That video made me laugh

 

LOL, good one!

 

i've never run with a new D-max to see how fast they are.. but the other day my 6.7 handed a late 90's 454SS chevy shortbed truck it's ***..guy tried to cut me off..didn't work plus i embarrassed him infront of his girlfriend.

pretty bad when your little shortbed gets smoked by a big *** 4x4 crew cab.

 

hey I will never knock a dodge. The Cummins is awesome but the truck is not that great.

The 6.7 seems like an awesome engine. I currently have a 6.0 and will be very upset to see it go. I know I have trouble brewing down the road with that motor so I guess I need to go ahead and get the 6.7.
That Chevy video of the ford twisting just gave me chills.

 

Ford is getting the same dish of poop soup they served to Toyota when the F-150 did the same tests against a frame that wasn't boxed (if you look, the Tundra's frame is the same as the Superduty....just lighter duty).

If anything, GM stole a play out of Ford's play book. No reason to get sour about it. The new frame of the GM truck is probably stiffer than the Superduty. Stiffness doesn't equate to reliability or strength. (one of the first rule any Mechanical Engineer learns)

As for the Power....who really cares? Both trucks will do anything the owners need their trucks to do? With 400 HP and 800 Ft Lbs of torque, I hate to see what the next round of "power" wars is going to bring. Each year I hope engine manufacturers will engineer more fuel economy into their engines as well as reliability. Instead, we just tune them up higher and higher so their truck will run the 1/4 mile faster.

I wonder what the take rate would be if Ford introduced a 300 HP 600 lb ft torque diesel that got 25 mpg empty? I think you would find the take rate to probably be pretty high.

Oh well. I have a 6.4. I don't even own a 6.7, although I'd like to. Until then, its tuned to provide the reliability I thought I bought and didn't receive b/c of the EPA and CARB.

 

That about sums it up. From a Chevy guys perspective we've had a stable drivetrain platform for a few years now. The Powerstroke has been struggling since the 7.3.

I’d say right now all three offerings are pretty close and the only thing I don’t like about any of them is the power/mpg robbing emissions garbage on all of them

 

The alison transmission on the chevys is such a POS. Alison has good transmissions till GM told them to build it to their specs. Just like rancho had good shocks till Ford told them how to build them. When I had my chevy I spent my extra money on tranmissions and my ford buddys spent there money on fuel. Now I'm driving a ford that gets pretty good mileage and great power without a chip. The duramax is a great engine,even the truck is good except there ugly now.

 

Or a stripper pole....

 

fyi... Allison has been owned by GM since the '40's.

 

That Allison transmission has been a solid performer for GM. Ford recognized this and actually used it as the base spec for their new 6R100. One of the design requirements for the drive train team was to meet or exceed the Allison spec on every single transmission component. In most cases, the Ford team engineered their trans parts to exceed the Allison spec by a healthy margin. I'd say once Ford nails the TCM programming, this transmission (along with the 6.7L) will go down in history as an enormously successful power train.

 

FYI, GM hasn't owned Allison since 2007. They sold them off trying to raise money to pay the bills to keep the lights on. My take on the frame test is this, I was asked by our fleet manager why our bids were coming in higher to outfit a HD Chevy/GMC with aftermarket equipment than they were just last year. I had no clue why, but I was milling around and found some claims that the box frame makes it more difficult to outfit and run aftermarket wiring/hydraulics, is there any truth to that? Just curious. Since I was asked, I have noticed that all our class 7 and 8 trucks in the shop have C channel frames, question is that if fully boxed is the way to go, why haven't large truck builders switched too? Perhaps GM shot themselves in the foot with the box frame if this is the case.

 

Not sure when, but I do know for a fact that GM does NOT own Allison right now. They may have in the past though...

 

The GM HD trucks have had their problems in the past - weak front-ends, styling maybe. But Your first I've found that has said the Allison Transmission was an issue. Even with aftermarket mods the Allsion is very capable of handling up to 500hp before tranny mods.

 

GM Sells Allison Transmission - TheStreet

For what it's worth, GM sold Allison in 2007 but retained the Baltimore plant which builds the A1000. I have no idea what has transpired in the last 4 years since that sale and of course the bankruptcy.

I wouldn't call the Allison a POS, but I also wouldn't throw 500 hp at it in stock form. Everybody that I have seen pusing the envelope with a GM truck has needed a torque converter well before 500 hp. It will be interesting to see if this 6R140 holds up as well to high HP loads as the 5R110 has.

Overall, I think Ford still has a lot of shift tuning issues to work out on the 6R140. Hopefully they start to get it figured out soon. I like the transmission overall but it has it's aggravating moments.

 

Off topic for sure here. But even in it's stock form it isn't 'even well' before 500 hp? I know plenty of Allisons holding together just fine putting down that much up 500hp at the flywheel. I opted for a TC myslef only becuase I wanted to exceed that but had no problems up until that. NOW if your going to pull a sled every weekend then yea - you'd prolly want that TC even in stock form. Just my $.02