Everyone is biased. If he didnt own one of the big three it might be different. I have the least to gain. Cause I dont have any of the new diesels. Much of his technical assumptions are off the wall.
Marine doesnt really bring anything to the table ironman is a newbie. Its just nice to have someone stroke your ego now and then. He says what you want to hear. Much of it is malarkey from very questionable assumptions.
60 at 1500.

From the torque converter in the PSD cancelling out vibrations and not in the dodge. Inline 8s dont work, look up the biggest diesel in the world. 5 vs 7 mains makes no difference. Vs delivering better economy or better balance. People suddenly flying off mountains cause they have a manual. Just weird stuff that is obviously incorrect. If I made this many bogus claims I would be laughed off of here because of my personal taste. I would prefer to have an inline diesel.

 

So the PSD is better suited for what Ironman does. For what I do the Cummins is great, even the 6.9 in my '88 or the 7.3 in my '90 are quite good, they get the load moving and keep it going and get me where I have to go. Diesels are meant to get the job done not to be a hotrod engine. Diesels are all getting pushed that way because mainstream buyers are looking for alternatives to gas engines but don't want the slow that goes along with them. The Cummins name has always meant reliability and long life thats why I trust it before any other, except Cat of course.

 

Thats true except the Dodge truck itself has not meant relaibility and long life as the engine has. Dodge is putting all there efforts on promoting two motors to sell trucks Hemi and Cummins and forgetting about putting there efforts in the truck itself. If Dodge was truly serious about trucks they would have come out with a descent crewcab to compete with Ford. They blew it. They have an extended cab with a door. Even I could have done better than that. Thats just plain dumb in my book. The quality of the truck vs Ford its b\not even close. Ford blows em away. Fords so far ahead of them in quality and durability theyll never catch up. Without Hemi and cummins I doubt Dodge would sell one truck. Ive seen Dodges in the past and they were junk. Maybe these newer ones are better. Time will tell. Heres a good question line up a superduty against a newer Dodge and you tell me whos got the better truck. You wont be pickin Dodge.

 

Well lets see some links that show the Cummins outperform the 6.0.

 

High end power??? Enough is enough,the 6.0 has a much flatter powerband than that Cummins you love so dearly even down low it outperforms the 600.
You need a reality check, take a look at a dyno sheet the 6.0 holds MORE torque for a much longer rpm range, this is why it out pulls that 600.Facts are facts.

 

Yes this is true. I was reading Marine(doesn't really bring anything to the table) Ironman's earlier posted link and seen this:

While the new Ford diesel puts out 325 Horse Power at 3,300 rpm and 560 foot-pounds of torque at 2000 rpm it also has 500 foot-pounds of torque at 1500 rpm, which I was glad to see. The low end torque is what Power Stroke diesels were famous for and they still have it.

500 ft. lbs. at 1500 rpm is very respectable. I didn't realize the Power Stroke was "famous" for low end torque but I guess I was wrong. For some reason the Cummins still beats it off the start but that is not an issue with me nor the reason Cummins boys prefer it, like Ironman seems to think. The PSD outperforms it in every category which some of it undoubtedly is due to the well designed truck. I feel that Ford truck is built better while the Cummins is a stronger, better built/designed engine. Thats why I prefer it.

 

Fair enough you have a right to your opinion

 

Cummins Ladies,

I got a letter from a Dodge-engineer buddy of mine ;-) who said they've been trying to explain to Diamler why their pickup undersells all other pickups. The Daimler exec was looking at the Advertisement brochure, and scratched his head, since they had the highest torque number (600). The Dodge engineers pointed out that ... well ... yes, it's 600, but this only means you can tow another 1,000 lbs 3mph faster between 4 and 10 mph. But if everyone else's GCVW remains in the 20 to 30,000 lbs arena ... then Ford and GM completely outperform our trucks, when towing the same load (faster, acceleration, the whole nine yards). Plus ... we're stuck with this old modified manual transmission.

The Daimler exec gave new guidance: re-design the truck so that it will take advantage of all that extra 40-ft lbs of torque down in the low end. So the dodge engineer scratched and scratched their heads, but finallly figured out an application (see photo below):

 

Just teasing you ladies. That old tank above really had a PSD, which is why you see it in that museum. PSD's are never applicably suited for what their installed in, which is why you see so many of them in museums.

All kidding aside, here is an ACTUAL truck with a Cummins and Allison together!! (check the source URL) I thought this was appropriate for you guys, because the application so fits you guys. It has big loudspeakers, whistles, bells, sirens and alarms. I know it looks like a fire truck, but it ain't. It's a Cummins-Propaganda-Mobile. What you do is you drive it around in foreign countries (cause the PSD already has the light truck market here) and broadcast messages on the loudspeakers (with sirens going) such as:

1. We have 40 more ft-lbs of torque, buy us!!
2. You can deliver less torque, but more efficiently with your manual transmission!!
3. Now your truck can be the fastest in the first 50 feet out of the stoplight
4. Our other trucks have Hemi's!

Unfortunately, as you can see ... Dodge still can't figure out how to make a crew cab. Phote below:

New Truck offering w/ Cummins & Allison:

 

The PSD is faster and has an extra gear with an apparently reliable auto. I have not disputed this.

I have disputed the flatter torque curve repeatedly and supplied links. The cummins makes 600 lb ft at 1600. Which is 100 more than the PSD makes at 1500 btw. It is still making 588 at 2900. Thats a 2% drop. Or torque rise depending on how you like to write it. The PSD makes peak torque 400 rpm later at 2000 at 560lb ft. At peak hp ,also 400 rpm later, it is making 517lb ft. 560 to 517 is a little over a 7% drop, or torque rise.

They both have same amount of rpms after peak torque to peak hp. This is the tow zone. You should not tow heavy below peak torque. It is bad for your engine. You can drive there without a load but dont tow there cause if you lug it below peak torque you can and will cause engine damage. Rough definition of lug is that even if you supply full throttle you are still losing speed. Or cannot accelerate in that gear. Both engines have 1300 rpms in their tow zone. The dmax actually has more than both. 1500rpms. Which is how many rpms the 555 cummins had.

The real difference is the cummins makes more low rpm torque. The PSD makes more high rpm torque. The PSD is only making 300hp at 2900 rpm whereas the cummins is making 325. The trick is the PSD does it for longer. Allowing it better gearing. For racing purposes the PSD has the lead. For towing the cummins is better. Even though the PSD tows faster in the tests. The cummins will simply supply better all around driveability. Plus they have a zero throttle launch with the manual. Interesting. I would just like to see what it feels like one time. I wouldnt buy one but it would be cool to test out a zero throttle launch.

The cummins has the longest stoke and the heaviest pistons and con rods, 10lbs each. Making its transient response recovery performance poorer than the dmax or the PSD. The dmax should have the best with its oversquare design. The 8.1 has a longer stroke than the PSD or the dmax but also has a large bore. I suspect the 8.1, other than the fuel penalty, would be a great engine to tow with.

I supplied several links where the 600 bested the PSD with a manual transmission. Everybody knows dodge autos cannot get the power to the ground. I am suspicious that if dodge had a quality auto, mercedes. Even though the PSD makes more rpms. The cummins may beat the psd. Pure speculation. No way to know for sure.

If I was running the loudspeaker I might say something a little different cause
depends on the rpm. It has 40 more at peak but more than 40 at other rpms. At peak hp they are 61lb ft apart. Also at peak torque the cummins has 80 or 90 more more lb ft, which is how it gets the jump out of the hole.
thought we did the math. The manual puts more torque to the ground than an auto can.
Actually the cummins with the auto will be faster to 30 mph. Not that it matters but I figured I would point it out.
Which are nothing like the original hemis that were so famous.

 

It is different because he owns BOTH of the engines in question. That makes him the most unbiased person in this discussion. What does he have to gain by saying that one truck/engine he owns is better than the other?

 

One is in a truck well past its prime rated at 180 hp with the worst auto on the market. The other is a brand spanking new 325hp diesel with a very good 5 speed auto. Id be biased if it was me. If I had a brand new PSD. I would not think highly of my high mileage idi. Know what I mean? Something brand new is always shiny in an owners eyes. Wait til this PSD has 9 years and 100k miles on it and lets talk. Hes bashing based on a POS old truck, notice it doesnt appear he has had any engine problems. I could tell you stories about my last two ford trucks but I havent gone there. I like ford trucks. I prefer ford trucks. One of em is high mileage so I expect to pay a bit for maintanence. I have purposely left out my former trucks in this discussion. I have bad things to say about ford chevy and dodge. I am focussing on engine performance between the PSD and the Cummins as thats what the thread is about.

I own an intl and dont like dodges. Am I biased? Heck yeah.

 

http://www.cummins.com/na/pdf/en/pro...que_curves.pdf
Finally found one. This is the standard output. And the HO 555. Should I say something like that is very brave of them to post a dyno. I did the math it is making darn close to 555 at 2900 as the dyno suggests. No trickery. Its actually that flat.


http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2003...ive/page2.html
BTW. Ironman.
I personally think calling someone that doesnt agree with you a lady to be demeaning or derogatory. Remember the two keywords reasonable and intelligent when typing a post. Some of your posts are asinine. I mean that in the nicest meaning of the word.

 

Heretic,
Actually this is either true or false, and is highly dependent upon the conditions of the towing scenario. Even the manufacturers tell you that the automatic transmission is better for towing. Why? Well, if you can let the engine rev HIGHER you are generally better off, because all engines, universally, even Cummins, have better horsepower up the RPM chain.
This is THE reason that a 4.10 rear-end is sold for towing-packages, and the 3.73 rear-end is for multi-purpose use. The 4.10 makes the engine rev higher across the board. The Automatic, paired with a 4.10 rear end is even BETTER because the engine revs even higher yet, and with multiplication. Thus, a manual has to have a VERY LOW first gear for those situations where a max load is hooked up.
Now, in the case of Cummins (stock) vs. PSD (stock) what we have is the fact that the Cummins has (according to your calculations) about 2,000 ft-lbs more at 2900 compared to the PSD's 3300 with auto trany.
The only problem with your assumption is that you can have your engine with the manual going 2900 RPM at clutch engagement. In reality that is nearly impossible. I have the auto on both my trucks, but I have driven manuals on all sorts of equipment (tractors and flat-beds). You hold the clutch in ... slowly release, but the engine lugs down at engagement. You CANNOT get 2900 engine RPM to engage that transmission axle. No way.

So ... I have shown previously that even if you COULD the PSD is geared faster. Secondly, the torque you calculated for comparing NV5600 vs TS in first is using a bad assumption. What you need to compare is the NV5600 at about 1000 rpm for clutch engagement (I'm guessing the number, anyone chime in with the accurate number).

Now, here is the real (approx) comparison. I'll assume the NV5600 can engage the clutch at 1000 rpm, and I'm guessing the torque is about 300 ft-lbs at that point.

300 ft-lbs x 1st gear (5.63) times 4.10 tow-rear = 6925 ft-lbs at the tires

I test-drove my excursion today. If you gas it HARD in any gear, it jumps to 3000, and usually 3300. In first gear ... it jumps first to the 2100 rpm range, and you can go higher, if YOU decide to. 2100 is the max torque point. Seems they have the logic set to jump up to that max power for passing gears, and max torque for first gear. (God bless those TS engineers). So, given what my Excursion does, I'm very safe in assuming you can get 2000 rpm for the max torque going into the torque conveter. Here is the calculation:

560 ft-lbs x 1st gear (3.09) x 1.8 torque converter (your number) x 4.1 rear end = 12770 ft-lbs.

So, according to my engineering estimations, the PSD is way ahead in the tow game. What engine RPM would the Cummins need to match this? Well, I can tell you the torque, and you tell me the rpm since you have the mysterious unpublished Cummins 600 curve.

12770 needed divided by 5.63, divided by 4.10 = 553 ft-lbs of torque

Now ... I HIGHLY DOUBT that it is possible to get a number that high, so close to the max torque output of the engine all together. There is no way. I don't know what RPM it takes to get that (probably 50 according to you) ... and I'd have to practically be a seer to be a believer. Can someone w/ a 2004.5 Cummins post in and tell us what RPM the engine drops to on a a big towing load at clutch engagement?

Assuming someone posts us an answer ... and the factual corresponding torque is LESS than 553 ... guess what heretic ... the PSD wins the tow-contest AT CLUTCH ENGAGEMENT. Thus, having gone through this mental exercise, I am forced to agree with the manufactureers recommendations.

Am I wrong in any of my assumptions or calculations? Someone double check me.

Marine Ironman

 

Man that Arial Narrow font is sure difficult for my old eyes to read