And the HP Wars Begin

[dgl24087]

GM Announces Best-In-Class Power Figures for 2011 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel - PickupTrucks.com News

 

[Diamondpilot]

I knew it was coming.

Chris

 

[Reg]

The HP wars CONTINUE.

I forget who "started it" and it doesn't much matter.
Fact is the great American buying public WANTS POWER for.... errr, ummm, being seen at Bars, Diners, Home Despot, dump runs on saturday morning with two big green plastic bags, etc.

Yeah ! NEED 400 HP for THOSE tasks.

Oh, there is also the 17ft bow rider for towing the kids around in/on inflatable water toys.
Can't haul THAT around with a little 6 cylinder engine, it must weigh Awww, 1500 pounds or more (-:

 

[JB4310]

Oh man, talk about stealing the thunder from Ford, to come out with this just a week later.
The HP wars are stupid, is there still such a market for these pick up truck drag racers?
That's why I'm glad Dodge derates their Chassis cab work trucks HP, tuning them down a little to get greater service life out of them. The way a diesel should be.

JB.

 

[Reg]

I have an '03 Duramax, rated at 300 HP IIRC.
I pull a head to head horse trailer with it.
I have some liking for extra instruments, so I added a scan gauge II.
This gives me OBD II scans if/when a fault light comes on, I can clear codes while driving, usually early warning of a restricted fuel filter.
It also gives me real time display of 4 extra gauges that I choose from a dozen or so.
I very RARELY use more than 75 HP (25% of the 300 HP rating) when towing.

I should add that SOME of the reason for this is that I am either hauling live animals who (I assume) have no appreciation of acceleration, or I am running empty and don't need much power anyway.
I doubt that I would use much more than 1/3 (100 HP) if I was pulling an inanimate load.
Heck, if it is HEAVY who needs it coming through the back of the cab anyway ?

OK, so I also have this 167 HP motorcycle that is 3 years old now.... and the new models are around 175 HP, with 200 HP (& 200 MPH) foreseeable.

Yeah, I have no need for that much power on two wheels either (-:
We do BUY it though, - - me too.

 

[scoutcub]

HaHa, it's gotta make you laugh.....

It'd be some good bar talk...."Yea, I got 7 more HP than you...!"

I think there's some little screw hidden away in these engines that they go back in, break the safety wire, and tweak up a bit to get more HP....!

But, it's the American way, free enterprise, marketing, competition, etc. and deep down inside we love it!

 

[Egon]

The Budget has decreed I must stay with my anemic old 96 Dodge.

Course come the hills I'll be "Leader of The Pack".:thumbsup:

 

[Duffster]

I wonder if you will need a CDL to drive it?

 

[Lunk]

This is one of the reasons why we''l probably not see an economical diesel in a half-ton truck.

Most folks point at the EPA, and rightfully so, but you cannot tell me that manufacturers are unable to certify a light-duty diesel due to costs / complexity. They just are not willing to.

Somewhere along the line we've become so enamored with power that we forget the other attributes of diesel power - longevity and efficiency.

The manufacturers just keep on tweakin' their engines to ridiculous levels, giving up on economy and durability in the process. We buy into it because we just love our power!

I'd like to propose that the automakers provide consumers with a six cylinder, lower displacement (4 liter class), economical turbo-diesel for light duty truck use. I feel that there is an untapped market for a 160-200hp / 350-400ft lb diesel engine which in a half-ton would deliver a consistent 25mpg highway.

The engines capable of doing this are already being built - In Europe.

Unfortunately the first one built and released here would immediately be trumped by another manufacturer's "most-powerful-diesel-available-in-a-half-ton-truck" version, and the diesel hp war would be on again, just in another class of truck...

We all lose in the process...

My .02

Lunk

 

[Egon]

I'd like to propose that the automakers provide consumers with a six cylinder, lower displacement (4 liter class), economical turbo-diesel for light duty truck use. I feel that there is an untapped market for a 160-200hp / 350-400ft lb diesel engine which in a half-ton would deliver a consistent 25mpg highway.

Gee, I got one of those in a 3/4 model but it does have a little more displacement.:thumbsup:

 

[sld]

I have to agree. At what point do we use the technology to get more efficient rather than more powerful?

New trucks are great, and I love mine, but the same jobs got done one way or the other with trucks in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

 

[Dmace]

By the way, have fun filling that UREA tank on your new Ford and GM diesel trucks while the Dodge Cummins requires no extra chemicals or additives and has met the 2012 EPA emissions standards since 2009. Ford and GM keep adding more power but have yet to make it any cleaner or more maintenance free.

A smaller diesel option would be a great addition to the HD truck lines. Maybe a standard diesel and a high output for those who need it.

 

[Lt CHEG]

By the way, have fun filling that UREA tank on your new Ford and GM diesel trucks while the Dodge Cummins requires no extra chemicals or additives and has met the 2012 EPA emissions standards since 2009. Ford and GM keep adding more power but have yet to make it any cleaner or more maintenance free.

A smaller diesel option would be a great addition to the HD truck lines. Maybe a standard diesel and a high output for those who need it.

I like the Cummins engines too. Heck my uncle has had great luck with his, not so much with the trannies, but that's a different story. With all that said, for a lot of people, including myself I'll gladly go to a urea injection system to pick up fuel economy. Ford and GM have rumored that some testing was yielding as much as 30 mpg on the highway with an unloaded truck. The MPG is the single biggest reason why I would own a diesel and the single biggest reason why I haven't had any desire to own any of the newer diesels since the advent of the ultra low sulfur diesel. I get better fuel economy with a gasoline engine than people are getting with their diesels. The urea injection as used by Ford and Chevy has allowed less fuel to be consumed as the exhaust is also used for fuel which results in greater fuel economy. The Cummins won't be able to offer this feature. Because of that, if I were in the market for a heavy duty truck I wouldn't even consider a Cummins. If they can come up with another way to get 24 mpg average or so with 30 mpg for conservative highway driving then maybe I would consider one, but until then the only trucks I would consider would be the Ford or Chevy. To me diesel engines are all about the mpg, you take away that advantage and I'm not interested.

 

[JB4310]

The Budget has decreed I must stay with my anemic old 96 Dodge.

Course come the hills I'll be "Leader of The Pack".:thumbsup:

What hills Egon? The down hills

Yup my old 95 Cummins powered Dodge only had 160 HP, struggled a little towing in the hills, but never has there been a sweeter sounding engine.

I wonder if you will need a CDL to drive it?

Don't even start

By the way, have fun filling that UREA tank on your new Ford and GM diesel trucks while the Dodge Cummins requires no extra chemicals or additives and has met the 2012 EPA emissions standards since 2009. Ford and GM keep adding more power but have yet to make it any cleaner or more maintenance free.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but that's why I'll stick with my in-line 6. In 15 years I lost just 1 day to mechanical downtime, and average of ~$150.00 per year over the cost of regular maintenance.
1 mechanical failure (injector pump) in 15 years between 2 heavy service body trucks, working almost every day.

JB.

 

[JB4310]

To me diesel engines are all about the mpg, you take away that advantage and I'm not interested.

So you're talking about a commuter truck, that's fine but not what these trucks are designed for IMO.

Don't get me wrong fuel economy is very important, (wish mine was better ) but not the only factor that makes diesel the choice for medium to heavy work trucks.

JB.

 

[Egon]

[What hills Egon? The down hills

Gosh no, that's going uphill on our narrow winding roads.:laughing: Them other fellows just catch up to me and can't pass till there's a straightway and going downhill. Usually I get even as I drive by the station they are filling up at!:thumbsup:

 

[jcmseven]

This is great news. Two trucks now that make over 700 lb feet of torque. I will say my Dmax, rated at 665 lb ft. is plenty strong, and truthfully going to nearly 800 is clearly overkill, but I like it anyway. Still, I would give these manufacturers at least one model year to get this urea injection system and the buggers ironed out.

John M

 

[jcmseven]

One more thing, I know there is great variability in the fuel economy of these trucks, but I never felt the DPF trucks to be that bad on fuel. My 6.4L Ford got over 17 mpg unloaded and about 13 pulling a pretty heavy load on highway. My Dmax gets consistently over 20 mpg unloaded and about 13-15 pulling a similar load to my Ford. Although I had a bout where my fuel economy on the dmax was not great, this was traced to an air filter that needed changing. Since doing that and running synthetic oil I get quite good mileage. Interestingly, BOTH my Ford and my GMC have consistently gotten better mileage than my neighbor's 2005 Chevy 6.6L diesel (pre-DPF) and honestly have gotten better on average than any of my earlier diesels, some of which have been lauded on the forum to be good on fuel. I suspect that the preliminary numbers out from both Ford and GM about their trucks' fuel economy are pretty accurate. Dodge/Cummins has always had fuel economy, especially towing in its ballpark, but I suspect that it will have a tough time bettering the numbers from the other two. I do not believe high power and fuel economy are mutually-exclusive.

John

 

[Diamondpilot]

Not to start a war here but I wonder how much is left in the Dmax? Is this a last ditch effort to compete with Ford with the current engine? I can not see it going much farther before GM will have to develop a new powerplant like Ford and Dodge. They now have a chassis, well almost if it was not for the IFS, that will handle the extra load and the tranny is well proven.

Ford has these number in the first run so it should be good for a 25% or more gain over time and the same thing holds true for the Cummins. It has had the same numbers now for 3 years so it should be easily upgraded.

Chris

 

[Lt CHEG]

So you're talking about a commuter truck, that's fine but not what these trucks are designed for IMO.

Don't get me wrong fuel economy is very important, (wish mine was better ) but not the only factor that makes diesel the choice for medium to heavy work trucks.

JB.

I wouldn't say just a commuter truck by any means. I guess my point is that I can tow just about anything that I can ever envision having a need to tow with a gas engine. It might not make it up some hills as fast, but it can still get the job done. I don't want to get 8 or 9 mpg towing something though if I'm towing often. For me the only way the diesel is worth it is if I can pull those heavier loads and get better fuel economy doing it. I do understand that some people just have the need to pull the absolute heaviest loads and for them the power is everything. However I would say that not everyone who owns or wants to own a diesel owns them because they need to pull the heaviest loads regularly. I know a lot of guys who own diesels that tow loads that I'd feel perfectly comfortable towing with my truck and its 5.3L V8 and 9,500 pound tow rating. But because they tow those loads a lot they want better fuel economy than they would get pulling those loads with my engine which would be working harder. Then there are people like me who rarely tow anything heavier than a snowmobile trailer or small pop up or small camper (heck I just installed an electric brake controller on my truck last week). Now that I have my tractor and a few people interested in paying me to do some brush hogging I will likely be towing heavier loads more often, still not very often but more than usual. For people like me the fuel economy has to be good not only when towing but needs to be good as a commuter too. I can tow my tractor with my truck but most of my driving won't be with anything in tow, so I need a good utility infielder of a diesel engine if you will.

My point in all of this is that I think you can't completely ignore fuel economy as a reason people buy diesels. If you want to appeal to the broadest audience you need to strike a good balance of power, performance, reliability and economy. Just as a company shouldn't sacrifice their heavy haulers for the commuters, it isn't wise to cater just to the heavy haulers at the expense of the other potential diesel users. And to me, and a lot of other people I know as of right now, GM and Ford are offering a better overall blend with their 2011 model diesels because they do offer better fuel economy. I would also mention that someone who is likely to need to get the most power out of their diesel truck is more likely to go to the aftermarket and buy a performer, turbo upgrade, etc. to get more power than you average truck buyer too.