Originally Posted by IB Tim

You say anything is BS if it does not talk great of the the V10

Originally Posted by Lead Head

Those numbers are way off. The 390HP 5.7 Hemi in the new Ram 1500s dynos at over 300RWHP. There is no way a 362HP V10 is going to dyno at 223RWHP, that a loss of 139HP.

The general rule of thumb is 10-15% power train loss, the V10 in that test has a 39% power loss. That kind of loss just isn't possible. Three things could have happened here. 1. The V10 had a problem and wasn't making full power, 2. They lied and tested an older 2v V10, or 3. They lied and didn't test a V10 at all. I've also never heard of a stock 6.4 with the DPF still attached getting anywhere near that mileage either. I have a friend with a 6.4, and whenever he tows a trailer he usually gets around 7-9 MPG, around 13-14 highway unloaded. Add that to the fact the magazine is Diesel Power, I'm sure they are going to obscure the facts as much as possible to make the diesel seem better.

@ ChargersFan: Not sure where your getting bluebook prices from, but I just configured two identical 2008 trucks with 75,000 miles on kbb.org using their suggested retail value option. The truck was a Crew Cab F-350 Lariat 6 ft bed. The 6.4 booked for 34k, the V10 28k. Only $6000 difference. The second truck was CC F-350 Harley Davidson, 8ft bed. The V10 booked at 35k, the 6.4 at 37k. Just $2000 difference. For fun, I just did a basic work truck, 08 F-350 regular cab XL, the 6.4 books at 27k, the V10 at 21k. $6000 difference again.

Originally Posted by Seven-Point-Three

I would really like to take a look at mike's dyno graph if you could provide a link or post it. If that is all true the v10's has no hp advantage and is a joke for torque compared to a diesel.

Originally Posted by bill11012

The 3V made 250 on Mikes dyno, which reads low from what I have seen.
A 2V makes that much.

Originally Posted by 2001400ex

I could be wrong, but isn't there differences in the transmission that accounts for why the V10 puts less horsepower to the ground than the PSD? In that the PSD tranny is more efficient.

Originally Posted by Seven-Point-Three

Second I know my truck could beat that v10's hp like taking a walk in the park. And lets not even look at the torque numbers for the v10's sake.
V10 truck:
223hp @ 4032 RPM at the rear wheels
316tq @ 3458 RPM at the rear wheels

Originally Posted by Crazy001

Here's a stock 1999 7.3L PSD dyno sheet:

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/57-2530_dyno.pdf

Makes a whopping 194 HP at the rear wheels!

And for comparison, here's a stock 2001 V10 sheet:

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/57-2524_dyno.pdf

234 at the rear wheel!


Here's a stock 2008 6.4L truck:

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/63-2576_dyno.pdf

Showing around 275 HP at the rear wheels


Here's a 3V V10:

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/57-2567_dyno.pdf

Showing around 250 HP or so.

Originally Posted by Seven-Point-Three

"Second I know my truck could beat that v10's hp like taking a walk in the park."-Truck isn't stock look in sig.

Originally Posted by Seven-Point-Three's Signature

Early '99 FORD F250 Superduty 7.3L Longbed
Mods = 285 BFG All Terrains, 6637 with pete's cover, MBRP Aluminized 4" Exhaust - straight piped (tuner, & gauges soon)

Originally Posted by jac08f250

But that can't be. A 2v v-10 can make 250 easily at the wheels.

Originally Posted by Crazy001

Is there something about your truck that's not in your siggy?



I don't see slightly larger tires and a 4" exhaust making up for a 40 HP deficit.