| From | Message |
Joe.c
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/05/2006
17:06:16
|
 Subject: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
Click here
|
jayb
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/05/2006
17:19:33
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
the dodge hooked up to the road alot better. those newer dodges are way heavier than the old ford it was towing. that was like a 96 or so powerstroke. if they weighed in at the same, it would be very close.
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
14:49:00
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
Very close?? Even if you was to add half a ton in the back of the Ford there would still be no contest!! I wonder what the Toruqe rating for the older F-250 is??? 425ft lbs back in 96 and 215 HP?
|
I agree
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
16:48:35
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree with Jayb there is a massive difference. Essentially two completely different beasts. Get the same year hooked up. I bet you its damn close. Ford may even take it.
|
N56629
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
17:00:20
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
A stock F150 could probably pull a viper equiped dakota anywhere it wanted to. It's more a matter of weight and traction than raw horsepower or torque.
|
HEY HMMM
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
17:37:22
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
HMMMMMM,N56629 (is that your inmates room number?)Truth,grammercheck,LQ,spellcheck, and what ever you like to post has!
|
N56629
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
22:39:13
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
Is u post as must b joec cuz i not post has truth what ev.
|
jayb
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/07/2006
23:16:57
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
im not a ford fan. i dont even like the powerstoke. but im pretty sure it was rates for more than 425 ftlbs.
On the other hand,even if it was only rated for 425 ftlbs, weight and traction are really the deciding factor in this.
My buddy had a 85 f-150 4x4 auto with the 351.
I still have my 93 cc v8 4x4 auto dak.
we went into this field, hooked up. i did laps around the field with his truck.
I seriously doubt if we had the same tires, i would have won.
|
Super bee
GenI
12/08/2006
00:54:19
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
diesels have not been getting way up there in power until the past few years
prior to that they were pretty low,
the old chevy 6.5 was less powerfull than the 454 in 97, and the 6.5 is a pain to try and get big numbers out of
the 6.9 ford and some of the 7.3s are in the same boat, not much for performance and not much for performance parts either
the 12v cummins has a pretty good base for it because it has not changed too terribly much since 1987 or 89 when it was introduced in the dodges
and prior to that the cummins BT6 or whatever thier designation is, have been around forever
the older diesels from the factory were not big brutes like they are today
a v-10 ram would out perform a diesel (except fuel economy) when they were introduced
now it is quite the opposite, that is one reason they dropped the v-10 truck (as well as low sales, mostly because people opted for the diesel)
and god only knows what all was done to those trucks
but yes, 215hp and 425 tq is about right for that year powerstroke
it may not seem like much compared to the 360/650 numbers modern diesels are putting out, but the market has grown 10 fold in the past 5 years
1990 sport RC SB, 1995 318drivetrain, 3.92 gears (came with truck) Powertrax "traction system", 95 dash/steering wheel, hearthrob exhaust, headers, cutout after y-pipe, necessary electric fan add-a-leafs, 30x9.5 mud tires, cranked T-bars, AR 39 15x8 rims, grill guard, roll bars
|
Joe.C
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/12/2006
17:22:41
|  RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
Now weight just one minute. Lests take the pickup truck and back it right up. Sure, weight,a short rear end (gear ratio) is what you kneed for pulling and great traction off-road. But you still got to have power to pull the trucks GVWR and what ever its pulling..
Take the 97 Powerstroke for example.
Yes, it was rated @ 210HP and 425lbs of toruqe compared to the Dodge Rams 1st 24 valve cummins at 235HP and 460 ftlbs (16V 215-440)
http://www.thedieselstop.com/faq/9497faq/faq/engcomp.php3
So now you see why there was know contest when the big 7700lb Dodge with a Diesel that churns out over 610 lbs toruqe campard to a truck that probably a ton lighter and with a engine thats not even close when it comes to power.
As for the 6.9 and GM 6.5L,6.2,5.7 engines, I'm sure ford lovers don't even want to remember those engines that ran like Sheeeeet sounded like sheeeet and where nothing but sheeeeet!!
|
Super bee
GenI
12/12/2006
17:59:10
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
and furd lovers wont really want to remember the 6.0 they have right now in a few years either
what a pile of TSB creating crap
hopefully they have much better luck with the 6.4
and i hope dodge has as much luck with the 6.7 as the 5.9
they should, same basic design, but more displacement
1990 sport RC SB, 1995 318drivetrain, 3.92 gears (came with truck) Powertrax "traction system", 95 dash/steering wheel, hearthrob exhaust, headers, cutout after y-pipe, necessary electric fan add-a-leafs, 30x9.5 mud tires, cranked T-bars, AR 39 15x8 rims, grill guard, roll bars
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/13/2006
15:40:12
| RE: Cummins VS P.S
IP: Logged
Message:
Well according to the GM folks. They still say that there 115HP 6.2L (that was Literaly just a bunch of smoke along with very intence diesel fumes) was one good motor than never wore out. When you hear comments like that you know for sure, that your talking to a real GM idiot!
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
