I didnt change the title of this thread and i started it. Who else would have the power to do that?
400HP 800 Ft. Lb. 34mpg 2011 powersroke.
- Thread starter Dualie
- Start date
- Status
ANY member of the mod/admin team might have edited the topic title. How was it changed, and what impact has it had on the discussion? And once again, how do you feel that this reflects some material bias?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
ANY member of the mod/admin team might have edited the topic title. How was it changed, and what impact has it had on the discussion? And once again, how do you feel that this reflects some material bias?
Well whoever DID do it.... I think was feeling a bit childish at the time.
Not cool IMHO.
ANY member of the mod/admin team might have edited the topic title. How was it changed, and what impact has it had on the discussion? And once again, how do you feel that this reflects some material bias?
Well whoever DID do it.... I think was feeling a bit childish at the time.
Not cool IMHO.
just seems a bit childish, adding "(not...)" to the title does nothing to disprove the facts in the article. Just seems childish at best, and to say that whoever changed it isn't biased would be a lie.
It makes it seem like the original poster (ME) was trying to prove his own agenda, which i was not, i was just simply putting the article up for discussion. If you can disprove the actual FACTS that the numbers in the article are lies then by all means do.
If not please change the title of the post back because i feel it reflects poorly on me.
It makes it seem like the original poster (ME) was trying to prove his own agenda, which i was not, i was just simply putting the article up for discussion. If you can disprove the actual FACTS that the numbers in the article are lies then by all means do.
If not please change the title of the post back because i feel it reflects poorly on me.
OK, I think you're over-reacting a bit, but I'll delete the "not" part for you.
With that said, let's re-ask the question I posed earlier, in some more detail: First, does anyone really think that any normal driver (not a Wayne Gerdes disciple) is ever going to achieve mileage like this in a Superduty powerstroke? Really? Second part, and I think we all know the answer to this, but I'll ask it anyway: given that these are trucks meant to move very heavy cargo, did Mr. Gerdes have 15,000 pounds or so of cargo in the bed or hooked to the hitch when he achieved this result? I seriously doubt it. I would truly like to see, really, how he'd do with the truck hauling the sort of load it was meant to move.
With that said, let's re-ask the question I posed earlier, in some more detail: First, does anyone really think that any normal driver (not a Wayne Gerdes disciple) is ever going to achieve mileage like this in a Superduty powerstroke? Really? Second part, and I think we all know the answer to this, but I'll ask it anyway: given that these are trucks meant to move very heavy cargo, did Mr. Gerdes have 15,000 pounds or so of cargo in the bed or hooked to the hitch when he achieved this result? I seriously doubt it. I would truly like to see, really, how he'd do with the truck hauling the sort of load it was meant to move.
Originally Posted By: Dualie
...
I do agree with that to a point. theres something's that diesels are just better suited for. Personally my business is setup for diesel equipment. And storing gasoline in larger quantity's brings a whole new set of problems with it.
The new gas motors are 350+ horsepower with half the torque and worse mileage and resale. For my 3/4 ton pickups i would definitely buy the little 4 cyl 230 horsepower diesels available overseas. But the 3500/350's, 450 and 550 sized trucks will without a doubt get the big dog diesels.
Again, I think we're saying very similar things, in different ways. All I'm saying is that if we're making logical business decisions, we should match the equipment to the mission. No sense in spending well over $5k for a diesel unless the mission calls for it. If a 4.3L V-6 will do the job acceptably, why not save the money?
And the other thing I'm saying, and I'm sure you all know it by now, is that I simply don't believe for a nanoinstant that any of us "real" drivers would see anything like Mr. Gerdes' result with the PSD. Especially when you use it to move a real payload.
...
I do agree with that to a point. theres something's that diesels are just better suited for. Personally my business is setup for diesel equipment. And storing gasoline in larger quantity's brings a whole new set of problems with it.
The new gas motors are 350+ horsepower with half the torque and worse mileage and resale. For my 3/4 ton pickups i would definitely buy the little 4 cyl 230 horsepower diesels available overseas. But the 3500/350's, 450 and 550 sized trucks will without a doubt get the big dog diesels.
Again, I think we're saying very similar things, in different ways. All I'm saying is that if we're making logical business decisions, we should match the equipment to the mission. No sense in spending well over $5k for a diesel unless the mission calls for it. If a 4.3L V-6 will do the job acceptably, why not save the money?
And the other thing I'm saying, and I'm sure you all know it by now, is that I simply don't believe for a nanoinstant that any of us "real" drivers would see anything like Mr. Gerdes' result with the PSD. Especially when you use it to move a real payload.
I could do it...... In a low gear, driving down a mountain while towing a trailer, my foot off the gas..... I bet I could do 35, 40 mpg EASY.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
Do I think that the new Superduty will get 34 mpg's daily. No that would be delusional. Do i think the new super duty could get 28 mpg's in daily driving not necessarily but 22 wouldn't be un fathomable.
It makes as much sense as a hybrid vehicle being anything but useless on the open highway. The first 1/4 mile or less of the first grade a hybrid had to climb with a load would all but render the electric traction motor useless and dead weight. How well would climbing that hill work with the anemic I. C. motor matched to a hybrid drive train?
your entire problem over in the other thread was that 400 horsepower was ridiculous and that it would be a fuel robbing financial burden on any business dumb enough to buy one.
Compared to the EPA 07-2010 trucks it replaces that's nearly double the mileage. Single digit fuel economy wasn't unheard of with the previous generation diesel pickups.
The worst tank ever in my 2000 F-350 hauling 27K combined into a very strong headwind cross country was 13.9. I think the new superduty should have no problem beating that.
If we got rid of all the over zealous emissions systems i have no doubt that a newer diesel pickup could lay down 38 mpg's on a cross country road trip. Until then, we will have to settle for low 20's.
It makes as much sense as a hybrid vehicle being anything but useless on the open highway. The first 1/4 mile or less of the first grade a hybrid had to climb with a load would all but render the electric traction motor useless and dead weight. How well would climbing that hill work with the anemic I. C. motor matched to a hybrid drive train?
your entire problem over in the other thread was that 400 horsepower was ridiculous and that it would be a fuel robbing financial burden on any business dumb enough to buy one.
Compared to the EPA 07-2010 trucks it replaces that's nearly double the mileage. Single digit fuel economy wasn't unheard of with the previous generation diesel pickups.
The worst tank ever in my 2000 F-350 hauling 27K combined into a very strong headwind cross country was 13.9. I think the new superduty should have no problem beating that.
If we got rid of all the over zealous emissions systems i have no doubt that a newer diesel pickup could lay down 38 mpg's on a cross country road trip. Until then, we will have to settle for low 20's.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be
compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything, because if I was, it would be all over my monitor and keyboard right now.
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be
compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything, because if I was, it would be all over my monitor and keyboard right now.
Sometimes the Ford fanboys do get a little carried away.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
First, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that the EPA even rates heavy-duty diesel truck like this. On the Ford side, the F150 is the heaviest that shows up in the ratings. That said, even if they don't, you can still make the comparison.
Second, if you've studied Mr. Gerdes' techniques, he does nothing like the EPA does in their standard testing. Not even close. He coasts down hills with the engine off, performs extreme danger-close drafting, turns corners at the very highest speed he can without rolling over or sliding off the road, and so forth. You won't find the "standardizers" doing any of that at EPA. EDIT: Oh, I forgot pulse-and-glide. This technique alone is super effective at boosting mpgs, but it's also super effective at irritating those other drivers around you. I use it when I can, without imposing on others. Gerdes uses it heavily -- yet another vast step away from any comparability with EPA results.
Finally, you missed my point about the consistency of the comparison. It's one thing to compare Impalas and Camrys using their EPA ratings, and perhaps Gerdes techniques. It's done with the assumption, usually correct, that the total weight of the vehicle will never vary by more than a couple hundred pounds in the context of the vehicle's real-world intended use.
On the other hand, the purchase and use of these trucks is justified premised upon their ability to move relatively huge weights worth of stuff/things/trailers. You cannot claim, at least not consistently, from one side of your mouth that you can tow a 15k lb trailer up a mountain pass at speed, and then out of the other, brag about empty-weight fuel economy.
Stated another way, EPA-style numbers are meaningful and useful for comparing Impalas and Camrys; if you're trying to see if you'll turn a profit with your truck, they're close to meaningless.
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
First, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that the EPA even rates heavy-duty diesel truck like this. On the Ford side, the F150 is the heaviest that shows up in the ratings. That said, even if they don't, you can still make the comparison.
Second, if you've studied Mr. Gerdes' techniques, he does nothing like the EPA does in their standard testing. Not even close. He coasts down hills with the engine off, performs extreme danger-close drafting, turns corners at the very highest speed he can without rolling over or sliding off the road, and so forth. You won't find the "standardizers" doing any of that at EPA. EDIT: Oh, I forgot pulse-and-glide. This technique alone is super effective at boosting mpgs, but it's also super effective at irritating those other drivers around you. I use it when I can, without imposing on others. Gerdes uses it heavily -- yet another vast step away from any comparability with EPA results.
Finally, you missed my point about the consistency of the comparison. It's one thing to compare Impalas and Camrys using their EPA ratings, and perhaps Gerdes techniques. It's done with the assumption, usually correct, that the total weight of the vehicle will never vary by more than a couple hundred pounds in the context of the vehicle's real-world intended use.
On the other hand, the purchase and use of these trucks is justified premised upon their ability to move relatively huge weights worth of stuff/things/trailers. You cannot claim, at least not consistently, from one side of your mouth that you can tow a 15k lb trailer up a mountain pass at speed, and then out of the other, brag about empty-weight fuel economy.
Stated another way, EPA-style numbers are meaningful and useful for comparing Impalas and Camrys; if you're trying to see if you'll turn a profit with your truck, they're close to meaningless.
Last edited:
Regardless of whether or not normal users will get that kind of mpg in normal use, it's still impressive that a vehicle that large and heavy is even capable of achieving 30+ mpg under any conditions.
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Regardless of whether or not normal users will get that kind of mpg in normal use, it's still impressive that a vehicle that large and heavy is even capable of achieving 30+ mpg under any conditions.
Yes and no. This is the same guy that pushes an Accord up to ~60 mpg. When you consider the "ratios" involved, what he's done with this truck is not much different, if at all, from his squeezing unreal mpgs from the Accord.
Regardless of whether or not normal users will get that kind of mpg in normal use, it's still impressive that a vehicle that large and heavy is even capable of achieving 30+ mpg under any conditions.
Yes and no. This is the same guy that pushes an Accord up to ~60 mpg. When you consider the "ratios" involved, what he's done with this truck is not much different, if at all, from his squeezing unreal mpgs from the Accord.
True. However, the previous generation trucks may not have been capable of the same mileage, even if pushed just as far.
I can assure you none of the diesels since 2003.5 would have been able to achieve that mpg.
with that fuel MPG logic maybe the EPA should test all cars like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk ?
just as crazy as the next idea.
with that fuel MPG logic maybe the EPA should test all cars like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk ?
just as crazy as the next idea.
and back on topic, that 400/800 rating seems a bit optimistic:
(from car and driver)
From a numbers perspective, Ford still leads the HD truck segment with a max payload of 6520 pounds and a towing capacity of 24,400, as well as in diesel output, thanks to a recent upgrade to 400 hp and 800 lb-ft. However, despite the extra power, GM’s acceleration numbers embarrass a 2011 diesel F-250 we tested (8.0 seconds to 60, and 16.2 in the quarter at 86 mph). While most buyers aren’t drag-racing their 7600-plus-pound truck—give yourself a high-five if you do and yours is in the 11s—the Sierra’s fleetness means that, even with a gooseneck hanging off the back, it’ll be the Camry in the next lane that holds up traffic.
(from car and driver)
From a numbers perspective, Ford still leads the HD truck segment with a max payload of 6520 pounds and a towing capacity of 24,400, as well as in diesel output, thanks to a recent upgrade to 400 hp and 800 lb-ft. However, despite the extra power, GM’s acceleration numbers embarrass a 2011 diesel F-250 we tested (8.0 seconds to 60, and 16.2 in the quarter at 86 mph). While most buyers aren’t drag-racing their 7600-plus-pound truck—give yourself a high-five if you do and yours is in the 11s—the Sierra’s fleetness means that, even with a gooseneck hanging off the back, it’ll be the Camry in the next lane that holds up traffic.
22 mpg combined for a giant pickup isn't bad. You know they'll be all over small businesses quickly. The owners will likely drool at a giant truck that can haul lots of stuff at work, and get ~25-26 mpg commuting to the 'burbs at night.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
First, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that the EPA even rates heavy-duty diesel truck like this. On the Ford side, the F150 is the heaviest that shows up in the ratings. That said, even if they don't, you can still make the comparison.
Second, if you've studied Mr. Gerdes' techniques, he does nothing like the EPA does in their standard testing. Not even close. He coasts down hills with the engine off, performs extreme danger-close drafting, turns corners at the very highest speed he can without rolling over or sliding off the road, and so forth. You won't find the "standardizers" doing any of that at EPA. EDIT: Oh, I forgot pulse-and-glide. This technique alone is super effective at boosting mpgs, but it's also super effective at irritating those other drivers around you. I use it when I can, without imposing on others. Gerdes uses it heavily -- yet another vast step away from any comparability with EPA results.
Finally, you missed my point about the consistency of the comparison. It's one thing to compare Impalas and Camrys using their EPA ratings, and perhaps Gerdes techniques. It's done with the assumption, usually correct, that the total weight of the vehicle will never vary by more than a couple hundred pounds in the context of the vehicle's real-world intended use.
On the other hand, the purchase and use of these trucks is justified premised upon their ability to move relatively huge weights worth of stuff/things/trailers. You cannot claim, at least not consistently, from one side of your mouth that you can tow a 15k lb trailer up a mountain pass at speed, and then out of the other, brag about empty-weight fuel economy.
Stated another way, EPA-style numbers are meaningful and useful for comparing Impalas and Camrys; if you're trying to see if you'll turn a profit with your truck, they're close to meaningless.
When I said the same "fashion" as the EPA (or Ford) meant loaded the same manner. Hence the mention of his own "tweaks". I'm not sure if we have any idea "how far" he went with his hypermiling techniques on this truck.
As far as the consistency goes, you are missing what I'm saying: The numbers (unloaded) are provided as they are so that the mileage of this TRUCK can be compared to the likes of the Impala and Camry.
If we were to be given a second section for loaded mileage, that would be fine. But most people shopping by the sticker are expecting to see the same "type" of mileage numbers listed on the sticker as they see on smaller trucks as well as cars. Hence the reason for the testing to be performed the way it was. These numbers are meant to be compared against the "sticker" numbers.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The EPA results (and the ones Ford lists) are for the truck driven as the EPA drives it. Which doesn't include the vehicle hauling it's max payload. Obviously 5 civics on a trailer would affect the vehicle's fuel economy.
Gerdes drove the truck in the same "fashion" as the EPA did, but obviously applying his own techniques. We have no more reason to expect Gerdes to drive it loaded to the gills than we do the EPA.
If one were to expect "use-style" testing, then Jeeps in the desert, vans full of illegals doing "border duty" and any other "application specific" testing should be chucked in there as well. Might as well test Civic's with 500lbs of fibreglass glued to them in the form of a body kit and a massive [censored] cannon coupled with a "CAI" and some hacked-up resister rigged into the ECT wiring if we really wanted to cover all bases.
Would it be neat to see what Gerdes could eek out of it loaded? Sure would! But he tested it the way he did so it could be compared to the EPA figures. And that makes sense.
First, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that the EPA even rates heavy-duty diesel truck like this. On the Ford side, the F150 is the heaviest that shows up in the ratings. That said, even if they don't, you can still make the comparison.
Second, if you've studied Mr. Gerdes' techniques, he does nothing like the EPA does in their standard testing. Not even close. He coasts down hills with the engine off, performs extreme danger-close drafting, turns corners at the very highest speed he can without rolling over or sliding off the road, and so forth. You won't find the "standardizers" doing any of that at EPA. EDIT: Oh, I forgot pulse-and-glide. This technique alone is super effective at boosting mpgs, but it's also super effective at irritating those other drivers around you. I use it when I can, without imposing on others. Gerdes uses it heavily -- yet another vast step away from any comparability with EPA results.
Finally, you missed my point about the consistency of the comparison. It's one thing to compare Impalas and Camrys using their EPA ratings, and perhaps Gerdes techniques. It's done with the assumption, usually correct, that the total weight of the vehicle will never vary by more than a couple hundred pounds in the context of the vehicle's real-world intended use.
On the other hand, the purchase and use of these trucks is justified premised upon their ability to move relatively huge weights worth of stuff/things/trailers. You cannot claim, at least not consistently, from one side of your mouth that you can tow a 15k lb trailer up a mountain pass at speed, and then out of the other, brag about empty-weight fuel economy.
Stated another way, EPA-style numbers are meaningful and useful for comparing Impalas and Camrys; if you're trying to see if you'll turn a profit with your truck, they're close to meaningless.
When I said the same "fashion" as the EPA (or Ford) meant loaded the same manner. Hence the mention of his own "tweaks". I'm not sure if we have any idea "how far" he went with his hypermiling techniques on this truck.
As far as the consistency goes, you are missing what I'm saying: The numbers (unloaded) are provided as they are so that the mileage of this TRUCK can be compared to the likes of the Impala and Camry.
If we were to be given a second section for loaded mileage, that would be fine. But most people shopping by the sticker are expecting to see the same "type" of mileage numbers listed on the sticker as they see on smaller trucks as well as cars. Hence the reason for the testing to be performed the way it was. These numbers are meant to be compared against the "sticker" numbers.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
and back on topic, that 400/800 rating seems a bit optimistic:
(from car and driver)
From a numbers perspective, Ford still leads the HD truck segment with a max payload of 6520 pounds and a towing capacity of 24,400, as well as in diesel output, thanks to a recent upgrade to 400 hp and 800 lb-ft. However, despite the extra power, GM’s acceleration numbers embarrass a 2011 diesel F-250 we tested (8.0 seconds to 60, and 16.2 in the quarter at 86 mph). While most buyers aren’t drag-racing their 7600-plus-pound truck—give yourself a high-five if you do and yours is in the 11s—the Sierra’s fleetness means that, even with a gooseneck hanging off the back, it’ll be the Camry in the next lane that holds up traffic.
Those numbers were achieved with the 390/735 6.7
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/..._take_road_test
The Super Duty generally runs quite a bit heavier for a given configuration than the Silverado HD.
and back on topic, that 400/800 rating seems a bit optimistic:
(from car and driver)
From a numbers perspective, Ford still leads the HD truck segment with a max payload of 6520 pounds and a towing capacity of 24,400, as well as in diesel output, thanks to a recent upgrade to 400 hp and 800 lb-ft. However, despite the extra power, GM’s acceleration numbers embarrass a 2011 diesel F-250 we tested (8.0 seconds to 60, and 16.2 in the quarter at 86 mph). While most buyers aren’t drag-racing their 7600-plus-pound truck—give yourself a high-five if you do and yours is in the 11s—the Sierra’s fleetness means that, even with a gooseneck hanging off the back, it’ll be the Camry in the next lane that holds up traffic.
Those numbers were achieved with the 390/735 6.7
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/..._take_road_test
The Super Duty generally runs quite a bit heavier for a given configuration than the Silverado HD.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
