Great article. Banks is an excellent resource.

Anyway to know if the exhaust DPF had recently gone through a regeneration? Curious how much a partically plugged/filled DPF will impact engine power output. How do these numbers compare to the 6.4PSD using the same testing method?

@ Carl, good question. I have the 6.4, would like to know that myself.

6.4L's put down 260 to 290 rwhp depending on the dyno.

Wow at first I thought those numbers were a little on the low side but then when you take away 20% they seem to come out perfect... wish they could find a way to reduce the parasitic loss between the motor and the automatic tranny...

Oh and why not go and get a Duramax and do the same test to it to see its results. Just curious :-)

@ Mike Levine,

Wierd how the Dyno test 0-60 is 9.05 and the Shootout was 9.4. Curious where the half of second went?

Nice test. Looking forward to Job #2 dyno.

Thanks!

@ Frank - The 0.35 second difference could be accounted by the driver's reaction times. Another factor is the truck is tied down to a dyno. It would not have the same traction control issues as the PUTC test.
@ Shawn - it would be nice to see the Chevy and Ram tested on the same dyno.

The thing that would be most interesting to find out is why the gas 6.2 Ford was slower than the Ram 5.7 on level ground but was much faster on a hillclimb. Those are the power curves I'd be most interested in seeing as both those engines are also available in the 1/2 tons.

http://blogs.dieselpowermag.com/6681088/whats-new/our-new-11-puts-the-t-in-torque/index.html

So these numbers are quite a bit higher than what pickuptrucks.com have. Which are more accurate??

@fordextreme,

Is that the F-250 or F-350?

@Lou,

Thanks for clarification Brotha!!

Hey man, what's with the bashing. Do you not know the fake Frank from the real Frank. Lol!

@Mike Levine,

How was the F-350 geared? 3.55 or 3.73

Did you guys (pickuptrucks.com) do this with the guys from Diesel Power Magazine like the lastest HD shoot-out? Because, Diesel Power just got there 6.7L Powerstroke project truck and I know they were going to do the exact same thing. Just curious, thanks.

I would certainly like to know a couple more things.

first the numbers at Banks are much different than with Diesel power magazine.

Secondly I would like to see the same results for the GM and Dodge (er Ram).

Reaction time is not part of a timed (elapsed time) test, either on the dyno or track. Time doesn't start unit the vehicles front tires roll from the beam of light shot across the starting line at the track. Much is the same on the dyno, time doesn't start until the vehicle tires have movement from 0 mph.

The differences can be contributed to traction at the track situation, along with differences in ambient conditions (temp, humidity, barometric pressure, altitude).

The considerable difference between the PUTC and Diesel Power dyno test numbers are attributed to using different dyno manufacturers and the unique methods these dyno use to measure TQ and calculate HP. PUTC numbers are sourced from a Mustang dyno, while the DP numbers are souced using a Superflow dyno.

There are predominately three dyno manufacturers: DynoJet, Mustang, and Superflow AutoDyn.

The primary differences come from inertial drums, eddy current brakes, and load factor (weight). There are a host of other differences enough to fill up a few paragraphs. The short story is it's unrealistic to use numbers from one dyno type across to another dyno they simply are not comparable.

Therefore the best practice for any comparison would be to use the same dyno in the same "mode" for all comparison tests. Else it's really apples and oranges.

@DM - it has been a while since I drag raced but reaction times do come into play depending on the "tree" you are using. A "pro" tree or full (sportsman) tree. A pro tree measures reaction time.
There is no reaction time on a dyno.

Thanks for the clarification on dynos.
I know that they all measure differently. you will even see variations from the same brand and model of dyno.

@ Frank - sorry if it looks like I'm bashing. The fake posts get annoying at times.

@ DM - I got the impression that the PUTC test was more of a competitive (ie.drag racing) format.
When I looked at it again it seems that you are correct - reaction times would not come into play with a purely timed test.
Thanks for pointing that out.

@DM,

That made perfect sense. Thanks for clarification.

@Lou,

No worries. Sometimes I read you're posts and I'm like, wait, that can't be Lou.

@Lou: The Shootout tests were against a clock (GPS). Reaction time didn't matter.

@Lou

Drag racing elapsed time (ET) does not factor in reaction time.

In drag racing one can sit in the beams 10 seconds after the green, and still run a 9 second ET. The ET timer does not invoke until the car (tire) moves clear of the starting beam. Reaction time is totally independent of ET. Reaction time is measured but is not calculated or factored into any part of ET.

Where reaction time does matter is getting to the finish line before your competition. Obviously you want to leave the line sooner than the competition in the next lane. Reaction time does nothing to determine winner, it's merely a reference point for how good or bad your reaction was at the point the green light lit.

Reaction time is measured no matter which tree is involved street or pro, but again does not factor into the ET.

Winners and losers in drag racing are determined determined by who crosses the winners line first. Not based on quickest ET.

There are plenty examples of someone running a quicker ET, but losing the race, likely because the opponent in the opposite lane left the starting line sooner than you, ie quicker reaction.

The F-350 we tested has a 3.55 rear axle.

Not impressed at all, those numbers are about the same as an LBZ Duramax

@madmax,

Do you have a link to back up you're comment?

I didn't think so!

@Mike Levine

Where's the duramax dyno tests?

@Chevy Man: I haven't had a chance to get into a Duramax in Los Angeles. When I do, I'll take it over to Banks.

@DM - thanks for the drag racing refresher. Like I said - it's been a long time since I drag raced. Enjoyed the posts.

this is true ford have some problem whit the crank,in the new diesel,,,mike yes or no...

Ummm, did you guys discussing the differences in the dyno vs asphalt 0-60 times ever consider the aerodynamics acting on a truck in a 0-60 run? Seems like a half second would be about right.

Well, the whole reaction time thing is clarified, so no need for me to add anything. Different dyno's giving different numbers has been explained too, so that's great.

However, no one has mentioned that no two trucks are the same, and one will always be a little quicker then one just like it, or make a little more power, no matter how slight it is. This seems to get lost on people, especially in comparison tests, like 2008s half-ton shootout when a lot of people tried to call BS on the Sierra and Silverado because they didn't perform exactly alike.

Also, the conditions really make a difference even with the same vehicle being tested. For example, my car's ET's vary by about a tenth between two different tracks. And then even at the same track, it may run a few hundredths faster or slower as the night goes on. That doesn't sound like much, but it can make a difference in winning or losing.

So I wouldn't think much of the near half second quicker run by this particular truck vs. the one tested at the shootout. Aside from this more then likely being a corrected run (where its my understanding that the shootouts' results weren't) it happened in a perfect world and this truck may be on the high side of the power outputs and the other was on the low side.

@ Frank
Just go on Gale banks site and look at lbz proof.
325 HP and 579 tq. this on the same dyno.
Look for yourself I didn,t make the nos. up Gale Banks did.
Maybe the Power stroke needs some more salsa to keep up with the Duramax.

Sorry its 574Lbft of tq.

@madmax - the 6.7 Ford has more torque.
Isn't that supposed to be the more important number in a truck?

Thats before the updgrade! Hmmm.

@madmax,

I still can not find the dyno #'s for the D-max LBZ on the Banks website.

Ok I found them.

Pretty interesting that the duramax lbz is rated at 360hp and 660tq and has more rwhp than the 6.7 Power stroke. Also pretty close to the tq.

@madmax,

Scroll down to the next chart on the link below. You will see RWHP best gain @ 298.2 hp @2800 rpm & 560.3 lb-ft @2600 rpm.

http://www.bankspower.com/products/show/275/2

@Frank
That is at a certain rpm 2800 the peak tq is 574 at 2200 and hp is 325 at 3200 peak.

@madmax,

According to the Chart, that was their best gain.

Thats the best gain at a certain rpm for the Banks programmer look at the peak its 325 and 574

@madmax,

I don't see that PUTC did peak hp on this test. They only measure their best gain. I could be wrong.

Banks did the test not PUTC on the same dyno.
That is the peak nos. for the power stroke

Banks even said that the nos. are 20% lower than Ford reported. So whos dyno is right, looks Ford may be a little lower than reported.

@ Frank

Take the two graphs and put them side by side and look at how close they are.

@madmax I see what you are talking about on Banks website but the numbers dont add up. If the LBZ was supposed to have 360 horsepower and 660 lb/tq, then given a 15-20% drive-train loss on the dyno the figures would be in the range of 288-306 (Banks says 325) horsepower and 528-561 (Banks says 574) lb/tq. Reversing the Banks stock dyno numbers for the 15-20% loss the stock LBZ would be putting out 382-407 horsepower and 676-718 lb/tq. Some 19-37 horsepower and 13-46 lbs/tq off of what Banks is stating. Banks numbers only work out to be about 10-13% drive-train loss. If that is true that is one impressive drive-train. Probably the most efficient in the world, but for some reason I doubt it. Now for the Pwstroke 15-20% drive-train loss would put it in the 312-332 horsepower and 588-625 lb/tq range. The horsepower is a little lower than what Ford is stating but the torque falls right in range.

@Mike, That particular engine is making that power, no matter at how the numbers add up. So either its a ringer or GM underrated the LBZ. The only way to know for sure is to dyno test several other LBZ diesels on that same dyno in those same conditions.

@Matt Yeah I really wasn't trying to knock the Duramax. Just making a point point really that regardless of what one particular truck may put out on a dyno isn't always a clear representation of what an engine might be putting out at the crank. Just for a little bit of bragging rights really on one side or the other. Sorry I didn't state my point in the previous post, even though I am a Ford guy!

@Mike, that's right. Just like with this particular Powerstroke that's being tested. Maybe its right in line with all the 6.7s, maybe its on the high end, or maybe (more likely considering its coming up short on horsepower) its on the low end of what these engines put out.

Regardless, people take one engine dyno and run with it, for good or bad, and act like all engines like that make that kind of power. I would be more interested in seeing something like 10 of these trucks dynoed. I know that'd be had to do (come up with 10 different trucks as close optioned as possible) but that would give a little better idea.