[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Diesels suck. Especially the GMCs, it has a THREE HUNDRED rpm power band... Uhh...

Might as well just hoist a big ass rock in the sky and gear it REALLY TALL... and just DROP the Rock one time, and hope that has enough energy to get you to where you gotta go.

300 rpm.

LOL try to pull a trailer like that with a gasoline engine :lmao::lmao:

 

[newdude]

Diesels suck. Especially the GMCs, it has a THREE HUNDRED rpm power band... Uhh...

Might as well just hoist a big ass rock in the sky and gear it REALLY TALL... and just DROP the Rock one time, and hope that has enough energy to get you to where you gotta go.

300 rpm.

The dyno test was done at 5500ft ASL (Above Sea Level). The trailering was even higher up (8500-11000ft). That high up will make a difference in the way the truck performs on a dyno or on the road.

 

[smithb]

Ford won the dyno test, GM won the hill climb, results for both are suspect in my mind as the extreme spread of gear ratios in my opinion reneders both uncompareable (unless those are the EXACT two trucks you're looking to buy)....

I think "winning" a dyno comparison is compeltely usesless. If there is no other way to test a vehicle that might be ok, but how many dyno races are there and who watches them? Who says "I need to haul my RV so I better head down to the chassis dyno." You need a vehicle (truck or whatever) that performs in the real world. Not in the lab or on paper. And as was mentioned a couple times in the article, these vehicles aren't even in the same class, but that the GMC is able to beat the "more capable" Ford in any meaninful comparison is impressive.

Such a small fraction of people buy these size trucks, I just hope GM puts this much effort and desire to out do the competition in the next Malibu, Aveo, Impala, XTS, etc.

 

[chevypowa670]

I think "winning" a dyno comparison is compeltely usesless. If there is no other way to test a vehicle that might be ok, but how many dyno races are there and who watches them? Who says "I need to haul my RV so I better head down to the chassis dyno." You need a vehicle (truck or whatever) that performs in the real world. Not in the lab or on paper. And as was mentioned a couple times in the article, these vehicles aren't even in the same class, but that the GMC is able to beat the "more capable" Ford in any meaninful comparison is impressive.

Such a small fraction of people buy these size trucks, I just hope GM puts this much effort and desire to out do the competition in the next Malibu, Aveo, Impala, XTS, etc.

Exactly... Well said.

 

[FanOfDurant]

Once again showing GM drivetrains reign supreme.. Now upgrade the interior, beef up the sheetmeteal in the areas that Need durability and we'd not just win the battle, we'd win the war.

A nuclear annihilation of Ford trucks could be had if we also tucked up those frames and put a SFA underneath.

These 4 things aren't that hard GM, just do it and be done with it.

 

[chevypowa670]

Once again showing GM drivetrains reign supreme.. Now upgrade the interior, beef up the sheetmeteal in the areas that Need durability and we'd not just win the battle, we'd win the war.

A nuclear annihilation of Ford trucks could be had if we also tucked up those frames and put a SFA underneath.

These 4 things aren't that hard GM, just do it and be done with it.

I like the IFS.. I enjoy the superior ride and comfort that it gives, but I do agree with you about the SFA...

IMO GM would really cut into Ford and Dodge's HD share if they moved to SFA, personally I wouldn't like it, but I think it would really help them raise there HD market share..

GM could be onto something though with this new and improved IFS.. If GM can somehow make it as strong as a regular SFA, then they should just keep the IFS and have best of both worlds.

 

[XCR440SP]

I think "winning" a dyno comparison is compeltely usesless. If there is no other way to test a vehicle that might be ok, but how many dyno races are there and who watches them? Who says "I need to haul my RV so I better head down to the chassis dyno." You need a vehicle (truck or whatever) that performs in the real world. Not in the lab or on paper. And as was mentioned a couple times in the article, these vehicles aren't even in the same class, but that the GMC is able to beat the "more capable" Ford in any meaninful comparison is impressive.

Such a small fraction of people buy these size trucks, I just hope GM puts this much effort and desire to out do the competition in the next Malibu, Aveo, Impala, XTS, etc.

I guess there's two ways of looking at it. Yes, real world performance is the most important. And with that, this the hill climb is meaningless to me as the Dyno is meaningless to you. I don't drive at altitude, and I'm more worried about passing and accelration on on ramps, after stop signs, etc at standard altitudes.

Now as to Dyno results, I'm the type that doesn't just want to know the results, I want to know why. Thats why the Dyno being done with all these tests is really important to me. The fact that the Ford has more power is a VERY important piece of info to me. It tells where the advantages (or disadvantages) of that truck are. We know the Ford has more power but the GM was faster at altitude. That means that the reason wasn't power, rather was a function of driveline/tuning/etc. I like this type of data because it helps to decide what to change to improve performance.

Look at Camaro/Mustang, the Mustang is faster, Dyno tests prove that the Mustang doesn't have more power, and the scales prove that the weight of the Camaro is holding it back, as a tinkerer, I enjoy knowing more of the why.

 

[knack0125]

First off, someone explain to me what IFS and SFA are, i'm no mechanic or true truck/car buff so it confuses me some.

Its great that GM has now stepped up there game in this area, done hearing about Built Ford Tough, lets try Pro Grade Tough on GMC's ads for the Sierras.

My dad has 2 2007 GMC Sierra 3500HD classic style SLT Long bed Crew Cab SRW and I love driving them both. Wish I could do more hauling like other guys do but you win some you lose some. Very nice trucks, do what they were built to do, perform when we ask them to. Had fords in the past, saw more garage time then anything. GM better keep it up, and i'll buy GM for the rest of my life. Win the War not just the Battles.
GO GM!!!!!

 

[Amphibian]

First off, someone explain to me what IFS and SFA are, i'm no mechanic or true truck/car buff so it confuses me some.

IFS/IRS = Independent Front/Rear Suspension

SFA/SRA = Solid Front/Rear Axle

 

[Busta_44]

There's a MASSIVE difference in price, too--on GMC's website, a 3500HD Denali starts at $48-something, but a F450 King Ranch starts at $62K. I optioned one out with everything on it, and that thing peaked at over $72,000. That's just plain ridiculous.

 

[MrCritical]

Well, there's a ton of people that buy those trucks here, but they don't use them for anything but running down the road unloaded.

As for trucks vs Mustangs/Camaros, trucks are the moneymakers.

What kind of calibration will Ford come up with now? How much more 'till reliability suffers? And reliability is the reason for the new diesel in the first place.

Another review comparing these two trucks vs the Dodge Cummins also noted that the King Ranch was $11,000 MSRP higher than the Dodge. Granted, the Ford had more standard equipment, and more refinement. But if I was a buyer in this market, there's no way I could justify that price difference.

 

[Ed Arcuri]

Those of us who want to tow race car trailers with living quarters need to know: which of these trucks, if either, can make that tow with such a trailer and how fast were these guys whistling past Georgetown on the downhill side?
Power is far less of an issue than the truck's ability to handle the weight and to stop.
Cheers,
Ed

 

[FxsX24]

i love how they test a 3500 vs a 450, why not use the f350 and compare them in there true classes

 

[Rick_VT]

I dont know if this might seem like a stupid question, but why does the Denali's power and torque start at like 1900rpm on that graph and the f-350's starting at 1450rpm?

Also since i dont know nothing about trucks, what does 2500 and 3500 and 350 and 450 actually designate for the trucks?

 

[knack0125]

IFS/IRS = Independent Front/Rear Suspension

SFA/SRA = Solid Front/Rear Axle

Thanks, i guess it should of been a no brainer since its with big heavy duty trucks and all.

 

[newdude]

I dont know if this might seem like a stupid question, but why does the Denali's power and torque start at like 1900rpm on that graph and the f-350's starting at 1450rpm?

Also since i dont know nothing about trucks, what does 2500 and 3500 and 350 and 450 actually designate for the trucks?

1500/2500/3500/etc. are the way they are classified. A 1500 is a 1/2 ton, 2500 is a 3/4 ton, 3500 is a 1 ton, 4500 is a 1-1/4 ton. At one point that was their payload ratings but not the case today. The numbers (1500,2500...) could also apply in the same way as their payload rating in lbs but again, somewhat defeats the purpose (a 3/4 ton can payload 3-4k lbs).

As for the torque on the dyno:

You’ll see the difference between the two trucks in the dyno chart because we could reliably measure power output in the Ford about 600 rpm sooner than in the Denali because of its early locked-up torque converter.

Once again showing GM drivetrains reign supreme.. Now upgrade the interior, beef up the sheetmeteal in the areas that Need durability and we'd not just win the battle, we'd win the war.

A nuclear annihilation of Ford trucks could be had if we also tucked up those frames and put a SFA underneath.

These 4 things aren't that hard GM, just do it and be done with it.

I like the IFS.. I enjoy the superior ride and comfort that it gives, but I do agree with you about the SFA...

IMO GM would really cut into Ford and Dodge's HD share if they moved to SFA, personally I wouldn't like it, but I think it would really help them raise there HD market share..

GM could be onto something though with this new and improved IFS.. If GM can somehow make it as strong as a regular SFA, then they should just keep the IFS and have best of both worlds.

Honestly...I am beginning to see no point in SFA as much unless you are a super hard core off roader, especially after the new upgrades GM did (have you seen the hardware? Impressive in person IMO). I have driven a few SFA trucks and a few IFS trucks (I own one as well) and IFS just plain rode better to me. And with the axle ratings that meet Ford and meet/beat Dodge, my choice would lean to IFS.

 

[RamJet502]

Honestly...I am beginning to see no point in SFA as much unless you are a super hard core off roader, especially after the new upgrades GM did (have you seen the hardware? Impressive in person IMO). I have driven a few SFA trucks and a few IFS trucks (I own one as well) and IFS just plain rode better to me. And with the axle ratings that meet Ford and meet/beat Dodge, my choice would lean to IFS.

Don't forget a lot of people lift these trucks and a SFA lift kit is easier to install, cheaper, and is much stronger with the extra weight of larger tires and wheels.

There is a reason people buy more heavy duty Fords than Chevys and GMCs. Obviously from this test we know its not because of engines.

 

[joemac]

I dont know if this might seem like a stupid question, but why does the Denali's power and torque start at like 1900rpm on that graph and the f-350's starting at 1450rpm?

The manual shift your own gears in the Ford keeps the same gear and the torque converter locked some 600 rpm below the GM. Thus why you see the difference in the curves. It's really useless for the comparison as the GM simply can't be measured at that specific RPM with it's PCM/TCM tuning holding 4th gear with the torque converter locked. It however doesn't mean that the GM isn't as capable or even more capable. It's simply for the two trucks the points of measure for the GM at 1600 rpm can't be duplicated to measure against the Ford results. The GM can't be measured there cause it will not stay in 4th gear with the torque converter locked up at that low of an RPM.

If the GM could be measured at 1600 rpm, one might find the GM producing more torque in the lower range. Backing this up is reference the plot of the curve and the fact the GM produces less torque above 2400 rpm, but yet the manufacturer specifications are within 3HP. Also reference real world test results in 1/4 mile, 1/4 mile loaded, 7% grade, and 15% grade from PUTC's HD shootout. HP being derived from torque over given time (RPM) as the basis for this statement, with both trucks with 3HP (manufacturer ratings) this means all things equal they both produce the next to the same amount of torque over the time of their RPM range, this is the reason the HP figures are so close.

As at full song (WOT) a truck would only see 1600 rpm once on a run to 90mph, through first gear only, otherwise the shift to second and sequential gears forward would never have a drop in RPM below 2200rpm or there about. So again the measurement at low rpm isn't much of a factor when the motor will only cross this RPM once during a full throttle run. Or it would never cross it if say the truck and load was moving at 20mph, as second gear would be the lowest gear that could be commanded.

So I wouldn't put a lot of stock into the GM not being able to be measured at the same RPM on the dyno. The Ford curve looks more stout but it's under false pretenses. Look at other than the dyno results as they were delivered here to identify performance winners and looser with the 2011 HD trucks.

 

[FanOfDurant]

GM could be onto something though with this new and improved IFS.. If GM can somehow make it as strong as a regular SFA, then they should just keep the IFS and have best of both worlds.

Wanna OWN the market? Figure out how to offer both without any compromises... (And then beef up the sheetmetal and upgrade the interior).

Here's the thing with the SFA. Perception is reality.. HD guys 'perceive' that solid axle as being more sturdy and rugged. It wouldn't matter if GM did an IFS just as capable. Sure, it may help a little but I don't think it will accomplish their ultimate goal. Guys just like to see that SFA under their rig... And like RamJet said, many HD guys Like bigger tires on their trucks. Not only does a SFA make it easier but it's better suited for it. IFS should stay in the 1500 realm IMO.

The last thing is the frame. The frame is slung low so those torsion bars can tie into it. We could have a nice tucked up frame if we had a SFA again just like the old Chevy trucks use to have. It would completely change the HD landscape and make GM trucks a Major force to be reckoned with if they did these things. Look at the urea tank placement on the new HD trucks. It's awful... With a tucked up frame we could really make issues like this disappear.

 

[newdude]

Wanna OWN the market? Figure out how to offer both without any compromises... (And then beef up the sheetmetal and upgrade the interior).

Here's the thing with the SFA. Perception is reality.. HD guys 'perceive' that solid axle as being more sturdy and rugged. It wouldn't matter if GM did an IFS just as capable. Sure, it may help a little but I don't think it will accomplish their ultimate goal. Guys just like to see that SFA under their rig... And like RamJet said, many HD guys Like bigger tires on their trucks. Not only does a SFA make it easier but it's better suited for it. IFS should stay in the 1500 realm IMO.

The last thing is the frame. The frame is slung low so those torsion bars can tie into it. We could have a nice tucked up frame if we had a SFA again just like the old Chevy trucks use to have. It would completely change the HD landscape and make GM trucks a Major force to be reckoned with if they did these things. Look at the urea tank placement on the new HD trucks. It's awful... With a tucked up frame we could really make issues like this disappear.

I find the tucked up frame a pain. Try lifting a Dodge or Ford. That frame is way high up to where you need a real tall extender on the lift arms, then the truck rocks like crazy. And with the Fords, there is squat for frame length. Makes the angle of the V of the lift arms real small. There is a functional point of the lower slung GM frame if you think about it

As for IFS, GM can fit 17-20's already. Also, if there are no rubbing issues, a bigger tire should fit on the rims.