New Ram/Cummins vs GM/Duramax on the IKE

[ib516]

VIDEO

[RoyJ]

RCMAN46 wrote:
Dynos:

Factory Rating/Dyno Measurement

Ram:
HP 385/338
TQ 900/828

Ford:
HP 440/387
TQ 925/806

Chevy:
HP 445/337
TQ 910/771


interesting when the same trucks were tested at the IKE run.

The D-Max has to be de-tuning itself on the dyno, no way it could perform like that while down 50hp from the Ford.

The Cummins is the over-achiever. I'd like see the actual dyno curve, perhaps the Cummins has a broader / fatter power band, resulting in more power under the curve.

The peak numbers only tell part of the story - when at less than peak power rpm, the Cummins may be producing more power than the other two.

[Hannibal]

Either truck would tow our TT every bit as easily as my 5.4L F250 does. But if I were willing to spend close to $100k for a pickup truck to have 600 ft/lbs more torque than I need, I’d opt for the Chevy. I’ve already owned four Cummins powered Rams. Chrysler is trying desperately to hold onto a look that’s almost 30 years old. And judging by the number of vibration dampeners decorating the underside, they still haven’t perfected my biggest complaint about the Ram.

[FishOnOne]

larry barnhart wrote:
so I guess this video was like some of the news fake???? Looked real to me.

chevman

They call it real world testing so they can't be held liable for the results they report

[larry_barnhart]

so I guess this video was like some of the news fake???? Looked real to me.

chevman

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

A sun dial would be within the margin of error with those guys. I'm on vacation so that's all I'm going to say. 🙂

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Watched the vid again. RAM was 1 second slower not 2 as mentioned, no biggie just stating facts. The guesstimated distance of 2" behind center of rear axle, I am betting it's more.

Even if it was 2 seconds slower it would be within the margin of error. To get a real data set you would need a minimum of 30 runs to have a significant data set to see the real performance.

I agree. Heck, I think that even 15 seconds would be within a margin of error given how long the run is and dealing with traffic that may or may not cause you to slow down. Even letting off the accelerator for just a few seconds to adjust for traffic could cause you to loose a lot of momentum and time pulling that much weight up those grades.

[FishOnOne]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
Watched the vid again. RAM was 1 second slower not 2 as mentioned, no biggie just stating facts. The guesstimated distance of 2" behind center of rear axle, I am betting it's more.

Even if it was 2 seconds slower it would be within the margin of error. To get a real data set you would need a minimum of 30 runs to have a significant data set to see the real performance.

[Cummins12V98]

Watched the vid again. RAM was 1 second slower not 2 as mentioned, no biggie just stating facts. The guesstimated distance of 2" behind center of rear axle, I am betting it's more.

[Learjet]

you guys are trying to use math and science on a non-scientific test...LOL

[Huntindog]

ib516 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
With the 60MPH limit for this test.... That was the biggest factor in the outcome. Both trucks were pretty much at the limit the whole way up the hill. With both trucks able to do that, there were very few areas where one could assert an advantage.
Though I would have liked to see a couple of DRWs go at it, I doubt the result would have changed much. With a 16k trailer and a 60 MPH limit... Neither truck will be pushed enough to make a difference.

What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections.

I used an online calculator to figure the average speed. We know the times. 8.24-8.25.
The distance is either 7.9 or 8.1 miles. That works out to 56-58 MPH... Which is actually gonna be higher, as the clock was started at about 30 MPH on the onramp. No way to account for that accuratly, but it means that the average speed will be higher than the calculator showed. IMO, they were at 60 MPH a lot.

[Cummins12V98]

" I think that the higher profile of the RV must make a huge difference"

HUGE is correct!

[Bionic_Man]

ib516 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
With the 60MPH limit for this test.... That was the biggest factor in the outcome. Both trucks were pretty much at the limit the whole way up the hill. With both trucks able to do that, there were very few areas where one could assert an advantage.
Though I would have liked to see a couple of DRWs go at it, I doubt the result would have changed much. With a 16k trailer and a 60 MPH limit... Neither truck will be pushed enough to make a difference.

What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections.

Which honestly still seems high to me. I tow that stretch several times per year. Did it 3 weeks ago with my 12k fiver and my 3k(?) Boat. My truck was between 40-45 most of the way up. I think that the higher profile of the RV must make a huge difference as I have a friend with a 2013 Ford and he is about the same speed.

As a side note, the speeds are about the same regardless if I tow the boat or not.

[RCMAN46]

Dynos:

Factory Rating/Dyno Measurement

Ram:
HP 385/338
TQ 900/828

Ford:
HP 440/387
TQ 925/806

Chevy:
HP 445/337
TQ 910/771


interesting when the same trucks were tested at the IKE run.

[Cummins12V98]

ib516 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
With the 60MPH limit for this test.... That was the biggest factor in the outcome. Both trucks were pretty much at the limit the whole way up the hill. With both trucks able to do that, there were very few areas where one could assert an advantage.
Though I would have liked to see a couple of DRWs go at it, I doubt the result would have changed much. With a 16k trailer and a 60 MPH limit... Neither truck will be pushed enough to make a difference.

What I saw, and what they said was that both trucks were only able to get to 56-58 mph flat out on at least some sections.

CORRECT!