Well I can tell you from personal experience that the Cummins puts a higher percentage to the ground than the Ford. In Las Vegas in May my truck Dynoed 304 rwhp out of 350 advertised and the truck from BD 321 rwhp out of 400 advertised. You do the math I am very happy with my power to the ground.
Just drove from SoCal to NW WA and towing my combined 27,000# the ONLY rv to pass me was a Ford that had a combined load of 20,000#. I was only towing at 60 mph. Oh I also have 3:42 gears. As they say proof is in the puddin!
NewsW What about the SAE J2806 (or whatever # it is) that Ford backed out of????? On tow ratings. Also I bet it just chapps your behind that Ford uses the Cummins 6.7 in their 650-750 trucks!
Have a good weekend.
2011 Ram Laramie Longhorn 3500 Dually Long Bed, Cummins 350/800 HO, Towin Machine
B&W Companion Hitch, Maghytec Trans and Rear Dif Covers, AMZ/OIL Top To Bottom
2007 1/2 Mobile Suites 36 SB3 27,000# Combined
Quote: Power and torque certification provide a means for a manufacturer to assure a customer that the engine they purchase delivers the advertised performance. This SAE Standard has been written to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995. Document SAE J2723 specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of a production engine according to SAE J1349 or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995. Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as Certified to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 shall follow this procedure. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".
Read my sig! I don't think you know what you're talking about quite honestly. Not going to debate it either.....
Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Jeep Engineer 2003 Damon Challenger 348 Class A - F53 Triton V10
Power and torque certification provide a means for a manufacturer to assure a customer that the engine they purchase delivers the advertised performance. This SAE Standard has been written to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995. Document SAE J2723 specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of a production engine according to SAE J1349 or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995. Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as Certified to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 shall follow this procedure. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".
Read my sig! I don't think you know what you're talking about quite honestly. Not going to debate it either.....
Right on!!
2005 Dodge 3500 CTD QC, 2007 Forest River Cherokee 27RL
CR and Motor Trend both report: My wife says I'm the only one and the best she's ever had.
Amusing that the ones who are pom-poming for vehicles not certified have the most to say about why certification is not important.
A drop in horsepower / torque by 20% if it is SAE J1349 certified?
Or is it the requirement for 3rd party witnesses that is the problem?
What are the qualifications for witnesses?
Quote:
I Want to Become a Witness
Qualifications of a Witness
Witnesses for engine power and torque certification testing shall be registered with SAE. Witnesses shall be competent engineers who are experienced in engine testing and familiar with the requirements of the SAE J1349 and SAE J1995 standards. Witnesses registered by SAE shall meet one of the following criteria:
Prior registration as a witness for European homologation testing and a signed statement acknowledging that the individual has studied and understands the SAE procedures.
Documented and verified experience in engine testing with three recommendations from individuals who are registered witnesses themselves or whose technical training and experience establish them as competent to evaluate the individual's skills as a witness. In addition, a signed statement is required acknowledging that the individual to be registered has studied and understands the SAE J1349 and SAE J1995 testing procedures.
A Bachelors Degree in Engineering or equivalent plus 5 years of related engine testing experience and completion of an SAE-approved training course. Documented participation as an "apprentice witness" in at least three (3) SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 test procedures conducted by an SAE-certified witness who attests to the competency of that individual to conduct witness tests may be substituted for completion of an SAE-approved training course.
Other qualified individuals who are identified and appointed by the SAE Engine Power Test Code Committee. The witness will provide a signed statement acknowledging that the individual has studied and understands the relevant SAE test procedures.
travelnutz wrote: Did anyone notice that Chrysler and Cummins engined models are not on the SAE certified lists? They have for years made claims that they have certified them theirself as the SAE Certification criteria is not friendly to their engines/etc. Same with the new 2013 towing guides as they claim their rating systems are better. Ya right! The caviot should read that "we can't match up to the competition and don't want the truth out". My business worked with Chrysler Corp and their vendors for several decades a know their ways and games they play. Why is the buying public so blind? Nuff said!
Have a look at a post above allegedly from a Chrysler "engineer".
When it seems to have a problem with an SAE (that is, Society of Automotive Engineers) document in the quote....
It sure does but some live in denial and have for so many years. Must be total "bliss" to them!
sch911 if an actual Chrysler Engineer should know better than to have made the statement he did!
A superb CC LB 4X4, GM HD Diesel, airbags, Rancho's, lots more
Lance Legend TC 11' 4", loaded including 3400 PP generator and my deluxe 2' X 7' rear porch
29 ft Carriage Carri-lite 5'er - a specially built gem
A like new '07 Sunline Solaris 26' TT
NewsW wrote: Interesting that GM, of all companies, is taking the lead in many areas.I believe that their business model makes for higher priced lifecycle cost of ownership.
GM has always led the most, in the most things that matter.
My dad has decades of proof that owning a GM is far less cost than Ford or Dodge, and always has been.
GM has the best engines, transmissions, axles, and suspension geometries, so they must continue to be.
If GM ever really drops the ball on the most critical stuff, you'll see me raising hell about it before anyone else even wonders what's new.
I'm not anti-Ford or anti-Dodge, I can acknowledge the strengths, successes and triumphs of both. But I can see past brand loyalty to recognize that it's GM still on top.
'06 GMC C2500HD RCLB gasser 4.10:1, 4L80E, custom camshaft
'84 Trans Am 6.2 diesel, 700R-4, custom Class-3 receiver
'69 F350 dually. GM 6.2 diesel, turbo, 700R-4, NP208 all pending.
GM has always led the most, in the most things that matter.
My dad has decades of proof that owning a GM is far less cost than Ford or Dodge, and always has been.
GM has the best engines, transmissions, axles, and suspension geometries, so they must continue to be.
If GM ever really drops the ball on the most critical stuff, you'll see me raising hell about it before anyone else even wonders what's new.
I'm not anti-Ford or anti-Dodge, I can acknowledge the strengths, successes and triumphs of both. But I can see past brand loyalty to recognize that it's GM still on top.
I have owned GM in the past, and have nothing against GM. Also owned Toyota, Mazda, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Acura, etc. etc.
To date... my views (subject to change as facts change)...
Toyota is over rated and overpriced. (was not 30 years ago). Really dislike them (the dealers, not the brand or the make) after watching how their fat dealers dealt with the customers.
Honda (I'd buy the Odyssey, but don't like the car and truck offerings.)
Ford (less efficient drivetrains, but real good parts logistics and spares prices). Brand weakening from letting core competences (commercial trucks) atrophy.
GM (moderate parts prices, good stuff, but way overpriced on the commercial side vs. Ford until the last 3 or 4 years --- Ford pricing going up). GM is 10 years ahead of everyone else in software.
Chrysler (the PITA, expensive parts, hard to find parts, troublesome, but they had the minivan market right for a long time before everyone else --- that is changed with Honda getting it right). Company ran into ground by successive carpet baggers, most recently FIAT.
Nissan (a nice also ran... wish they get it right because the NV and truck can be gotten right... but isn't). They didn't have the product I need right.
To sum up, when my Fords give up.. GM is right up there on the replacement candidate list.
Don't think I'd touch Chrysler/FIAT, wish Nissan gets it right with their trucks, and will get a Honda if I go minivan, or Toyota if I want a tote about Corolla.
Toyota has to try real hard to screw up the Corolla.
Quote: Power and torque certification provide a means for a manufacturer to assure a customer that the engine they purchase delivers the advertised performance. This SAE Standard has been written to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995. Document SAE J2723 specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of a production engine according to SAE J1349 or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995. Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as Certified to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 shall follow this procedure. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".
Read my sig! I don't think you know what you're talking about quite honestly. Not going to debate it either.....
Offline
