And the HP Wars Begin

[Big Bri]

I wonder if you will need a CDL to drive it?

:laughing::laughing::laughing:you don't let anything go. . . i love it:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[Steve C]

I have an '03 Duramax, rated at 300 HP IIRC.
I pull a head to head horse trailer with it.
I have some liking for extra instruments, so I added a scan gauge II.
This gives me OBD II scans if/when a fault light comes on, I can clear codes while driving, usually early warning of a restricted fuel filter.
It also gives me real time display of 4 extra gauges that I choose from a dozen or so.
I very RARELY use more than 75 HP (25% of the 300 HP rating) when towing.

I should add that SOME of the reason for this is that I am either hauling live animals who (I assume) have no appreciation of acceleration, or I am running empty and don't need much power anyway.
I doubt that I would use much more than 1/3 (100 HP) if I was pulling an inanimate load.
Heck, if it is HEAVY who needs it coming through the back of the cab anyway ?

OK, so I also have this 167 HP motorcycle that is 3 years old now.... and the new models are around 175 HP, with 200 HP (& 200 MPH) foreseeable.

Yeah, I have no need for that much power on two wheels either (-:
We do BUY it though, - - me too.

Excelent post Reg. I often move some very large drafthorses around and I doubt that they like doing the zero to sixty in under 6 seconds. My old 03 D Max just chuffs along and I try to keep the animals happy. I have never hauled more than 8 at a time but when I did haul 8 of them the truck or horses never complained and I got around 15 miles per gallon.

 

[Lunk]

:laughing::laughing::laughing:you don't let anything go. . . i love it:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Laugh if you will, but I believe that in Wisconsin, if the GCVWR exceeds 26000#, a CDL is required.

 

[Reg]

Just LUV big draft horses.
Big and heavy, hurts like heck if they tread on you, but they handle SO easily.
Ponies may be "cute" in a tiny way, but it just seems they're ALWAYS trying to nip at Ya and I will NEVER get closer than 10ft behind one.

BTW, info for others; It isn't the steel toe boot problem, it is the tendency of SOME horses to tread on the EDGE of your foot when you walk them.

 

[dgl24087]

On a side note: Chryler and Cummins Restart Light-Duty Diesel Discussions - PickupTrucks.com News

 

[Dmace]

On a side note: Chryler and Cummins Restart Light-Duty Diesel Discussions - PickupTrucks.com News

Like I said, a smaller "standard" diesel engine making just 300HP and around 450lb.ft. returning 25-30+mpg would be an ultimate engine for 1/2-ton and 3/4-ton trucks. I am hoping they stick with the inline 6 layout though and don't go towards a V8 configuration. Another setup I would like to see is a CVT transmission linked to a small diesel engine, this would keep the rpm's right at max torque and make quick engine acceleration unnecessary.

 

[Duffster]

Laugh if you will, but I believe that in Wisconsin, if the GCVWR exceeds 26000#, a CDL is required.

You are correct, at least partially.

My tongue in cheek comment was referencing a thread where this topic was discussed at length and unfortunately the thread was locked.

 

[dgl24087]

Another side note: Chrysler's New 6.4-Liter V-8 Might Not Power Ram Heavy Duty Pickups - PickupTrucks.com News

 

[davygp38]

GM Announces Best-In-Class Power Figures for 2011 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 Diesel - Pickup Trucks.com News

All I can say about this is, if that powerful engine is protected by an eggshell what good is it? I offer the following pictures as evidence. The first, is a picture of the 2005 Chevy 2500, (US government truck,) that rear ended me in upstate NY. It was completely totaled. The next picture is of the rear end of my truck, where he hit me. All the police, and people who saw this were astounded, as was I. My truck is a 2004 F250 crew cab super duty,short bed, with V10. I know, "they make em stronger now," I don't believe a word of it. Of course, Uncle Saw has yet to even look at the damage to my truck, let alone settle up, it's been two months. I bet if I had hit the Government truck, My wages would be garnished, and my tax return confiscated by now.

 

[Diamondpilot]

All I can say about this is, if that powerful engine is protected by an eggshell what good is it? I offer the following pictures as evidence. The first, is a picture of the 2005 Chevy 2500, (US government truck,) that rear ended me in upstate NY. It was completely totaled. The next picture is of the rear end of my truck, where he hit me. All the police, and people who saw this were astounded, as was I. My truck is a 2004 F250 crew cab super duty,short bed, with V10. I know, "they make em stronger now," I don't believe a word of it. Of course, Uncle Saw has yet to even look at the damage to my truck, let alone settle up, it's been two months. I bet if I had hit the Government truck, My wages would be garnished, and my tax return confiscated by now.

Like they say "FORD TOUGH!". I take care of a GM 2006 2500 and a 2007 3500 SRW both diesel 4x4. There is no comparison to my 2004 F-250 and my 2006 F-350 both diesel and both 4x4. My F-350 is a Short Bed extended cab and weighs 7,600#. The GM 3500 is a Crew Cab Long Bed and does not even hit 7,000# and is a good 4' longer truck.

Chris

 

[Dmace]

All I can say about this is, if that powerful engine is protected by an eggshell what good is it?

Like they say "FORD TOUGH!".

I hope you two are just being comical. I am not a huge defender of GM trucks but give me a break. If the Ford rear ended the Chevy, the pictures would be the same but reversed. The front of a vehicle is designed to do exactly what it did, CRUMPLE. That front end absorbed all the impact and I bet the driver barely felt any of the hit. On the other hand, the rear of a truck is designed to be very stiff and structurally rigid, in other words it should NOT CRUMPLE. Add on that class 3 hitch on the Ford and you have even more rigidity. I bet you felt more of the hit in the Ford getting rear-ended then he did in the Chevy.

This has nothing to do with which truck was built stronger, they all have rigid rears and crumple zones in the front.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Yes, I was taking a stab at all the GM drivers. You are 100% correct about the crumple zone. To be honest if that accident would have happened in trucks 20 years ago both would be in the hospital at the very least. The GM driver would have probably had the dash pining their legs and be lucky to walk in the next 3 month if at all.

The truth is a comparable Ford to GM truck is about 800# to 1,000# difference in weight. I am not saying heavier is better. A chassis is like a bridge. All the steel in the world is not going to make it stronger, its how its assembled. That being said crawl around under a GM truck and compare it to the competition. Not much there. I will say the same about Toyota. I really like the Tundra, epically that its Indiana built, but the chassis was the only thing that scared me off.

Chris

 

[jcmseven]

Chris, come on now. I thought the same, and still think Ford has the better frame, but the difference is smaller than I thought. In addition, the GMC just drives so much better it is tough not to overlook some of that. I would also not put any of the big three trucks, heavy duty or otherwise in comparison or cited v. a TOYOTA. The Toyota engineers did a really nice job duplicating the frame tech from Ford and GM from the late 1990's. The previous generation Ford's had a similar frame. I know there are a lot of satisfied Toyota Tundra owners out there, and I am glad of that, but Toyota has a ways to go to equal the frame and suspension technology of the domestic truck makers, even in half ton.

John M

 

[TheGoose]

There WAS an economical diesel engine you could buy in the 80's/90's. Starting in 1982, GM introduced a Detroit Diesel 6.2 liter naturally aspirated diesel engine that you could get in a 1/2 ton pickup. In the early '90's, they upgraded it to 6.5L, and then added a turbo. It was not uncommon to hear of these trucks getting 25+ MPG, and this was with mechanical fuel injection etc, no electronics until the mid 90's.

Unfortunately, the engine was never made available after the '98 model year in light duty trucks. GM replaced it in '01 with their Dmax, which is a very good engine for HD trucks, but they took away the option for 1/2 ton truck owners.

This is one of the reasons why we''l probably not see an economical diesel in a half-ton truck.

Most folks point at the EPA, and rightfully so, but you cannot tell me that manufacturers are unable to certify a light-duty diesel due to costs / complexity. They just are not willing to.

Somewhere along the line we've become so enamored with power that we forget the other attributes of diesel power - longevity and efficiency.

The manufacturers just keep on tweakin' their engines to ridiculous levels, giving up on economy and durability in the process. We buy into it because we just love our power!

I'd like to propose that the automakers provide consumers with a six cylinder, lower displacement (4 liter class), economical turbo-diesel for light duty truck use. I feel that there is an untapped market for a 160-200hp / 350-400ft lb diesel engine which in a half-ton would deliver a consistent 25mpg highway.

The engines capable of doing this are already being built - In Europe.

Unfortunately the first one built and released here would immediately be trumped by another manufacturer's "most-powerful-diesel-available-in-a-half-ton-truck" version, and the diesel hp war would be on again, just in another class of truck...

We all lose in the process...

My .02

Lunk

 

[AKfish]

This is one of the reasons why we''l probably not see an economical diesel in a half-ton truck.

Most folks point at the EPA, and rightfully so, but you cannot tell me that manufacturers are unable to certify a light-duty diesel due to costs / complexity. They just are not willing to.

Somewhere along the line we've become so enamored with power that we forget the other attributes of diesel power - longevity and efficiency.

The manufacturers just keep on tweakin' their engines to ridiculous levels, giving up on economy and durability in the process. We buy into it because we just love our power!

I'd like to propose that the automakers provide consumers with a six cylinder, lower displacement (4 liter class), economical turbo-diesel for light duty truck use. I feel that there is an untapped market for a 160-200hp / 350-400ft lb diesel engine which in a half-ton would deliver a consistent 25mpg highway.

The engines capable of doing this are already being built - In Europe.

Unfortunately the first one built and released here would immediately be trumped by another manufacturer's "most-powerful-diesel-available-in-a-half-ton-truck" version, and the diesel hp war would be on again, just in another class of truck...

We all lose in the process...

My .02

Lunk

Amen...

Was in New Zealand a few years back. Everywhere you looked there were Nissan's, Toyota's, Ford's, and Mazda's with small, turbo'ed diesels that all got in the low 30's miles per gallon. Spoke with a Toyota dealer there - he said the trucks were all from Japan and had V-6 engines - the Toyota was rated @ 34mpg.

We'd love to have a 1/2 ton diesel to tow the horses and the boat around. There's little need to have a 3/4 ton diesel for 3-5000lb short distance tows - IMO.

AKfish

 

[Lt CHEG]

There WAS an economical diesel engine you could buy in the 80's/90's. Starting in 1982, GM introduced a Detroit Diesel 6.2 liter naturally aspirated diesel engine that you could get in a 1/2 ton pickup. In the early '90's, they upgraded it to 6.5L, and then added a turbo. It was not uncommon to hear of these trucks getting 25+ MPG, and this was with mechanical fuel injection etc, no electronics until the mid 90's.

Unfortunately, the engine was never made available after the '98 model year in light duty trucks. GM replaced it in '01 with their Dmax, which is a very good engine for HD trucks, but they took away the option for 1/2 ton truck owners.

While I agree with you in spirit, as a former GMC 6.2 Liter diesel owner (my first truck was a 2wd Sierra 1/2 ton with that engine) I believe that that particular engine was junk. I'm not alone in that assessment either, I know a few people that owned those engines and had nothing but problems with them. The GM 5.7 Liter diesel was even worse.

The idea was certainly sound though. I would love to have a not overly large diesel engine in a half ton truck that will put out about 315 horsepower and about 450 pounds feet of torque with a 13,000 pound or so tow rating that still rides like a half ton.

 

[Reg]

While I agree with you in spirit, as a former GMC 6.2 Liter diesel owner (my first truck was a 2wd Sierra 1/2 ton with that engine) I believe that that particular engine was junk. I'm not alone in that assessment either, I know a few people that owned those engines and had nothing but problems with them. The GM 5.7 Liter diesel was even worse.

The idea was certainly sound though. I would love to have a not overly large diesel engine in a half ton truck that will put out about 315 horsepower and about 450 pounds feet of torque with a 13,000 pound or so tow rating that still rides like a half ton.

Yours might have been junk, mine wasn't.
IIRC the "naturally aspirated" 6.2 was rated at 130 HP (in SOME years of the 1/2 and 3/4 ton Suburbans, might have been different in other years and/or the trucks).
That is quite a way from "about 315" (-:
Point is, we've got used to the ever increasing HP and torque levels, 300 HP wasn't considered "Mild" when the D'max was introduced.
Is 6.0, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, ... liters "not overly large" ?
In work trucks almost everywhere but the US 4 liters is considered "Large" or do I mean "Gross" ? - Yeah, maybe (-:

 

[RobertN]

A friend of mine had this setup in a Blazer(full size Blazer) 4x4, I think an '83.

It was not a powerhouse, but it did fine. Got GREAT fuel mileage, especially when you consider a comparable Blazer with a 350 gas motor was lucky to get 12-14mpg if you were lucky... Having towed with a similar year Chevy 1/2 ton with a 350, it certainly equaled and surpassed that.

Helped his son go pick up a horse in southern California. He is a bit of a lead foot... We were both impressed he got almost 25mpg flying down I-5 from Sacramento.

He still pulled high teens coming back up with a 2-horse trailer with one horse. He was going slower towing on the way back, partly for the horse, and partly because of Ca's 55mph tow speed limit. That includes pulling the grade from San Bernadino up through Victorville and Tehachipi.

I think that rig is still going; I know as of a couple years ago it had been passed down to his nephew.

There WAS an economical diesel engine you could buy in the 80's/90's. Starting in 1982, GM introduced a Detroit Diesel 6.2 liter naturally aspirated diesel engine that you could get in a 1/2 ton pickup. In the early '90's, they upgraded it to 6.5L, and then added a turbo. It was not uncommon to hear of these trucks getting 25+ MPG, and this was with mechanical fuel injection etc, no electronics until the mid 90's.

 

[RobertN]

I agree to a point in both 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton trucks.

But you don't need 315hp in a diesel for that; in fact that would be overly large... Heck, the CAT 3208 in our fire engine does not make 315hp... Even the 8.9l Cummins in our newest engines are only running 350hp(although they make 1000+ ft/lbs...).

Make something like the early Dodge/Cummins 12v combo's. I have known of people getting 27mpg in a 2wd 3/4 ton... With more than enough power to pull about anything you need. Even if as example that motor was just in a 1/2 ton, the lighter truck would probably get 30+mpg. Those were only 160hp or so, but had a great torque band.

It would be nice if they did something like a "small block" and a "big block" diesel. Big bruiser, and smaller higher mileage motor. And, option for both 1/2 ton, and 3/4 ton.

And, maybe a smaller cousin for mini-trucks; ie Tacoma, Ranger ect. Like they offer everywhere else in the world...

The idea was certainly sound though. I would love to have a not overly large diesel engine in a half ton truck that will put out about 315 horsepower and about 450 pounds feet of torque with a 13,000 pound or so tow rating that still rides like a half ton.

 

[Reg]

I agree to a point in both 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton trucks.

But you don't need 315hp in a diesel for that; in fact that would be overly large... Heck, the CAT 3208 in our fire engine does not make 315hp... Even the 8.9l Cummins in our newest engines are only running 350hp(although they make 1000+ ft/lbs...).

Make something like the early Dodge/Cummins 12v combo's. I have known of people getting 27mpg in a 2wd 3/4 ton... With more than enough power to pull about anything you need. Even if as example that motor was just in a 1/2 ton, the lighter truck would probably get 30+mpg. Those were only 160hp or so, but had a great torque band.

It would be nice if they did something like a "small block" and a "big block" diesel. Big bruiser, and smaller higher mileage motor. And, option for both 1/2 ton, and 3/4 ton.

And, maybe a smaller cousin for mini-trucks; ie Tacoma, Ranger ect. Like they offer everywhere else in the world...

Most of them DO have the equivalent of a "small block" or sawn off V8 as a V6.
They just don't sell them in the U.S. due to mumble_mumble_mahhkettiing_speak lack of market demand or somesuch nonsense.
See Ford (Europe) vans for example.