http://www.pickuptrucks.com/index.html

"Just last month, Ford announced that its all-new 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 diesel would pound out an incredible 390 horsepower and 735 pounds-feet of torque, giving the F-Series Super Duty best-in-class power ratings for heavy-duty pickups. Now, that short reign is over, according to General Motors".

"GM announced that the updated 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 diesel for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra HD pickups will make 397 hp (at 3,000 rpm) and a mind-blowing 765 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm). That’s 100 more pounds-feet of twist than the 2010 Duramax V-8. We just warped our keyboard writing that".

Cant wait for a test drive!:)

The Ford and Dodge boys are gonna be sucking the hind teat, again! :D

immmmmmaaaa gona trade my shit IN!

**** me to

immmmmmaaaa gona trade my shit IN!


I'm not. Mine has more power and gets better mileage. :rolleyes:

Finally!! Those are some very impressive stock numbers! That plus the new front end looks on the Chevy.........might be a new truck in my future!!!

I think Autoblog said it best:

Not even a month ago, at the end of our post on the 2011 Ford Super Duty engine specs, we wrote: "General Motors, there's a big ass ball in your court." Someone at GM has apparently grabbed their big ass racket and said, "Oh, I got this...", then smacked the ball right back into play. The Ford's measurements 390 horsepower, 735 pound-feet of grunt. The General has just announced that its 6.6-liter Duramax turbo diesel has 397 horsepower and 765 lb-ft. of torque, a jump of 32 horsepower and 105 lb-ft. over the previous Duramax.

haha, great job GM

Darn, looks like I'm going to have to buy a new one!

Yea, this sucks as I am making my last payment on my truck this month. Or maybe this is good timing. I especially love the fact that I can get a cc short bed single axle to park in the garage. And pull a big fifth wheel. Jerry.

Just remember the Super Duty will work harder,sell more,get 21+ mpg's,solid axle and well just be a FORD. How is the whimpy Allison going to hold that much power? My 6.4 put down 597/1231 and the tranny is holding up great. The Allison goes limp with a little 120HP tuner. I guess that is why it has a girl's name.

They did make the alli 30% stronger than the current one. And you if you like the rough ride of a horse buggy... I mean a super duty go right on buddy.

I'm not. Mine has more power and gets better mileage. :rolleyes:

Gotta love the guys who hate on the new truck guys! see ya;)

As for the little ford fanboy, stop feeding the troll people.

Gotta love the guys who hate on the new truck guys! see ya;)



he's not hating on it... He's saying that he doesn't need to go get the LML to have 397HP...


Trading a truck that has 365bhp for a truck that has 397bhp would be a pretty stupid move*


*this example would be for a 2008 to a 2011.

he's not hating on it... He's saying that he doesn't need to go get the LML to have 397HP...


Trading a truck that has 365bhp for a truck that has 397bhp would be a pretty stupid move*


*this example would be for a 2008 to a 2011.

Just how I read it. His complaints about mileage, hell it's a heavy duty truck. Frame, axle ratings and braking are what concern me and this truck is a huge step forward but it may not get the mystical 40mpg the old trucks all seem to get:rolleyes:

I'll buy that argument.:beerchug:

I'll buy that argument.:beerchug:

:thumb:

I got a Tundra, so can't wait to catch the hate from both sides. :) But I want a diesel to tow. Although the Ford is new(wait a year) but seems like pretty awesome tech. Very similar to the now-dead 4.5L Duramax. PowerStroke runs less boost and similar compression. Its lighter and it gets great mileage especially with that new trans. I am having a tough time deciding, which is a good thing. I probably will get whichever rides the best, has the best turn radius etc. i.e. easiest to live with every day.

i wouldnt be gettin to excited about buying one...unless ur ready to be paying a extra 4.00 to 11.00 dollars for the DEF that is going to have to be put into ur "other" tank...

i wouldnt be gettin to excited about buying one...unless ur ready to be paying a extra 4.00 to 11.00 dollars for the DEF that is going to have to be put into ur "other" tank...

So you're saying you wouldn't buy a $50K - $60K truck because you aren't able to put $11 worth of urea into your "other' tank every 5,000 miles?!?!?!

So you're saying you wouldn't buy a $50K - $60K truck because you aren't able to put $11 worth of urea into your "other' tank every 5,000 miles?!?!?!


dude over the life of the truck it could eventually cost more!

dude over the life of the truck it could eventually cost more!

LOL! True, imagine if it went up to $15 every 5,000 miles, you'd have to buy one less beer every 4 months to be able to afford it!

By my caculations it costs about $.005/mile for the fluid.

If you get an 11% increase in economy and lets just say that we are now getting 18 mpg, that is a cost of $.17/gal. That would mean before the 11% increase we were getting @ 16.5 mpg at a cost of $.18/gal assuming $3.00/gallon fuel.

In the long run, my calculations say it saves money, and we are cutting down on the nox emmissions that create smog--what's not to love here?

dude over the life of the truck it could eventually cost more!

By my caculations it costs about $.005/mile for the fluid.

If you get an 11% increase in economy and lets just say that we are now getting 18 mpg, that is a cost of $.17/gal. That would mean before the 11% increase we were getting @ 16.5 mpg at a cost of $.18/gal assuming $3.00/gallon fuel.

In the long run, my calculations say it saves money, and we are cutting down on the nox emmissions that create smog--what's not to love here?

Exactly.

The cost is so negligible that it is not even worth worrying about, and as stated, you may even end up saving money, unless, like me you have an LB7:ro)

he's not hating on it... He's saying that he doesn't need to go get the LML to have 397HP...


Trading a truck that has 365bhp for a truck that has 397bhp would be a pretty stupid move*


*this example would be for a 2008 to a 2011.

I don't necessarily think so for those guys that have an LMM and want a bump in power while having a fixed cost per mile (keep their warranty)

And, its not just a power increase. There are quite a bit of changes.

For me personally, I just wouldn't want the same interior/exterior in a "new" truck. So I'll wait a year or two and let them spend their next round of R and D dollars on some additional enhancements.

As for the little ford fanboy, stop feeding the troll people.


^^^X2 :stirthepo

From the horses mouth...

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/0310_silverado_power1

I don't necessarily think so for those guys that have an LMM and want a bump in power while having a fixed cost per mile (keep their warranty)

And, its not just a power increase. There are quite a bit of changes.

For me personally, I just wouldn't want the same interior/exterior in a "new" truck. So I'll wait a year or two and let them spend their next round of R and D dollars on some additional enhancements.

Good thinking. I'm contemplating the same thing. I want a 3500 CC shortie but the interior is the same for MY11 (which I'd be wary of anyway given the huge hardware changes). I heard they may make aesthetic changes for MY13 but will I be able to hold off ordering a MY12, unlikely:D

I also agree with you in regards to getting more power and keeping the warranty, the latter is key for me. And what a HUGE bump in torque. I'm very impressed with GM.

So i wonder what they're doing to the trans to make sure it can handle that much torq stock...

I don't necessarily think so for those guys that have an LMM and want a bump in power while having a fixed cost per mile (keep their warranty)

And, its not just a power increase. There are quite a bit of changes.

For me personally, I just wouldn't want the same interior/exterior in a "new" truck. So I'll wait a year or two and let them spend their next round of R and D dollars on some additional enhancements.

I'm with you, if I am buyin a new truck it better be a new exterior and interior!

I'm with you, if I am buyin a new truck it better be a new exterior and interior!
Diddo on that!

So i wonder what they're doing to the trans to make sure it can handle that much torq stock...


there is another thread that covers that.

Thread cleaned of Ford trolls.

i hate how ford fans get on here and hijack this thread about how the super duty will work harder pull faster...wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka.......and then babble on about the Its got a SFA. I like both setups, and guess what the new Silverado/Sierra has over a 6K GAWR Rating, and yes thats on that IFS. As For Engine Specs, Will See I personally after seeing the 6.0 Rush and then the 6.4 with horrible fuel economy how ford has "Outdone" themselves on this one. Ford states they drove 250,000mi on the new superduty. Great A one or a few trucks, what about when there getting ordered left and right. then will see, wouldnt touch a new for diesel from 03-up. Puts the Slogan Fix or Repair Daily on the front and back of the truck...and hey they even circled it for ya lolololol

Even as a Ford fan I have to admit that 765 is impressive! The 397 is a little stupid though, but I guess GM does have to claim class leading HP.

Where's the trolls go? man I always late.........................

Nothin wrong with being a GM, Ford or Dodge fan and having a good conversation pointing out strenghts and weaknesses of all products as well as stating which features you prefer. But to just bash on a product because its not your preference shows some definite IQ numbers.......

There is an adage that says, "It's better to have people doubt your intelligence then to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

That about sums it up for these Ford trolls.

I'm still laughing at the fact that the ford guy claimed to get 21mpg with his 6.4. Anyone smell some bullshit???

I really like the 2011. GM finally did stuff we all want like the fuel tank, front suspension and of course more power.

So you're saying you wouldn't buy a $50K - $60K truck because you aren't able to put $11 worth of urea into your "other' tank every 5,000 miles?!?!?!


thats what people said back in 1999 when diesel here cost .99 CENTS. now look at it. 2.89 a gallon here for diesel and people are already complaining of that. would i want to dump a extra 11.00 dollars for one gallon every 5000 miles? sure, its a nice truck and i would do it. but what happens 4 or 5 years down the road when it gets raised to 20.00 gallon???? what happens when almost every diesel starts useing this stuff and supply to produce it gets "short" just like oil???

Just remember the Super Duty will work harder,sell more,get 21+ mpg's,solid axle and well just be a FORD. How is the whimpy Allison going to hold that much power? My 6.4 put down 597/1231 and the tranny is holding up great. The Allison goes limp with a little 120HP tuner. I guess that is why it has a girl's name.

Quit trolling and stay in your ford playpen you know as the org.
ford will not get 21+ mpg stock your an idiot if you believe that.

thats cool your 6.4 put down 600/1230, I bet my truck runs faster than your pig :rolleyes:

Our transmissions warn us when power is too high, yours just takes a shit and doesnt move.

carry on.

dmaxboy08,

What do you think will push prices up that high? Urea is a chemical compound produced in nature--it is in good supply and is not a finite resource like oil. I'm not concerned that supplies will get tight.

dmaxboy08,

What do you think will push prices up that high? Urea is a chemical compound produced in nature--it is in good supply and is not a finite resource like oil. I'm not concerned that supplies will get tight.

to be honest with you i do not know what will push those prices higher. in todays world, you never know what is going to happen. what if the government, GM, Dodge, or anyone else who sells trucks that have to have DEF to run, what if they decide "hey, we got alot of people out there driving these trucks that need DEF and we are not making much money on the sells. lets raise the price so we can make more money off of it! what can the customer do? Not buy it?" then what happens, everyone who owns a truck that uses DEF will always have to pay whatever price they can find every 5,000 miles, or untill they get rid of the truck. and then when a bunch of people get mad about the price and get rid of their truck, the price of DEF will prolly come down.

to be honest with you i do not know what will push those prices higher. in todays world, you never know what is going to happen. what if the government, GM, Dodge, or anyone else who sells trucks that have to have DEF to run, what if they decide "hey, we got alot of people out there driving these trucks that need DEF and we are not making much money on the sells. lets raise the price so we can make more money off of it! what can the customer do? Not buy it?" then what happens, everyone who owns a truck that uses DEF will always have to pay whatever price they can find every 5,000 miles, or untill they get rid of the truck. and then when a bunch of people get mad about the price and get rid of their truck, the price of DEF will prolly come down.

Get a little understanding about the DEF, and you'll quit worrying about it. I'm guessing almost any chemistry undergrad student could take a bottle of piss and convert it to DEF. I am serious your urine contains urea, its why its called URINE. The chemical compund is simple enough that nobdy will ever have a corner on the market. If prices go up you'll see chemical plants go online producing more of it driving prices back down.

If DEF is going to be in widespread use, I can see the EPA eventually adding additional "clean air" fees to the price per gallon of DEF.

Def will prolly trail the price of diesel.....

If DEF is going to be in widespread use, I can see the EPA eventually adding additional "clean air" fees to the price per gallon of DEF.

Geez guys come on and use some common sense here, pleassssse!

Most reports have DEF around $3.00 per gallon now, lets do a worst case and say prices shot up to $10 a gal. for whatever reason.

The DEF tank holds 5 gal, that would be $50 to fill it. the 5 gal tank is good for ~5000 miles, giving you a 1 CENT cost per mile AT WORST.

QUIT worrying about it.
It is gonna be a negligible operating cost. PERIOD

Get a little understanding about the DEF, and you'll quit worrying about it. I'm guessing almost any chemistry undergrad student could take a bottle of piss and convert it to DEF. I am serious your urine contains urea, its why its called URINE. The chemical compund is simple enough that nobdy will ever have a corner on the market. If prices go up you'll see chemical plants go online producing more of it driving prices back down.

well for me im not worried about the price of it. whats another 15 to 30 dollars more at almost every oil change? not much. its just in the world we live in today, anything can happen. you have seen it, i have seen it, everyone has seen it. now i have been wrong before and im sure i will be wrong about things in the future, and i may be wrong about this. the prices may stay the same, who knows. i know the chemical compounds of DEF. i had to study about it. its just the OTHER people in this world that dont like spending extra money in order to have their trucks on the road. im sure over the road truckers hate the idea that they have to spend more money just to fill thier other tank. now i know that alot of truckers dont run that type of system yet. but what if the EPA makes it to where the only diesel truck allowed on the road has to have a DEF system? to be honest i really like these new trucks and i really want one. but sometimes i just think about where this could lead 15 years down the road. and this is one of those times haha.
im not trying to start arguements or anything and i have no problem with def at all. if you buy the truck, you know whats in store for you, plain and simple. and its kinda fun to see what people say about ur posts.

well for me im not worried about the price of it. whats another 15 to 30 dollars more at almost every oil change? not much. its just in the world we live in today, anything can happen. you have seen it, i have seen it, everyone has seen it. now i have been wrong before and im sure i will be wrong about things in the future, and i may be wrong about this. the prices may stay the same, who knows. i know the chemical compounds of DEF. i had to study about it. its just the OTHER people in this world that dont like spending extra money in order to have their trucks on the road. im sure over the road truckers hate the idea that they have to spend more money just to fill thier other tank. now i know that alot of truckers dont run that type of system yet. but what if the EPA makes it to where the only diesel truck allowed on the road has to have a DEF system? to be honest i really like these new trucks and i really want one. but sometimes i just think about where this could lead 15 years down the road. and this is one of those times haha.
im not trying to start arguements or anything and i have no problem with def at all. if you buy the truck, you know whats in store for you, plain and simple. and its kinda fun to see what people say about ur posts.

Understood.
To me DEF is a zero sum game, at least on the light duty trucks (I assume the OTR truckers would see the same.)
By that I mean that GM reported that while designing the LML, they found that DEF cleaned up the exhaust so well they were able to build more power and efficiency into the motor. The 11% mileage imporvement has a lot to do with DEF, it cuts regen intervals by 75% and allowed fuel pulse timing changes for even leaner burn conditions.
So to me the added cost of DEF is at least made up by the fuel economy gains.

Geez guys come on and use some common sense here, pleassssse!

Most reports have DEF around $3.00 per gallon now, lets do a worst case and say prices shot up to $10 a gal. for whatever reason.

The DEF tank holds 5 gal, that would be $50 to fill it. the 5 gal tank is good for ~5000 miles, giving you a 1 CENT cost per mile AT WORST.

QUIT worrying about it.
It is gonna be a negligible operating cost. PERIOD


All I'm saying is that the gov't is taxing everything "due to economic conditions" to pick up extra $$$ anywhere it can. I hope they don't tax it, but everything that goes on the road gets taxed, be it tires (excise & disposal fees), gas and diesel (state, government, and local fees per gallon), gas guzzler taxes, vehicle licensing fees (California fees suck big time), state bonds for road improvements, that translates to more taxes we pay.

I realize living in the greatest country in the world is not a free ride and taxes and fees are necessary, but come on, cut out some of the fat....(if I go any further this will end up in the political section), but you know what I mean.

Understood.
To me DEF is a zero sum game, at least on the light duty trucks (I assume the OTR truckers would see the same.)
By that I mean that GM reported that while designing the LML, they found that DEF cleaned up the exhaust so well they were able to build more power and efficiency into the motor. The 11% mileage imporvement has a lot to do with DEF, it cuts regen intervals by 75% and allowed fuel pulse timing changes for even leaner burn conditions.
So to me the added cost of DEF is at least made up by the fuel economy gains.


very good point

new trucks are going to be great,but urea and everything else weve had to add to these trucks and cars for some lie from the greenies about how we need to save the planet is bad,, just think how many mpg's we could be getting

new trucks are going to be great,but urea and everything else weve had to add to these trucks and cars for some lie from the greenies about how we need to save the planet is bad,, just think how many mpg's we could be getting

Please use your head. Big clouds of black smoke coming from diesel tailpipes are not a lie . You don't have to be a "greenie" to realize that the big clouds of black smoke that older diesels is not healthy. Did you watch the China olympics. The smoke over Shanghai is the result of no government emission standards for far too long. Imagine what LA might look like today if emission standards in 1967 were never started. Shanghai would probably be considered clean by comparison
I have trouble seeing the downside from engines that are more powerful, more efficient, and cleaner than ever.

2011 Duramax 680 miles per tank divided by 36gal tank= 18.8 miles per gal...Thats sucks compared to Furd 26mpg.. Just saying..I dont think the xtra horse power is worth buying another 60k truck. I know they change a few things but I rather wait til a new body style came out..Heck by then it would prob have 420hp!

2011 Duramax 680 miles per tank divided by 36gal tank= 18.8 miles per gal...Thats sucks compared to Furd 26mpg.. Just saying..I dont think the xtra horse power is worth buying another 60k truck. I know they change a few things but I rather wait til a new body style came out..Heck by then it would prob have 420hp!

Please read the article.
The new Ford WILL NOT get 26 MPG, unless you arewilling to follow 25 feet behind a semi going 54 MPH or less, roll thru stop signs, and run at idle until you reach the freeway. Cause that is what they did to get 26 MPG over an 80 mile run.

Please read the article.
The new Ford WILL NOT get 26 MPG, unless you arewilling to follow 25 feet behind a semi going 54 MPH or less, roll thru stop signs, and run at idle until you reach the freeway. Cause that is what they did to get 26 MPG over an 80 mile run.


That is sooo funny.

Please use your head. Big clouds of black smoke coming from diesel tailpipes are not a lie . You don't have to be a "greenie" to realize that the big clouds of black smoke that older diesels is not healthy. Did you watch the China olympics. The smoke over Shanghai is the result of no government emission standards for far too long. Imagine what LA might look like today if emission standards in 1967 were never started. Shanghai would probably be considered clean by comparison
I have trouble seeing the downside from engines that are more powerful, more efficient, and cleaner than ever.

first ,we arn't china,and we have cleaned up the air in america,we are 100 of times better then the rest of the world,

first ,we arn't china,and we have cleaned up the air in america,we are 100 of times better then the rest of the world,

Calm with the flag waving. Europe is in a different league to the US as regards mpg/emissions/environment. Their small diesels are getting a real world combined 70mpg now and were even getting 50mpg combined more than ten years ago. Plus people actually buy them, 52% of passenger cars there are mileage friendly diesels.

Calm with the flag waving. Europe is in a different league to the US as regards mpg/emissions/environment. Their small diesels are getting a real world combined 70mpg now and were even getting 50mpg combined more than ten years ago. Plus people actually buy them, 52% of passenger cars there are mileage friendly diesels.

Their emissions aren't as strict as ours, hence more diesels and more mpg's.

Their emissions aren't as strict as ours, hence more diesels and more mpg's.

plus they don't have a gvt who has discouraged diesels for decades to ensure the worst mileage possible and consequently more oil used.

Please read the article.
The new Ford WILL NOT get 26 MPG, unless you arewilling to follow 25 feet behind a semi going 54 MPH or less, roll thru stop signs, and run at idle until you reach the freeway. Cause that is what they did to get 26 MPG over an 80 mile run.


Yeah i dont rember seeing that. Where did you get that informantion? Proof please?

Please read the article.
The new Ford WILL NOT get 26 MPG, unless you arewilling to follow 25 feet behind a semi going 54 MPH or less, roll thru stop signs, and run at idle until you reach the freeway. Cause that is what they did to get 26 MPG over an 80 mile run.

Read this then..http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33

Read this then..http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33


haha way to many variables in that test. it fails.

haha way to many variables in that test. it fails.


like what? I dont see any lmm geting that kind of mileage.

Read this then..http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257177&postcount=33
That is one fugly truck!

haha way to many variables in that test. it fails.

Exactly! Looking at the pic, that's a 2 lane road and prolly 55mph speed limit.

Yeah i dont rember seeing that. Where did you get that informantion? Proof please?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/first-drive-review-2011-ford-fseries-super-duty-part-1.html

They freely admit to hypermiling the truck doing everything I said (they also folded in the tow mirrors, and never let turbo boost get over 10 PSI) to obtain the silly 26 MPG number.
Big problem is now they got people believin they'll get 26 mpg too. Like I said GOOD LUCK.

Did you notice that the first picture shows the speed at 50mph and other gauge cluster pic shows 40mph. There were probably no hills or grades and he probably had a nice tailwind. But you are right - that is one ugly truck!

-:tx2

when do the new turck hit the lot?

wow........that front end on that thing looks hideous

how did that guy get the truck?

Yeah i dont rember seeing that. Where did you get that informantion? Proof please?

Sorry I posted the wrong link earlier.
Here it is: http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-series-super-duty-first-drive-review.html

Scroll 2/3 down they have a section in that article called "Hypermiling a Superduty"

It looks like the 2011 super duty will be available with a really high rear end ratio

Powerstroke-equipped F250 with the 3.55 rear gears we got over 20 MPG pretty easy, others with the powerstroke and the fuel-saavy 3.11 rear end saw as high as 29.2 MPG (!) when babying the thing

like what? I dont see any lmm geting that kind of mileage.


again, you FAIL. first this is a Durmax Forum. not a Powerstroke. second, the proof that the 26mpg FAILS is here:http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-s...ve-review.html (http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-series-super-duty-first-drive-review.html) scroll on down to "Hypermiling in a Super Duty". So, im sorry your ford wont get 26mpg, but again this is a duramax forum, if you want to talk about how ford will NOT get 26mpg then there are ford forums on the internet for your use.

again, you FAIL. first this is a Durmax Forum. not a Powerstroke. second, the proof that the 26mpg FAILS is here:http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-s...ve-review.html (http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-f-series-super-duty-first-drive-review.html) scroll on down to "Hypermiling in a Super Duty". So, im sorry your ford wont get 26mpg, but again this is a duramax forum, if you want to talk about how ford will NOT get 26mpg then there are ford forums on the internet for your use.

I guess I can put FORD stuff on this forum! Cus guess what d*ckface I just did! Never said I was buying or getting the Furd! Just reposting what othesr have been talking about. So get off my sack!

Settle down kids, or your going to time out.


How bout we talk about the LML? That is the topic, isn't it??

Settle down kids, or your going to time out.


How bout we talk about the LML? That is the topic, isn't it??

lol im settled. im sorry if my words upsetted anyone.

The LML is going to be able to do awsome burnouts stock:D has anyone else realized that?

The LML is going to be able to do awsome burnouts stock:D has anyone else realized that?

and awesome donuts:cool:

and awesome donuts:cool:

Unless they haven't improved the G80, in that case there is no way that locker will survive that much power for very long, and in turn, no donuts lol.

Did I mention I wish my locker wasn't broken:(

Settle down kids, or your going to time out.


How bout we talk about the LML? That is the topic, isn't it??

Im settled down now! Im must have caught a stomach viruse for a moment..:rolleyes:

It is official 397 and 765 now on chevrolet web page.

Jeff

Im settled down now! Im must have caught a stomach viruse for a moment..:rolleyes:


dont u hate when that happens?? haha as for the G80 not holding up...well thats when you do donuts while under warrenty then u take it in and say "i have no clue what happened...."

I was thinking about this thread on the drive home. It sounds like the new ford engine is at the lower part of its potential in terms of hp/tq and the d max is pretty close to its limts......all what I have seen reading these threads.

Think the GM boys will have to start developing a higher displacement D Max to stay at or near the top?

I'm guessing it will only be a year or two before Ford begins tweaking up the 6.7 if they can find it to be reliable after a year or two.

Hmmm :confused:

I was thinking about this thread on the drive home. It sounds like the new ford engine is at the lower part of its potential in terms of hp/tq and the d max is pretty close to its limts......all what I have seen reading these threads.

Think the GM boys will have to start developing a higher displacement D Max to stay at or near the top?

I'm guessing it will only be a year or two before Ford begins tweaking up the 6.7 if they can find it to be reliable after a year or two.

Hmmm :confused:

I have to disagree. The displacement of the big 3 are all within .1L/ (6.6, 6.7, & 6.7) The only reason that Ford and Dodge bumped the displacement is to meet emissions standards. If you look at horsepower only, they (any of the big 3) are no where near the limits. I think the limit will be when emissions standards come to a point where it is no longer feasible, economical, or possible to increase HP any further. I can only hope that we have 500+hp stockers when that time comes.:D

I have to disagree. The displacement of the big 3 are all within .1L/ (6.6, 6.7, & 6.7) The only reason that Ford and Dodge bumped the displacement is to meet emissions standards. If you look at horsepower only, they (any of the big 3) are no where near the limits. I think the limit will be when emissions standards come to a point where it is no longer feasible, economical, or possible to increase HP any further. I can only hope that we have 500+hp stockers when that time comes.:D

A GM exec did say "the band was now pulled pretty tight" with this latest tune. However, I tend to agree that 397/765 from 6.6L is still a fairly low specific output given that Audi 6.0 V12 TDI produces 500bhp and 737lb/ft in the Q7. Longevity when pulling loads though is more of a factor for many pickup owner though so that may come some way to explaining the discrepancy, though inferior design is clearly the primary.

I also agree that this horsepower race must be nearing an end. Economy, emissions and reliability will come more to the fore. 400bhp and approaching 800 lbs of tq are more than enough for than anyones needs, and that goes for the guys pulling 20k 5ers or farmers loading up 12 tons of hay.

I think GM will likely produce a mild tune with the body refresh (say 405bhp and 775lb/ft) just for marketing's sake but for me personally I'll buy the truck for its all-round ability and reliability rather than sheer power numbers.

dont u hate when that happens?? haha as for the G80 not holding up...well thats when you do donuts while under warrenty then u take it in and say "i have no clue what happened...."

sometimes:rolleyes:

I'm guessing it will only be a year or two before Ford begins tweaking up the 6.7 if they can find it to be reliable after a year or two.

Hmmm :confused:

I understand what you're saying, but I honestly beleive that the engineers know what the limits are when these engines are designed during year 0. When these motors are sold, there is LOTS of room for hp/tq wars with the other guys and the manufacturers already know where to go for more power.

IMHO

Agree with all of the recent comments. Good discussion. You would think there would be a friendly handshake at some point to stop the increases. Its really the comments about the rubber band being stretched tight that got me wondering. Anyone can tune these rigs to far increase the power over factory settings. But for the factory, it still has to be a 250k motor, so its the highest reliable setting that stops this for the current 6.6. I was surprised to see those comments though. You would think if the band was tight, they wouldn't come out and say it.

Not sure if anyone cares, but I just read on pickuptruck.com, that Ford plans on increase in hp/tq for 6.7 PSD.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/sources-ford-plans-power-increase-for-power-stroke-v8-diesel.html

"How high might the 6.7-liter V-8 jump to? We're told to more than 400 hp and over 775 pounds-feet of torque. The difficulty is striking the right balance between any power increase with fuel economy and emissions regulations."

Sound pretty interesting! I'm sure GM will respond when they up the payload/ towing in 2012.

:rolleyes: Nobody likes a "One Upper (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=one+upper)"

:rolleyes: Nobody likes a "One Upper (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=one+upper)"

:)..

:rolleyes: Nobody likes a "One Upper (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=one+upper)"

Its called competition!

^^^yup. And that is good for us. Regardless of which one you buy, each year gets better power, towing, and finally hopefully.....economy.

500hp and 900-1000 ft torque soon?

These trucks already have more HP and Torque than we need, they need to now concentrate on MPG.

One has to wonder, how much is too much. I like the idea of 500hp and 1,000lbs tq, but do we really need this much hp and tq? The average person would never need this much power and some don't need to attempt to tow the max as they have no idea how to tow the weight.

These trucks already have more HP and Torque than we need, they need to now concentrate on MPG.

I agree.

I agree.

This is a double edged sword, and not likely to be fixed soon.

The EPA does not give fuel economy estimates on HD trucks. Thus the Big 3 cannot advertise specific fuel economy for these trucks. Thus there is no incentive for them to push there R&D money into economy on these trucks.
None of them can afford to be left behind in the power war and only be left with the "implication" that their truck gets better mileage.

The only real solution would be to have the EPA include these vehicles in testing, then an incentive would exist for the automakers.
However, the automakers would fight to their death against such a change as they can't afford to add HD trucks to their CAFE numbers.

While I agree, it would be great to see a big push for better MPG, as the new trucks have all the power 99% of drivers need, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

This is a double edged sword, and not likely to be fixed soon.

The EPA does not give fuel economy estimates on HD trucks. Thus the Big 3 cannot advertise specific fuel economy for these trucks. Thus there is no incentive for them to push there R&D money into economy on these trucks.
None of them can afford to be left behind in the power war and only be left with the "implication" that their truck gets better mileage.

The only real solution would be to have the EPA include these vehicles in testing, then an incentive would exist for the automakers.
However, the automakers would fight to their death against such a change as they can't afford to add HD trucks to their CAFE numbers.

While I agree, it would be great to see a big push for better MPG, as the new trucks have all the power 99% of drivers need, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

I understand...I would rather keep the EPA out of the picture as I am sure we all would. But that’s unlikely to happen. I feel if the EPA was out of the picture, we could see some better mpg number. Possibly

This is a double edged sword, and not likely to be fixed soon.

The EPA does not give fuel economy estimates on HD trucks. Thus the Big 3 cannot advertise specific fuel economy for these trucks. Thus there is no incentive for them to push there R&D money into economy on these trucks.
None of them can afford to be left behind in the power war and only be left with the "implication" that their truck gets better mileage.

The only real solution would be to have the EPA include these vehicles in testing, then an incentive would exist for the automakers.
However, the automakers would fight to their death against such a change as they can't afford to add HD trucks to their CAFE numbers.

While I agree, it would be great to see a big push for better MPG, as the new trucks have all the power 99% of drivers need, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

I think there should be incentive for manufacturers to look at improving fuel economy numbers. You would not have to advertise fuel economy numbers for owners to take note. I think the word spreads pretty quickly through the HD truck market. You have internet forums, fleet operators, campgrounds, race tracks,...you name it. I know my Dad (retired) spends lots of time in campgrounds and is always telling me how the subject of tow vehicles are discussed. Think about it--how each truck on the market right now has a reputation for it's short-coming and strengths. These short-comings aren't readily advertised but are well-known within the community.

I honestly think that if a manufacturer produced an HD truck with a diesel that had comparable (not the best) hp/torque numbers but also returned fuel economy with 4-5mpg better than the others, word would get around and it would be an advantage.

I also know there are buyers who will only look at the advertised numbers and buy a truck soley based on those numbers. However, as truck prices increase as they have and require a greater percentage of people's income, buyers will look harder at the truck as a whole...especially if fuel prices spike again.

Sound pretty interesting! I'm sure GM will respond when they up the payload/ towing in 2012.

I'll bet all I have against that happening. They made a huge leap for MY11, all backed up by all new components. They do not need to up capacities anymore and will not do so as they are so close to top as it is, the only one of the Big Three left behind is Dodge with regard to towing, payload and engine output.

What I do expect is one last tune of the 6.6 Duramax when they redo the interior for MY13. However, the jump will likely be just 5bhp and 10lb/ft.

I'll bet all I have against that happening. They made a huge leap for MY11, all backed up by all new components. They do not need to up capacities anymore and will not do so as they are so close to top as it is, the only one of the Big Three left behind is Dodge with regard to towing, payload and engine output.

What I do expect is one last tune of the 6.6 Duramax when they redo the interior for MY13. However, the jump will likely be just 5bhp and 10lb/ft.

Redo the interior for MY13? Care to elaborate?

I thought an all new redesign was coming for MY13, including the exterior.

Redo the interior for MY13? Care to elaborate?

I thought an all new redesign was coming for MY13, including the exterior.

You're correct, I just focused on the new interior as that's the only disappointing omission from the MY11 trucks in my opinion.

They did a great job with the Chevy's front end (not so much on the GMC this time) but a full redesign (from an aesthetics standpoint only as capacities are now HUGE) is indeed coming.

Hopefully, if the funds are there, it will be MY13 as we've both been led to believe but if there's any more bumps in the road there's always the chance it'll be delayed by a year or so.

400/775 coming from the 6.7L soon...:D

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/sources-ford-plans-power-increase-for-power-stroke-v8-diesel.html

While none of us need any more power in these configurations, we all want a little more power. And the extra power without the tuners is a nice add to keep warranty.

And its those numbers that sell, or they wouldn't do it. I would now like the fuel economy as well. I cant help but think it will be more in the spotlight in the years to come though.

I'll bet all I have against that happening. They made a huge leap for MY11, all backed up by all new components. They do not need to up capacities anymore and will not do so as they are so close to top as it is, the only one of the Big Three left behind is Dodge with regard to towing, payload and engine output.

What I do expect is one last tune of the 6.6 Duramax when they redo the interior for MY13. However, the jump will likely be just 5bhp and 10lb/ft.


I understand the Dmax is pretty much maxed out with its current configuration as per GM. I also agree there will be another small tune before GM completes a possible redesigns of the Duramax. (It will be interesting to see what their plans are.) I also think GM will stay close as possible to Ford in HP/TQ numbers till the redesign and try to top them in payload/towing to give the bragging rights to GM. If GM adds 5hp/10lb/ft tq, that puts the dmax over 400hp and 775tq, which is pretty respectable for any truck in stock form and more power than most people need, the same with Ford.
I wasn’t thinking they would go crazy with the hp/tq numbers. I wouldn't expect ford to do the same. I think Ford will be in the 5-10hp and 10-20lb/ft tq when they do an increase in 2012.
It's going to be very interesting to see how far the automakers can go with these trucks.

Wasn't there rumors of a 6.9L Duramax?

You're correct, I just focused on the new interior as that's the only disappointing omission from the MY11 trucks in my opinion.

They did a great job with the Chevy's front end (not so much on the GMC this time) but a full redesign (from an aesthetics standpoint only as capacities are now HUGE) is indeed coming.

Hopefully, if the funds are there, it will be MY13 as we've both been led to believe but if there's any more bumps in the road there's always the chance it'll be delayed by a year or so.


As for those who have an 08 or newer, I can understand the dissapointment. But with us other people who have 2007 or older, the new interior is a nice upgrade.

As for those who have an 08 or newer, I can understand the dissapointment. But with us other people who have 2007 or older, the new interior is a nice upgrade.

Totally agree-- seems we're on the same page over the last few posts.:beerchug:

yes....a good healty discussion! I was thinking the the 11-12 would be a go, but now I kind of want to see where things begin to settle down. They have to at some point. I think it would be pushing it to say we will see over 800 ft/lbs of torque in a light duty diesel.....but now my curiosity is definitely piqued to see if there is a redesign of the d max in the next 3-5 to not only keep up with the new ford 6.7, but also to see if they can pull a few more ponies with far better fuel mileage. Kind of like how the lb7's seemed to be with fuel economy before the max was maxed out and emissioned out.....

Totally agree-- seems we're on the same page over the last few posts.:beerchug:


:Handshake

So just how much more are those HP/TQ numbers going to increase the DMax/Ally option over LMM (which is already a joke as to how expensive the diesel option is)? Additionally, are they doing anything to upgrade the Ally and how much will that cost us, if they really are doing anything at all. With the geniuses at GM, they may just run nearly 800hp through a 1000 series Ally and end up with a huge line of customers at service dept's with F'd up Ally's.

800ft-lbs TQ is a fairly big number for general use, non-competition truck and most people I know running around with over 750ft-lbs of TQ in their rigs have made fairly significant investments in their trannys to avoid screwing them up.

The HP/TQ wars are retarded, particularly with all the EPA BS in play now days. Take my 2006 LLY 310/605 with 6spd Ally, throw about $3k at exh, tuner, gauges and some tranny upgrades and it could smoke the new rigs, get better mileage, and I'd still have spent significantly less on total truck and upgrades than this new LML.

Retarded!! and another thing is unless you are in competition, who needs more than say 360/650 anyway??????????? you won't increase your ultimate towing capability (it's limited by other components of the truck: tires/wheels, suspension, frame, etc) and you won't make any significant improvements to how efficiently or effectively you tow up to your ulitmate rating without investing even more money in upgrades/aftermarket. I just don't get it.

yes....a good healty discussion! I was thinking the the 11-12 would be a go, but now I kind of want to see where things begin to settle down. They have to at some point. I think it would be pushing it to say we will see over 800 ft/lbs of torque in a light duty diesel.....but now my curiosity is definitely piqued to see if there is a redesign of the d max in the next 3-5 to not only keep up with the new ford 6.7, but also to see if they can pull a few more ponies with far better fuel mileage. Kind of like how the lb7's seemed to be with fuel economy before the max was maxed out and emissioned out.....

Yes, I would rather read and have a post with some substance vs. reading a post calling each other names.(Even if some comments are funny) but most time they are nonproductive.

It’s going to be interesting to see what GM has planned for the next Duramax. Maybe a 6.9 or a 7.0 liter dmax?

Wasn't there rumors of a 6.9L Duramax?

I'm not sure. I could only guess GM would have to up the dmax to 6.9L or bigger if the current duramax at its max.

So just how much more are those HP/TQ numbers going to increase the DMax/Ally option over LMM (which is already a joke as to how expensive the diesel option is)? Additionally, are they doing anything to upgrade the Ally and how much will that cost us, if they really are doing anything at all. With the geniuses at GM, they may just run nearly 800hp through a 1000 series Ally and end up with a huge line of customers at service dept's with F'd up Ally's.

800ft-lbs TQ is a fairly big number for general use, non-competition truck and most people I know running around with over 750ft-lbs of TQ in their rigs have made fairly significant investments in their trannys to avoid screwing them up.

The HP/TQ wars are retarded, particularly with all the EPA BS in play now days. Take my 2006 LLY 310/605 with 6spd Ally, throw about $3k at exh, tuner, gauges and some tranny upgrades and it could smoke the new rigs, get better mileage, and I'd still have spent significantly less on total truck and upgrades than this new LML.

Retarded!! and another thing is unless you are in competition, who needs more than say 360/650 anyway??????????? you won't increase your ultimate towing capability (it's limited by other components of the truck: tires/wheels, suspension, frame, etc) and you won't make any significant improvements to how efficiently or effectively you tow up to your ulitmate rating without investing even more money in upgrades/aftermarket. I just don't get it.

A bit of research goes a long way--

1. Allison

-Optimized lube distribution throughout the transmission eliminates excess oil in spots to reduce spin loss

-Upgraded controls, including torque-based variable main pressure for more precise pressure in different conditions. This helps reduce overall pressure

-To match the increased torque output of the new 6.6L Duramax diesel, engineers updated the Allison 1000 with structural improvements that include increased strength for the input and main housings, a new, higher-capacity torque converter and increased clutch and shaft torque capabilities. Additionally, a new 4WD output housing is matched with the upgraded transfer case for 2011.

-The Allison also features a stronger case and new clutches that are engineered to handle up to a 30-percent increase in torque over today's 660 pounds-feet rating. The output transfer case is now oval instead of round to increase its stiffness from the higher torque levels.

That's 858lb/ft that the new Allison is rated for. Just because it's called the 1000 doesn't mean it's the same thing, think about designation across the automotive board.

2. Duramax

60% of the parts are all new, yes you can chip your diesel in your backyard but it's not designed to hold the extra power and will not last as long as an engine designed for 400/765.

3. Frame, brakes, wheels, suspension etc

All upgraded in a big way. You can tow much more weight so it makes sense to offer more power. At 6.6liters, none of these diesels run high level tunes of the diesels offered in Europe and the payoff is longevity under extreme use.

A bit of research goes a long way--

1. Allison

-Optimized lube distribution throughout the transmission eliminates excess oil in spots to reduce spin loss

-Upgraded controls, including torque-based variable main pressure for more precise pressure in different conditions. This helps reduce overall pressure

-To match the increased torque output of the new 6.6L Duramax diesel, engineers updated the Allison 1000 with structural improvements that include increased strength for the input and main housings, a new, higher-capacity torque converter and increased clutch and shaft torque capabilities. Additionally, a new 4WD output housing is matched with the upgraded transfer case for 2011.

-The Allison also features a stronger case and new clutches that are engineered to handle up to a 30-percent increase in torque over today's 660 pounds-feet rating. The output transfer case is now oval instead of round to increase its stiffness from the higher torque levels.

That's 858lb/ft that the new Allison is rated for. Just because it's called the 1000 doesn't mean it's the same thing, think about designation across the automotive board.

2. Duramax

60% of the parts are all new, yes you can chip your diesel in your backyard but it's not designed to hold the extra power and will not last as long as an engine designed for 400/765.

3. Frame, brakes, wheels, suspension etc

All upgraded in a big way. You can tow much more weight so it makes sense to offer more power. At 6.6liters, none of these diesels run high level tunes of the diesels offered in Europe and the payoff is longevity under extreme use.

X2

Anyone who thinks the new trucks aren't a big step up in all areas, is just in denial.
I love my 09 LMM, but I can admit the new trucks are a better platform and package.

Lets see:
More power - check
better mileage - check
cleaner running - check
more capability - check

765 ft/lbs and 100K mile warranty sounds pretty darn good.

I can do all the tuning I want, and there are still areas the new trucks will have an advantage.

Very well stated...Carl and Prime2Win.

The 2011 hd have a lot to offer and in some cases too much...However, it's good to know you have a truck that is far more capabilities then most people will use them for. The upgrades that have been done on these trucks are awesome, i.e. stronger transmission , frame, more powerful efficient duramax, the front end even looks better...

It's sad, as I have my 2006 paid off and would like a new 2011, but do not what the payments for another 5 years. It's like having a 2nd mortgage. I understand new technology has to be paid for.

With the talk of Ford going to 400, makes you think that Chevy might not have made it an even 400 just to taunt Ford so that when they announce 400, Chevy throws in that extra 2 psi of boost that had on reserve and now makes 410/790 or something ridiculous. Just a guess but it's a big marketing game.

With the talk of Ford going to 400, makes you think that Chevy might not have made it an even 400 just to taunt Ford so that when they announce 400, Chevy throws in that extra 2 psi of boost that had on reserve and now makes 410/790 or something ridiculous. Just a guess but it's a big marketing game.
506hp and 1000 tq,,more hp then a Z06 corvette,,lets go gm

Info on chevy does seem to confirm they have re-vamped the whole truck. Again, I worry how much we the consumer will be paying for all this. Another thing, the GM site says 6000lb front axle rating on "properly equipped" 3500HD. I assume all components except the wheels/tires will probably be same so anyone know if this number is for 3500DRW with larger rims? What is rating for 2500 and 3500SRW at front axle?? 06 LLY is 4670 IIRC, joke for an HD pickup, so I hope they added at least 1000 lbs to that for the entire HD lineup.

My guess in truck equipped to do all the "numbers" they are pitching in the hype onslaught will run an MSRP in CC DRW LTZ 4x4 of mid $60k. No thanks.

Info on chevy does seem to confirm they have re-vamped the whole truck. Again, I worry how much we the consumer will be paying for all this. Another thing, the GM site says 6000lb front axle rating on "properly equipped" 3500HD. I assume all components except the wheels/tires will probably be same so anyone know if this number is for 3500DRW with larger rims? What is rating for 2500 and 3500SRW at front axle?? 06 LLY is 4670 IIRC, joke for an HD pickup, so I hope they added at least 1000 lbs to that for the entire HD lineup.

My guess in truck equipped to do all the "numbers" they are pitching in the hype onslaught will run an MSRP in CC DRW LTZ 4x4 of mid $60k. No thanks.


Yes, the 2011 HD's have a 6,000lb front axle rating across the complete line up, Which is a big improvement.. I am not sure about the wheel package and how or if that will affect the front axle rating.

Retarded!! and another thing is unless you are in competition, who needs more than say 360/650 anyway??????????? you won't increase your ultimate towing capability (it's limited by other components of the truck: tires/wheels, suspension, frame, etc) and you won't make any significant improvements to how efficiently or effectively you tow up to your ulitmate rating without investing even more money in upgrades/aftermarket. I just don't get it.

How much weight to you pull and what type of terrain do you pull it over?

Seems to me that over the last good number of years, or at least since my first experience with a diesel (fathers 89 non turbo ford) that the more power the trucks make, the less effort they have to put into pulling heavy loads.

I'm not a diesel drag racer (although I love to watch diesel drags!) But I openly welcome all the improvements, including more power and torque. It gives me a much more comforting feeling when pulling 15k loads up through the mountains.

^^^Also with all these new improvements, I openly welcome the bigger better brakes. Knowing you can confidently and quickly stop that weight if needed adds an additional peace of mind. Coming down some big grades, it sounds like the turbo brake will be cool as well and help to keep from heating up those brakes.

Also, I hate when my truck is in regen, so I'll take the urea and 75% less regens. Could go on about the other improvements.......But I for one am sure happy to see em!

Ditto, 100%. Well said badinblack.

Retarded!! and another thing is unless you are in competition, who needs more than say 360/650 anyway??????????? you won't increase your ultimate towing capability (it's limited by other components of the truck: tires/wheels, suspension, frame, etc) and you won't make any significant improvements to how efficiently or effectively you tow up to your ulitmate rating without investing even more money in upgrades/aftermarket. I just don't get it.

For those of us who Tow and Tow a lot of weight..... I would bed to differ with it being "retarded".

Might want to check the information out on the New Trucks. New Frame, beefed up suspension (front and rear), Larger Brakes. and.......Increased Cargo and Towing capacity.....

What is the GVWR of the new trucks? if it is more than 11400, then it may force people pulling 14k trailers into getting a CDL as anything over 12k would put the total over 26k.

Just found it, says GVWR is 13k, so a person hauling a 14k trailer behind and using it for business (and in some states just for personal use) is going to need a Class A CDL. One of the draws of the Chevrolet 3500 was than unlike Ford, it kept you under the magic 26k mark.

^^^Also with all these new improvements, I openly welcome the bigger better brakes. Knowing you can confidently and quickly stop that weight if needed adds an additional peace of mind. Coming down some big grades, it sounds like the turbo brake will be cool as well and help to keep from heating up those brakes.

Also, I hate when my truck is in regen, so I'll take the urea and 75% less regens. Could go on about the other improvements.......But I for one am sure happy to see em!:agreed: And I'll take all the power they want to give me,having it doesn't mean you have to use it all (but I probably will) but it's nice to have if you do.I for one think it will be great not having to work the truck so hard to get back up to speed when you have to stop on a long hill.If these trucks are getting to powerful for some people,maybe they should buy a gasser.Lucky for us,GM knows that almost everyone wants more power and won't cut it back just to make a few happy.

Another thing, the GM site says 6000lb front axle rating on "properly equipped" 3500HD. I assume all components except the wheels/tires will probably be same so anyone know if this number is for 3500DRW with larger rims?


ALL 4wd dually and SRW 3500s trucks with the Duramax/Allison get the 6k FGAWR. Wheels not a factor, all duallys get the 17s.