925 lbs-ft of Earth Moving, Skull Shattering...Marketing.  

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 07/22/2016 at 14:01 • Filed to: marketing, its the power stupid, Truck Yeah

6

60

People are freaking out about Ford’s latest update to their heavy duty “scorpion” 6.7 L diesel engine and its, no doubt impressive 925 lbs-ft and 440 hp, but what does that actually mean? If you read youtube comments it means you can tear the road a new one and open up a portal to another dimensions as your pants swell up with righteous freedom. What it actually means is that the new tune has a little more horsepower and horsepower, after all, is what actually matters.

To show what I mean I crunched the nums, as they say, and came up with this graph to illustrate that I don’t know a better graphic program than excel.

Green line is 2017 torque (925 lbs-ft @ 1800-2000 RPM)

Blue line is 2016 torque (860 lbs-ft @ 1600 RPM)

Red line is 2016 HP (440 hp @ 2800 rpm)

Purple line is 2017 HP (440 hp @ 2800 RPM)

Without having an accurate 2017 chart, I’m guessing that Ford simply took a page from the RAM book and ramped up the boost for a higher peak number and with that in mind, I charted the new torque values against the old and wow...I mean, what?

Here’s the long and skinny; That extra 65 lbs-ft of panty twisting power (that’s a thing, right?) nets you an addition actual 26 hp gain (max)...and only in 4th, 5th and 6th gear.

Hey more power is more power and I’ll take it, but 26 more hp at 2000 rpm sure sounds a lot less impressive than 925 LBS-FT of TORQUE!

And herein lies my beef: Torque isn’t nearly as important as power, and truck manufactures would rather you not care.

If the goal is to move X weight up a hill faster, then power is what you want, not force.

“ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ”

This is the textbook definition of power. If you want to do work faster...you need more POWER. Its pretty simply really, its like electricity; if you want sound/heat/light/motion you can’t have only volts (amount) or amps (rate) but you need the product of both to produce power (watts). Torque is the amount, rpms are the rate and the multiple (divided by a constant conversion of 5252) is the power.

Now Diesels are great for towing because if you want economy you want to keep the loads high and the engine speeds down. That’s why semi trucks have gigantic slow revving engines, its not because “torque is best for towing” like pickup truck makers want you to believe, its because high torque numbers produce moderate power numbers at low rpm. Gas engine produce more power, because they can rev easier, Diesel produce more power down lower because of their nature to ingest ungodly amounts of air [and thus fuel] without exploding, but its all the same song and dance.

Ignoring other variables, an engine with 2000 lbs-ft @ 1000 rpm will pull the load exactly as fast as well as an engine with 500 lbs-ft @ 4000 rpm, or 250 lbs-ft @ 8000 rpm.

Sorry to harp on this again, but it drives me CRAZY that the marketers are winning the war here - People need to understand that POWER maters for the speed at which you can do work. STOP BEING SEDUCED BY THE TORQUE WARS!

If you are still here, thanks, let me give you the quick numbers I put together for these engine.As you can see, the new tune does result in a more powerful engine, but averaged out, it results in only a net gain of 5 HP.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

RANT OUT!

*UPDATED WITH CONFIRMED NUMBERS*

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:05

4

It means you have a bigger cock. That’s what it means.

Nibby > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:06

2

omg but i need that torque so i can carry this in my bed

jimz > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:07

2

the way I like to put it is “power is the important number, it tells you how much work the engine can do. Torque (and the torque curve) tell you what kind of gearing you’ll need to to the job.”

meaning, a 400 hp/390 lb-ft Mustang 5.0 could theoretically do the same job as a 400 hp/1500 lb-ft Cummins ISL, but it would probably need a 35-speed transmission in order to do so. and probably wouldn’t last very long since it would be screaming all of the time.

For Sweden > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:08

2

The only numbers I need to know are 707 HP and 925 ft-lb

HammerheadFistpunch > jimz 07/22/2016 at 14:09

0

Pretty much.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:09

0

Good breakdown. But good marketing will usually win any war. Facts don't matter to the average person and it's a bit irritating.

HammerheadFistpunch > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 07/22/2016 at 14:10

0

What irritating to me is how simply the concept is, but how confusing and befuddling its become to the average consumer because of the way trucks have been marketed for the past 30 years.

Jcarr > For Sweden 07/22/2016 at 14:11

0

HellStroke!

PowerCat!

Cummings!

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 07/22/2016 at 14:11

2

Genuinely don't understand the hate. What if you just want power? Or a big truck? Sure, some truck owners might be compensating, but not all of them. I suspect that many, like me, just like the body style and the power.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:13

0

Most consumers aren't like you and me though. It's their own fault for not digging deeper into how stuff actually works.

HammerheadFistpunch > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 07/22/2016 at 14:13

0

But you go to places like TheFastLane truck...where people are supposed to be the expert users of trucks for towing...AND THEY HAVE NO CLUE! Drives me crazy.

HammerheadFistpunch > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 07/22/2016 at 14:14

2

The torque wars are 100% pissing contest...it works out in the consumers favor, but honestly its nothing but oneupsmanship

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:15

0

I know. You just have to take everything with a grain of salt these days regardless of source. Most people can't be bothered to do their own research though.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:16

0

I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all though. Stiff competition results in a better product and benefits everyone. Here's to hoping GM can deliver with the new Dmax.

HammerheadFistpunch > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 07/22/2016 at 14:18

1

It’s a bad thing *only* as it relates to durability compromises. Its easy to crank up the boost every few years to stay on top but if it comes at the expense of...well...expense to the consumer than F that noise, and twice on Sunday. So far the engines are proving to be proven durable, but you have to imagine that it shortens the life of the components and increases the cost of ownership in the long run.

jimz > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:21

0

what people don’t get is the relationship. Torque is important to get loads moving, but it’s torque at the drive wheels which matters. You can increase torque at the drive wheels in one of two ways: 1) raise engine output torque, or 2) lower the overall gearing (higher numerical ratio.) lowering the gearing has the limitation that the engine is going to then be working at a higher RPM most of the time.

nowadays you can do 2) more effectively with more gear ratios; with 8, 9, 10 speed transmissions you can increase the ratio spread to get more torque multiplication in the lower gears, yet the top gears are still tall enough where the engine isn’t screaming at highway speeds.

HammerheadFistpunch > jimz 07/22/2016 at 14:23

0

Even then, getting the load moving is still a function of power since a station force doesn’t require a time component.

E90M3 > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:25

1

So basically what you’re saying is 335i > 335d, got it. Actually that does explain why the 335i is about a second faster to 60 than the 335d, despite the fact that the 335d has 125 ft/lbs more than the 335i.

BringBackTheCommodore > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:27

0

I dunno, the 570 lb-ft of torque seemed to help me out when I was pulling a 37', 12K lb, 13' tall parachute of a 5th-wheel RV uphill with my truck.

Then again, I’m looking more at where torque comes in with the engine. It’s nice having a decent amount of power available coming off the line, the 6.0L International diesel in my current truck doesn’t complain as much when towing as the 5.9L Magnum V8 did in both the ‘99 Dakota and the ‘98 Ram 1500 I used to own.

HammerheadFistpunch > E90M3 07/22/2016 at 14:28

0

That’s exactly why

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:28

0

An engine with 2000 lbs-ft @ 1000 rpm will pull the load exactly as fast as well as an engine with 500 lbs-ft @ 4000 rpm, or 250 lbs-ft @ 8000 rpm.

I agree with what you’re saying overall, but I disagree with the wording here. If you’re assuming that all 3 engines are glued to those RPM’s, the exact same amount of work is being produced.

However taking these engines and making them not only sustain but also break out a load, that’s a different story. Let’s use the 2000@1000 engine as a benchmark. Now, for the other 2, the 500@4000 likely has 100lb-ft less at 1000rpm (probably even lower, but meh this is all hypothetical anyway), and the 250@8000 is probably about the same at 1000rpm since 8000rpm should be well past the peak. Maybe a little lower but I’m using 250. That’s:

2000@1000=381hp@1000rpm

400@1000=76hp@1000rpm

250@1000=48hp@1000rpm

A large difference. That WILL make a difference in towing.

Re the marketing... The thing to remember is, imo, that the relationship between tq and hp isn’t static (maybe bad choice of words, but I really can’t come up with anything closer). Think about the hp number as a bungee cord held between two points. Now imagine pulling up on the middle of the cord by using another bungee cord. The second cord stretches as well, and as a result the first cord doesn’t move as much as your hand. That’s the hp at low revs. In the mid-range, it’s more like pulling up with a rope. The curves rise at pretty close to the same rate. So, yeah, I agree they’re playing off the tq number and targeting people who aren’t sure what the marketing is talking about.

HammerheadFistpunch > BringBackTheCommodore 07/22/2016 at 14:29

0

Sure, it helped develop lots of horsepower down low in the rev range

Eberle-Hills-Cop > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:33

1

“came up with this graph to illustrate that I don’t know a better graphic program than excel.”

I done ruined my shirt with coffee and giggles.

CRider > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:34

0

You’re not going to get a diesel to rev to 9k rpm and last very long, though. That’s also not the kind of engine truck drivers want. The best option is clearly to make it a two stroke.

Is this getting the 10 speed? That would make it much better at putting 1k lb-ft down.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:35

0

It is. But it’s important to have as much power available at as low a wheel RPM as possible. Two ways to do that:

- Very low (or would you say high? I’m never sure how to describe it—you know what I mean though) final drive ratio.

- An engine that produces a ludicrous amount of low-end torque.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > jimz 07/22/2016 at 14:38

0

I hate it when people find a succinct way of putting something it took me 20 minutes to pull together and type out

BringBackTheCommodore > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:38

0

Alright, let’s go a different route then. A completely different, non-diesel related route.

Let’s roll back to Chyrsler Corporation ca. 1970, and look at two engines, the 440 6-pack and the 426 Hemi.

The 426 Hemi was rated at 425 hp @ 5000 RPM, and 490 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM.

The 440 6-pack was rated at 390 hp@ 4700 RPM, and 490 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM.

Same peak torque, different RPM levels, and while they both have the same peak torque rating, they have different horsepower ratings.

Based on that article you typed up, the 440 6-pack should either be generating more horsepower, or less torque.

HammerheadFistpunch > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/22/2016 at 14:39

1

Yes the assumption in my example would be static rpm

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > BringBackTheCommodore 07/22/2016 at 14:41

1

No, it does the same thing but it doesn’t want to rev. The torque dies off sooner and can’t keep the power coming. It’ll feel the same until you want to wind it out and it decides it’s not happening.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:45

1

See my reply to JimZ... I tend to wander a bit. I just hate it when there’s an explanation without qualifying factors. So easy to take out of context.

That said I quite enjoy all your posts on the topic.

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 14:45

0

If I could slap a tuner on my car right now that would net me an extra 65 lb.-ft. of torque and 22 hp with no other mods without blowing my engine up, I’d buy it right now.

DipodomysDeserti > E90M3 07/22/2016 at 14:47

0

You have to look at gearing as well when you’re talking about 0-60 times, especially when relating it to engine torque.

You also aren’t going to to get 36+ mpg in a 335i.

E90M3 > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 14:52

0

This is true, but they also have gearing designed to make the most of their respective engines.

DipodomysDeserti > E90M3 07/22/2016 at 14:58

0

The d doesn’t. It’s geared for highway cruising. They actually put down about the same torque.

E90M3 > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 15:00

0

I’m talking about the E90s

335d - 425 ft/lbs

335i - 300 ft/lbs

Bluecold > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 15:11

1

Thank you for bringing the truth

HammerheadFistpunch > CRider 07/22/2016 at 15:20

0

6 speed still, I don’t think the 10 speed is up to the challenge.

HammerheadFistpunch > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 07/22/2016 at 15:21

0

yup.

HammerheadFistpunch > BringBackTheCommodore 07/22/2016 at 15:24

0

As always its the “@” that its important. the 440 would develop more hp if it could maintain a high torque rating further into the rev range. Thats the entire point of plotting a graph, to see where the power is being made.

HammerheadFistpunch > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 15:25

0

For context, that’s only 7.5% more power. If you can’t get 7% more power out of a turbo tune, its a pretty crappy tune.

DipodomysDeserti > E90M3 07/22/2016 at 15:27

0

I am as well. Yes, the engines produce different amounts of torque. However, the d has much taller gearing in order to give it max mpg’s. Because of this, they end up producing about the same amount of torque at the wheels. The 335d has a 2.81 rear diff whereas the 335i has a 3.46 rear diff. Therefore, assuming they have the same transmission, you’re getting over 23% more torque multiplication through the rear on the 335i. That’s a big reason why it is quicker to 60. The diesel also weighs about 300 lbs more. The 335i is definitely better for straight line speed, but it has more to do with the rear diff and lighter car than it does the 35 extra ponies.

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 15:29

0

True, but generally the more power you’re making ,the less you’re going to be able to just get out of a tune. Of course this is a diesel, which generally respond very well to tuning.

E90M3 > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 15:33

0

I’ll give you that one.

HammerheadFistpunch > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 15:34

0

That’s the key; diesels are SO easy to crank up the boost because its frankly just a matter of how much and how fast you can shovel it in and then when will it explode.

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 15:37

0

They also get more efficient with more power. My wife’s old DD was a 335d. I would have liked to start tuning that puppy.

DynamicWeight > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 15:38

0

Peak horsepower is a dumb measurement too though. Why would I want to divide my measurement by some arbitrary number? Makes no sense. Do I really care about how fast my engine is spinning? Yes, but I want that as a separate variable/measurement.

What would really help us decide which truck is better is a measurement of the torque the engine can produce spinning at whatever RPMs are occurring at 65 MPH in top gear. And then the area under the torque curve from idle to red line. That would tell me how easily the truck is going to cruise, and how fast it’s going to get me up to that speed. Everything else is just “What’s the biggest number we can tell them?”

Of course, it would be really nice if all the auto companies just provided dyno charts heh.

HammerheadFistpunch > DipodomysDeserti 07/22/2016 at 15:38

0

Well...they get more efficient with load , but yeah they don’t take to tuning poorly at all.

HammerheadFistpunch > DynamicWeight 07/22/2016 at 15:42

0

Agreed to all, its the area under the curve that matters. I like to use the term “average power” or “usable range average power” to accomplish the goal. The average power of the new engine is pretty great, but the gain isn’t. That being said, if you only took the average from, say, 800-2200 rpm where you will spend more of your time, its an 8 hp gain, not a lot, but better than 4.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 16:38

0

Consider this, unloaded our 2012 Chevy 2500 duramax at max throttle spins the tires to 50 mph, and that truck only has 700 something torques and 400 or so Horsepowers, I guess I don’t get why 900 something will lead to any useful advantages other than a dick contest. How about improve fuel economy? Make the truck lighter so it can tow more (well they kinda did that). Anyway you can see why chevy doesn’t have Isuzu update their engine that often, there just isn’t that much benefit to the consumer or chevy.

HammerheadFistpunch > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 07/22/2016 at 16:40

0

I know a lot of people who would desperately love GM to be building an older version of the Dmax still, when it was super fuel efficient. I still think the duramax 4500, or a smaller 3400 V6 even, would be great ideas. Even in the 2500, a smaller diesel with something like 300 hp and 600 lbs-feet would be a nice option to have. That being said...I don’t know how well the Titan XD is doing so we’ll have to wait and see.

BringBackTheCommodore > HammerheadFistpunch 07/22/2016 at 20:01

0

Well, this discussion sent me scouring physics forums, looking up formulas, and doing some math.

Quite the interesting journey. Mathematically, everything stated is sound. Mathematically speaking.

That said, when it comes to hauling the same amount of weight, 2005 F-350 vs. 1998 Ram 1500 ... the F-350 simply handles the weight better than my old Ram 1500 did.

HammerheadFistpunch > BringBackTheCommodore 07/22/2016 at 20:02

0

You got that right, big trucks haul better no question.

bhtooefr > HammerheadFistpunch 07/23/2016 at 00:50

0

Actually, I can fully believe that a lot of tunes will increase fuel economy - they do things like advance timing across the board (pro: more efficient conversion of fuel into work, reduced particulate emissions; cons: higher cylinder pressures (risks lifting the head and/or blowing the headgasket), higher cylinder temperatures (creates conditions that are favorable for NOx to form)) and reduce EGR activity (pro: in a diesel, excess air is ALWAYS beneficial for more complete combustion; con: more excess oxygen means something to react with the nitrogen to form NOx).

The upshot, however, is that you get much higher NOx emissions as a result of such a tune - the exact thing that got VW in trouble (for other reasons, though). (This is, of course, ignoring coal rolling tunes and such. Just a performance tune that’s “responsible” and maintains or reduces particulate emissions.)

bhtooefr > HammerheadFistpunch 07/23/2016 at 01:08

0

Of course, one could expand on this to partially explain why so many automakers are aiming for CVTs and many-speed automatics nowadays.

If you can HOLD an engine at its peak HP, whatever RPM that’s at, then the area under the curve matters less - instead of the engine needing a broad power curve to drive nicely, the CVT can just hold a peaky engine at its best point. A many-speed automatic can approximate a CVT in this regard, too.

(The other reason is that engines have optimum RPMs for efficiency for a given power output, and you can aim for that when you’re not at full power.)

It’s also worth noting that everyone right now (from the smallest of cars to semi trucks) is focusing on downspeeding engines, to reduce engine internal friction. However, to maintain horsepower at lower engine RPM, that means torque is increasing... which is actually a bad thing, because what torque (before the wheels) matters for, fundamentally, is the durability of the parts after the engine . For most driveline parts, as long as you’re not exceeding a maximum RPM that overstresses it, torque is what breaks things - clutches, gearboxes, and (depending on gearing) driveshafts and differentials. (Keep in mind that as you gear things down, you increase torque, so if you have a gearbox that has shorter gearing to compensate for a higher RPM engine, the shafts after that box see the same stress as the lower RPM engine.)

samssun > HammerheadFistpunch 07/27/2016 at 01:33

0

I don’t question any of the math/logic, but what’s the basis for assuming torque only spikes at 1600 +/-50 rpm? Seems reasonable to let it taper in the same shape as stock, staying above 900 lbs-ft until maybe 2700-2800. That should provide a bigger hp gain, and more overall output (“area under the curve”).

HammerheadFistpunch > samssun 07/27/2016 at 09:57

0

Based on nothing but a guess using dodge as a guide. When dodge upped thier torque to take the crown back from Ford they did the same thing

roadway14 > HammerheadFistpunch 07/29/2016 at 08:33

0

Not sure why you say the 860lb-ft engine generated that rating at 1400RPM, when Ford has published 1600RPM.

There were a couple of hardware changes to this engine revision, in addition to software updates.

What’s most interesting is that torque is restricted on gears 1-3 on single rear wheel trucks, before allowing the full 925lb-ft in 4th gear (allegedly to prevent wheelspin). DRW trucks are restricted in 1st gear only.

BigBlock440 > HammerheadFistpunch 08/03/2016 at 12:11

0

Yeah, but...I’d rather pull something at 2000 RPM than that same load at 8000, so I’ll continue to be seduced.

HammerheadFistpunch > BigBlock440 08/03/2016 at 12:13

1

Oh there is nothing wrong with more power, and more power down low. I just can’t stand people thinking that the torque number is actually a thing that matters in and of itself.

Future next gen S2000 owner > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 08/03/2016 at 13:50

0

HD trucks, full-size, and hell even mid-size is basically a whose dick is bigger contest. Towing and payload capacity long ago passed what 95% of people use their truck for.