RUT ROH... now what...
 

I just read this morning about the '05 torque #'s for the GM Duramax, and Dodge Cummins.

We already knew the Powerstroke was bumped up to 570 ft-lbs,
GM Duramax is supposed to be 605 ft-lbs
Dodge Cummins bumped again to 610 ft lbs.


Since torque is what puts the wheels in motion... its gonna be a nice road test when I see a new'er' Dura or Cummins tryin' to pull up next to me. :)

Thats cool but i wish they increase the RPM a little on both engines so it would keep you at the speed you want but mostly torque is what you really need in hauling the heavy loads so thats a plus +. You dont want to much RPM or you would end up with a stranded blown engine.

i wonder what output is at rear wheels (if FordLariat chimes in on this one i am gonna shoot my computer screen!!)

Please do, sir, you might learn some responsibility when you have to work to pay daddy back for the one you shoot.

Well if Marine Ironman were here to debate this one, he would tell you that the torque rating doesn't matter when you don't have the state of the art torqshift transmission behind it. Since it doesn't produce any parasitic losses and has the correct gearing to actually put torque to use.

He was nothing more than a smooth talking fool who liked to use numbers. The only thing he didnt realize is that things in real life dont work like they do on paper. That was his major flaw.

hmmm

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me...

You got it backwards. The only numbers i believe in are flywheel specs, other than that i get ALL my info from real life use, and not assumptions.

Sick of it
 

I can hear the chains coming right now. Better act nice guys or Timmy is going to eat this one alive. :)

All I can say is there is enough power in these things to tow a house. Look at some medium duty trucks and they don't even have/need that much power. Yes numbers are nice to back your butt up with but if the vehicle can't handle it then what's the use? In the logic of some of you guys saying that if you have the engine power you can tow it. I call full BS on that one. That would be like saying I could slap a 302 with 400 tq /400 hp on my ranger and tow 10k. All I can say is get your minds off of the numbers and start putting them in the big picture. I could have gotten a Dodge with a 4.7 and had gobs more torque than my 4.0. Why didn't I? Because a compact truck in my mind shouldn't haul over 5k pounds. That is about where I feel comfortable with my truck. We're entering an age when all sensibility is lost in vehicle quality and all emphasis is put on those damned numbers. I for one am sick of it.

Cool it with the personal remarks :(

Actually, I'm more of a threat than Tim. He's much more lenient than I am and he even gives you more of a heads up to cool it than I do. Me, I just lurk around, watch and delete rather than posting. I do try to email or PM users but rarely get a reply. They just disappear for awhile and the come back with the same bad attitude.

If you tip this Forums guidelines so many times that I notice - you're gone - no questions asked. There's a couple that are on real thin ice right now.............................

Be nice and as Torque1st said - Cool it with the personal remarks.

IMO the Marine Ironman would pick the GM Duramax at 605 ft-lbs to be giving the 570 PSD a run for its money .... about a tie .... and that the GM Duramax really needs about 50 more ft-lbs of sustained torque margin, at which point it becomes a clear winner over the PSD.

I for 2 agree...
Darn Marketing...

Hell im just glad that the torque diesel wars isnt over yet. Gotta keep the customers happy

A pair of bookends.... :)