2010 HD 16 Percent Hill Climb Test

16-1T-1

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Index

The 16 percent grade was where we separated the men from the boys. Inclinations this steep expose even the slightest powertrain and platform weaknesses. And there was almost no time for a truck to recover and mask any shortcomings in its powertrain or driveline during the brief 800-foot run. Most of the gas trucks couldn’t make it out of first gear. The diesels only made it to second gear, except the Sierra Denali 3500HD, which made it to third.

Three-Quarter-Ton Gas Trucks Towing 10,000-Pound Trailer

16-grade-1

16grade-time-34-gas-10k

Separator-1-560

16grade-speed-34-gas-10k

If any test turned our opinion around about Ford’s 6.2-liter V-8, it was the 16 percent grade. We haven’t embraced it like Ford’s old 6.8-liter V-10 because we didn’t think it lived up to that engine’s legacy -- until we put it on this hill.

The 6.2-liter V-8 ran up the hill a full 5 seconds and almost 5 mph faster than its next closest competitor, the Silverado. Its rpm seemed to pick up faster than the Hemi’s or the Vortec’s, and it was so fast that it shifted into second gear during one run, though it lost about 1,000 rpm and immediately downshifted. During the other sprints, the F-250 remained exclusively in first gear to top of the hill approaching near redline. The whole run the F-250 howled like a muscle car, not a three-quarter-ton truck with a combined weight of more than 17,000 pounds.

The Chevy 6.0-liter Vortec V-8 edged out the Hemi-powered Ram for second place up the hill by just 0.68 seconds, proving that shifting finesse and a wider range of gears can make up for moderate power deficiencies when a truck is being worked hard. It remained in first gear all the way to the top, crossing the finish marker at over 4,500 rpm and almost 25 mph.

The Ram 2500 always started out faster than the Silverado truck up the hill but couldn’t keep the power coming as steadily to the top. It wanted to, but the transmission seemed to hold it back. We can’t wait for this truck to get a future version of ZF’s eight-speed automatic. Still, after all of the grades, we remained very impressed by the Hemi’s overall performance at Milan Dragway and on the 7-percent and 16-percent climbs.

Three-Quarter-Ton Diesel Trucks Towing 10,000-pound Trailer

16-grade-2

16grade-time-34-diesel-10k

Separator-1-560

16grade-speed-34-diesel-10k

Hill-hold assist was one of our favorite features starting out on this grade. The GM and Ford trucks held their ground during the split-second pedal swap, thanks to the hill-hold assist feature. The Ram, which lacked the assist, started to roll back immediately even though we quickly moved from the brake to the accelerator.

Halfway up the hill, the Chevy 2500’s traction control briefly kicked in to squelch some instability caused by the grade’s rough surface and quickly butted out after the skipping was under control.

The Ford F-250 had difficulty with its traction control system, which kicked in to simmer down rear axle tramp at the start of the run.

While the F-250’s rear end hopped, the Ram 2500’s backside squealed, as its tires couldn’t hold traction on the takeoff. We had to feather the accelerator very carefully to avoid losing grip entirely. There was no stability control to cut fuel or apply the ABS for assistance. Because of this, the Ram 2500 finished about 5 seconds behind the Chevy Silverado 2500 and 4.1 seconds behind the Ford F-250.

Compared with the Ford, the Chevy’s traction control system was much less intrusive and seemed to do a better job helping the truck stay planted on the asphalt.

One-Ton Diesel Trucks Towing 12,000-Pound Trailer

16-grade-3

16grade-time-1T-12k

Separator-1-560

16grade-speed-1T-12k

Right off the line, the Ford F-350 dually spun its back tires and bounced each start up the grade. When this happened, the traction control system intervened and cut fuel to the engine to try to regain traction -- the F-350 SRW manages traction via defueling plus antilock brake application -- which caused the truck to lose turbo boost. Time and speed was lost over the first 200 feet as we tried to exit this acceleration-wheel-hop-traction-control loop. For most of the way up the hill, the F-350 also shifted between first and second as it struggled to find the optimal gear ratio for the climb, finally settling into second just before the top.

The Sierra 3500 doesn’t have traction control, so we didn’t lose turbo boost, plus its new rear suspension and wider, asymmetrical leaf springs did a fair job keeping the truck planted. It was a half-second faster than the Ford and 6 seconds quicker than the Ram.

Even though the Ram 3500 wasn’t fast, it had relatively smooth launches despite that fact that it also lacked traction control. They were better than the three-quarter-ton Ram 2500’s starts and suffered less wheel hop than the Ford and GMC. The one-ton Ram rolled back a few inches at the start, but once it found traction it chugged up the hill and made it to second gear by the crest, though it seemed to lose power in the midrange, around 2,500 rpm.

The Ram 3500 did cause some concern for us after our final test run, when its transmission temperature spiked from 212 degrees to 255 degrees, almost 60 degrees higher than the Ford and GMC pickups.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Index

Comments

Not surprised what so ever, go GM. Thanks Mike!!!

It is no surprise the Ford 6.2 is the best of the gas engines.

The GM diesels do not have traction control. No surprise there either.

Also don't forget when the GM hill hold assist failed, and GM had to do a recall. No surprise.

SRW GM diesels have traction control. "No suprise" a Ford fanboy who apparently didn't read the article, wouldn't know this.

Were they testing a single rear wheel GM diesel? No.

Therefore the GM diesel did not have traction control.

Apparently Matt is making excuses for not having tractin control or Matt wants to test a truck that would have changed every test here. No surprise.


Well Dan, its No surprise, you said the GM Diesels, with an s do not have traction control.

Getting full power to the rear wheels without axle wrap is also about rear suspension geometry, not just TC performance.

So the GM diesels were a little quicker than the Ford Powerstroke in 2wd. Just put the Ford in 4wd and problem solved, the Ford is the better towing truck then.

@ Mike

Why do you have 2 different gear ratios listed for the 3/4 ton ford diesel? under 16% time you have 3.73 listed. under 16% speed you have 3.55 listed.

@John: Sorry about that! 3.55 is correct rear axle. Will get that fixed asap.

@ Dave Thats the kind of rationalization that fan boys use. Just put it in 4x4 so you can accelerate at full throttle with out potentialy damaging wheel hop? Give me a break. what good is all that HP and TQ if it cannot be controlled. Ford dropped the ball plain and simple. Even the under powered 5.4 suffers from the same problem. Kudos for the stout power plant, but the wheel hop is bad engineering.

@ Jordan L.
I agree with you that they need to improve the wheel hop and traction, that first comment was actually sarcastic. I am a Ford fan but was dissapointed with the results. Im not sure if the traction control can be shut off, but if it can at least you'll be able to light up the rear tires.

@Dave: Keep in mind, part of the power hop isn't just TC. It's also rear suspension geometry that could be modified to handle all of that power. The new asymmetrical, wider leafs in the GM pickups plus new rear axle, shackles, etc. come to mind as working very well with the Duramax.

It does look like Ford needs to focus its engineering efforts on the chassis. No sense having the biggest baddest engine on the block if you can't make it work for you.

Not sure about you all- but when I tow my 12K fifth wheel I am not too worried about full throttle starts. I am more interested in having all the power I need/want for the grades/hills. Full throttle starts (and fast stops) only help rearrange the items in my cabinets.

@ Dave Sorry, I thought you were serious. In my opinion it is a big design flaw that seems to be shared with the F150. I know people don't typicaly do full throttle at take off but this problem is exagerated by low tractions surfaces. Wheel hop is only good for breaking stuff.

Hey Mike, why was TC use mandatory??? That really doesn't make any sense from a real world perspective. If the TC system is shitty, then I'm just not going to use it and I'll modulate the throttle my self. Just because a truck has a feature doesn't mean you must use it.

smtrthnu hit the nail on the head quote" In fact when a large problem in the test is that 1 ton duallys with trailers cannot keep traction (read that sentence over and over until it sinks in) its time to start looking at these vehicle differently and abandon the power wars".

Are we at a point where power overwhelms chassis and tires?
That is what has happened with modern "superbikes" and "supercars". Insane horsepower is being reigned in by chassis set up and traction/stability control.

I think that the Ford SD diesel trucks lost due to the chassis. GM had the better chassis in relation to traction.
GM's new chassis won the diesel shootout.

Lou, do you mash the gas full throttle everywhere you go? The traction "issue" presented in this comparison is 100% irrelevent in the real world, because there is no LEGITIMATE situation that would necessitate anyone stomping the throttle to the floor from a standing start. Even if your racing, your going to pedal the vehicle out of the hole, not just smash it and keep it there.

A lot of the tests in this comparison are irrelevant in the real world, and I would like to think that Mike and the other staff members would agree, but I'm certainly not holding that against them. Aquiring this "extreme use" data helps nail down the strong points and weak points of each vehicle, but the data should be taken in context, not literally(I.E., the traction "issue" isn't an issue in the real world, but it gives you an understanding of the underpinnings of each vehicle).
Let's not make some minor wheel hop out to be more than it is guys.

Well said, Ry.

Also how about an off-road test or take it across bumpy roads? The PM comparison said the GM chassis bounced a lot more than the Ford off-road and over bumpy pavement.

Does the automatic locking rear differential play a part in why the traction was so much better in the GM? It seems that you praise Ford for adding a electonic locking differential but everyone seems to forget that the GM has had this feature for years

@ Jordan L
I agree, it is a design flaw. When buying a $60,000 vehicle, I shouldn't have to worry about possible wheel hop. I understand that most people will never go wide open from a stop and ever experience wheel hop, but that doesn't mean Ford shouldn't fix the problem. A lot of people will never tow or haul as much weight as the truck is rated for or use the full power potential of the diesel, but Ford engineered it to do more than what people need. So why shouldn't Ford over engineer the chassis and traction control system so wheel hop won't happen?

@Ry_Trapp0
How do you assess a vehicle's strengths and weaknesses within the time constraints of a test?
Yes, it is true that people do not mash the trottle to the floor everytime they drive.
Do you think that is what all of the testers were doing?
If you can get a truck to exhibit a negative trait in a test someone in the real world will have the same problem.
What would happen to the Ford with a heavy load on wet pavement?
Will it wheel hop then?
What if you are starting off on a stretch of pavement with gravel patchs?
Will it wheel hop then?
or on a gravel surface?
Will it wheel hop then?

What next? I'll be accused of being a Bobsie boy GM fanboi.

It looks like Ford lost because of the chassis. That is my interpretation of the data.

I am in agreement with Lou as well I interpreted the same points from the data as well. It seems that if you are going to up the power you must also up the chassis so to speak.

Dave, Lou, and Americantruckfan are all bang on. this kind of trait will be exagerated on slippery road conditions. It is a design flaw. I wouldn`t consider it a huge flaw but it is a flaw, simple as that. Just one more piece of info that this story provides.

Lou, what the hell does your first statement mean? Are you saying that this comparison test DIDN'T find the strengths and weaknesses of these vehicles???

Yes, that is exactly what the testers did, because the predefined rules they created for this comparo required them to use the traction control if a vehicle was so equipped. By all accounts, TC is supposed to quell any traction issues by design, and Ford's TC obviously caused more problems than it prevented. This is the flaw in the testing that I saw, because, in the real world, I'm not using the TC if it sucks.

Lou, just because you CAN replicate these results under certain conditions(I.E., holding the throttle to the floor, with a shitty TC system on, on a steep, bumpy grade) doesn't mean they WILL occur(I.E., i'm going to ease onto the throttle if I'm on a steep, bumpy grade, like a normal, sane, intelligent person).
The results of these tests aren't directly applicable to the real world because achieving these results requires driving in a very controlled, unrealistic fashion. The data acquired from an unloaded 0-60 time doesn't literally apply to the real world, because I don't take off at full throttle from every stop light. How the data DOES apply is in that it gives me an understanding of how the truck accelerates(I.E., is there noticeable turbo lag, etc.). The number it self is meaningless.

Every single one of your hypotheticals is 100% irrelevant, because the outcome of each and every one is dependent on the driver. You might smash the throttle to the floor in each of these situations, causing wheel hop, just so you could say "see, it's the real world and I'm getting wheel hop" for instance, while I, and every other intelligent driver on the other hand, would roll into the throttle and ease off if I felt any chassis disturbance.


Ford lost because GM had the better all around truck. I guarantee that fixing the wheel hop "issue" wouldn't change that. I'm a big Ford fan, but am simply amazed at how shitty the TC system apparently is, and that they have the smallest brakes in the industry. I mean, even Toyota's 1/2 ton Tundra has better brakes than Ford's 1 ton!


Jordan, this problem would certainly exhibit it self - if your holding the throttle to the floor like a MORON. Drive like an intelligent human being, you will never notice it.

Mike, First off, thanks so much for doing all of this testing. I have been checking the site every day waiting for it! What I would love to see now is a comparison between the new 6.2 V8 from Ford and the outgoing V10!

So the F250 6.2L gasser beat out the Cummins in both time and MPH up the 16% incline carrying the same 10K trailer. Not good for the Dodge boys...

I don't understand why PUTC didn't just turn off the TC. Also, PUTC just tested what everyone wants to see. WOT off the line. When doing burn-outs in my Cobra I have to turn of TC to do burn-outs. Turn that S*** off.

Bottom line: The Ford has way too much power.

When a truck test is concieved - you need to come up with ways to test in the short time that is allowed.
Mike got slammed for being too subjective last time.
This test was as objective as possible.
Rules have to be set and followed.
The Ford HD diesel lost. Yawn. So what?
I'm not loosing sleep over it.
I like the information and that is what matters to me.
Look at the data and see what fits your needs or brand loyalty.
Make some constructive suggestions and they might find their way into the next test.

How convenient, you do these tests at a GM testing ground. No wonder the results are coming out the way they are. Its not hard to push the GM's to the max and then adjust the Ford and Ram performance to make sure the test results turn out in GM's favor. Nice work.

@me: first of all, let me welcome you to PUTC. Thanks for reading the site. We appreciate it.

Now, since you're new here, you should take the time to go back and read our past light and heavy duty Shootouts. You'd see, for example, that we also tested in 2008 at GM's Proving Grounds and the Ford F-150 was determined to be the best overall half-ton. You'd also see that in 2007, The Super Duty diesel had the slowest performance when we tested at Ford's Proving Grounds. In 2003, you'd see the Super Duty was the best truck we tested, again, at Ford's Proving Grounds.

I'll also point out that we hired a 3rd party (Ricardo, which works with almost all of the truck makers) to instrument the trucks and collect the data. I'm sure they wouldn't want to lose their credibility by "adjusting the Ford and Ram performance" so GM could win.

So, go ahead and make your self-congratulatory assumptions that our test was rigged. We wish you the best of luck and hope you'll continue to read PUTC.

go chevy

hey mike when will ram start to be strongly competitive in these tests that put the powertrains to the limits. i miss the days when the cummins was just as good or better then rest

Mike why dont you put the same tires on these trucks with the same air pressure, match them as equal as you can your really pushin the gm trucks hope there paying you enough how come you dont mention how much faster the ford swd is to the seven hundred foot mark according to you mph and why doesent your time in sec chart reflect this seems like RICARDO test should show this or aren't they really that acurate

@Roger: The trucks are tested the same as you'd buy them from a dealer. Putting identical tires on the trucks would be biased because that would change their original equipment.

All the data we collected is presented. Chrysler, Ford and GM have copies of all the raw data. They haven't objected to one bit of our testing. I'll also mention *once again* that engineers from all the companies were on hand to watch the tests.

You think GM is paying us and that I've given up my objectivity and credibility in this industry over a single Shootout? Give me a break. Last I checked, Ford has been our exclusive sponsor all year long.

Mike in your video you say the one ton gmc beats the ford to the top of the hill good thing the gmc had an auto locking rear did the ford have the electric locking rear was it locked I noticed the ford was behind at the 100 ft mark by 3.41 mph by the time there at the 300 ft mark the ford is going faster than the gmc and at the end the ford is going nearly a mph faster than the gmc unlike what you said in the video cmon tell me gm is not paying you according to the chart the ford would kill the gmc if the idiot driving didnt smoke the tires on takeoff I mean they started out 3.41 mph slower and were going faster at the top all with less hp and torque and you say the gmc is better. whats up mike? Also seems funny that the gmc cant spin its tires on takeoff with or without TC maybe its already in 4 x 4 would surprise me 765 lbs of torque cant break the tires loose give me a break

@Roger: I'm not going to keep repeating what's written in the story. The GMC 3500 beat the Ford F-350 to the top of the hill. Multiple times. Case closed.

Glad to see that the GM roads are accurate for what exists in Michigan! When the tests were done, were the trucks switched from one lane to another? With all the patches on the pavement, traction would be impacted.

Anyway all the trucks are soo good compared to a few years ago that you can't go wrong with any of them!

MIKE YOUR THE ONE THAT SAID THE GMC WAS GOING FASTER THAN THE FORD AT THE TOP NOT ME. (IN THE VIDEO) JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU COULD AT LEAST AGREE WITH THE GRAPH IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE. A LITTLE MISTAKE LIKE THIS COULD COST A COMPANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. I KNOW IT WAS PROBABLY JUST A SIMPLE MISTAKE BUT ALOT OF PEOPLE TRUST WHAT YOU SAY AND DONT FOLLOW AND READ THE ENTIRE STORY OR LOOK AT THE GRAPHS TO SEE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ( WITCH I'M GLAD YOU PROVIDED) AND I KNOW THE GMC BEET THE FORD TO THE 800 FT MARK BUT 900 FT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY ACCORDING TO THE GRAPH. QUESTION DOES THE GMC TRACTION CONTROL LOCK IN THE FRONT END? STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY 765 LBS. OF TORQUE CANT SPIN ITS TIRES EVEN A LITTLE

MIKE I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW THE HOW MUCH DID THE FORD BEAT THE GMC BY WHEN THEY WERE RUN IN 4X4 TO GET THE EXTRA TRACTION. THESE TIMES WERE NEVER MENTIONED NOR DID THEY HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOU CHOICE. AS YOU SAID IT WAS DONE JUST FOR FUN. I'M QUITE SURE YOU HAVE THESE RESULTS ALOT OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE THEM. IN THE END BOTH TRUCKS ARE VERY GOOD BUT IN MY OPPINION FOR FORD TO MAKE AN ENGINE ON THEIR FIRST TRY THAT CAN BEAT THE DURAMAX IS QUITE AN ACCOMPLISHMENT BY THE WAY IF YOU WOULD HAVE RUN THE TRUCKS IN 4X4 THE FORD WOULD HAVE BEAT THE GMC MUTIPLE TIMES

Wow.....just like in the 7.2% hill test, the Ford 6.2L gasser and the Cummins are very close. Which probably means the 6.2L could probably outrun my older 5.9L Cummins. Very interesting.

man all that emissions bs really holds back the cummins... shoulda brought in the 6 speed manual.

ROLL CHEVY ROLL! FORD AINT NOTHIN!

I like you on facebook and follow through google reader!

This test turned your oppinion around about the Ford 6.2? More like this test shows the differance in 4.1 gears and 4.3 gears. But whatever...

The 6.2 makes no more torque then the hemi @ 4000 and below, rev it 500 rpm more to get 5 more foot pounds? A whole 5 foot pounds more from near 30 cubic inches more, and more compression?

This would be dead even if they did this test with a 2012 or 2013 2500 Ram5.7 with it's better gearing the the rfe-545, and if they ordered all trucks with 4.10s for the sake of COMPARISON.

Of course if they do this with 2014 models, I think the 6.4 hemi would run it even with the gear disadvantage. It would smoke the Phord if they both had same gears.

But as somebody will point out, it's available....lol....so you can get a Ford that can get 13 mpg highway, lol!



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In