400HP 800 Ft. Lb. 34mpg 2011 powersroke.

[OVERKILL]

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.


Yeah....

But you missed the last line of that quote:

"Now if only GM could get serious about things not so easily quantified, such as ride quality and interior finish."

The interior of that truck was garbage.

The Sierra 2500HD (as tested by C&D) weighed @ 7,560lbs.
The Ford F-250 (as tested by C&D) weighed in @ 7,960lbs.

We don't know how each truck was geared. The 3Mph difference may be due to the 400lb weight difference between the two trucks, though that's likely me being optimistic.

The GM truck may be more efficient at getting the power to the ground. But either truck is more than capable of holding it's own. The heavier-duty Ford (going by the ratings) is likely hiding the 400lbs in chassis components, frame rails and the like. Hence it's higher capacities all around.

As tested:

Ford F-250

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear/4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED: $64,225 (base price: $57,670)
ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled pushrod 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 406 cu in, 6651 cc
Power (SAE net): 390 bhp @ 2800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 735 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 156.2 in Length: 246.8 in
Width: 79.9 in Height: 79.7 in
Curb weight: 7960 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec
Zero to 90 mph: 17.9 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 86 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 96 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 221 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.71g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: not available
C/D observed: 15 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

Sierra 2500HD Denali

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door truck
PRICE AS TESTED: $61,244 (base price: $55,255)
ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled 32-valve diesel V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 403 cu in, 6599 cc
Power (SAE net): 397 bhp @ 3000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 765 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 153.7 in Length: 240.1 in
Width: 80.0 in Height: 78.3 in
Curb weight: 7560 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.7 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 97 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 217 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.72 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
C/D observed: 14 mpg

 

[Dualie]

when using the trucks as they were designed i can tell you, YOU ABSOLUTELY Feel where the heft in the dodge and ford products are compared to the Chevy.

The Chevy seems more uneasy with a load in two than the two other players when spec ed similarly.

IT takes weight to move weight, For the love of god if anyone from the big three is reading this DO NOT under any circumstances start lightening up your HD pickups!

 

[IndyIan]

Well if C&D says unloaded 0-60 is important for these trucks then it must be important...

Probably most of the non-dualie versions will be hauling nothing that makes the engine work anyways, and who wants to be beat by a minivan in their big 400hp truck at the stoplights...

 

[SteveSRT8]

A few posts earlier it was all about getting there first!

But I'll be the first to grant you all that the Ford has an interior that squishes the competition. My pappy-in-law has a 2010 Ford super loaded and it is a sweetie for sure. Puts almost any other P/U to shame.

But I ride and drive all over the southeast in my best friends 2010 2500HD Silverado while it's towing a 33 foot 5th wheel and it's solid as a rock. Not even a duallie! It's a [censored] of a load and the truck moves it with ease, not queasy or squirrelly at all. That's just baloney.

I've heard the same from the vanners about Ford 3500 Super Duty vans versus my GMC 3500 Savana's. It's just not true. They are solid as a rock at full 9700 pound weight. No queasy. No wander. Even one with 400k miles on it!

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...

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.
Perhaps not to 100% confidence, but OTOH, when Wayne Gerdes shoots for results, it's usually in very extreme fashion, compared to what the rest of us do. Seriously, google this guy and get a look at what he does.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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.
No, I didn't miss your point at all. I just think that comparing the performance of a totally unloaded F-250 to an unloaded Impala or Camry is utterly meaningless.

Camrys and Impalas typically weigh roughly 3500 lbs, give or take a few hundred depending upon options. And they're designed to transport maybe about half their empty weight in passengers and some very lightweight cargo.

By contrast, the very reason an F-250 diesel exists is to move extremely heavy cargo or trailers. It weighs in at around 7500 lbs, and is meant to move more than DOUBLE that in payload (resulting in a total vehicle weight of about TRIPLE empty weight).

Since the empty weight sedan is still actually very close to the weight at which most drivers will use it, the empty weight fuel economy measures are actually pretty useful.

On the other hand, when you measure an F-250's empty weight fuel economy, you're doing so at something like ONE-THIRD of its max gross weight (like what it would weigh in actual, revenue service).

There's simply no way at all that you can take an empty weight fuel economy reading on an F-250 and use that number for anything other than "gee, that's cool" purposes. Would YOU make business financial decisions on that number if your financial future depended upon it? I doubt it.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
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.
Two thoughts again. First, the EPA does not rate this sort of vehicles (if they do, none of the numbers appear in any document consumers can find). Second, sure, it would be nice if there were a "loaded" figure, and maybe there should be. But the absence of such data does not confer validity or meaning on an informal empty weight fuel economy number for a vehicle that is never intended to be run that way in revenue service, and won't earn anyone ANY money when run empty.

We have, IMO, a very fundamental "apples and oranges" problem here.

 

[LS2JSTS]

In my experience hauling loads of various sizes in F-150-450's, the gas mileage only takes a huge hit when the vehicle is underpowered under load. For most circumstances, at a load level that is more realistic, say 40-60% of max capacity. I can't say that in a properly powered truck, the mileage will take a huge hit. Just another argument for more than enough HP/TQ making sense.

The only trucks I ever had that I hated, that got poor mileage were either geared wrong or underpowered for the task at hand. Can't say I've ever owned a truck I would call overpowered.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
......for a vehicle that is never intended to be run that way in revenue service, and won't earn anyone ANY money when run empty.



This isn't even remotely true or representative of reality. Yet you repeat it over and over cross threads.....why is that?


Last time I checked every truck we've run for 30+ years, at a profit no less, has spent half it's life on the road completely empty. There are a LOT of smaller size companies that run these type trucks that dont have the logistics that allow for no dead heading, it's just part of their particular business.

If you want to keep repeating this, then qualify it to reflect some sort of reality.....

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
......for a vehicle that is never intended to be run that way in revenue service, and won't earn anyone ANY money when run empty.



This isn't even remotely true or representative of reality. Yet you repeat it over and over cross threads.....why is that?


Last time I checked every truck we've run for 30+ years, at a profit no less, has spent half it's life on the road completely empty. There are a LOT of smaller size companies that run these type trucks that don't have the logistics that allow for no dead heading, it's just part of their particular business.

If you want to keep repeating this, then qualify it to reflect some sort of reality.....


Well, if you want to go in this direction, fine. The ONLY people who can justify (in some warped sense) running a diesel F-250/350 with NO PAYLOAD are dude ranch cowboys. The ONLY people who can justify an F-250 ECONOMICALLY (compared to far less expensive alternatives) are operators who really need the capacity that only they provide, to make a profit. If that's where you are/who you are, that's fine with me (really), but please at least have the 'nads to admit it -- to us, and more importantly, to yourself -- if you're a simple dude ranch cowboy. If you're running a diesel F-250 around empty much of the time, there's a clue. If you're wearing a tie most of the the time you're driving said truck, there's another super-duty clue. And you're just TOAST on this argument if you have a virgin, unscratched, perfectly chromed trailer hitch attached to the back of your heavy-duty truck.

Why do I say these things? Well, because they ARE true (sorry...

). If you still turned a profit whilst running wildly unnecessarily heavy, costly rolling stock, well, good on you. OTOH, had you come down from your testosterone high, and realized that running a diesel F-250 with no payload (or a tiny payload) is not economically sensible, perhaps you would have realized that if all you were doing was transporting personnel, you could have done that in a van with a gas V-6. For a lot less money -- and a lot more profit.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Sorry, there are many businesses that can utilize the hauling capability of these truck beside what you label dude ranchers. You and I have discussed in PM what some of those businesses are.

If you think every business runs their trucks at 100% of their capacity all the time, you just arent willing to deal with realities. When you need the capability, you have it, when you dont, it's excess. I grant you that. But my point is you cant be laft wanting when you DO need it.

No testosterone high here....just trying to avoid painting with the same huge broad brush you are using. Are you serious that you really cant think of one single business that could utilize the F-250 capabilites and not be run a lot without a load? Let alone hundreds of personal use buyers that use the capabilities maybe 20% of the time, but that doesnt mean they dont need that capability, some of the time.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk



Well, if you want to go in this direction, fine........ If that's where you are/who you are, that's fine with me (really), but please at least have the 'nads to admit it -- to us, and more importantly, to yourself -- if you're a simple dude ranch cowboy.


You must be refering to the direction where you make assumptions about me and try to label and belittle me?

Even though we've discussed this in PM and I detailed exactly how my business utilizes F-150s as well as larger F-250s? economically at that, and they certainly aren't loaded all the time...physically impossible, logistically stupid...for my set of circumstances.

Simple explains one thing around here...and thats the nadless mods! I figure that is ok to say, certainly should be seeing as this mod just refered to my lack of the same.....You tell me?

 

[brianl703]

Tow trucks are one example. Do you think a tow truck goes to a call with a load on it? Half the time that tow truck is driving around with no vehicle on it's hook. (That's the time between when it left the yard and the time it got to the call).

 

[Dualie]

Guess what my DAILY Driver is? AN F-350 crew cab dually. I would say 70% of its job is to get me and my arse from home to work and around town with nothing more than me and some tools.

But hey guess what I have enough truck so that when the time comes I can latch the wagon on and haul a forklift, put 5K of 1" steel plate in the bed, haul some imbeds on a pallet.

guess what happens when i get there, I go home EMPTY....

My truck goes from this

TO this,

In the blink of an eye.

I have never thought I brought WAY To much truck for this. but i have on occasion thought i brought not enough.

And just because your going to say you need a bigger truck, that forklift puts me 200Lbs UNDER all the AXLE ratings of the truck and the trailer.

I also have ONE of these, for when its really needed.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Unlike most businesses, our primary fleet runs at or very near 100% capacity EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Totally different from all the so called "heavy duty" users here.

 

[Dualie]

Like this truck

my service truck 2,750 shy of the 15K GVW as it sits right there and gets 6-8 mpg with its animic 175Hp diesel.

 

[SteveSRT8]

nice to see one earning its keep!

Ours are vans, rated at 9700 GVW due to single tires, we run them at around 9300 to 9700 every single day.

Now we have little bitty 1500 silverados that run around empty all the time.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Dualie
Like this truck

my service truck 2,750 shy of the 15K GVW as it sits right there and gets 6-8 mpg with its animic 175Hp diesel.

But isn't that just because its an older design engine, its not even a turbo diesel is it? If you took 4 cylinders of the new power stroke and dropped them in that truck wouldn't you espect to see a huge improvement in mileage?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Unlike most businesses, our primary fleet runs at or very near 100% capacity EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Totally different from all the so called "heavy duty" users here.


Does the fact that YOUR business runs them at near capacity every day, somehow negate the fact that many other owners/business may run them at near capacity some of the time and at other times empty?

 

[Dualie]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Dualie
Like this truck

my service truck 2,750 shy of the 15K GVW as it sits right there and gets 6-8 mpg with its anemic 175 Hp diesel.

But isn't that just because its an older design engine, its not even a turbo diesel is it? If you took 4 cylinders of the new power stroke and dropped them in that truck wouldn't you expect to see a huge improvement in mileage?


I would estimate a 2-3 mpg gain with a proper direct injection, turbo charged innercooled 175 HP diesel. MAX.

The problem is with the low power rating the motor can never just lumber. You have too keep your foot in the fuel constantly to maintain highway speeds. The other problem is with the low horsepower and torque you have to make up for it with gearing. The truck has 4.88 gears in the rear end which Kills any hope of anything resembling highway mileage. with the higher horsepower and torque ratings you can gear taller and keep power in reserve for getting rolling.

same thing for a friends E-250 van conversion with the 4.6L gets a best of 12mpg @ 70mph. it rarely gets to kick into 4th gear OD. to keep the mess moving at highway speeds it has to stay rev'ed up in 3rd.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Sorry, there are many businesses that can utilize the hauling capability of these truck beside what you label dude ranchers. You and I have discussed in PM what some of those businesses are.

If you think every business runs their trucks at 100% of their capacity all the time, you just arent willing to deal with realities. When you need the capability, you have it, when you dont, it's excess. I grant you that. But my point is you cant be laft wanting when you DO need it.

Where did I ever say it was a matter of "all or nothing"???? No, I didn't. I'm frankly baffled by this mentality that seems to insist that only the extremes exist, with nothing in between. That's decidedly NOT how the real world operates.

OF COURSE, there will be apps (like tow trucks, boat hauling services, and the like) in which the truck involved spends long stretches running empty. That's not the question. The question is whether, WHATEVER the operating pattern, the larger, heavier, and thirstier truck, justifies its existence economically (or perhaps egotistially).

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
No testosterone high here....just trying to avoid painting with the same huge broad brush you are using. Are you serious that you really cant think of one single business that could utilize the F-250 capabilites and not be run a lot without a load? Let alone hundreds of personal use buyers that use the capabilities maybe 20% of the time, but that doesnt mean they dont need that capability, some of the time.


You're not reading what I wrote very carefully. Please review, discard agenda, and rethink. My point is that if you have a transport mission, whatever it is, that HONESTLY justifies an F-250 diesel, well, good heavens, go buy one. If you don't, well please be straight enough to admit that you're driving one for the same sort of reasons as the middle aged guy driving the Corvette. Gee, I wonder how many of the severe, vocal anti-hybrid critics are running around in HD pickups that never move a load heavier than their quasi-obese 250 lb butts. . .

 

[ekpolk]

Another thought: has anyone found an "official" mpg rating for an F-250 diesel. My understanding is that EPA does not rate such vehicles for essentially the reason I'm putting out here -- their mpgs empty vs at their payload weights are so widely differing.

Now, as for Gerdes, his usual game results in an I-4 Accord getting over 60 mpgs. Reversing the math, that would mean that an F-250 in which Gerdes gets 34 mpgs should be getting somewhere around 15-17 mpg when driven by real-world, "normal" drivers. That's still not terrible for such a heavy truck, but still, it's waaaaaaaaay below what is getting floated here as a somehow-real mpg number.