new Chevy Dmax numbers
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
From: E Washington
BIG DEAL
The question I have is if those chevy numbers are correct, WHY would they not fudge them a little more and go to the 400 mark so they can say they were the first to do that???? Chevy had to tell a small inacurate statement and keep it under 400 hp otherwise someone would want to test it to prove it was NOT 400 hp. In the end give me the FORD and take the Duramax to the junk yard..... just my 2 cents not trying to offend anyone.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Black Hills, South Dakota
Oh I have no doubt the Chevy is making the power they claim. I also have no doubt that the Duramax is basically maxed out at that output. It doesn't have anymore left, at least not at a power level that is factory reliable or warranty worthy. Keep in mind this engine is based on architecture from all the way back in 2001, it's a nine year old platform.
The new Powerstroke is a clean sheet, new this year. I'll bet it has lots of potential for more power from the factory. Who knows maybe Ford will get pissed off about this bull**** and turn up the juice a smidge to put Gubment' Motors back in their place as the lowest common denominator among car companies.
The new Powerstroke is a clean sheet, new this year. I'll bet it has lots of potential for more power from the factory. Who knows maybe Ford will get pissed off about this bull**** and turn up the juice a smidge to put Gubment' Motors back in their place as the lowest common denominator among car companies.
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 560
Likes: 1
"Heavily tested"?? Are you kidding? Yeah, I saw the video too- They were pulling 10k with a DRW350. Big deal. They have a 250k rebuild goal. Big deal. Haliburton employees drive through streams and let the trucks idle all day? Hardly an extreme test- pretty much anything on the market will pass that test.
Time will tell, but going in with a new motor, almost by definition, means the Ford is the LEAST tested of the available drivetrains. And "never tested" by the market should be enough to make smart buyers pause. There is a reason why the commercial upfitters around here are going to Dodge Cummins for now.
This might be a good time to cut back on the Cool Aid.
-mike
Time will tell, but going in with a new motor, almost by definition, means the Ford is the LEAST tested of the available drivetrains. And "never tested" by the market should be enough to make smart buyers pause. There is a reason why the commercial upfitters around here are going to Dodge Cummins for now.
This might be a good time to cut back on the Cool Aid.
-mike
More Turbo
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 548
Likes: 7
Good point. I stand corrected.
Still, I would prefer to see a product cycle where the engine was subject to real world (i.e., not "simulated") testing beyond the product lifespan. For example: While it is swell some Ford employee pulls 10K with a new truck on an Arizona freeway while another drives one around in circles in some dusty proving ground, neither gives us a real world testing. What happens with a couple months of crop chaff and field dust build up, the truck is over loaded (19,000lbs of hay is pretty common) and subject to punishing conditions? Remember, the 03 6.0 was subject to testing but it was not until consumers got ahold of the motor that issues really came out. And the 6.4 air intake and dry snow?
When I observe the Ford communications surrounding the new motor, I see a lot of marketing hype surrounding branding and "tough" - but I do not see a lot of evidence of the product having had time to develop under real world conditions. And again, due to the Ford-related (rather than just Navistar-related) issues with both the 6.0 and 6.4, I am not confident in Ford's ability to deliver a throughly vetted product.
We all know the weakness of the Fiat-Dodge product. But we also know the Cummins motor will generally turn 300k before requiring a re-build.
I think the Ford numbers are impressive. I also think that it is a very difficult task to deliver a clean slate motor producing these numbers while subject to the conditions the buyers will deliver. As a result, I think the cost risk to early customers may be higher than purchasing a product that has had real world development time.
Ford needs this motor to be solid from the get-go because the market is more competitive than ever before.
-mike
More Turbo
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 548
Likes: 7
Break down the numbers further here guys.
The only reason the Duramax makes more power is that extra 200 RPM's. 397hp @ 3000 RPM's equals 695lb-ft of torque, the Duramax isn't breathing as well up top. Looks like GM padded the horsepower numbers by spinning their motor a bit faster. The Duramax on average is losing 1lb-ft of torque for every 20 RPM's the engine accelerates.
Compare this to the Powerstroke putting down 390hp @ 2800 RPM's which equals 731lb-ft of torque at that engine speed. So the Powerstroke gives basically peak torque from 1600 RPM's to 2800 RPM's. All Ford would really need to do is play with the boost map a smidge to maintain boost for another 200 RPM's and they would make over 400hp at 3000 RPM's. For example if we extrapolate the torque loss over RPM increase of the Powerstroke we find that on average it loses 1lb-ft for each increase in engine speed of 300 RPM's. So if Ford remapped the boost to maintain pressure up to 3000 RPM's we would still be playing with around 730lb-ft, and that means an output of 417hp gentlemen. The new Powerstroke is going to behave much like the other reverse flow head in valley turbocharger equipped V8's on the market, like the BMW 4.4L twin turbo V8. Makes a nice strong peak torque number and just holds it for a couple of thousand RPM's, super flexible engine.
What we have here are two different styles of power delivery the GM peaks higher but starts to lose power compared to the Ford later in the operating range, only posting a marginally higher peak horsepower output due to spinning the engine faster. Ford seemed to take a different approach looking for a really flat torque curve for extremely linear power delivery, and they got it. Right around 2100-2200 RPM's on up to 2800 RPM's the Ford will likely be the more responsive and powerful engine. You know, the engine speed you'll be seeing every time you pull out to pass, or downshift to climb a hill.
To put things in perspective at each motors peak torque the Ford makes 224hp @ 1600 RPM's, and the Chevy makes 233hp @ 1600 RPM's. Big deal.
Note to Ford, increase boost pressure by 1.5-2.5 PSI, and extend the boost map an additional 200 RPM's.
The only reason the Duramax makes more power is that extra 200 RPM's. 397hp @ 3000 RPM's equals 695lb-ft of torque, the Duramax isn't breathing as well up top. Looks like GM padded the horsepower numbers by spinning their motor a bit faster. The Duramax on average is losing 1lb-ft of torque for every 20 RPM's the engine accelerates.
Compare this to the Powerstroke putting down 390hp @ 2800 RPM's which equals 731lb-ft of torque at that engine speed. So the Powerstroke gives basically peak torque from 1600 RPM's to 2800 RPM's. All Ford would really need to do is play with the boost map a smidge to maintain boost for another 200 RPM's and they would make over 400hp at 3000 RPM's. For example if we extrapolate the torque loss over RPM increase of the Powerstroke we find that on average it loses 1lb-ft for each increase in engine speed of 300 RPM's. So if Ford remapped the boost to maintain pressure up to 3000 RPM's we would still be playing with around 730lb-ft, and that means an output of 417hp gentlemen. The new Powerstroke is going to behave much like the other reverse flow head in valley turbocharger equipped V8's on the market, like the BMW 4.4L twin turbo V8. Makes a nice strong peak torque number and just holds it for a couple of thousand RPM's, super flexible engine.
What we have here are two different styles of power delivery the GM peaks higher but starts to lose power compared to the Ford later in the operating range, only posting a marginally higher peak horsepower output due to spinning the engine faster. Ford seemed to take a different approach looking for a really flat torque curve for extremely linear power delivery, and they got it. Right around 2100-2200 RPM's on up to 2800 RPM's the Ford will likely be the more responsive and powerful engine. You know, the engine speed you'll be seeing every time you pull out to pass, or downshift to climb a hill.
To put things in perspective at each motors peak torque the Ford makes 224hp @ 1600 RPM's, and the Chevy makes 233hp @ 1600 RPM's. Big deal.
Note to Ford, increase boost pressure by 1.5-2.5 PSI, and extend the boost map an additional 200 RPM's.
Nice post. Good points.
-mike
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
From: E Washington
Great points
hsfbfan:
Good point. I stand corrected.
Still, I would prefer to see a product cycle where the engine was subject to real world (i.e., not "simulated") testing beyond the product lifespan. For example: While it is swell some Ford employee pulls 10K with a new truck on an Arizona freeway while another drives one around in circles in some dusty proving ground, neither gives us a real world testing. What happens with a couple months of crop chaff and field dust build up, the truck is over loaded (19,000lbs of hay is pretty common) and subject to punishing conditions? Remember, the 03 6.0 was subject to testing but it was not until consumers got ahold of the motor that issues really came out. And the 6.4 air intake and dry snow?
When I observe the Ford communications surrounding the new motor, I see a lot of marketing hype surrounding branding and "tough" - but I do not see a lot of evidence of the product having had time to develop under real world conditions. And again, due to the Ford-related (rather than just Navistar-related) issues with both the 6.0 and 6.4, I am not confident in Ford's ability to deliver a throughly vetted product.
We all know the weakness of the Fiat-Dodge product. But we also know the Cummins motor will generally turn 300k before requiring a re-build.
I think the Ford numbers are impressive. I also think that it is a very difficult task to deliver a clean slate motor producing these numbers while subject to the conditions the buyers will deliver. As a result, I think the cost risk to early customers may be higher than purchasing a product that has had real world development time.
Ford needs this motor to be solid from the get-go because the market is more competitive than ever before.
-mike
Good point. I stand corrected.
Still, I would prefer to see a product cycle where the engine was subject to real world (i.e., not "simulated") testing beyond the product lifespan. For example: While it is swell some Ford employee pulls 10K with a new truck on an Arizona freeway while another drives one around in circles in some dusty proving ground, neither gives us a real world testing. What happens with a couple months of crop chaff and field dust build up, the truck is over loaded (19,000lbs of hay is pretty common) and subject to punishing conditions? Remember, the 03 6.0 was subject to testing but it was not until consumers got ahold of the motor that issues really came out. And the 6.4 air intake and dry snow?
When I observe the Ford communications surrounding the new motor, I see a lot of marketing hype surrounding branding and "tough" - but I do not see a lot of evidence of the product having had time to develop under real world conditions. And again, due to the Ford-related (rather than just Navistar-related) issues with both the 6.0 and 6.4, I am not confident in Ford's ability to deliver a throughly vetted product.
We all know the weakness of the Fiat-Dodge product. But we also know the Cummins motor will generally turn 300k before requiring a re-build.
I think the Ford numbers are impressive. I also think that it is a very difficult task to deliver a clean slate motor producing these numbers while subject to the conditions the buyers will deliver. As a result, I think the cost risk to early customers may be higher than purchasing a product that has had real world development time.
Ford needs this motor to be solid from the get-go because the market is more competitive than ever before.
-mike
I could not agree more and you make some great points.....
Tuned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 289
Likes: 3
From: MISSOURI
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
More Turbo
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 505
Likes: 6
From: Boulder Junction Wi
Dodge diesels,Chevy Diesel's,Ford 6.Oh Oh's and cab off 6.4's and the new 6.7 can't beat Highway prisoner's 2002 7.3,let's see all of them top this,I asked him a question about suncoast tran's,.......Me to Him,....you got some serious mile's there going on 663,000,i see you had a suncoast in your truck before going to a BTS,how did the suncoast holdup? and what do you like or dislike about both of them?, what kind of oil are you useing in the engine and what are your oil change interval's and also what have you had to replace in part's,your doing something right and wonder what your doing to get mile's most only dream about,GOOD JOB ON YOUR PART!! wondering with the high mile's you have,do you haul new RV'S from the factory to the dealer's all around the country, are you going to try for a MILLION MILE'S,your 2/3's of the way there, thank's for any info you want to share,saw a guy 3-4 year's ago deliver an rv for a woman whose husband pass away to our park and he had over 400,000 on an 01,not a thing major done to the truck,just a couple water pump,s and brake job's,can't remember if he had a stick or auto,dam 7.3's are just TOUGH............................,and in his reply he said the following,..............HOLYCRAP,.......he now has 825,659 mile's on the 7.3,................. poppie, I will try to keep this short. The suncoast converter worked fine for 200,000 + miles. I had a BTS installed at 300,000 + miles, great tranny, flawless performance, 2 sets of injectors, 3 alternators, 2 starters, 2 waterpumps, 1 turbo 4 sensors including cps. Oil, Delvac1, FS2500 bypass, since first oil change, switched to Rotella synthetic, 15K oil changes. Yes, I sure would like to see a million miles. I do deliver new rvs, mostly to western Canada. The 08's have some nice features, but My needs are for a workhorse that is reliable, so the 02 7.3 has been the ticket. I am just a little biased.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
02 F350 Lariat PSD CC 4X4 DRW Built Ford & BTS Tough 825,659 miles, "HIS TRUCK"...My truck is in the sig below,just turned over 80,000 mile's.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
02 F350 Lariat PSD CC 4X4 DRW Built Ford & BTS Tough 825,659 miles, "HIS TRUCK"...My truck is in the sig below,just turned over 80,000 mile's.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
From: Fallon,NV
Break down the numbers further here guys.
The only reason the Duramax makes more power is that extra 200 RPM's. 397hp @ 3000 RPM's equals 695lb-ft of torque, the Duramax isn't breathing as well up top. Looks like GM padded the horsepower numbers by spinning their motor a bit faster. The Duramax on average is losing 1lb-ft of torque for every 20 RPM's the engine accelerates.
Compare this to the Powerstroke putting down 390hp @ 2800 RPM's which equals 731lb-ft of torque at that engine speed. So the Powerstroke gives basically peak torque from 1600 RPM's to 2800 RPM's. All Ford would really need to do is play with the boost map a smidge to maintain boost for another 200 RPM's and they would make over 400hp at 3000 RPM's. For example if we extrapolate the torque loss over RPM increase of the Powerstroke we find that on average it loses 1lb-ft for each increase in engine speed of 300 RPM's. So if Ford remapped the boost to maintain pressure up to 3000 RPM's we would still be playing with around 730lb-ft, and that means an output of 417hp gentlemen. The new Powerstroke is going to behave much like the other reverse flow head in valley turbocharger equipped V8's on the market, like the BMW 4.4L twin turbo V8. Makes a nice strong peak torque number and just holds it for a couple of thousand RPM's, super flexible engine.
What we have here are two different styles of power delivery the GM peaks higher but starts to lose power compared to the Ford later in the operating range, only posting a marginally higher peak horsepower output due to spinning the engine faster. Ford seemed to take a different approach looking for a really flat torque curve for extremely linear power delivery, and they got it. Right around 2100-2200 RPM's on up to 2800 RPM's the Ford will likely be the more responsive and powerful engine. You know, the engine speed you'll be seeing every time you pull out to pass, or downshift to climb a hill.
To put things in perspective at each motors peak torque the Ford makes 224hp @ 1600 RPM's, and the Chevy makes 233hp @ 1600 RPM's. Big deal.
Note to Ford, increase boost pressure by 1.5-2.5 PSI, and extend the boost map an additional 200 RPM's.
The only reason the Duramax makes more power is that extra 200 RPM's. 397hp @ 3000 RPM's equals 695lb-ft of torque, the Duramax isn't breathing as well up top. Looks like GM padded the horsepower numbers by spinning their motor a bit faster. The Duramax on average is losing 1lb-ft of torque for every 20 RPM's the engine accelerates.
Compare this to the Powerstroke putting down 390hp @ 2800 RPM's which equals 731lb-ft of torque at that engine speed. So the Powerstroke gives basically peak torque from 1600 RPM's to 2800 RPM's. All Ford would really need to do is play with the boost map a smidge to maintain boost for another 200 RPM's and they would make over 400hp at 3000 RPM's. For example if we extrapolate the torque loss over RPM increase of the Powerstroke we find that on average it loses 1lb-ft for each increase in engine speed of 300 RPM's. So if Ford remapped the boost to maintain pressure up to 3000 RPM's we would still be playing with around 730lb-ft, and that means an output of 417hp gentlemen. The new Powerstroke is going to behave much like the other reverse flow head in valley turbocharger equipped V8's on the market, like the BMW 4.4L twin turbo V8. Makes a nice strong peak torque number and just holds it for a couple of thousand RPM's, super flexible engine.
What we have here are two different styles of power delivery the GM peaks higher but starts to lose power compared to the Ford later in the operating range, only posting a marginally higher peak horsepower output due to spinning the engine faster. Ford seemed to take a different approach looking for a really flat torque curve for extremely linear power delivery, and they got it. Right around 2100-2200 RPM's on up to 2800 RPM's the Ford will likely be the more responsive and powerful engine. You know, the engine speed you'll be seeing every time you pull out to pass, or downshift to climb a hill.
To put things in perspective at each motors peak torque the Ford makes 224hp @ 1600 RPM's, and the Chevy makes 233hp @ 1600 RPM's. Big deal.
Note to Ford, increase boost pressure by 1.5-2.5 PSI, and extend the boost map an additional 200 RPM's.
Another thing I'm curious about is how the Duramax can add a ninth injector for the exhaust and claim an 11% increase in fuel mileage? Not looking at any other factors except for the added injector would make me believe it would get 11% worse fuel mileage? I wonder how they did that?
Either way, I'm becoming more and more impressed with this New Powerstroke engine. If it really does get the fuel mileage I've seen posted, then I might be in line for one in its second year of production.
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 932
Likes: 4
From: Edmond, OK
The 9th injector only comes into play when the DPF needs regenerated; no different than current trucks with DPF except they can inject that extra fuel directly into the exhaust rather than using existing 8 injectors and injecting fuel on the exhaust stroke.
Less chance for that fuel to wash down the cylinder walls and dilute the engine oil.
Better fuel economy is better timing and less EGR by using the DEF, diesel exhaust fluid....... with or w/o 9th injector.
I have had fuel dillution in my oil; so I would have rather have seen Ford add the ninth injector. If they had I would be buying soon; since they didn't; I'll wait to hear the reports of early buyers that do oil analysis.
Mine didn't show issues with early oil changes; so I'm going to wait a while for some history......
Bob
Less chance for that fuel to wash down the cylinder walls and dilute the engine oil.
Better fuel economy is better timing and less EGR by using the DEF, diesel exhaust fluid....... with or w/o 9th injector.
I have had fuel dillution in my oil; so I would have rather have seen Ford add the ninth injector. If they had I would be buying soon; since they didn't; I'll wait to hear the reports of early buyers that do oil analysis.
Mine didn't show issues with early oil changes; so I'm going to wait a while for some history......
Bob
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
srkr
6.7L Power Stroke Diesel
15
Feb 7, 2011 03:54 PM
Power Kid
1999 - 2016 Super Duty
54
Sep 5, 2009 09:44 AM
