Have you factored in the differential gear ratios? It would seem that the GM would be at a disadvantage in a test like this.

 

yes, look at my photo, i figured ford and dodge having 4.10's, Chevy 3.73's, is that correct? Thats how i came up with the final drives

 

Without going back to watch the whole thing I believe you are correct. The remark was made that the Chevy was only available with the 3.73 so other testing would not be possible.

Besides, who wants to ride side saddle (Chevy) to be square with the steering wheel?

 

i watched just he uphill runs again, chevy and dodge pulled down to about 2500 rpm in 3rd, ford pulled just under 60 mph in 4th then down shifted to 3rd which resulted in holding 2700-2800 and the 40-44 mph

this test weight and grade favored the higher geared trucks, more weight or more grade and the ford would have shined by holding 3rd


Ok enough beating a dead horse

 

Great detail Kubota!

This really goes to show how important it is to match the gears to the tranny to the engine to the load you plan to pull. It seems the GM shines at its max tow rating, and the Ram does well at that weight due to the slightly higher gears.

As always, there's more to the story than how many horses lurk under your hood.

 

That gives us a good indication as to what's happening with gearing. A truck that shifts frequently is "hunting" for a gear. Although shifts are pretty darn quick with today's automatics, the underlying condition is that the engine is struggling to stay at an efficient range.

If they altered the load even by 500 pounds (plus or minus), it might make the winner (Chevy) have to shift more one way or the other. Perhaps more of a load would have made the GM go into a hunting mode because it was on the verge of dropping down into a less productive rpm range. Or less of a load might make it upshift and over-rev? We don't know.

This is exactly why I said it's kind of silly to leave a truck in "D" in this extreme testing. What they are testing is the ability of the trucks to respond to one exact condition (XX,xxxx pounds). If they changed that, it may make for different results by altering the overall response of the vehicle because of many different inputs (rear gear, tranny gear, ECM shift points, etc).

Like I said, they limit the hauled load to the rated load of the least capable truck. IDK which one it is at this time, but I suspect it's certainly not the Ford. When they limit this way, they induce a condition that might favor one over the other. Perhaps this exact load put the GM in it's sweet-spot, whereas the Ford and Ram were not?

The point to understand is that there are two ways to approach this test.
a) hold all things constant, it makes things "appear" even
b) test things to their best ability of unique performance range

Let me make an analogy outside of trucks.
If you took a small, lean quick guy and a large, beefy slow guy and tested their ability to carry a load up a flight of stairs, you can predetermine a "winner" by manipulating the inputs of conditional limits on the test. The goal is to move XXX pounds up the stairs by running up/down in consecutive trips.
scenario a)
you make them carry one box at a time; each box weighs 30 pounds. The load limit is easily within both persons' capabilities, and then you run the "test" long enough that the cycles (up/down the stairs) give the lean guy an advantage due to fitness. You adjust the total weight to 600 pounds (20 boxes x 30 pounds) to fall into his best performance range. The big guy can carry more boxes, but that does not fall into the preset condition of the test parameters. So he has to carry the same amount of boxes for the same amount of trips; so he loses because he is slower.
Scenario B
You allow them to carry as many boxes as they can handle safely during each trip. The small guy can carry two boxes each trip up, but the big guy can carry four. Now the big guy only has to make 1/2 the trips, so even though he's perhaps 25% slower, he makes 50% less trips, so he "wins" because he can move the total load (600 pounds) in five trips, whereas it would take the faster guy ten trips!

Or, think of Olympic runners. They set a distance (100m) and time them (seconds). But they don't say "OK - you all have to carry the exact same amount of weight, so you fat guys carry fewer bananas but your skinny guys have to carry bananas and apples". Or they don't say, "everyone has to use the same shoes; same brand, same size". They give a goal (distance X) and measure a variable (time in seconds) and then let the competitors choose the best conditions to make their best time. Period.

Get the point? when TFL manipulates input limitations, they cause bias. The GOAL should be to get the most weight up the hill, in the least time.

When they hold the testing to some artificial limit (a fixed amount of weight) and use a fixed methodology (using D mode), then induce one or more competitors into a condition that might be less than optimum.

I am not saying that the Ford would have won if more or less weight would have been involved. I am saying that for any given set of circumstances you induce into a test, you alter the optimum that each individual competitor can achieve.

The GOAL should be this: who can get the most weight up the hill in the least amount of time. To fairly do this, they should load each truck to the max it can officially carry (no overloading, but right to the last pound of GVWR), and then time the rig up the hill. Then create a mathematical formula that gives a performance on a " minutes per pound" basis. If the Ford can carry more, it should get credit for that. If more or less weight were used, perhaps the Ford, or even the Ram, may have won. It depends upon shift strategy in the ECM. If the Ram can do "better" manually shifting the trans, then it be done so. If the Ford can do better by hauling more weight, then let it happen. If the Chevy can win by running the fastest, so be it. But the GOAL SHOULD BE to allow the max performance of each brand. You judge it by "pounds/minute". Maybe the Ford is the slowest, but only at this particular weight. If they altered the weight to each max rated load, I can assure you the results would be fully different. Maybe the GM would have still won; we don't know. We only know that this test will assure some measure of limitations to one or more competitors.


This is why I say it's entertaining, but all these tests are somewhat "fixed" because they unwittingly are inducing a cause of bias. I don't believe they are secretly doing this; it's just their unknowing bias. By not allowing the trucks to perform to a true goal in any manner that befits the "best" for each individual competitor, they pick a "winner" by manipulating input limitations.

 

Very well put. I think all this makes a difference if; the Big 3 were in competition for this test. And all the trucks were made with this competition in mind, then we can get excited about it.

 

Amazing analysis. I think we've probably finally figured this out.

One other thing, Kubota: the RAM and the Chevy both use 235x80x17; the Ford runs 245x75x17. So in this comparison the Ford has tires that are 0.3" shorter than the others.

 

the above chart would be a good post to the TFL site so the crew could see the math.

 

I for one will not buy any of these excuses. Pure BS sugar coating TBH!

Most folks are going to drive their automatic pickup in "D"rive. If you have to do this or that to make one brand go up the hill faster, well?, that is known as a band-aid in the powersport business, I see no difference here.

On tire size difference or even gearing difference? Doesn't matter, this is what each Mfgr put on these vehicles as OEM and this test was just this, an OEM pull test as the trucks come off the factory line.

Now if they come up with another run like an "all out test" where as they don't hold the top speed to 60 etc etc... then maybe another make will prevail, but as it stands in "this" pull test... It's done, it's over and let's not keep making excuses that that the other guys just see as sour grapes. This thread alone must have given them enough bar talk for a year!

Here's my dealio.... I'm still loving my F350 with bells and whistles up the wazoo! Rides great, has great zip on pedal pushes, it's super smooth and quiet (yes, wifey approved!), the peter meter says 17.0/mpg ave. and I'm good with that! (I haven't towed yet of course).

So finishing just a mere almost micro seconds behind the other 2 is no big deal. Let's bring on some more or other tests I say, this one is wrote in stone as such, so be it.

[= HAPPY! =]

 

I agree,

No matter which way you stack the cards, someone will be at a disadvantage for one reason or another

i made the chart more to see if what i was thinking was true on paper or not

 

[QUOTE=Tsubakihara;17011035]

Kind of what I was saying here without all the charts. You don't need 3.73's and 4.10's for these weights. It makes you slower.

 

I traded my 2016 Duramax for a 2017 PS. It cost me 15K and it was the best 15K I have ever spent. The Ford is so much better it is not even close. I would do it again for even more money. The GM truck that surrounds the great Duramax drivetrain is in bad need of an update. I was in a bad mood after driving the Denali, it drove me nuts....the seat comfort, the dash which was too high and ugly in design, the side view mirrors which blocked my view, and the awful noise which came from the left front The Ford is a far superior experience regardless of its IKE time.

 

Yep, and we all are happy with our awesome all new designed trucks, I'm sure none of us are going to switch just on this report, we have a ship load of great things going on And even though I loved my past D/Max's, I'm not only good w the new Ford, I'm ecstatic.

Great chart btw, you put in some Time on it!

 

Man I love this site cause all the smart Ford truck owners we have. I hope you guys are right so people will stop hating on this new super duty and being disappointed in an amazing truck.