307,000 miles duramax
05-25-2006 | 05:46 PM
#31
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: South Central Ohio
Couldn't you go back any further to get your outdated information? 
The 06 LBZ Duramax is dyno`ing at over 575 rwtq, and 310 rwhp. (100% stock! with less then 5,000 miles on them!) Some as high as 625/325, and they are running low to mid 15`s in the 1/4 mile at about 90 mph.
The 06 LBZ Duramax is dyno`ing at over 575 rwtq, and 310 rwhp. (100% stock! with less then 5,000 miles on them!) Some as high as 625/325, and they are running low to mid 15`s in the 1/4 mile at about 90 mph.
Originally Posted by steven
Okay, since the chevy guys want to throw numbers out then try this. The following are from Banks, you know, they made the cummins the fastest truck on the planet and they have the duramax they have built. The flywheel numbers dont show what gets to the ground. They can be fluffed from the manufacturer due to drive line losses. This is banks' numbers for stock, go check them out:
Torque Horsepower 0-60
Chevy 445 max 229 max 10.18 seconds
Cummins 493 max 223 max 9.76 seconds
Now, as far as the 0 - 60 number, who cares in my book, that doesnt tell which pulls longer, better or has reliability.
As far as torque and horses, the dodge is closer to the flywheel ratings than the chevy. A lot closer. Also, more torque to the ground out of the cummins. Finally, I check the torque and horsepower curves for stock, to the ground of course.
Torque
Chevy 450 at 1800 to 430 at 3000 (usable power band)
Cummins 500 at 1800 to 460 at 2800 (usable power band)
Horsepower
Chevy 150 at 1800 to 240 at 3000
Cummins 170 at 1800 to 240 at 2800
OBVIOUSLY, the CUMMINS has more low end pulling power. The torque and horsepower to move the load at a lower rpm. Can maintain the lower RPM to achieve better mileage. That said, where the chevy has the current upper hand is the tranny. This is why you see them drive so well, take off so well. The six speed and the allison design allow them to stay in the peak power band, for pulling or for daily driving. They can shift in and out of gears to keep the prime power. However, this is to change, like all things. The dodge is going to have a comparable tranny thru Aisen. This will make the same rated cummins motor seem much more powerful. I believe this is what happens with the duramax. Not to say its not good, but the Allison makes it better than what it would be with say a 48RE tranny. That said, I have 150,000 miles, no problems, i have spent about 1000 in repairs for odd ball things. Not bad in my book. My brother in law has a gas motor chevy, spent over twice as much with less than 100k.
V/R
Steve
Torque Horsepower 0-60
Chevy 445 max 229 max 10.18 seconds
Cummins 493 max 223 max 9.76 seconds
Now, as far as the 0 - 60 number, who cares in my book, that doesnt tell which pulls longer, better or has reliability.
As far as torque and horses, the dodge is closer to the flywheel ratings than the chevy. A lot closer. Also, more torque to the ground out of the cummins. Finally, I check the torque and horsepower curves for stock, to the ground of course.
Torque
Chevy 450 at 1800 to 430 at 3000 (usable power band)
Cummins 500 at 1800 to 460 at 2800 (usable power band)
Horsepower
Chevy 150 at 1800 to 240 at 3000
Cummins 170 at 1800 to 240 at 2800
OBVIOUSLY, the CUMMINS has more low end pulling power. The torque and horsepower to move the load at a lower rpm. Can maintain the lower RPM to achieve better mileage. That said, where the chevy has the current upper hand is the tranny. This is why you see them drive so well, take off so well. The six speed and the allison design allow them to stay in the peak power band, for pulling or for daily driving. They can shift in and out of gears to keep the prime power. However, this is to change, like all things. The dodge is going to have a comparable tranny thru Aisen. This will make the same rated cummins motor seem much more powerful. I believe this is what happens with the duramax. Not to say its not good, but the Allison makes it better than what it would be with say a 48RE tranny. That said, I have 150,000 miles, no problems, i have spent about 1000 in repairs for odd ball things. Not bad in my book. My brother in law has a gas motor chevy, spent over twice as much with less than 100k.
V/R
Steve
05-25-2006 | 06:26 PM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
From: Crosby, TEXAS
Originally Posted by wheelndealn
You know what guys they're all made of the same stuff there are good and bad of everything, and with the market today, there is a performance part for everything! 
05-25-2006 | 11:50 PM
#33
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: N Illinois
I am gonna get flamed for saying this but here goes:
In march I bought an 01' 2500, 4x4, cummins, 5-speed. My father has an 01' 2500, 4x4, duramax/allison. Both trucks are completely STOCK. As far as power both loaded and ulnoaded, it's no comparison. The duramax/allison combo will outrun, acclerate and do just about anything superior to my cummins and its narrow minded rpm range. The allison keeps the max right in the powerband everytime where my 5-speed, well,
. My stomach turns when I think of my truck if it had an automatic 
. I will argue that when I finally make it to highway speed, I think my truck can hold its speed about as good as the duramax.
OK, so why do I appear to not like my truck? I do like my truck alot. Both trucks run fine with no problems. Both trucks have 140k miles. He's had the max since new, I just bought my dodge. I am probably as non-brand loyal as they come and I strongly believe NONE of the big three is remotely better than the other. I bought a dodge because WHEN something goes wrong (we all know what those things are), it's arguably the cheapest and easiest to fix on my own.
In march I bought an 01' 2500, 4x4, cummins, 5-speed. My father has an 01' 2500, 4x4, duramax/allison. Both trucks are completely STOCK. As far as power both loaded and ulnoaded, it's no comparison. The duramax/allison combo will outrun, acclerate and do just about anything superior to my cummins and its narrow minded rpm range. The allison keeps the max right in the powerband everytime where my 5-speed, well,
. My stomach turns when I think of my truck if it had an automatic . I will argue that when I finally make it to highway speed, I think my truck can hold its speed about as good as the duramax.OK, so why do I appear to not like my truck? I do like my truck alot. Both trucks run fine with no problems. Both trucks have 140k miles. He's had the max since new, I just bought my dodge. I am probably as non-brand loyal as they come and I strongly believe NONE of the big three is remotely better than the other. I bought a dodge because WHEN something goes wrong (we all know what those things are), it's arguably the cheapest and easiest to fix on my own.
05-26-2006 | 11:13 AM
#34
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: SLC, UT
HDMAX is out to lunch on the numbers to the rear wheel
Originally Posted by Hdmax
Couldn't you go back any further to get your outdated information?
The 06 LBZ Duramax is dyno`ing at over 575 rwtq, and 310 rwhp. (100% stock! with less then 5,000 miles on them!) Some as high as 625/325, and they are running low to mid 15`s in the 1/4 mile at about 90 mph.
The 06 LBZ Duramax is dyno`ing at over 575 rwtq, and 310 rwhp. (100% stock! with less then 5,000 miles on them!) Some as high as 625/325, and they are running low to mid 15`s in the 1/4 mile at about 90 mph.
I cant help but respond to your "dummy" accusation. I never would have realized that talking about a truck, the 05 model of the duramax, is idiotic. But your numbers, wow, you are trully an intellectually challenged individual that believes everything they read and lacks the ability to filter the sales propoganda of upgrade computer chips. Hey, next you will be telling me that all those big rigs running CATS and CUMMINS are really running V-8 diesel engines from Isuzu because you read it somewhere.
You started the name calling, you should have just replied with, "the 06 is better than the junk 05" or something like that.
V/R
Steve
05-26-2006 | 11:27 AM
#35
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
From: Crosby, TEXAS
Originally Posted by steven
you are telling me that the duramax is getting "as high as 625/325" .... You are telling me that there is no loss from the Stock rating off the flywheel to the rear wheels.
05-26-2006 | 02:16 PM
#36
Banned
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Diesel Power Magazine just did a comparison of the Chevy, Ford and Dodge in their dually shoot out. I think the Chevy was fastest with and without a trailer. That should be considered a real test correct. Reguardless of which truck won, it doesn't really matter. The truck has to fit your need and you need to be comfortable with it. Now that all trucks are running bosh high pressure fuel systems you have a very level playing field and I think Dodge and Chevy will be about the same reliability wise. One bad injector can take out a piston as everyone knows.
05-26-2006 | 08:46 PM
#38
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
From: B.C. Canada
[QUOTE=Gambino-01]I am gonna get flamed for saying this but here goes:
In march I bought an 01' 2500, 4x4, cummins, 5-speed. My father has an 01' 2500, 4x4, duramax/allison. Both trucks are completely STOCK.
Buddy you can't compare a auto to a manual. In the past when dino's ruled the earth, such as four barreled carbs, non-turbo diesel, no computer controls a manual could out perform a auto. Not today especially in the computer controlled turbo diesel variety. I know the 12 valve mechanical guys will pipe up and say bull droppings. But we live in a great time as far as diesels go. I heard it compared to when the muscle cars first came out in the late sixties early seventies except we now get most of our power from computer controlled fuel injection which is best maximized on a auto. Manuals de-fuel
In march I bought an 01' 2500, 4x4, cummins, 5-speed. My father has an 01' 2500, 4x4, duramax/allison. Both trucks are completely STOCK.
Buddy you can't compare a auto to a manual. In the past when dino's ruled the earth, such as four barreled carbs, non-turbo diesel, no computer controls a manual could out perform a auto. Not today especially in the computer controlled turbo diesel variety. I know the 12 valve mechanical guys will pipe up and say bull droppings. But we live in a great time as far as diesels go. I heard it compared to when the muscle cars first came out in the late sixties early seventies except we now get most of our power from computer controlled fuel injection which is best maximized on a auto. Manuals de-fuel
05-29-2006 | 02:29 PM
#39
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: South Central Ohio
Originally Posted by steven
Sorry, but you are out to lunch. I know my number was SOOOOO old from an 05 that is. Wow, that's pretty ancient. However, you are telling me that the duramax is getting "as high as 625/325" to the rear wheel is OUT TO LUNCH. You are telling me that there is no loss from the Stock rating off the flywheel to the rear wheels. You should call chevy and tell them they are wrong too. Man, thanks for making that clear. At least try to be realistic in your numbers. What you are suggesting is so far out to lunch i dont know how you can even make that claim. I hope you read that somewhere and you just dont know any better because all vehicles lose HP and Torque from the flywheel. And not just a little either.
I cant help but respond to your "dummy" accusation. I never would have realized that talking about a truck, the 05 model of the duramax, is idiotic. But your numbers, wow, you are trully an intellectually challenged individual that believes everything they read and lacks the ability to filter the sales propoganda of upgrade computer chips. Hey, next you will be telling me that all those big rigs running CATS and CUMMINS are really running V-8 diesel engines from Isuzu because you read it somewhere.
You started the name calling, you should have just replied with, "the 06 is better than the junk 05" or something like that.
V/R
Steve
I cant help but respond to your "dummy" accusation. I never would have realized that talking about a truck, the 05 model of the duramax, is idiotic. But your numbers, wow, you are trully an intellectually challenged individual that believes everything they read and lacks the ability to filter the sales propoganda of upgrade computer chips. Hey, next you will be telling me that all those big rigs running CATS and CUMMINS are really running V-8 diesel engines from Isuzu because you read it somewhere.
You started the name calling, you should have just replied with, "the 06 is better than the junk 05" or something like that.
V/R
Steve
05-29-2006 | 02:31 PM
#40
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 398
Likes: 1
From: Kanada
Originally Posted by Hdmax
Maybe it can be contributed to banks doing the dyno, but the numbers you quoted were on the low side for the first year Duramax. On average the numbers for the first gen Duramax is 245 rwhp, and 470 rwtq.
My LB7 Box Stock with 2500 miles on it was 242 RWHP/446 RWTQ
05-29-2006 | 09:43 PM
#41
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
look guys, its obvious why we like cummins over dmax, they just sound better!!!
If I wanted a V8 throb, I'd buy a gasser not a dmax or powerjoke!
Six in a row sounds AWESOME!!!
No, seriously, the reason I sold my Powerstroke and bought this Cummins is because they are way easier to work on, try changing injectors on a powerstroke, or the ever failing glow plugs
, or god forbid you would have to remove the exhaust manifold , and on and on it goes, I absolutely HATED working on my old powerjoke, but fixin' this cummins is a dream, and lets face it, they all break, if they don't your not playin' hard enough 
!!!!
..........and they sound sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!!
Heres another reason I bought a Cummins,
If I wanted a V8 throb, I'd buy a gasser not a dmax or powerjoke!
Six in a row sounds AWESOME!!!
No, seriously, the reason I sold my Powerstroke and bought this Cummins is because they are way easier to work on, try changing injectors on a powerstroke, or the ever failing glow plugs
, or god forbid you would have to remove the exhaust manifold , and on and on it goes, I absolutely HATED working on my old powerjoke, but fixin' this cummins is a dream, and lets face it, they all break, if they don't your not playin' hard enough !!!!..........and they sound sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!!
Heres another reason I bought a Cummins,
05-29-2006 | 11:53 PM
#42
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
From: Rolla, MO and Blytheville, AR
Originally Posted by steven
Sorry, but you are out to lunch. I know my number was SOOOOO old from an 05 that is. Wow, that's pretty ancient. However, you are telling me that the duramax is getting "as high as 625/325" to the rear wheel is OUT TO LUNCH. You are telling me that there is no loss from the Stock rating off the flywheel to the rear wheels. You should call chevy and tell them they are wrong too. Man, thanks for making that clear. At least try to be realistic in your numbers. What you are suggesting is so far out to lunch i dont know how you can even make that claim. I hope you read that somewhere and you just dont know any better because all vehicles lose HP and Torque from the flywheel. And not just a little either.
I cant help but respond to your "dummy" accusation. I never would have realized that talking about a truck, the 05 model of the duramax, is idiotic. But your numbers, wow, you are trully an intellectually challenged individual that believes everything they read and lacks the ability to filter the sales propoganda of upgrade computer chips. Hey, next you will be telling me that all those big rigs running CATS and CUMMINS are really running V-8 diesel engines from Isuzu because you read it somewhere.
You started the name calling, you should have just replied with, "the 06 is better than the junk 05" or something like that.
V/R
Steve
I cant help but respond to your "dummy" accusation. I never would have realized that talking about a truck, the 05 model of the duramax, is idiotic. But your numbers, wow, you are trully an intellectually challenged individual that believes everything they read and lacks the ability to filter the sales propoganda of upgrade computer chips. Hey, next you will be telling me that all those big rigs running CATS and CUMMINS are really running V-8 diesel engines from Isuzu because you read it somewhere.
You started the name calling, you should have just replied with, "the 06 is better than the junk 05" or something like that.
V/R
Steve
05-30-2006 | 12:49 AM
#43
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
From: Lancaster, Ky
Originally Posted by PanteraGSTK
my dad can beat up your dad 
Funny stuff Anyways, from what i've seen duramaxes are pretty reliable. They have had a lot of trouble with the injectors in the LB7's but I think GM made a respectable move by providing a 200,000 mile warranty on them, and they do stand behind it. Lets face it, ALL of the big 3 have their pros and cons. You cant beat the sound of a cummins motor though. Well, the first and 2nd gens anyways. IMO the 3rd gens kinda sound like a big elephant fart, lol, but i have heard a couple with stacks that sound ok. I say just buy what ya want, drive it, and be happy.
But its soooo fun to argue!
05-31-2006 | 12:11 PM
#44
Chapter President
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,102
Likes: 2
From: Red Deer, Alberta Canada
The DM with the Allison is deadly. Computer control helps bridge the gap from narrower V-8 torque curve and multiple gears. The way I see it, GM is gonna have a hard time selling in the future if the spark plugs on the 8.1 last longer than the injectors on the DM. Hard to swallow the extra $8k for the DM when its in the shop for injectors every 100,000 miles. Being that I use my truck for business, I can't afford the downtime. My biz partners 01 DM is getting its first set of injectors at 160,000 Km (100,000 miles) on warrenty of course. But he had to BORROW MY TRUCK TODAY to get to site for work...
05-31-2006 | 09:27 PM
#45
Banned
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
lildog,
Injectors on newer cummins and duramaxe's are the same bosch high pressure design, so if D'maxs go down at a 100,000 so will Cummins. Newer Cummins makes 610 ft/lb @ 1600rpm and newer Duramax makes 650ft/lbs @ 1600rpm D'mxes aren't making a narrower torque band either, D'maxes on the dyno are holding flat line torque numbers from 2100 to 3100 rpm. Older 2001-2003 D'maxes were more expensive on injectors due to labor with the internal injectors set up. The 2004's and up are cheaper. They will always cost more for injectors then a Cummins because there are two additional injectors or 25% more cost.
Injectors on newer cummins and duramaxe's are the same bosch high pressure design, so if D'maxs go down at a 100,000 so will Cummins. Newer Cummins makes 610 ft/lb @ 1600rpm and newer Duramax makes 650ft/lbs @ 1600rpm D'mxes aren't making a narrower torque band either, D'maxes on the dyno are holding flat line torque numbers from 2100 to 3100 rpm. Older 2001-2003 D'maxes were more expensive on injectors due to labor with the internal injectors set up. The 2004's and up are cheaper. They will always cost more for injectors then a Cummins because there are two additional injectors or 25% more cost.