"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/22/2015 at 14:16 • Filed to: Numbers
5
24|
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
06/22/2015 at 14:16 • Filed to: Numbers | 5
| 24 |
After reading Andrew’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! this morning about Ram upping the HD diesel ante to 900 lb./ft for 2016, I decided to see how the numbers for the big three look on a plot from 1990 to present.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Not as extreme as I thought, but still somewhat interesting.
Disclaimer: I gathered the numbers as best I could using Google, so there may be a discrepancy here or there.
nermal
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 14:26 |
|
A few take-aways here:
There’s a significant jump every 5yrs or so. The graph isn’t so much a line, it’s a set of steps.
GM is due for a new engine.
GM updates less frequently than the other two.
Even numbers! Every HP and torque rating except two ends in 5 or 0.
Milky
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 14:28 |
|
In gif form:
HammerheadFistpunch
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 14:28 |
|
What engines did you choose from? Are they only diesel? or the most powerful HD option of the time?
|
Jcarr
> nermal
06/22/2015 at 14:30 |
|
Yeah, GM seems content with lots of plateaus. Can’t say I blame them. Anecdotally, I see as many Silverados/Sierras pulling trailers as I do Fords and Rams.
|
Jcarr
> HammerheadFistpunch
06/22/2015 at 14:32 |
|
I just did diesels and tried to use the most powerful version available in something 1-ton or less, no medium duties.
|
HammerheadFistpunch
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 14:33 |
|
Too bad GM had crap diesels until the late 90’s. I mean the 454 put out better torque numbers than their diesels.
|
Jcarr
> HammerheadFistpunch
06/22/2015 at 14:35 |
|
Yeah, the 6.2 and early 6.5 weren’t all that powerful. To be fair, I think the 6.2 was offered as a more fuel efficient alternative to the 350, not necessarily a stump-puller.
bryan40oop
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 14:56 |
|
http://www.autonews.com/article/201506…
“Heavy-duty Ram trucks with FCA’s regular six-speed automatic transmissions remain unchanged at 800 pounds-feet of torque.”
|
Jcarr
> bryan40oop
06/22/2015 at 14:58 |
|
Yes, what are you getting at?
Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
> nermal
06/22/2015 at 15:22 |
|
Ending in a 5 makes it odd :p
Boss2452stolemylunchmoney
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:24 |
|
Just realized this was by year and not engine speed as the independent variable.
TahoeSTi
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:25 |
|
Ford should be blue, this bothers me, Red works for dodge but blue for Chevy?
|
Jcarr
> TahoeSTi
06/22/2015 at 15:27 |
|
Haha, sorry. Didn’t think about that.
|
nermal
> Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
06/22/2015 at 15:27 |
|
You are correct, should have said multiples of 5.
M54B30
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:28 |
|
Its more linear than I thought it would be. I figured the power race was a recent (last 10 years) thing.
GM would destroy everyone if they can crack the 1,000 lb-ft barrier with their next update.
|
TahoeSTi
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:29 |
|
Other then that it’s great. Really cool to see the jumps, and huge progress. If only we had Fuel Usages to go with the power numbers we’d really show progress.
|
Jcarr
> M54B30
06/22/2015 at 15:32 |
|
I thought the same thing. I was expecting a sharp rise, but it’s really been more like a bump here and there.
It’s got to plateau eventually. Another 10 years and we’ll be at semi-truck levels of torque.
norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback
> bryan40oop
06/22/2015 at 15:36 |
|
AISIN box, yo.
|
norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback
> nermal
06/22/2015 at 15:37 |
|
GM should be unveiling a new Duramax within the coming year. My, non insider prediction, is at least 950lb-ft.
|
M54B30
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:41 |
|
I’m tempted to buy a Ram 2500 just to see what that torque feels like. I’ve driven semis with nearly 2,000 lb-ft but its negated by 80,000lbs.
I will be that bro that floors it all. the. time.
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 15:59 |
|
At work we have a 2012 Chevy with the duratech 6.6, it’s just brutal. Why the hell would you need 900 ft-lbs? Are people out towing a houses?
|
Jcarr
> Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
06/22/2015 at 16:00 |
|
I have no idea
Dingers Ghost, Champion Jockey
> Jcarr
06/22/2015 at 20:45 |
|
Things we can learn from this:
1. GM does not update their diesel very often. This doesn’t seem to be bad, as they usually aren’t too far behind even with an older engine design.
2. Ford has updated numerous times. Each time they get better, but it certainly hasn’t been without trouble. Usually they are right near the top of the pack.
3. Dodge has updated almost less than GM. They run pretty much the same engine for a long time, originally with the 12v and then the 24v 5.9, and has used the 6.7 for a number of years now. They usually do pretty well with what they have, hence the few updates.
PS9
> Jcarr
06/24/2015 at 16:30 |
|
440HP...for reference, this is what you’d get from a Ferrari F430 when it debuted in 2004. Supercar power and almost double the Torque from a diesel pickup...