2 weeks and 2k miles... a little disappointed!!
#31
03-23-2017, 09:11 PM
Agree
Let me first start by saying that i'm a lifelong ford guy and have owned several of every design superduty since 1999 (14 total)... As far as the 2017 goes I love the looks of the new truck and a lot of the technology/improvements that it offers!... However i'm not 100% sure that it all adds up to a better experience for the driver compared to my 14 f350 dually. Gonna list a few of the things i observed during a recent trip with both trucks
1. Driver Comfort
The reason I say this is because we took the new truck as well as my old 14 (both F350 lariat dually 4x4 6.7's) from Virginia to Daytona for bike week and in my personal opinion as well as that of my dad (who now has my old truck) and my wife the old truck is more comfortable. The seats in the 14 are far superior to the ones in the 17. My wife and I even switched from the new truck to driving the old one for part of the trip just to make sure it wasn't just in our heads, and I hate to say it but I didn't really want to get out of the old one and back in the 17. I know some people will say that the KR or Platinum seats are better than the lariat. This may be true, however nothing against those trucks and its just my opinion but I don't personally like the color or the two tone that come with those two trim levels so that just wasn't an option for me. Also since i'm comparing the previous lariat to the new 17 version I feel its definitely a fair argument
2. Towing/Passing Power
Before talking about towing and since i'm sure many of you will be wondering let me state that the new truck has the 3.55 gears vs 3.73 for the 14.... I normally tow a 20 ft enclosed trailer with 4 harley baggers roughly 7500lbs, however since my truck had less than 1000k miles I let my dad tow that with the 14 and I towed his 10' enclosed with one bike weighing less than 2k. Traveling 1400 miles on interstate 95 @ 75-80 mph over the course of the trip the 14 averaged about 3.4 more mpg (13.5 vs 10.1) while towing 3x the weight that my new 17 had. Some of this is surely due to engine break-in and gearing, however after owning 100's of semi's and pickup trucks for my business I know this isn't going to account for this significant a reduction in fuel economy. Considering the HP/TQ gains for 17 the real shocker for me was the passing power, and to put it simply I just couldn't keep up. No matter which one of us was driving when it came time to pass or get up to speed on a ramp the 14 would easily pull away which in all honesty was a big disappointment for me!! I don't know if i had and exceptionally strong 14 or a weak 17 but something is definitely up! Maybe mine and the crab in the TFL dually challenge are brothers!!
3. Small Gripes:
Backup Camera definitely not as clear as the previous version
Mirrors Vibrate badly, to the point of being blurry at interstate speeds... This isn't an issue with the old version
Sync still not having traffic info is BS.
There are a lot of things I really love about the 17 guys, so please don't take this as me just getting on here to bash the new truck....however I can't deny that strictly from a drivers perspective this trip did make me second guess my decision to upgrade... Take this with a grain of salt as its all just my personal opinion/observation...The new truck is definitely more capable but i'm not convinced it's 100% better!
1. Driver Comfort
The reason I say this is because we took the new truck as well as my old 14 (both F350 lariat dually 4x4 6.7's) from Virginia to Daytona for bike week and in my personal opinion as well as that of my dad (who now has my old truck) and my wife the old truck is more comfortable. The seats in the 14 are far superior to the ones in the 17. My wife and I even switched from the new truck to driving the old one for part of the trip just to make sure it wasn't just in our heads, and I hate to say it but I didn't really want to get out of the old one and back in the 17. I know some people will say that the KR or Platinum seats are better than the lariat. This may be true, however nothing against those trucks and its just my opinion but I don't personally like the color or the two tone that come with those two trim levels so that just wasn't an option for me. Also since i'm comparing the previous lariat to the new 17 version I feel its definitely a fair argument
2. Towing/Passing Power
Before talking about towing and since i'm sure many of you will be wondering let me state that the new truck has the 3.55 gears vs 3.73 for the 14.... I normally tow a 20 ft enclosed trailer with 4 harley baggers roughly 7500lbs, however since my truck had less than 1000k miles I let my dad tow that with the 14 and I towed his 10' enclosed with one bike weighing less than 2k. Traveling 1400 miles on interstate 95 @ 75-80 mph over the course of the trip the 14 averaged about 3.4 more mpg (13.5 vs 10.1) while towing 3x the weight that my new 17 had. Some of this is surely due to engine break-in and gearing, however after owning 100's of semi's and pickup trucks for my business I know this isn't going to account for this significant a reduction in fuel economy. Considering the HP/TQ gains for 17 the real shocker for me was the passing power, and to put it simply I just couldn't keep up. No matter which one of us was driving when it came time to pass or get up to speed on a ramp the 14 would easily pull away which in all honesty was a big disappointment for me!! I don't know if i had and exceptionally strong 14 or a weak 17 but something is definitely up! Maybe mine and the crab in the TFL dually challenge are brothers!!
3. Small Gripes:
Backup Camera definitely not as clear as the previous version
Mirrors Vibrate badly, to the point of being blurry at interstate speeds... This isn't an issue with the old version
Sync still not having traffic info is BS.
There are a lot of things I really love about the 17 guys, so please don't take this as me just getting on here to bash the new truck....however I can't deny that strictly from a drivers perspective this trip did make me second guess my decision to upgrade... Take this with a grain of salt as its all just my personal opinion/observation...The new truck is definitely more capable but i'm not convinced it's 100% better!
#32
03-23-2017, 09:13 PM
Mirror Shaking
Thanks for the suggestion Frantz. I've power-folded my mirrors many times now, power telescoped them in and out...they still vibrate. The housing is not vibrating...just the glass mirrors themselves. If you listen to a bass-heavy audio track at high volume (before the mediocre Sony system starts clipping, lol) even that will shake the glass. But with no audio on, just rolling 70mph down the highway will shake the glass. Pretty annoying.
#33
03-24-2017, 07:08 AM
Hotshot
Here is my opinion and its only a opinion. As of now the EPA is really cracking down on diesel engines. Case in point VW started this mess when they got caught but now Ram and Jeep are being investigated as well and are already being accused of not fully disclosing their software. VW has announced that the TDI will not return again due to all the crap with the EPA. Past this there is a great deal of interest in reviewing other suppliers and their diesel engine emissions so manufactures are becoming more worried and cautious as to what they produce. Not sure if you guys seen the new Fast Lane Truck video on the new 2017 diesel trucks but Ford came in last in time up the mountain which surprised everyone. My initial thought was maybe it was in regen which was holding it back but now we are seeing more and more of this on these new 17's. Its my opinion that Ford maybe miss representing the actual output (short term) trying to improve or verify current emission levels. There is no reason a lighter truck with as much or more power shouldn't be faster except for tranny ratios etc and from what I can see that wasn't the issue.
TFL just released dyno results of the actual power and torque output of these same three duallys yesterday, maybe you saw it. RAM was producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 92% of its rated torque. Ford was also producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 87% of its rated torque. Chevy only produced 76% of its rated horsepower and 85% of its rated torque. What needs to be taken into account is that these tests, even the Dyno test, was performed at high altitude and the result is also "wheel horsepower" not crank horsepower which is what the manufacturer rates these at. So we can learn that RAM and Ford are both able to deliver horsepower through the drivetrain very well even at high altitude while GM struggles. We also learn that RAM delivers high-altitude torque the best, then Ford, and then GM. Perhaps the Allison 1000 is not as efficient. Nevertheless, the combination of the lightest truck and the 3.73 gears made the Chevy the quickest up the mountain...proving horsepower and torque deficits do not necessarily make the worst truck.
#34
03-24-2017, 07:52 AM
The Ford was not the lightest truck in the TFL challenge - the Chevy was between 200-300lbs lighter. The RAM was slightly heavier than the Ford. Ford did not misrepresent power levels because these trucks are all SAE certified on power. That means they make "at least" what the manufacturer claims.
TFL just released dyno results of the actual power and torque output of these same three duallys yesterday, maybe you saw it. RAM was producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 92% of its rated torque. Ford was also producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 87% of its rated torque. Chevy only produced 76% of its rated horsepower and 85% of its rated torque. What needs to be taken into account is that these tests, even the Dyno test, was performed at high altitude and the result is also "wheel horsepower" not crank horsepower which is what the manufacturer rates these at. So we can learn that RAM and Ford are both able to deliver horsepower through the drivetrain very well even at high altitude while GM struggles. We also learn that RAM delivers high-altitude torque the best, then Ford, and then GM. Perhaps the Allison 1000 is not as efficient. Nevertheless, the combination of the lightest truck and the 3.73 gears made the Chevy the quickest up the mountain...proving horsepower and torque deficits do not necessarily make the worst truck.
TFL just released dyno results of the actual power and torque output of these same three duallys yesterday, maybe you saw it. RAM was producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 92% of its rated torque. Ford was also producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 87% of its rated torque. Chevy only produced 76% of its rated horsepower and 85% of its rated torque. What needs to be taken into account is that these tests, even the Dyno test, was performed at high altitude and the result is also "wheel horsepower" not crank horsepower which is what the manufacturer rates these at. So we can learn that RAM and Ford are both able to deliver horsepower through the drivetrain very well even at high altitude while GM struggles. We also learn that RAM delivers high-altitude torque the best, then Ford, and then GM. Perhaps the Allison 1000 is not as efficient. Nevertheless, the combination of the lightest truck and the 3.73 gears made the Chevy the quickest up the mountain...proving horsepower and torque deficits do not necessarily make the worst truck.
troverman, what is your best guess of which truck would be quicker up the mountain pulling 30,000 lbs. ?
#35
03-24-2017, 07:59 AM
Hotshot
Well, the Midnight IKE late last year pitted the F-450 and RAM 3500 towing 30k up the mountain. The new F-450 was about a minute quicker than the RAM. The GM trucks don't pull that much, but if they did, it might be interesting. I think the GM trucks would need to be in a lower gear thanks to the 3.73. At 30k lbs it seems the Ford has the advantage for slightly faster pulling.
#36
03-24-2017, 08:06 AM
I saw it above, but I'll suggest it a second time. Any time I've seen really bad mirror vibration it's because someone pushed the mirrors in and out manually when they are power fold. If you cycle them with the power fold feature they should lock into place and eliminate the vibration.
This may work on some but not across the board.. My ride side mirror vibrates bad no matter what i do..
#37
03-24-2017, 08:16 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: nc
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ford was not the lightest truck in the TFL challenge - the Chevy was between 200-300lbs lighter. The RAM was slightly heavier than the Ford. Ford did not misrepresent power levels because these trucks are all SAE certified on power. That means they make "at least" what the manufacturer claims.
TFL just released dyno results of the actual power and torque output of these same three duallys yesterday, maybe you saw it. RAM was producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 92% of its rated torque. Ford was also producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 87% of its rated torque. Chevy only produced 76% of its rated horsepower and 85% of its rated torque. What needs to be taken into account is that these tests, even the Dyno test, was performed at high altitude and the result is also "wheel horsepower" not crank horsepower which is what the manufacturer rates these at. So we can learn that RAM and Ford are both able to deliver horsepower through the drivetrain very well even at high altitude while GM struggles. We also learn that RAM delivers high-altitude torque the best, then Ford, and then GM. Perhaps the Allison 1000 is not as efficient. Nevertheless, the combination of the lightest truck and the 3.73 gears made the Chevy the quickest up the mountain...proving horsepower and torque deficits do not necessarily make the worst truck.
TFL just released dyno results of the actual power and torque output of these same three duallys yesterday, maybe you saw it. RAM was producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 92% of its rated torque. Ford was also producing 88% of its rated horsepower and 87% of its rated torque. Chevy only produced 76% of its rated horsepower and 85% of its rated torque. What needs to be taken into account is that these tests, even the Dyno test, was performed at high altitude and the result is also "wheel horsepower" not crank horsepower which is what the manufacturer rates these at. So we can learn that RAM and Ford are both able to deliver horsepower through the drivetrain very well even at high altitude while GM struggles. We also learn that RAM delivers high-altitude torque the best, then Ford, and then GM. Perhaps the Allison 1000 is not as efficient. Nevertheless, the combination of the lightest truck and the 3.73 gears made the Chevy the quickest up the mountain...proving horsepower and torque deficits do not necessarily make the worst truck.
I did see this but its contradicting. If the Chevy did the worst in high altitude then how did it destroy both the new Ford and Rams in the recent IK Gauntlet test? Just doesn't add up....
#38
03-25-2017, 01:31 AM
Fleet Mechanic
Not sure I'd call it "destroyed". IIRC, it was less than 25 seconds that separated all three?
#39
03-25-2017, 04:57 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: nc
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 seconds is more than you think. Think about the two running side by side up the mountain. Your at the top waiting on them. After several minutes you see one headed toward the finish line. It passes you and you count to 25 seconds then the next one comes by. It's longer than you think especially considering the one that lost was suppose to win.
#40
03-25-2017, 05:15 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: nc
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also how in the world does a heavier truck with less hp and Torque like the Ram beat a lighter truck with more hp and Torque up that mountain. I'm telling you something doesn't add up.
#41
03-25-2017, 02:22 PM
Fleet Mechanic
25 seconds is more than you think. Think about the two running side by side up the mountain. Your at the top waiting on them. After several minutes you see one headed toward the finish line. It passes you and you count to 25 seconds then the next one comes by. It's longer than you think especially considering the one that lost was suppose to win.
Taking the dynos at face-value, apparently the Ram put more torque to the wheels. Maybe that's the answer to your question.
#42
03-26-2017, 10:26 AM
Take 2 trucks, exactly the same except one thing, rear axle ratio. One has 3:31, the other 4:88, the light goes green on the 1320 showdown, care to bet on who crosses that finish line first?
So slow Joe with 3:31 gears gets spanked like a red headed stepson while the guy with 4:88's is over in the winners circle with bikini babes hanging on all over him like cheap suits.
But slow joe is not dumb, he walks over and says there is a 1 mile straight away here and I will race you on that. Fast Eddie says sure and tells the Swedish Bikini team to get in his truck.
They take off and at the ¼ mi mark slow joe can't read Fast Eddies license plate, but he can see the bikini team holding up a sign that says just below their now exposed tops, that says you can have these if you can catch these.
At the half mile mark slow joe can now read that license plate and the bikini team now without bottoms has a sign that sez...well you can guess.
At the ¾ mi mark slow joe is heads up with Fast Eddie and Eddie is pushing on his steering wheel and has the starter key turn on hoping for some extra from the starter motor.
They cross the 1 mi line and slow joe pulls over to wait on Fast Eddie to arrive, 25 seconds later. The Swedish Bikini Team rushes to his truck, slow joe points to the bed of the truck, smiles and sez, that girls is the winners circle, get in!
Its about the gears...
#44
03-26-2017, 02:24 PM
Wow i read all these post and wonder if maybe some of you really need to take a ride with me in my 02 7.3 lariat 6er with new springs. maybe it will help you appreciate what you have..... nothing is perfect and never will be...the true test is longevity ive had mine since new and have 165k original and only have done a altenator and water pump......just recently did some prevenative maint and put powerstop on all 4 corners and hubs up front......needless to say i am getting ready to jump to the 17 getting ready to retire........when i do i hope it will be the last truck i have to get as retirement is coming quick.
#45
03-27-2017, 07:20 AM
Hotshot
You have to remember, we are towing 21k, not 31k, which is where the Ford and RAM top out. So Ford and RAM do not *need* the extra torque to pull 21k, and neither does GM. The point is that even though the GM produced less power and torque on this dyno compared to the others, it still was producing more than enough horsepower and torque with its weight and gearing to move the trailer up the mountain just fine.
