duramax better power curvehttp://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/diesel-power-curve-comparison-2011-power-stroke-v8-vs-2011-duramax-v8.html:D

your linking skills fail.

SORRYhttp://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/diesel-power-curve-comparison-2011-power-stroke-v8-vs-2011-duramax-v8.html


better let me drive the truck for a while dude. :D

Click Here for the Link. (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/03/diesel-power-curve-comparison-2011-power-stroke-v8-vs-2011-duramax-v8.html)

thanks

Interesting read. Thanks. Cant wait to see the shootout

Be interesting to see the graphs with the 6.7 @ its new 400 hp and higher torque numbers. The author brings out the tranny factor, translating hp/tq to the ground will be a huge factor.

:blahblah:what ****en new numbers thats all hear say ford hasnt announces anything

GM provided the official test data from SAE and Ford just sent them some test data that they collected. This data from Ford is garbage until they send the official data from SAE test.

Its obvious that the Ford HP chart does not match the torque curve. Since the relation of HP to Torque is based on engine speed and a constant (HP= T * RPM/5252) they cannot be lagging in torque but winning in HP...

Be interesting to see the graphs with the 6.7 @ its new 400 hp and higher torque numbers. The author brings out the tranny factor, translating hp/tq to the ground will be a huge factor.

Do you lay awake at night, no girl in sight, just longingly thinking about the Blue Oval?

Its obvious that the Ford HP chart does not match the torque curve. Since the relation of HP to Torque is based on engine speed and a constant (HP= T * RPM/5252) they cannot be lagging in torque but winning in HP...

What do you mean? While I haven't looked at these curves, of course a high horsepower engine can have less torque (both peak and spread) than a lower horsepower engine. In fact, it's relatively common. Differing capacities and means of induction are two factors why, though even they are only rough guides.

If I read your post wrong I apologize but I can't make sense of it as it is.

Sorry, you need to look at the charts to see what the chatter's about. The lower chart shown compares HP and torque for the Ford Scorpion and the GM Duramax LML. One instance near peak torque shows the Duramax making more torque, but look at HP at the same engine speed and it shows the Ford leading in HP. That's a mathematical impossibility! Hard to know what to believe with that Ford data...

Sorry, you need to look at the charts to see what the chatter's about. The lower chart shown compares HP and torque for the Ford Scorpion and the GM Duramax LML. One instance near peak torque shows the Duramax making more torque, but look at HP at the same engine speed and it shows the Ford leading in HP. That's a mathematical impossibility! Hard to know what to believe with that Ford data...

Umm no it is certainly not mathematically impossible. Give you a simple example, GM makes corvette engines that produce more HP across their entire RPM band than the duramax does, yet at no point do any of those engines produce more torque than a duramax. POSSIBLE YES.

To explain it another way, HP is a function of torque, more specifically it is the RATE at which available torque is applied. High HP means existing torque is being applied rapidly translating into better acceleration. Torque is merely the amount of twisting or rotational force available.

I have not looked into the specific bore and stroke measurements of these engines, but as a general rule, longer strokes give more torque and larger cylinder bores give more HP. It is very possible that the 6.7L is more "square" than the 6.6L. That would allow the 6.7L to produce more HP yet less torque, all other things being equal of course.

In the end, none of this chatter matters much. the engines are sooooo close in available output at nearly all RPM's that transmission and rear end gearing are gonna play a much bigger role in performance than engine output.

To that end watch the first comparo's of these trucks. I'll be amazed if Ford provides anything other than a truck with the 4:10 rear end gearing to give it a gearing advantage in performance. Big question will be will there test fuel economy suffer enough to make people take notice.

What cracks me up is how every powerstroke fanboy is cheering about how the ford makes more "low end" torqe than the duramax.:confused: If they both peek at 1600 rpm and the d-max peaks at more then it has more low end torque. Any rpm below that is nearly negligible due to the fact that Ford only makes an auto now.




How many of you see lower than 1600rpm other than in top gear and running empty. As soon as you push the tow button you will never see those rpm or if you have a load because of the progressive throttle mapping in the ECM with the TPS to fuel to shift points tables.






By the way Primed2win, there were so many things wrong with what you said I don't even know were to begin........

Its obvious that the Ford HP chart does not match the torque curve. Since the relation of HP to Torque is based on engine speed and a constant (HP= T * RPM/5252) they cannot be lagging in torque but winning in HP...


That equation actually means nothing. It is just a point on a curve where things equal out. Understanding physics will help you understand that and what torque and HP are really about. For the most part HP is just a rate at which work is done. You actually could have nearly infinte HP yet very little torque say in an electric motor that spins at 20K RPM.

That equation actually means nothing. It is just a point on a curve where things equal out. Understanding physics will help you understand that and what torque and HP are really about. For the most part HP is just a rate at which work is done. You actually could have nearly infinte HP yet very little torque say in an electric motor that spins at 20K RPM.
Coolbreeze, actually I do have a good understanding of physics and have degrees in physics, mathematics, as well as mechanical engineering. What you're saying is basically true ... and also fits the equation.

Regardless of the seat-of-the-pants feel, it is indeed an exact physical relationship that (Horse)power is Torque times Speed (/5252) where power is measured in horsepower and torque is given in foot-pounds.

Work is the application of force over a distance, and torque is force at a distance and has the same units, while Power is the application of work per unit of time, or in other words, the rate at which work is done. Power=Work/time.

What this means is... to do the same amount of work faster (in less time) requires more power. Similarly, if you can do more work in the same amount of time, it will require more power. So, you're making more power by either increasing the work (torque) or the rate (revolutions per minute). In your example, a 20,000 RPM electric motor can make the same power as an engine at 2,000 RPM while only making 1/10 of the torque.

That said, what trucks use for pulling/towing is torque. Which is why there's a Duramax diesel under the hood not an 700 HP Indy 500 car engine. When looking at the tuners out there, it seems the dicussion is HP this HP that, when really it boils down to torque. Torque pulls load, slips clutches, breaks shafts.

That said, what trucks use for pulling/towing is torque. Which is why there's a Duramax diesel under the hood not an 700 HP Indy 500 car engine. When looking at the tuners out there, it seems the dicussion is HP this HP that, when really it boils down to torque. Torque pulls load, slips clutches, breaks shafts.


The Indy car engine costs too much for production, would heat/burn up the torque converter with excessive slip, be a shop queen, and burn more fuel than you could tow.

But it would do the job until the tank ran dry or transmission gave up. Or your 500 laps are in…

It is called a Trailblazer SS. Within it’s towing rating, 6800 LBS, it will run with a Duramax. Fuel and trans heating issues aside that is. (6.0L gas = 395 HP, 400 FT LB TQ.)

I look at the 1st big 3 diesel in a long time like I do the 5.7L Olds diesel. I fear the bean counters will ruin it. There is a damn good reason we don’t trust a big 3 diesel. Need another reason? Look up the 6.2, 6.5, Rabbit diesel. With the older rabbit diesels you will get hurt or shot by an ex-owner for asking about “glow plugs” due to trauma they experienced!

Even if it becomes a good engine, I will let the 1st year issues be someone else’s problem and lab rat experiment for Ford.

A dyno chart is for the track. Talk to us after some RV haulers rack up 200K on it and some ranchers beat it up good.

Yes, it will have to simply prove itself. And that is in an arena where the Cummings and Duramax already have.

What cracks me up is how every powerstroke fanboy is cheering about how the ford makes more "low end" torqe than the duramax.:confused: If they both peek at 1600 rpm and the d-max peaks at more then it has more low end torque. Any rpm below that is nearly negligible due to the fact that Ford only makes an auto now.




How many of you see lower than 1600rpm other than in top gear and running empty. As soon as you push the tow button you will never see those rpm or if you have a load because of the progressive throttle mapping in the ECM with the TPS to fuel to shift points tables.






By the way Primed2win, there were so many things wrong with what you said I don't even know were to begin........


Yup they sure have their fanboys drinkin the Koolaid and spreading the gossip with this one... I think they all have a pair of white sneakers on too just in case the mothership comes soon. I'm getting tired of reading articles about 38MPG, the awesome 6spd tranny, finally getting torque at 1600RPM for a change. Oh ya forgot about how awesome 3.31 gear ratios are for towing and how the DMAX is stretched so tightly that its gonna blow any second compared to the new choke. I guess GM should be building more new diesel engines.... like 3 or 4 every ten years :p: Time will tell with this one I guess! Keep on truckin boys.

i just wonder if the shit quailty front end will be better with the flimbsy tie rods and idler arm and pitman and stupid cv shaft are gonna be any better. i did read some where that the ball joint were better ugraded

Umm no it is certainly not mathematically impossible. Give you a simple example, GM makes corvette engines that produce more HP across their entire RPM band than the duramax does, yet at no point do any of those engines produce more torque than a duramax. POSSIBLE YES.


No, there are no Corvette engines (or any other engine in the world) that makes more horsepower but less torque at the same given rpm when compared to a DuraMax (or any other engine). It is indeed impossible, given what the definition of power is!

To cite numbers on your example, let's compare an LS7 in a Z06 to an LMM DMax. Taking just approximate numbers from looking at the curves, they illustrate the point.

At 1,600 rpm -
LS7: 370 lb*ft torque, 115 HP
LMM: 660 lb*ft torque, 195 HP

At 2,000 rpm -
LS7: 385 lb*ft torque, 150 HP
LMM: 640 lb*ft torque, 240 HP

At 2,400 rpm -
LS7: 400 lb*ft torque, 185 HP
LMM: 625 lb*ft torque, 285 HP

At 2,800 rpm -
LS7: 410 lb*ft torque, 225 HP
LMM: 615 lb*ft torque, 325 HP

At 3,200 rpm -
LS7: 425 lb*ft torque, 265 HP
LMM: 590 lb*ft torque, 365 HP

So, first of all notice that an LMM makes more horsepower than an LS7 across the entire curve for the LMM (up to 3,200 rpm), which is just the opposite of your original statment (assuming you had an LS7 in mind). Of course, north of 3,200 rpm, the LMM's torque really falls off and the LS7's does not, so the LS7 makes tons of power up there (peaking at 505 HP at 6,300 rpm) where the LMM cannot operate efficiently.
Secondly, notice in real numbers that the relationship between HP and torque are exhibited well. At any fixed rpm you want to choose, where ever there is more torque, there is always also more horsepower (and vice versa). Always, because it is dictated by the definition of power.

Now, if you knew for sure that one or the other number (torque or HP) was right on, you could then calculate the other. In this case my ability to read a chart is equally good/bad for both curves, so I have no evidence that one number is more accurate than the other.
Feel free to work the math on your own and check how close my eyeballs are in accurately reading a chart.

Crafty - Everything you've said is true. Good job telling it like it is to those with other ideas about what torque and HP really are!

Be interesting to see the graphs with the 6.7 @ its new 400 hp and higher torque numbers. The author brings out the tranny factor, translating hp/tq to the ground will be a huge factor.


Keep your Ford, I'll keep my Chevy...not enough difference in HP or torque numbers to see any HUGE difference, except for the fact that GM puts all their power to the pavement with an Allison tranny, and as far as "I'm" concerned, Ford nor Dodge can beat the Allison or the way it performs.

GM/Chevy is the winner as long as they have the Duramax strapped to an Allison.

Has Ford made a trans. that will hold up to this power?

ya i had a chevy with the allison. over rated pos.

Wow

ya i had a chevy with the allison. over rated pos.

Well atleast I haven't had to replace the torque converter in my alli like I did my power stroke. I wont bash or dis. the truck, I love all diesels, its easy to bash them when they break. Think of a truck like your child when they are sick nurse them back to health. I may still call the truck a pos. even if I did add more power to it then was intended thus causing breakage. But I wont call the kid a pos., sh*t head yes pos. no.

I love how according to Ford Fans this new torque shift 6-speed is better then the Allison when they basically have no idea how its going to perform..

I will believe it when i see it,I'm not listening to this garbage that Ford is feeding to its fan-boys...

Be interesting to see the graphs with the 6.7 @ its new 400 hp and higher torque numbers. The author brings out the tranny factor, translating hp/tq to the ground will be a huge factor.
Stop making up numbers ford never change or bump up the horse or tq numbers:idiot:

ya i had a chevy with the allison. over rated pos.

Bet you did:rolleyes:

ok so i took another look at this horse power graph. ya the duramax makes more horse power from 2900 rpm to 3000 but from a 1000 rpm on up the ford is higher. so when your running down the road at 1900 - 2200 rpm which is prolly were most of the hard driving is done the horse power is lower in your duramax. so ya its higher but its at a rpm that will never be seen in the average truck. take your ifs front end tie rod brakin goverment bail out pos trucks. you all might as well be democrats for even sayin you still like the truck from a company that can't seem to make it without OBAMA's help.

ok so i took another look at this horse power graph. ya the duramax makes more horse power from 2900 rpm to 3000 but from a 1000 rpm on up the ford is higher. so when your running down the road at 1900 - 2200 rpm which is prolly were most of the hard driving is done the horse power is lower in your duramax. so ya its higher but its at a rpm that will never be seen in the average truck. take your ifs front end tie rod brakin goverment bail out pos trucks. you all might as well be democrats for even sayin you still like the truck from a company that can't seem to make it without OBAMA's help.
hate to bust your bubble but ford got help from obama to :rolleyes:

prove it to me then i'll take back what i said.

^^^^you should move to the ford site, you would be much happier there.

ok so i took another look at this horse power graph. ya the duramax makes more horse power from 2900 rpm to 3000 but from a 1000 rpm on up the ford is higher. so when your running down the road at 1900 - 2200 rpm which is prolly were most of the hard driving is done the horse power is lower in your duramax. so ya its higher but its at a rpm that will never be seen in the average truck. take your ifs front end tie rod brakin goverment bail out pos trucks. you all might as well be democrats for even sayin you still like the truck from a company that can't seem to make it without OBAMA's help.

1. You never owned an 04 Dmax

2. You sound really, really stupid

never said i liked ford but ya quality does stand out in them. i did own an 04 d max witht lb7 engine. and i'm still waiting for the proof that ford did take the bail out money

They took out millions in government loans...... which wasn't a bail out, but might as well have been. They just did it before the banking industry took a crap and the housing market fell. Back when banks and the Gov had money to lend. What, you think Ford is repaying nothing. LMAO.

It's not even the loans the matter, the fact was they had to take the money to prove to the unions that they could no longer afford to pay the retires' benefits. The loans that GM took out are a walk in the park compared to being able to shed the costs of overhead that GM would have had to pay to the retires in the form of healthcare in the next 30 years.

I wish you would have owned an 04 6.0 PSD. Maybe FORD quality would stand out a little better. In the form of new hubs, wheel bearing, ball joints, universal joints in the front end. A rebuilt transmission. 4 turbos, 6 egr valves, 2 egr coolers, amongst other things I can't recall like the number of trips to the dealer for reflashes etc etc.

Atleast tie rod sleeves and ball joints are a cheap walk in the park.

I'm not sure how much better the newer ones are:rolleyes:,but my 99,the brakes went metal to metal at 2X,XXX miles and the trans went at 37,XXX miles.The truck was all stock.I got rid of it at 4X,XXX miles.My 04 lly has 90,XXX miles and has had the Edge on it for over 80,000 miles of it.The trans may not be as tight as it was,but it still doing good and I'm still on the stock brake pads.I don't hate Ford and would consider one in the future but for now,till FORD or GMC does something to change my mind,I will stick with GMC and I plan to get a new 2011 Chevy as soon as I can.

I get a kick out of guys who hot rod the crap out of a truck, You know 500+ hp and 1000+ tq then BOO HOO when they break:confused:. AH maybe you were aspecin cheeez boogah.

For the ford guys out there

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109278/worst-made-cars-on

nuff said....

04 single cab. bought with 66000 miles got rid of it at 120000 miles and drove for year and a half. and 2 sets ball joints, reluctor gear twice, shift linkage, wires in shifter lever for over drive, dash lights, driveline, limited slip, dash wires catch fire, tie rods, idler arm pitman arm, to allignment shop 12 times, 5 sets of hubs, 2 cv shafts, the plastic heater hose connector, cheap alluminum heater hose, 3 water pumps, 3 sets of inectors, 3 crank sensors, transfer case rub hole in housing, i trany failure due to me, and one cause shifted in 2 gears at once with cruise set, 3 window regulators, heater would turn on when i wanted, front axle acuator, 4 nuetral safety back up switch, air bag sensors, door panel fall apart, bed seperatin at corners, hit bump in road and had to let go of steering wheel cause it would move halg turn, all in all i went in to it with an open mind, honestly it almost makes me want to try another one to see if it was the truck or the chevy name,

04 single cab. bought with 66000 miles got rid of it at 120000 miles and drove for year and a half. and 2 sets ball joints, reluctor gear twice, shift linkage, wires in shifter lever for over drive, dash lights, driveline, limited slip, dash wires catch fire, tie rods, idler arm pitman arm, to allignment shop 12 times, 5 sets of hubs, 2 cv shafts, the plastic heater hose connector, cheap alluminum heater hose, 3 water pumps, 3 sets of inectors, 3 crank sensors, transfer case rub hole in housing, i trany failure due to me, and one cause shifted in 2 gears at once with cruise set, 3 window regulators, heater would turn on when i wanted, front axle acuator, 4 nuetral safety back up switch, air bag sensors, door panel fall apart, bed seperatin at corners, hit bump in road and had to let go of steering wheel cause it would move halg turn, all in all i went in to it with an open mind, honestly it almost makes me want to try another one to see if it was the truck or the chevy name,



I think your one of those guys that could tear up a anvil in a sand pile.

money to find better fuel economy isn't same as bail out. so still waiting for proof ford took "bailout" money

Ford and fuel economy are 2 things that will never happen even with the government helping.

"rj" did you not read the link? F250 rated by Forbes as one of the worst vehicles made.



I did not see any GMC 2500s on the list.

In case you had trouble....

The F-250 Lariat earned both the "worst value" and "worst safety performance" distinctions from Consumer Reports this year. It received an overall score of just 37 out of 100 points for predicted reliability, fuel economy, depreciation, ride, owner costs, accident avoidance, front-seat comfort, acceleration and owner satisfaction.

ya 20 grand worth of trouble with my chevy in 18 months. enough to put a bad taste in any ones mouth. i had the bail out argument last fall with a guy i worked with, die hard chevy guy, and all he could show me is that " the money ford got was not for bail out" and ya i hate to say but it was one of OBAMA'S great plan for greener/efficient vehicles. but wasn't for saving the company of ford. ya i red it and as far as front seat comfort, the cab is 9 inches narrower than the super duty makin it have narrow seats. the ride might be rougher due to the more dependable solid front axle, as far as fuel economy my chevy averaged 15 mpg witch isn't very good. i'll ask my freind what is 08 gets and i'll let ya know in a bit

Wasn't this topic about the power curve??

No bailout argument here, reality by objective review of consumer reports F250 is one of the worst made vehicles on the road... So if you had 20k worth of trouble with your chevy you will have 40k worth of trouble with your F250.


for sake of debate lets say your right the front axel is better the cab is better and frame is better and the mileage is the same.....


You failed to explain the worst depreciation, worst acceleration, worst in safety performance, worst in ownership costs, and worst in owner satisfaction.


Do you have an pixie dust to make those go away too?

pixie dust lol thats funny, why would you want me to go away, afraid of a good debate? ya i got a bit off topic on the problems i had with my shiterlay. so in respect to the thread lets get back to the power curve topic, lookin at the curve it appears to me the horse power is higher sooner and holds higher until the the duramax does pull ahead in the end at 2900 rpm. but i'll give it to the duramax it does top out higher at 2900 rpm. and on another thought how many of you actually pull a load at 3000 rpm.any thoughts on that?

Well I am not much for a debater but when we are pulling our gooseneck trailers loaded with cattle and you hit a hill my duramax looses speed then it down shifts and climbs right back up to where my cruise was set. So I believe the higher horsepower with the extra torque is what makes the difference.

I for one hope they both do good.The better Ford does,the better GM will have to do to keep up and vice versa,so we all win no mater which brand you like.Right now,on paper,they both sound good to me and both are close enough to not mater much.We'll have to wait and see how well they both can put the power to the ground.I feel that Ford has alittle more proving to do right now and thats why I plan to buy a new 2011 Chevy as soon as the truck I want is available.

Ferd already out sells dmax so dmax has to be better or they wont sell any..

ford out sells maxipad so maxipad has to be better? not makin much sense there

ford out sells maxipad so maxipad has to be better? not makin much sense there
If you dislike the chevy/duramax that much just buy a ford and shut the **** up already:p:

If you dislike the chevy/duramax that much just buy a ford and shut the **** up already:p:

X2 If I wanted to here a bunch of B.S. I'd watch the news. I go here to chat w/guys who love dielels. Move to a Power Broke forum.

I would like a Ford owner to explain something, why is the so called "Ford 6.7" diesel plant in Mexico?? Is it so they can reduce even more cost and still price the 2011 Truck higher?? Having something built in Mexico is the last place I would want a diesel engine built. Maybe that's why FORD is making their own diesel now, Foreign Originated Rotating Disaster.

not a ford owner any more:( traded it in on a chevy. i went into it with an open mind and wantin to try out the chevy. it was fast i'll give it that. but i couldn't tell you why ford has the 6.7 plant in mexico. never heard that before. were did you get that info from i'd like to read up on it

Yeah there are many articles about the new 6.7 Ford Diesels all being assembled in Mexico. Diesel power magazine had an article in this months issue. There are many articles about this. Here is one link http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-scorpion.html Just another way for Ford to cut costs. You would think they would want to do everything they can to finally have a good diesel engine compared to what they have had the past 10 years....