Search results

I get that and would agree, if my life depended on it, I'd prefer a simple engine. I'd take a carbed petrol 3f over a modern electronic diesel though too, if I had to choose. The original question posed was more of a performance based one.

Fair enough....but why? Fuel economy, parts availability, serviceability? You can't tell me a n/a 1HZ is going to out perform a modern petrol V8. Don't get me started about a certain someone who had an issue or two with his Mercedes diesel out there ? I think the same certain someone cut his...

Not so quick, ever been to Dubai? Sand capital of the world, LOTS of petrol rigs.

Bad one sided advice...you mean your advice of torque = power? Nobody cares about you, me or this thread....trust me, your opinion is not that important nor is mine. It was an open discussion, but you've made it about you for some reason. Once more, you can't 'compare' engines based on torque...

LOL - I thought you were gone? Silly game of knowing torque isn't power? The tank example, turbine in this case, shows how irrelavant torque is unlike your previous ascertation, so I guess you agree with me now? With all due respect, you said you were out, you are not adding anything anymore...

Its 100% RPM, that is where they cross bud, I know the math. You missed Metcalfs point, he said he wouldn't rev past that inflection point, which doesn't make sense. In a geared system, HP creates tractive effort or torque at wheels. Knowing torque without RPM is useless. When comparing...

Good convo. I get the 5252 constant, which is why torque is a useless metric for comparison, my question was around why pick that as something not to rev past? Engines don't have a limit there. We should at least compare engines of sim era and not pick the best and worst case scenarios, Idle...

I have a grasp of how HP is calculated, thanks for reminder. Why pick 5252? Nothing wrong with using power if it's available, engines are designed that way by folks smarter than you or I. I find it funny that you make (incorrect) claims but can't answer a fair simple question. Not answering...

Edit of the post? Reread the original post, you've steered this conversation in an odd way...it is about performance in dunes, not the way a vehicle makes you feel.

Largely due to fuel economy, if you care about $$ or range, diesel is the way to go. Again, we are talking normal rigs, I think you brought up all these unique, custom, factory sponsored race rigs.

It's a simple real world example that no, you can't answer, I know that and so do you. I did calculations trying to form an opinion based on quantitative data....you can even see I used different starting points for RPM, 1000 for diesel and 2000 for petrol to normalize that they do have...

Lots of cool diesels, they are mainly used due to fuel economy. Didn't they have to bend a bunch of rules to allow diesels to be competitive in LeMans? Turbos being one of them? High torque at low RPM and turbo lag are recipes for wheel spin.

Can't answer the question? I even threw you a bone and included HP. Yeah I'm trying to prove a point, but you gotta play along. No race engines here. HP = torque potential at wheels. Torque is worthless without knowing RPM, when you include both....you get HP. Can you name a modern gas...

Torque is NOT power.....that is a fundamental concept. Torque by itself is a meaningless metric to compare engines. For instance, which engine would you select to power a huge industrial offroad rig: Option 1: 4000 ft lbs / 150 hp Option 2: 2000 ft lbs / 500 hp Option 3: 350 ft lbs / 1500...

Not *wanting* to rev an engine is different that having the ability to do so if needed. Petrol engines still offer wider / broader RPM ranges which allows for less shifts and less loss of momentum. My truck upshifts in the sand too when I'm just cruising along but in high range, say 3rd gear...

Torque at wheels is what we are after, as long as HP is the same, torque at wheels has the potential to be the same. Every Petrol vehicle makes "meaningful" power down low, they are not designed like F1 cars, the Jeep 3.6 for instance has a very flat torque curve for what it is, it has plenty...

Different opinions is reasonable and expected, but when you use terms like "excuses" it's a bit strange TBH. Using my figures I'm trying to show effective rpm range for engines, up to HP max, which is effective range, once HP drops it's a losing proposition. As my original post states, 2100...

Excuses? Very strange comment / way to put it, I'm just stating what I've seen without having to google it on YouTube. If anything your post comes across as defensive, but again, this is a quantitative / pratical discussion not an emotional one..... I'd disagree, most Gas / Petrol rigs have...

Probably does - I know Toyota used them in their Hiluxes too in the past but they were factory supported highly tuned engines, Audi races/raced a diesel at Lemans and did well too but I know my old TDI revved to 5k, which is 2k over what most full size diesels rev, so I'd draw a line at...

Fair enough - those things are impressive, but I think the rigs in the other classes would run circles around those things in the bigger dunes and softer sand.