43 As the saying goes, There is no replacement for Displacement, Except for Forced Induction! It will be interesting to see what the Cummins can do now that they have stroker crankshafts for it and are starting to come up with some decent cylinder heads. |
Originally Posted by kazairl
(Post 648405)
As the saying goes, There is no replacement for Displacement, Except for Forced Induction! Lots of fun days commenting with people on youtube :bat: |
Originally Posted by RMS 02
(Post 648376)
and the horsepower, not torque because horsepower determines top speed. I know some of you will think thats torque but its not.
Torque is actual power. An S2000 can keep up with a supercharged V6 because it has a whole bunch of power strokes per second instead of lots of torque. Thats why everybody makes fun of how wimpy its engine is below 6000rpm. This is why my truck is 500 a year to register as compared to the 700 of a truck only 3 years newer but with 100hp more. |
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction
(Post 648566)
Incorrect. Horsepower is nothing but math, its not an actual unit of measurement. HP is torque over time, thats why an engine always has equal HP and TQ at 5252rpm and always has less TQ than HP above that.
Torque is actual power. An S2000 can keep up with a supercharged V6 because it has a whole bunch of power strokes per second instead of lots of torque. Thats why everybody makes fun of how wimpy its engine is below 6000rpm. as far as this horsepower war thing goes its good but i see more problems with factory high hp trucks and the general public. For what i do on a daily basis i would prefer a truck with high factory torque for pulling. |
rednekroper05, I'm guessing you're a high school ag teacher?
I noticed the school gave you an 09 chevy crew cab....... :humm: |
yeah its ok with a trailer but not close to my dodge. they have a deal with a dealership so all the vehicles are chevys. I am also in now way knocking chevy or ford because ive driven all of them. But they don’t have the low end torque that I like compared to a Cummins.
and yes im a ag teacher. |
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction
(Post 648566)
Incorrect. Horsepower is nothing but math, its not an actual unit of measurement. HP is torque over time, thats why an engine always has equal HP and TQ at 5252rpm and always has less TQ than HP above that.
Torque is actual power. An S2000 can keep up with a supercharged V6 because it has a whole bunch of power strokes per second instead of lots of torque. Thats why everybody makes fun of how wimpy its engine is below 6000rpm. Not quite. The value and weight of your vehicle are considerably less, thats why its cheaper. As far as the Horsepower and torque thing goes, they are both equations for the same answer, I simply set you up there as the other post shows. We are BOTH right. But by the same token, as you said yourself, an S2000 has no torque, so wouldnt it then be the HP that determines its top speed? |
I don't really want to be part of the pissing contest, but what about cost to repair? Sure your truck is worth $25k, $30K, $40K, and so on, but if it costs $23K to fix your $20K truck on a simple head on or something like that, insurance costs may go up. I think we can all say the way insurance companies work sucks. Sure, you may know HOW they work, but they still suck. On another note, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE HP WAR?
|
Originally Posted by RAWilliams
(Post 648814)
, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE HP WAR?
Upside: Better competition means better engines. Higher HP stock engines will usually mean better stock parts. Downside: Everything gets more complicated. ---AutoMerged DoublePost---
Originally Posted by EasternAggie
(Post 648518)
Reminds me of some of youtube "geniuses". Had one guy tellin me that chips and programmers were completely pointless, they did not increase power, and only made the truck smoke more with no increase in power, and the only way to burn more fuel was to increase the cylinder size :argh:
Lots of fun days commenting with people on youtube :bat:
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction
(Post 648566)
Incorrect. Horsepower is nothing but math, its not an actual unit of measurement. HP is torque over time, thats why an engine always has equal HP and TQ at 5252rpm and always has less TQ than HP above that. Torque is actual power. An S2000 can keep up with a supercharged V6 because it has a whole bunch of power strokes per second instead of lots of torque. Thats why everybody makes fun of how wimpy its engine is below 6000rpm. But if your stuck on torque being the all-divining factor, here is something you should understand. In a drag race, a truck that makes 500ft.-lbs. of torque at 5000rpm will beat a truck that makes 500ft.-lbs. at 2000RPM. Why? Because it makes more Horsepower. |
I call that energy per unit vs total energy. Hp is total energy where as torque is energy per unit of combustion. That was a very good way of stating things, thank you.
|
Originally Posted by rednekroper05
(Post 648734)
and yes im a ag teacher.
An interesting note is that there is a school back home that has two Dmax's one an 05 and one an 06 (they may have replaced them by now), and the school BOUGHT Edge Juice w/Attitudes for both trucks. Seems the ag teacher convinced the school that the programmer (well module) would save enough to money in fuel to be worth the investment :yeah: Which is a true statement, because even if it gained only 1 mpg over the trucks ~150k miles of use, it would save nearly $2500. More if it gained more than 1mpg. |
Originally Posted by rednekroper05
(Post 648615)
yes you preform math to achive the hp number but the same can be said for torque.
As far as the Horsepower and torque thing goes, they are both equations for the same answer Horsepower alone means little without knowing the conditions. An engine that makes 500lb/ft at 1500rpm will feel much more powerful to the operator than one that does the same at 3000rpm. An example of this is the fact a 221hp Mercedes E320 diesel can keep up with a 265hp E350 g@sser in a 0-60 race. How does it make up for the 44hp slack? Torque. an S2000 has no torque, so wouldnt it then be the HP that determines its top speed? A train can have upwards of 6,000hp per unit, yet has a top speed of around 65mph. Why? Mass and gearing. A human being can put out more torque than the most hopped up Diesel ever could. They just can't do it at 5000 RPM. Guess what that is called? Horsepower. In a drag race, a truck that makes 500ft.-lbs. of torque at 5000rpm will beat a truck that makes 500ft.-lbs. at 2000RPM. Why? Because it makes more Horsepower. |
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction
(Post 649019)
Nope. Torque is an actual unit of force that can be directly measured. Horsepower can only be determined through math.
Torque is a type of measurement, just like horsepower. Ft lbs is a measurable number like newton meters. Torque is say 1 NM per inch versus horsepower is 1 NM per second, both of them are equations so don't give me that bullshit. Wrong. Horsepower cannot be calculated without knowing some other force first (Torque, rotation speed, inertia, friction and/or momentum, etc). Horsepower alone means little without knowing the conditions. An engine that makes 500lb/ft at 1500rpm will feel much more powerful to the operator than one that does the same at 3000rpm. An example of this is the fact a 221hp Mercedes E320 diesel can keep up with a 265hp E350 g@sser in a 0-60 race. How does it make up for the 44hp slack? Torque. Your also comparing a newer car to an older one. Small diesel engines can rev quite well. Try racing a saab viggen with that mercadies diesel, you will get your butt spanked hard. It only makes 230hp but has great torque as well, why? turbochargers offer great advantages over naturally aspirated engines. Of coarse a diesel with the same hp will be faster at accelerating. The BMW 3 liter diesel makes alot of hp but it makes it at around 4000rpm, so what. the same horsepower but with more low torque will always be faster, just like your little benz comparison. Try a vw tdi against the e350 and see who wins. similar torque but far less hp. No. Gearing, air resistance, rolling resistance, mass and environment determine top speed, in addition to torque. A train can have upwards of 6,000hp per unit, yet has a top speed of around 65mph. Why? Mass and gearing. Air resistance is based on friction speed and density of the surrounding medium weather it is vapor or liquid. It can be argues either way to have a closer relation to torque or HP. Think about this, an engine dyno that has no RPM signal can still measure hp but not torque. Hp is easier to calculate and you actually need more factors to find torque. The only way a human is going to produce more toque than a diesel is with non-rotational force on a lever, which means horsepower cannot be calculated as there is no motion. I agree somewhat, but only because a human cannot move fast enough to get a high amount of power. The first vehicle produces more energy per unit of time, however, the second vehicle will accelerate off the line much faster. |
:s: ok you win.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands