blofgren
Surrey, B.C.
Senior Member
Joined: 11/26/2005
View Profile
 Offline
|
FishOnOne wrote:blofgren wrote:ShinerBock wrote:FishOnOne wrote:
I seriously doubt the Ford defueled as it would have been clearly noticeable, but it is possible it was in regen.
There is no noticeable sign of defueling besides less power since the only thing that happens is the injectors inject less fuel. The driver of the truck might notice it depending on the how much the truck is defueling or his experience with the truck, but you would not notice it just by watching a video.
Wouldn't an indication of this be noticeably less fuel economy than the other trucks? Also I would think if that new of a truck was in regen that soon there must have been something wrong with it.
I'm not surprised of your theory... but the truck had ~4k miles on it so it's been thru a few regens.
I wasn't trying to be a smart a$$.......
Sorry you took it that way.
2013 Ram 3500 Megacab DRW Laramie 4x4, 6.7L Cummins, G56, 3.73, Maximum Steel, black lthr, B&W RVK3670 hitch, Retrax, Linex, and a bunch of options incl. cargo camera
2008 Corsair Excella Platinum 34.5 CKTS fifth wheel with winter package & disc brakes
|
Rich1961
Spring Creek Nevada
Senior Member
Joined: 09/09/2006
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
2016 Chevrolet/Duramax 3500HD Dually Crew Cab B&W RVK 3700 5th Wheel Hitch
2014 Arctic Fox 29-5T
|
FishOnOne
The Great State of Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 02/12/2011
View Profile
Offline
|
CumminsDriver wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
Or perhaps received a non advertised power bump. Mr truck did say the exhaust brake did improve from last year.
'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs "270k Miles"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"
|
ShinerBock
LVTX
Senior Member
Joined: 02/22/2015
View Profile
|
blofgren wrote:
Wouldn't an indication of this be noticeably less fuel economy than the other trucks? Also I would think if that new of a truck was in regen that soon there must have been something wrong with it.
No, defueling a diesel does not give you less fuel economy. It will give you less power from the engine. Well, technically you will use more fuel because it takes you longer to get up a hill versus having full power, but seeing that all of these trucks were about the same time, it wouldn't have been noticeable in this test.
Most modern diesels are programmed to defuel if certain parameters are over their limits like EGTs or boost pressure. Another form of defueling is torque management where you do not get full engine power in the first few gears because the ECM programs it to inject less fuel until you get into the higher gears.
2014 Ram 2500 6.7L CTD
2016 BMW 2.0L diesel (work and back car)
2023 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 3.0L Ecodiesel
Highland Ridge Silverstar 378RBS
|
mtofell1
Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 12/08/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
3 GREAT truck all within a hair of each other + 1 specific test on 1 day = 5 Years of pointless internet forum bragging and boasting.
Anyone who concludes anything other than these are 3 great trucks on very equal footing needs to stop looking through the prism of their favorite brand.
|
|
|
blofgren
Surrey, B.C.
Senior Member
Joined: 11/26/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
FishOnOne wrote:CumminsDriver wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
Or perhaps received a non advertised power bump. Mr truck did say the exhaust brake did improve from last year.
Come on now, Fish. You know as well as we do that a power bump would certainly be advertised. Maybe that little inline 6 does actually pull pretty good..... ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/wink.gif "wink")
|
blofgren
Surrey, B.C.
Senior Member
Joined: 11/26/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
ShinerBock wrote:blofgren wrote:
Wouldn't an indication of this be noticeably less fuel economy than the other trucks? Also I would think if that new of a truck was in regen that soon there must have been something wrong with it.
No, defueling a diesel does not give you less fuel economy. It will give you less power from the engine. Well, technically you will use more fuel because it takes you longer to get up a hill versus having full power, but seeing that all of these trucks were about the same time, it wouldn't have been noticeable in this test.
Most modern diesels are programmed to defuel if certain parameters are over their limits like EGTs or boost pressure. Another form of defueling is torque management where you do not get full engine power in the first few gears because the ECM programs it to inject less fuel until you get into the higher gears.
Gotcha. The few (and very few) times my truck has gone into regen the only way I've known is that the fuel economy drops and after parking it I've noticed it has a very "hot" smell from the exhaust. I've noticed no difference in power, but it only regens when I'm not pulling so that is not surprising. It never regens when towing presumably because the exhaust is hot enough to burn off particulate naturally.
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
patriotgrunt wrote:Lessmore wrote:Chevies have always been known for outstanding power...all starting back in 1955 with the introduction of the legendary small block Chevy V8. Power and lots of it...has been a bow tie tradition in both gas and diesel engines over the years.
So no....not at all...nope.... I'm not surprised that Chevy came first and Ford was at the tail end.
Some say horse power is horsepower....but in my humble opinion horses are rated differently....there are Shetland horses (blue oval) and then there are Clydesdale's (bow tie). ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
All I can say...is it is a good thing that the Chevy was 'hobbled' with 3.73's to the Ford's 4.10's....or could you imagine what the Chevy times would of been.
Remind my again why these trucks are only pulling 22,800#s? That 30K spec is not a realistic number for Rvers.
A 30K 5ver will have approx. 7500# pin weight.
None of the trucks are capable of that.
Huntindog
100% boondocking
2021 Grand Design Momentum 398M
2 bathrooms, no waiting
104 gal grey, 104 black,158 fresh
FullBodyPaint, 3,8Kaxles, DiscBrakes
17.5LRH commercial tires
1860watts solar,800 AH Battleborn batterys
2020 Silverado HighCountry CC DA 4X4 DRW
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
Regening does not reduce power, only MPGS.
|
4x4ord
Alberta
Senior Member
Joined: 12/23/2010
View Profile
|
CumminsDriver wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but since the Chevy and Ford are very close power wise, and the results reflect that, maybe the Ram was just a very good performing truck which really surprised everyone?
Rich
If all three trucks were putting out their claimed power the Chev would come in about 30 seconds ahead of the Ford but the Ram would have been 2 and a half minutes behind the Ford. The new Duramax is claimed to have 150 lbft of torque and 48 more HP than the previous Duramax, yet it seems to be very comparable to the outgoing model. So it seams to me that both the Ford and GM were not performing anywhere close to where they should have.
2023 F350 SRW Platinum short box 4x4.
B&W Companion
2008 Citation Platinum XL 34.5
|
|
|
