Current ratings
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Abilene TX
now this is interesting...... in response to the request for rwhp ratings. I was at the Dr. performance website just looking around and they had stock dyno's for the 03 cummins(305BHP) and the 01 powerstroke (250BHP) the 03 cummins dyno'ed stock @190 rwhp while the powerstroke dyno'ed stock @ 196 rwhp.... The powerstroke gave up 55 hp at the flywheel and still put up more hp at the rear wheels? Seems odd, but based on that dyno, the Cummins will need some substantially higher flywheel ratings in order to actually outperform the Ford. That equals roughyly a 22% drivetrain loss for the ford and a 33% drivetrain loss for the dodge. If the losses hold true for the torque as well, then it is possible to assume that the 6.0 still out torques the new 600 cummins even at the 560 rating (436 to 402) Dodge has some work to do. I'm not a mechanical engineer by any means, but I personally think my theory holds a little water. Who knows?
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by bigdieseldav
now this is interesting...... in response to the request for rwhp ratings. I was at the Dr. performance website just looking around and they had stock dyno's for the 03 cummins(305BHP) and the 01 powerstroke (250BHP) the 03 cummins dyno'ed stock @190 rwhp while the powerstroke dyno'ed stock @ 196 rwhp.... The powerstroke gave up 55 hp at the flywheel and still put up more hp at the rear wheels? Seems odd, but based on that dyno, the Cummins will need some substantially higher flywheel ratings in order to actually outperform the Ford. That equals roughyly a 22% drivetrain loss for the ford and a 33% drivetrain loss for the dodge. If the losses hold true for the torque as well, then it is possible to assume that the 6.0 still out torques the new 600 cummins even at the 560 rating (436 to 402) Dodge has some work to do. I'm not a mechanical engineer by any means, but I personally think my theory holds a little water. Who knows?
Is this with automatic or manual transmissions?
Trending Topics
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 3
From: Centerville, Iowa
Obviously the Dodge was an Automatic transmission...and the Ford was *likely* a Manual, though it should have still pulled only a 15% loss if it was a manual.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Manual transmissions are the only way to go in heavy duty work trucks. You save about a thousand dollars up front in initial cost, and you get a better transmission IMO. That dyno sheet is worthless. One of the traits which causes Dodge automatic transmission failure is all the slop that's built into them. The 47RE and 48RE transmissions (both found behind the Cummins) are made to slip their convertors alot, in order to smooth out the shift points. By all accounts, these transmissions are so sloppy that you somtimes cannot even feel them shift. This will cause huge parasitic loss to the rear wheels. With 6 speed that Cummins would be putting out at least
250 RWHP. I agree that with those numbers, the 7.3L was likely a manual transmission.
I've seen dyno charts for the Duramax diesel too, and there is a good difference in RWHP between the Allison equipt models and those with the ZF 6 speed.
I agree dave, if those results were apples to apples, the 600 Cummins would be putting less torque and HP to the rear wheels than a 6.0, but trust me- those results are not even close to being apples to apples.
Sorry Lariat...
250 RWHP. I agree that with those numbers, the 7.3L was likely a manual transmission.
I've seen dyno charts for the Duramax diesel too, and there is a good difference in RWHP between the Allison equipt models and those with the ZF 6 speed.
I agree dave, if those results were apples to apples, the 600 Cummins would be putting less torque and HP to the rear wheels than a 6.0, but trust me- those results are not even close to being apples to apples.
Sorry Lariat...
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 8
From: Missouri
I don't think the diesel autos should drain much more than the manuals. In a gas engine parasitic losses get worse at higher RPMs. Diesels only run about 3,000rpm and they have very low stall speeds. Do the new ones have lockup converters? The auto will always loose a little more than the manual but I don't think the difference is that big in the diesel world.
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 1
From: pound
Originally Posted by sinister73
Manual transmissions are the only way to go in heavy duty work trucks. You save about a thousand dollars up front in initial cost, and you get a better transmission IMO. That dyno sheet is worthless. One of the traits which causes Dodge automatic transmission failure is all the slop that's built into them. The 47RE and 48RE transmissions (both found behind the Cummins) are made to slip their convertors alot, in order to smooth out the shift points. By all accounts, these transmissions are so sloppy that you somtimes cannot even feel them shift. This will cause huge parasitic loss to the rear wheels. With 6 speed that Cummins would be putting out at least
250 RWHP. I agree that with those numbers, the 7.3L was likely a manual transmission.
I've seen dyno charts for the Duramax diesel too, and there is a good difference in RWHP between the Allison equipt models and those with the ZF 6 speed.
I agree dave, if those results were apples to apples, the 600 Cummins would be putting less torque and HP to the rear wheels than a 6.0, but trust me- those results are not even close to being apples to apples.
Sorry Lariat...
250 RWHP. I agree that with those numbers, the 7.3L was likely a manual transmission.
I've seen dyno charts for the Duramax diesel too, and there is a good difference in RWHP between the Allison equipt models and those with the ZF 6 speed.
I agree dave, if those results were apples to apples, the 600 Cummins would be putting less torque and HP to the rear wheels than a 6.0, but trust me- those results are not even close to being apples to apples.
Sorry Lariat...
So, sinister73, you admit that the Cummins 600 puts less to the wheels than the 6.0? So the 6.0 has more USEABLE power than your beloved Cummins?
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
LOL, actually that would be jumping the gun a bit, I meant it in relative terms, but since a 6.0 / torqueshift is not the same as a 7.3 PSD, it's not really relative at all.
Also I do not necessarily believe a 6.0 would put more torque to the rear wheels than even a HO (555) Cummins. It all depends on parasitic loss due to the drivetrain, which can even vary amongst identically equipt trucks, my whole point was - no Cummins will lose that much torque/HP through a six speed manual drivetrain. It's not possible.
Also, even if a 6.0 did put more useable torque to the rear wheels than a Cummins/6 speed(6.0 would have to be a manual - or one bombed mother) that in itself would not change my mind regarding the superiority of the Cummins between these two engines.
Also I do not necessarily believe a 6.0 would put more torque to the rear wheels than even a HO (555) Cummins. It all depends on parasitic loss due to the drivetrain, which can even vary amongst identically equipt trucks, my whole point was - no Cummins will lose that much torque/HP through a six speed manual drivetrain. It's not possible.
Also, even if a 6.0 did put more useable torque to the rear wheels than a Cummins/6 speed(6.0 would have to be a manual - or one bombed mother) that in itself would not change my mind regarding the superiority of the Cummins between these two engines.