My apologises, I did not explain myself well enough.
My point was not that the transmission makes excessive heat at high rpms, but that it is difficult for a transmission to operate at higher rpm's, particulary under load.

Have you ever seen a torque convertor automatic behind an engine that is capable of revving over 7000rpm???
You wont, ever, I could go through the engineering, but trust me when I say its physically impossible, it will do to much damage to the auto.

Also an offset of having a higher rev limit on an engine is that the torque convertor is changed to having a higher stall point, meaning that the losses for that transmission are higher.
For example the 4R100 behind the 5.4 or the V10 has higher loss torque convertor than the 4R100 behind the 7.3l, this is to maintain the engine within its higher powerband for a longer period.

I would imagine (I can't confirm this, as I do not have the specifications for the 48res) that equally the Torqshift would run a torque convertor that has greater losses than the 48res, as the PSD's powerband is higher up in the rev range than the Dodge.
I know, for a Auto behind a diesel, the Torqshift has huge losses, and this helps mask the 6.0l relative lack of torque off idle.

Using this theory again, at a given road speed, the torqshift will have the PSD spinning at higher rpm than the 48res will have the Cummins spinning at. Hence the torque difference you calculated (100lb ft) is incorrect.
Also the Torqshift will be running higher losses at a given torque output, therefore it has to be stronger.

 

Either way, you just admitted that you were wrong. I said originally that they were less than 100 lb/ft apart and you responded that this was incorrect. By your own post you acknowledge that this is true. Thanks for proving my point.

BTW, the numbers I used for the PSD were from the 560 version, not 570 so both engines picked up 10. Also, the 6.0 was putting out as much torque as the 7.3 PSD was at its peak which was around 1600 RPM (525 lb/ft). Therefore the number I used for the PSD was most likely closer than yours, and remember that the peak torque was lowered in the 2005 570 version. Either way, you are arguing over 8 lb/ft which seems kind of silly.

 

Have you ever seen a torque convertor automatic behind an engine that is capable of revving over 7000rpm???
You wont, ever, I could go through the engineering, but trust me when I say its physically impossible, it will do to much damage to the auto.........................
Not true. I've seen automatics behind many drag cars that spin over 7000 rpm's. Even the Chevy 2 speed powerglide. Some of them have 4,500 rpm stall converters, and reach over 7,000 rpm's.

 

Again I should have made myself clearer.

You will not see an automatic in a road vehicle that revs over 7000rpm, because of the servicing requirements.
It is fine in the drag racing world where the auto can be rebuilt every couple of runs (it only has to travel a couple of miles if that).
Imagine if the service interval - let alone the trans rebuild interval - 0n a road car was a couple of miles!!!

It is physically impossible to have a road car that spins over 7000rpm with the current autos of today....

 

The dynos say 93. But I dont think that is correct. The 6.0 performs miserably below 1800. The cummins comes alive much sooner. You are correct. I was going off the 560 dyno. So it would be less. On paper.

The 7.3 actually made slightly more torque at that rpm, not the point. It did it with a tranny that was never able to handle it before. That was my point. The tranny, not where it made its torque compared to the 6.0. The fact that the tranny could at last handle low rpm peak torque. Which was a feat.

The reason so many 47rhs failed. Wasnt so much that the tranny was junk. Which is arguable anyways. But that the 12v would make more than rated torque. It would come on so strong at low rpms and overpower the transmission. In this case. The higher rpm powerstroke actually saves transmissions for ford. Less max input torque. You have to keep the peak torque away from full multiplication in a diesel. Thats why the 6.0s peak torque is so high. Compared to the competition. Its to save the transmission.

BigF350. Wouldnt the input torque be the same regardless, assuming full throttle at max load. Assuming you were at or above peak torque. If you were in full multiplication at peak torque then the input torque would be 1100 lb ft for the TS and around 1200 for the 47re. I do not have the specs on the tc for the dodge transmission. I dont know where it stalls or its stall torque ratio. I assume a 2 to 1 because its somewhat industry standard. The torque difference I calculated was at there peaks. Acceleration from a dead stop is the only time you will see full multiplication. So this is where the input torque will be the highest. The max speeds and cruising rpms dont matter when figuring out the input torque. Just the launch rpms.

The I think that 7000 rpm makes so much heat is. It spends a lot more time in multiplication. The engine has so much torque it pushes its way into multiplication and can hold itself there for a longer period of time.

 

This guy didnt have any mods. Or bigger tires. Didnt get to the 1000 mile mark before he got a new tranny. Im not saying its junk. Just saying nothings bulletproof. I personally think the TS is the best thing going.

Im a hair splitter. Just trying to point out that the 48re has to put up with more than the TS to survive everyday life. I by no means think its better. My idea of a perfect truck would a f350 4x4 TS Cummins combo. But I like inline sixes so I understand when people would prefer a PSD. Its just my preference like manuals over autos. For most instances.

 

whoops. double post.

 

This maybe a effect you get from a higher reving engine but it is not the reason the 6.0s peak is where its at. Its where its at because this is how many if not most people drive there trucks. When rolling down the freeway at 70-75 miles per higher you are well up in the rpm range. If you have designed your motor right at cruise speed you will be just above peak torque. This is how I have always been told to build engines.

Ford has done this and I think its the right move. It is great to have torque down low but lets face it, any of these engines have so much torque that getting any legal load moving is not a problem. I also think this is why Ford wins the pull offs we see in the rags. The TS helps alot but I bet with the same trannies it would still win. It is made to be a highway runner. So it can do anything but this is where its at home.

Concerning the TS, I see only one outstanding problem and that seems to be the reverse planetary gear. Ford is aware of it and fixes are in place. Other than that I don't see any problems other than computer related issues which may or may not affect tranny reliability.

One last point. With any automatic that is going to see hard work invest in a deep pan, a larger cooler, a temp gauge and a inline filter. Heat is the killer, the added capacity and better cooler will save you money down the road. Most people never even think about the tranny. Treat your tranny the way you treat the engine.

 

You can set your cruise rpm to be slightly above peak torque if your peak torque is at 4000 or if it is at 1000 rpm. The reason to build for low rpm torque from a diesel is better launch. High rpm torque makes for a good race. The higher the rpm the faster the truck in a race. Though the truck with lower high rpm torque could tow, more weight, just slower. 1 hp is 1 hp. So 325 is equal to 325. If 325 is equal to 325 he who makes it first will have better driveability if towing over gross. Such as a 325hp 530ci intl. IMNSHO it is foolhardy to build a diesel with the powerband of the 6.0. But it will appeal to the masses. Cause the masses dont know any better. Id be happy with peak torque at 1400 peak hp around 2500 and a redline around 3000. But what do I know. Faster is better, right? Cause everyone here knows. You have to tow 25k gross at 80 mph. Its only logical.


The more low rpm torque you have. The better the driveability at low rpms. We use low rpms more often that high. Because we must stop. And we must go. Those with a manual will appreciate the low rpm torque much more so because trickery can be played with a torque converter. BigF350 touched on that point. So because of thier respective powerbands. I would probably prefer a cummins or dmax for everyday in and out of town driving. If I was racing. I would definitely want the PSD. Until youve driven one of each in traffic I doubt you would understand the nuances of eachs abilities. Using a stick would negate any torque converter trickery.

The intl versions of the 6.0 make peak torque at 1400. So 1400 is possible and better for towing. Because thats what a vt365 is made to do. Tow. Can I get one of these in a pickup, PLEASE?

This hp race and who tows faster war is bogus. Ill keep my 190 hp diesel truckin right along. While all these neverminds have 800 dollar truck payments 400 dollar a month insurance. Just so they can go 15-20 mph faster than me. Id rather have a diesel in line with medium duty ratings. Such as 230hp and 660 lb ft of torque. Im not in any hurry but Id like to do it with ease. They can keep there 50k dollar 325hp diesel trucks. 325hp is ridiculous. And they aint stoppin there. Nosirree.

 

You are right, and IMO, and the data I have supports this, the Torqshift is the best, and most reliable trans in the SD class.

I don't neccessarily belive this case and I will explain.

See here, when the vehicle speed is 0mph, and the engine is under a full load WOT situation (a full accel launch). At 0mph, the PSD will be spinning at higher revs than the Cummins, and therefore be producing similar torque.

Because the PSD is spinning at higher revs, and producing similar torque (because it is spinning at higher revs), the power dissipated through the Torqshift is greater than the power dissipated through the 48re.

Therefore the Torqshift is stronger.

 

I don't agree LH. I pull at highway speeds with my Ranger and will be with a F350 shortly. This is where for me drivability is important. This has nothing to do with racing. At highway speeds we are at 2000-2500 rpms depending on rear gear. I want head room and the PSD has that. It allows for easier passing and maintains speed up inclines better.

And towing over rated gross is illegal in many states and if you get in an fender bender you can expect the cost of all repairs to come out of your pocket. Insurance companies for the most part will not pay in these cases.

None of this trucks have a launch problem when pulling loads within there rated limits. These trucks have so much more power than we had just a few years ago. If my Ranger with its little 6 can pull 6k without any problems I'm not worried about any desiel being able to pull 19k. Oh I forgot only Ford can do that.

But you and I have argued this to death and will never agree but that is ok. Oh ya, my KR well be just under 50K. Oh and insurance will not even be close to 400 a month though the payment maybe 800. This will be that last truck I buy.

 

Im not taking a poll but this seems to be a higher problem rate than the 48re.
I actually went to the nhsa website. There were many complaints of stick operated 6.0s bogging really bad and creating a life threatening situations. One guy had to put it in 4lo to get it up the onramp. The manual owners who have owned a diesel before. Say this thing aint got nothin down low. Maybe its better this year but I dont think so. Im a pessimist when it comes to a manufacturer fixing known problems.

So no. Not all diesels can launch easily with a load. The manual equiped 6.0 does not do as well as the rest.

 

It is a pretty well established fact over at the DTR that the six speed has nothing to give unless you feather the clutch like a gasser and give a whole lot more throttle than even a gasser would need. Even in low gear. That's a crying shame. Certainly a far cry from a Cummins/6 speed - mine always started from a complete stop in second gear with no throttle - and that was way before they introduced this new programming which causes the engine to increase it's own RPM for ZERO throttle launches ON 6% grades, WITH 16,000lbs attached .

I could even take off in third on flat ground with just a bit of pedal and no feathering if I wanted. Too bad guys with the 6.0/6 speed will never know what thats like.

 

Too bad the Cummins guys will never know what it is like to have power at the posted speed limit....

 

I know it was tongue in cheek but. Do you remember the math that marine ironman and I went over? The cummins actually has more hp available at 65mph. At 75mph the PSD has the advantage.