Jump to content

When will GM raise the Torque on the Duramax ?

f8l vnm
 Share

Recommended Posts

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

Current Duramax is plenty fine , its a beast of a motor and towing is up to par with the competition. However as you know its all about bragging rights . 

With the Ford current @ 1050 and the Ram now with 1075 , this puts the GM oil burner at least 140 pound feet of torque behind with 910. 

We are going into year 5 of the 910TQ output. You guys think GM will up it for 2022 ?

unit Enthusiast

unit

Posted
Posted

They most likely will.  The engine is capable of much more HP and torque - it's just a matter of when.

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

For many years, the Duramax's torque output was limited by the capacity of the 6 speed Allison transmission.  Story I hear is the new 10 speed Allison is capable of much more, and we may see higher torque rating with the HD MCE in 2022 or 2023 (anyone know?).    

Njmurvin Enthusiast

Njmurvin

Posted
Posted (edited)

910lbft is already 150% of my previous truck's 600lbft (2004.5 Dodge Ram Cummins 5.9) - not to mention an increase of 120hp. With the Allison transmission and the added HP and TQ, this truck tows my 12k fifth wheel so much more comfortably than my Ram. At some point these TQ wars will have to top out. Downstream components (transmissions, rear ends, axles, etc.) have already become limiting factors. What good is all that power if you have to dial it down via torque management to keep from grenading the rest of your powertrain?

Edited by Njmurvin
  • Like 1
nick112288 Enthusiast

nick112288

Posted
Posted

I think the current power level is fine, how about instead offering some actual towing gears?

 

They have the same rear axle as the Ram trucks, which offer 3.73 or 4.10, yet your only option is 3.42

  • Like 1
CRApex Enthusiast

CRApex

Posted
Posted

I couldn't care less about bragging rights.  The Duramax is more than capable as is and has a track record of reliability.  If they want to raise the number on paper for marketing purposes, that's fine but the reality is it doesn't need it.  I agree with nick112288, provide more gearing options to tailor the trucks.

  • Like 1
Njmurvin Enthusiast

Njmurvin

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, nick112288 said:

I think the current power level is fine, how about instead offering some actual towing gears?

 

They have the same rear axle as the Ram trucks, which offer 3.73 or 4.10, yet your only option is 3.42

I think the answer lies in the 10 speed Allison. The Ram trucks have only 6 choices to find the right ratio. I suppose the GM engineers feel that, even with the 3.42 axle, our trucks can easily get a load moving with the lower gears and, once rolling, can always find the sweet spot in the higher gears. Unloaded on the highway, the 3.42s help the fuel economy. All that said, it's always nice to have more choices.

  • Like 2
nick112288 Enthusiast

nick112288

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Njmurvin said:

I think the answer lies in the 10 speed Allison. The Ram trucks have only 6 choices to find the right ratio. I suppose the GM engineers feel that, even with the 3.42 axle, our trucks can easily get a load moving with the lower gears and, once rolling, can always find the sweet spot in the higher gears. Unloaded on the highway, the 3.42s help the fuel economy. All that said, it's always nice to have more choices.

What's Fords reasoning then? Their transmission is actually geared lower, and they not only have 4.10s on the F350 but 4.30s on the F450.

 

 

Njmurvin Enthusiast

Njmurvin

Posted
Posted

I have no idea what Ford's or GM's reasoning is. I can only speculate. I do recall from the Ram 3rd Gen forums that there were at least as many folks with 4.10 gearing wanting to swap out to 3.73 to improve fuel economy as there were with 3.73 wanting go the other way (myself being in the latter group). As I said, it's always nice to have more choices.

heymrdjCW Enthusiast

heymrdjCW

Posted
Posted
What's Fords reasoning then? Their transmission is actually geared lower, and they not only have 4.10s on the F350 but 4.30s on the F450.
 
 

GM 4500 offers up to 4.80 rear axle. But I do agree overall, the F-series has had better powertrain options up and down the line up. That and F-series will give you a big gasser in your Class 6 truck, where as GM is diesel only from Class 4 and up. F-Series is also the one giving gasser PTO options, GM is also diesel only there.
f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, heymrdjCW said:


GM 4500 offers up to 4.80 rear axle. But I do agree overall, the F-series has had better powertrain options up and down the line up. That and F-series will give you a big gasser in your Class 6 truck, where as GM is diesel only from Class 4 and up. F-Series is also the one giving gasser PTO options, GM is also diesel only there.

This is half the reason why the FORD is always first in sales. ( not counting both GMC and Chevy together) Half ton vs Half ton , GM does well ...its the HD sales which Ford and even Ram seem to do better then GM 

  • Like 1
jjackkrash Enthusiast

jjackkrash

Posted
Posted

I can easily hold 70 mph up the passes towing my 20K fiver.  And the shifts are smooth as butter.  And I am happy with the fuel milage.  And I feel pretty comfortable that the whole package is balanced such that all that power isn't tearing the rest of the truck up.  Chalk me up as completely satisfied with the power train and gearing.  

 

 

IMG_4700.jpeg

  • Like 2
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I am so jealous. Most of my towing back in the day, late 70s to the early 2000s we’re limited to 400 ft lbs stock. That’s towing 25K combo. Foot on the floor 60 mph max. Until a hill. Usually mods to achieve more. Trading at around 100K miles. I recently drove my brother in laws Ford diesel towing his camper. It felt like some of my 70s factory hot rods accelerating. Unbelievable. Yet never satisfied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...