Diesel for overlanding- are you happy with the choice?

[vintageracer]

I hear ya, I had a 1972 Camaro w/350, it had 130 hp. The 1970 version with same engine had 300+.....

Chevrolet also changed from the "Net" HP ratings in 1970 on their engines to the SAE HP ratings on their engines in 1971 effectively REDUCING the HP ratings on all their engine offerings by at 10%-15% across the board. The compression ratio's also dropped across the board on all Chevrolet engines in 1971 to 8.5 and lower in some instances.

 

[Dalko43]

Torque @ crankshaft is a worthless metric for defining "capability", it's all power @ crank OR torque at the wheels (but need to factor gearing for that). Diesels make their POWER at lower RPM and both fuel economy and durability can benefit because of it, which are the primary reasons diesels are used, particularly as rigs get bigger.

Well no kidding...I certainly agree that torque/horsepower delivery to the wheels is a more accurate indication of capability than torque at the crank, but that's not how OEM's report those figures. Most of the midsized and 1/2 ton trucks are within a stone's throw of each other in terms of gearing and drivetrain losses. So if you know what the torque is at the crank, you'll have a good enough approximation of how the power is delivered. So, no, torque at the crank is not a meaningless metric.

What about all those Toyota Mini-trucks, Suzuki samurais, old unimogs or Pinzgauers, they all seemed to do ok offroad. All the Jeeps too, old military ones and new ones. What about all the old Rovers? Most of the offroad buggies use gas engines. Most of the baja race rigs use gas engines. I'd argue you'd be hard pressed to find many diesels that have any offroad benefits besides the aforementioned fuel economy aka "range", which can certainly be an advantage and possible the ability for deep water submersion, which new diesels certainly cannot do, but is a fringe use case at best.

I never said gasoline engines are no good for offroad use. They work fine in that regard. So do diesels, albeit with different characteristics. For the record, Baja racing isn't purely offroad use...it's race use, which has an entirely different set of values and principles from those that are applicable to everyday work and international travel.

For regular (read not racing) offroad use, diesels do in fact have tangible advantages over gasoline (low-end torque delivery being a prime example), which is why so many overseas 4x4's (LandCruisers, Land Rovers, Jeeps, Unimogs, G Wagons) rely on those engine types. I don't know what you mean by "fringe" use.

 

[nickw]

Well no kidding...I certainly agree that torque/horsepower delivery to the wheels is a more accurate indication of capability than torque at the crank, but that's not how OEM's report those figures. Most of the midsized and 1/2 ton trucks are within a stone's throw of each other in terms of gearing and drivetrain losses. So if you know what the torque is at the crank, you'll have a good enough approximation of how the power is delivered. So, no, torque at the crank is not a meaningless metric.



I never said gasoline engines are no good for offroad use. They work fine in that regard. So do diesels, albeit with different characteristics. For the record, Baja racing isn't purely offroad use...it's race use, which has an entirely different set of values and principles from those that are applicable to everyday work and international travel.

For regular (read not racing) offroad use, diesels do in fact have tangible advantages over gasoline (low-end torque delivery being a prime example), which is why so many overseas 4x4's (LandCruisers, Land Rovers, Jeeps, Unimogs, G Wagons) rely on those engine types. I don't know what you mean by "fringe" use.

I called out Baja to cover all the bases of "offroad" as you were referencing, it's certainly is a use case, look at a Raptor as an example and all the dudes in SoCal with long travel rigs. Overseas 4x4's use diesel for a number of reasons, range, fuel availability and parts commonality to name a few that trump the fact that the engines make power lower in the RPM band. Lots of Gas Cruisers and Patrols, not to mention older Mogs and Gwagens, that lasted every bit as long and were every bit as capable as their diesel counterparts.

Fringe use.....aka, a non common use case. Old diesels, like the ones used in Camel Trophy, can be run underwater.....it's technically an advantage, but it's not reasonable given how folks actually use their rigs outside of some extreme examples.

 

[shade]

For regular (read not racing) offroad use, diesels do in fact have tangible advantages over gasoline (low-end torque delivery being a prime example), which is why so many overseas 4x4's (LandCruisers, Land Rovers, Jeeps, Unimogs, G Wagons) rely on those engine types.

Please explain further, because I don't get it.

Unless the low end torque is insufficient to turn the wheels, what does the engine type have to do with it? Are equivalent vehicles with gasoline engines stalling on terrain that causes no issues for a diesel version?

Diesel fuel has been more popular outside North America for decades in many types of vehicles, but I'm not sure what that has to do with traveling over rough terrain.

 

[Buliwyf]

When people play the ''diesel is better offroad'' card.

I wait until it rains to invite them camping. 13.5" wide tires MINIMUM if you expect a fullsize diesel to do anything but get stuck. 1000# is noticeable in soft terrain.

 

[60beforetruck]

Diesel are heavy and get stuck quick in the soft stuff. I still love my Duramax. Drove it from Atlanta to Moab and back this year.

 

[nickw]

For regular (read not racing) offroad use, diesels do in fact have tangible advantages over gasoline (low-end torque delivery being a prime example), which is why so many overseas 4x4's (LandCruisers, Land Rovers, Jeeps, Unimogs, G Wagons) rely on those engine types. I don't know what you mean by "fringe" use.

Also - be careful about some of those diesels you are referencing....several of the old school, simple diesels were absolute DOGS but still were excellent offroad. Some of the old Gwagens were right at 100hp, even up into the 90's. Same can be said for the Cruiser 1HZ's, they are very slow and underpowered relative to today's gas engines and even the gas engines of the time like the 2F's and 3F's. The Rover 200TDI and 300TDI were a bit better but were just over 100hp and right @ 200 ft/lb.

 

[Dalko43]

I called out Baja to cover all the bases of "offroad" as you were referencing, it's certainly is a use case, look at a Raptor as an example and all the dudes in SoCal with long travel rigs. Overseas 4x4's use diesel for a number of reasons, range, fuel availability and parts commonality to name a few that trump the fact that the engines make power lower in the RPM band. Lots of Gas Cruisers and Patrols, not to mention older Mogs and Gwagens, that lasted every bit as long and were every bit as capable as their diesel counterparts.

Fringe use.....aka, a non common use case. Old diesels, like the ones used in Camel Trophy, can be run underwater.....it's technically an advantage, but it's not reasonable given how folks actually use their rigs outside of some extreme examples.

I think a large reason for why diesel is so common/available in overseas markets is precisely because of its low end torque, in addition to its fuel efficiency.

I agree deep-water crossing is a "fringe" use, sort of like pre-running a baja course. Few people will push their vehicles to those sorts of extremes.

Also - be careful about some of those diesels you are referencing....several of the old school, simple diesels were absolute DOGS but still were excellent offroad. Some of the old Gwagens were right at 100hp, even up into the 90's. Same can be said for the Cruiser 1HZ's, they are very slow and underpowered relative to today's gas engines and even the gas engines of the time like the 2F's and 3F's. The Rover 200TDI and 300TDI were a bit better but were just over 100hp and right @ 200 ft/lb.

The vehicles I'm referencing all have modern, common-rail diesels, with more than adequate throttle response, many with modern emission controls...they're doing just fine in global and austere operating environments as well as on the highway.

 

[nickw]

I think a large reason for why diesel is so common/available in overseas markets is precisely because of its low end torque, in addition to its fuel efficiency.

I agree deep-water crossing is a "fringe" use, sort of like pre-running a baja course. Few people will push their vehicles to those sorts of extremes.



The vehicles I'm referencing all have modern, common-rail diesels, with more than adequate throttle response, many with modern emission controls...they're doing just fine in global and austere operating environments as well as on the highway.

They'd all be driving gas engines if they were more fuel efficient, never mind the torque.

Well those common rail engines with modern emissions controls you just referenced have the same problems we have in the states. You want power...you get complexity. You want dead reliable...you get lack of power. There was a sweet spot for diesels like the OEM turbo'd Toyotas and the pre-emissions Cummins that were a very happy mix of power, simplicity, efficiency and durability....those days are long gone....particularly as gas engines have evolved from that time period and I'd argue diesels have 'devolved' from the rough and tumble engines of lore.

 

[Dalko43]

They'd all be driving gas engines if they were more fuel efficient, never mind the torque.

They drive diesels because of the overall package of attributes that diesel offers....low-end torque, decent fuel consumption (which means decent range), less volatile.

Likely for the same reason that diesel has finally started to get traction in the midsized and 1/2 ton markets in North America.

Well those common rail engines with modern emissions controls you just referenced have the same problems we have in the states. You want power...you get complexity. You want dead reliable...you get lack of power. There was a sweet spot for diesels like the OEM turbo'd Toyotas and the pre-emissions Cummins that were a very happy mix of power, simplicity, efficiency and durability....those days are long gone....particularly as gas engines have evolved from that time period and I'd argue diesels have 'devolved' from the rough and tumble engines of lore.

Added complexity? Sure. But tell me what modern engine doesn't have complexity at this point. It's not as if there are no examples of ecoboost engines failing prematurely or direct-injection engines getting crud in their intake valves. HCCI, direct + port injection, cylinder deactivtion, turbo's, EGR...gasoline engines are more simple compared to diesels, but the degree of separation is marginal at best.

For the record, the 2.8l and 4.5l turbo diesels used in overseas Toyota's are still considered to be very reliable, despite their emissions controls.

"Devolved?" We have turbo v6 diesels which are producing comparable horsepower and torque to what diesel v8's were producing only 10 years ago, all while being exponentially more efficient and cleaner. That sounds like evolution, not de-evolution, to me.

 

[Tex68w]

As someone who has owned both I don't think that there is a clear answer as the best overall option, it really comes down to what you need the truck to do for you.

I've had F-250 and F-350 Supeduties with the 6.7L PSD. I never had any issues with any of those trucks in regards to the motor or drivetrain. I am a fan of the Ford platform and probably prefer it overall but it has it's detractors as well. I changed my oil every 5,000 miles and I did fuel filters and air filters every 10,000. Most would consider that over the top, but it was cheap insurance in my eyes. You will spend more on maintenance and repairs, there's no getting around that. Fuel can be harder to come by depending on where you live and it will cost more than gasoline. Once lifted with larger tires the better fuel economy goes out the window but the diesel should still get better fuel economy than a gasser with 37's. If you read into tech futures it sounds like diesel tech is on the way out in favor of alternative platforms but in the same breath there has been a surge in smaller diesels in domestics in recent years so who knows.

Gassers are cheaper to run and maintain and the big V8's in the domestics are boringly reliable at this point. Power is there for anything under 10,000lbs and there is less to worry about when it comes to using it as a daily that might not see a lot of towing use. Off-road I have to admit that there is something to the weight and balance of a gasser over a diesel, especially in a HD truck where there is very little weight out back. I live near the beach and I watch diesel HD's struggle in the soft sand every time I am out there, the heavy front-end pushes and digs while the lighter rear-end spins and helps to shove the front-end deeper into the sand. When I had my Power Wagon I would blow by the diesels spinning along as I floated over the sand with little effort or RPM's.

If you are planning on running a FWC then I would opt for a 350/3500 for the higher payload. If you plan to tow heavy loads over 10,000lbs then go for the diesel but if you plan to be off-road a lot then I would lean towards the gasser. In this day and age of complex motors and systems the diesel is no longer the long term, super high mile, reliable platform they once were. So you've gotta ask yourself what it is you really need and go from there. I agree that once you've owned a diesel it is hard to get it out of your system, but the gasser HD's have their place and off-road is definitely one of the areas where they shine hence the Power Wagon. The new Ford 7.3L gasser with the 10-speed transmission set to come out this fall sounds very intriguing so you might want to hang around and see how that plays out in the High Boy.

 

[Lovetheworld]

I just came accross this topic, searching for something else. If anybody ever takes his/her car through Asia, I can tell you diesel isn't the best choice.
Sure, it will do fine. I have driven 2 old-skool diesels through Asia. Usually it is not really a problem.
But diesel is the first fuel to be unavailable when you are going remote. The trucks have a huge range and know where to fill up. Get into a remote place where few people are living and there is a gas station, chances are it only has petrol. Because that is what the locals are using.

Here in Europe we see that modern diesels are very complicated, and thus, now more complicated than the petrol engines. So higher maintenance / repair cost over the years.
Oldskool diesels, even without turbo for example, are the most simple and reliable. However, they are also the slowest and noisiest. And smelly a lot of times.
Do you really think that adding the ignition is going to make it so much more unreliable? Of course not and it is easy to carry spares of it.

And there were these Canadian or US guys who did Africa west-coast with petrol, no issue to get fuel.

Electric is going to be an option in future years. It may not always be easy, but there are more wall outlets in the world than there are gas stations

 

[plumber mike]

I like that my diesel can do more work at a lower RPM. Will this account for a longer life? We’ll find out. Spinning at less than half the revolutions of a gas engine has appeal to me on long trips. Just not dramatically downshifting and reving to the moon because the wind blew is reason enough for me. I’ve had plenty of marginally powered gas engines that get most jobs done, but to me overlanding (traveling) is supposed to be relaxing and enjoyable. The Diesel engine makes that feel more so.
Economists do say that gasoline engines are cheaper overall. So is staying home. I like torque and I’m willing to pay for it. I also like doing my own maintenance which makes the extra cost for diesel ownership negligible to me.

 

[calicamper]

I haven’t heard anyone mention fuel availability. On my recent AZ / Utah trip we took a scenic route that was very rustic on a few parts of the trip and was surprised to see so many gas stations that didn’t sell diesel at all. A friend once told me that was his biggest negative having his diesel. I didn’t believe him till my recent trip.

 

[calicamper]

As someone who has owned both I don't think that there is a clear answer as the best overall option, it really comes down to what you need the truck to do for you.

I've had F-250 and F-350 Supeduties with the 6.7L PSD. I never had any issues with any of those trucks in regards to the motor or drivetrain. I am a fan of the Ford platform and probably prefer it overall but it has it's detractors as well. I changed my oil every 5,000 miles and I did fuel filters and air filters every 10,000. Most would consider that over the top, but it was cheap insurance in my eyes. You will spend more on maintenance and repairs, there's no getting around that. Fuel can be harder to come by depending on where you live and it will cost more than gasoline. Once lifted with larger tires the better fuel economy goes out the window but the diesel should still get better fuel economy than a gasser with 37's. If you read into tech futures it sounds like diesel tech is on the way out in favor of alternative platforms but in the same breath there has been a surge in smaller diesels in domestics in recent years so who knows.

Gassers are cheaper to run and maintain and the big V8's in the domestics are boringly reliable at this point. Power is there for anything under 10,000lbs and there is less to worry about when it comes to using it as a daily that might not see a lot of towing use. Off-road I have to admit that there is something to the weight and balance of a gasser over a diesel, especially in a HD truck where there is very little weight out back. I live near the beach and I watch diesel HD's struggle in the soft sand every time I am out there, the heavy front-end pushes and digs while the lighter rear-end spins and helps to shove the front-end deeper into the sand. When I had my Power Wagon I would blow by the diesels spinning along as I floated over the sand with little effort or RPM's.

If you are planning on running a FWC then I would opt for a 350/3500 for the higher payload. If you plan to tow heavy loads over 10,000lbs then go for the diesel but if you plan to be off-road a lot then I would lean towards the gasser. In this day and age of complex motors and systems the diesel is no longer the long term, super high mile, reliable platform they once were. So you've gotta ask yourself what it is you really need and go from there. I agree that once you've owned a diesel it is hard to get it out of your system, but the gasser HD's have their place and off-road is definitely one of the areas where they shine hence the Power Wagon. The new Ford 7.3L gasser with the 10-speed transmission set to come out this fall sounds very intriguing so you might want to hang around and see how that plays out in the High Boy.

I was going to say that the new 7.3 gasser is interesting. The size was set by an engineer based on displacement vs tuning and best towing / heavy work mileage with good performance. Basically Ford is targeting its heavy fleet users with a lowest cost to run engine option. Its not a performance rig its just a huge lump made to get it done with as little drama as possible.