Diesel for overlanding- are you happy with the choice?

[nickw]

I’m currently torn between a ‘15 Titan Pro 4x gasser or a ‘01-03 7.3L PowerStroke for our next truck. It will be our main overlanding vehicle but will also serve other purposes as a secondary DD. Prices are comparable between the two ($20k), but depreciation has probably topped out on the 7.3 and is still in full gear on the Titan.
These are my two choices because I’m intimately familiar with both platforms and have very good purchase options with either route. We only tow occasionally, payload capacity is more important (as with most overlanders).
I’d kill myself before I’d “roll coal” but am leaning towards the 7.3 right now due to resell value and capability. I can always swap the front end for a ‘08+ version for aesthetics. Might even retrofit a DEF system. Screw EGR lol.

I bet they'd probably get about the same mileage. Those old powerstrokes are cool but (IMO) you should figure out if you need a 1/2 ton or a 3/4+. No sense driving around in a HD truck if you don't need it. Not to mention it's 12+ years older than the Nissan and getting close to 20 years old, which isn't necessarily a problem, but makes things more difficult when it comes to dealer service (if needed).

 

[LD5050]

It would be an F350, so in this particular case 1 ton vs 1/2 ton. I’m not a big 3/4 fan.
The wear n tear on a 15+yr vehicle vs a 5 year old vehicle is definitely worth considering, but I think it balances out with the dramatically different resale value.
And I’d be going with an out-of-warranty titan, so no dealer service for me either way.
It mostly comes down to diesel vs gas, OP’s theme for the thread. And longevity, which is why I lean towards the 7.3. There are some good opinions in this thread, and I’ve still got about two months before I have to pull the trigger.

 

[nickw]

It would be an F350, so in this particular case 1 ton vs 1/2 ton. I’m not a big 3/4 fan.
The wear n tear on a 15+yr vehicle vs a 5 year old vehicle is definitely worth considering, but I think it balances out with the dramatically different resale value.
And I’d be going with an out-of-warranty titan, so no dealer service for me either way.
It mostly comes down to diesel vs gas, OP’s theme for the thread. And longevity, which is why I lean towards the 7.3. There are some good opinions in this thread, and I’ve still got about two months before I have to pull the trigger.

Well longevity has as much to do mileage, vehicle history and service records than it does with engine type. The engine may be the least of your worries but there are certainly other parts of the platform that may be a bit long in the tooth given it's age.

My point regarding dealer servicing is parts supply and / or dealer willingness to service an older vehicle. Taking my older 96' F150 to the dealer for service was not an option. Engine was dead reliable, 4.9L I6, but things like wiper motor, wiper relay and a couple of minor elec gremlins were my own to deal with which are not a problem with a more current rig. More power to ya if you don't mind doing that stuff, I normally don't, but I like the option of dropping it off at the local dealer if I don't have the time.

 

[Buliwyf]

I'd rather have the 7.3l Ford. Big axles, easy to fix up transmission. Good suspension, and easy breezy suspension kit's. Be prepared to rebuild the trans. No big deal, if the trans runs fine during your test drive.

But you might be able to find a newer 6.2l Ford with your budget, that's far better than either. Same power as the 7.3l, about the same mileage. Waaaay better transmission. Better suspension. Better front axle.

 

[El Gordo]

I like my old 6.2l Suburban. Needs a overdrive though. Only gets 17 mpg at 70.

 

[Dalko43]

A few of your points don't resonate with me, specifically the point about transmissions vs torque vs overdrive. With diesels and their narrow powerbands, they generally need and use more gears, this is one of the benefits of gas engines, broader range of power. Of course more gears can be better, the closer you can get to a CVT trans and keeping any engine in it's optimal power band is ideal, but relative to gas vs diesel, more gears typically benefit diesel. Regarding some of the deep overdrives, axle gearing can easily offset that if required....the F250/350 6.2 gas has the options of 4.30's, as example. The problem with not having those deep overdrives is when you need them for unloaded driving and associated MPG increase, you wont have them.

This is part of the reason why torque is a somewhat meaningless number....it's highly dependent on RPM and why "power" actually helps with these kinds of calcs.

All those old heavy duty pickups with BB V8's or I6's had those 3 speed trans w/granny seemed to get around ok....although glad gas was cheap! Certainly not the best driving experience with the NVH, but certainly got the job done.

How many diesels have you driven?

The torque numbers most certainly aren't meaningless...and btw they are normally provided with RPM's for context. When you have 369lb-ft of torque @ 2000RPM (as with the 2.8l diesel Colorado) you don't need to shift gears as readily or as frequently...the low-end torque provides all the motivation you need for accelerating and towing/hauling weight.

As compared to a 3.5l v6 (Tacoma) or the 3.6l v6 (colorado) which make their peak torque numbers (about 100lb-ft less than the diesel's) at 4600 RPM's and 4000 RPM's respectively...you generally need to downshift in order to get back into the usable power band for high load/work situations.

The mpg difference is distinct, though not tremendous...it may be important to some people but so much to others.
The difference in driving dynamics between the two is also very distinct...some people prefer more low-end torque, while others prefer an engine that can rev high and deliver more top-end horsepower.
The "narrow" power band of diesels is only a factor if you're constantly on the throttle, trying to do speedy overtakes or circuits around a race course...and quite honestly, diesels can be tuned to deliver good performance in those situations as well, its just that most OEM's don't tune them that way.

There is no right or wrong....people just have to figure out their priorities and preferences.

 

[Dalko43]

Audi's diesel got it's ******** kicked this year, by a more efficient gas v8. Did they even show up to Lemans? Nope. Because they're sissys. They couldn't handle coming in second place. That's really bad for motorsport, and absolutely disgraceful. Toyota beat them so soundly that they wouldn't even show up. I'm being a bit harsh on them, but whatever. They could have at least sent out a budget team with last years Audi or Porsche.

Have fun on the side of the road. I can have any engine that I want. Diesel just won't function well in a weekend warrior truck.

Uhmm...I'm pretty sure Audi's diesel R10 won the 06 LeMans and earned 1st place finishes at a few other well-known races in the European and North American endurance series.

It didn't win every single race, but it certainly was no slouch.

And BTW, almost all of the OEM's pick and choose which years they get into racing..lots of money, big commitments, and lots of downside for failure or poor performance.

 

[nickw]

How many diesels have you driven?

The torque numbers most certainly aren't meaningless...and btw they are normally provided with RPM's for context. When you have 369lb-ft of torque @ 2000RPM (as with the 2.8l diesel Colorado) you don't need to shift gears as readily or as frequently...the low-end torque provides all the motivation you need for accelerating and towing/hauling weight.

As compared to a 3.5l v6 (Tacoma) or the 3.6l v6 (colorado) which make their peak torque numbers (about 100lb-ft less than the diesel's) at 4600 RPM's and 4000 RPM's respectively...you generally need to downshift in order to get back into the usable power band for high load/work situations.

The mpg difference is distinct, though not tremendous...it may be important to some people but so much to others.
The difference in driving dynamics between the two is also very distinct...some people prefer more low-end torque, while others prefer an engine that can rev high and deliver more top-end horsepower.
The "narrow" power band of diesels is only a factor if you're constantly on the throttle, trying to do speedy overtakes or circuits around a race course...and quite honestly, diesels can be tuned to deliver good performance in those situations as well, its just that most OEM's don't tune them that way.

There is no right or wrong....people just have to figure out their priorities and preferences.

Does it matter? I don't need to drive a diesel to understand math. But to answer your point, plenty of them and I'll be the first to admit (and agree with you) driving a diesel absolutely 100% has a distinct driving experience that I enjoy at times in certain situations, one of them towing. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's more capable...

Well torque @ RPM is power - gear accordingly and you are good to go. Torque is a good indicator of how your powerband is shaped, but power is still the indicator of how much work an engine will do.

Nothing wrong with downshifting, you'll get to the same place at the same time, assuming the same amount of power....mpg may suffer of course.

 

[vargsmetal]

A few of your points don't resonate with me, specifically the point about transmissions vs torque vs overdrive. With diesels and their narrow powerbands, they generally need and use more gears, this is one of the benefits of gas engines, broader range of power. Of course more gears can be better, the closer you can get to a CVT trans and keeping any engine in it's optimal power band is ideal, but relative to gas vs diesel, more gears typically benefit diesel. Regarding some of the deep overdrives, axle gearing can easily offset that if required....the F250/350 6.2 gas has the options of 4.30's, as example. The problem with not having those deep overdrives is when you need them for unloaded driving and associated MPG increase, you wont have them.

This is part of the reason why torque is a somewhat meaningless number....it's highly dependent on RPM and why "power" actually helps with these kinds of calcs.

All those old heavy duty pickups with BB V8's or I6's had those 3 speed trans w/granny seemed to get around ok....although glad gas was cheap! Certainly not the best driving experience with the NVH, but certainly got the job done.

Old trucks with 3-4spd transmissions could still get the 8-10mpg that modern gas trucks get while towing, just not as quickly because of the low power smog engines. The average 80s 5.7L V8 is lucky to make 150hp. Theres also a broad range because of maintenance issues. One old truck will drive/tow fine, and then another will be a gutless dog because the carb tuning is off. No idiot light to tell you theres a problem. Beyond the on board diagnostics, the benefit to a newer truck is the unloaded economy. Put the modern drivetrain in the old truck and it will get just as good unloaded economy, besides any aerodynamic efficiency (which isn't much, no matter how smooth they make a new truck it's still a brick wall going down the road).

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[luthj]

Diesel powerbands can be narrow. When towing a wide powerband before the drop-offs at both ends is much preferred. Whether that band starts at 1,500 or 2,500rpm is of no consequence. Its the width that counts when dealing with heavy loads. Wide means less shifting, fewer gears needed, etc.

 

[Dalko43]

Does it matter? I don't need to drive a diesel to understand math.

Well, that answers my initial question.

But to answer your point, plenty of them and I'll be the first to admit (and agree with you) driving a diesel absolutely 100% has a distinct driving experience that I enjoy at times in certain situations, one of them towing. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's more capable...

Well torque @ RPM is power - gear accordingly and you are good to go. Torque is a good indicator of how your powerband is shaped, but power is still the indicator of how much work an engine will do.

Nothing wrong with downshifting, you'll get to the same place at the same time, assuming the same amount of power....mpg may suffer of course.

Which one is more capable (diesel vs gasoline) depends on what capabilities you're looking for: if you want to tow or haul weight or crawl over technical terrain, arguably a diesel does provide better performance, which is not to say that a gasoline engine can't perform the same tasks.

I understand how torque relates to horsepower. The reason low-end torque is so highly coveted by many 4x4 and truck owners (and thus the reason why diesel still has a large consumer base) is because low-end torque translates into more usable horsepower at lower RPM's, which is the part of the RPM band that is more relevant to truck-like applications (towing, hauling, 4x4 driving, ect.). Again, that's not to say that gasoline engines can't perform the same functions; in fact, the more dedicated truck gasoline engines try to replicate that low-end torque (turbo charging, large displacement). But the driving characteristics are still different between gasoline and diesel in that regard.

Nothing wrong with downshifting by the way. I'm just pointing out that high-reving gasoline engine will generally require more down shifting to keep the RPM's where they need to be for useful power delivery, which is contrary to what you claimed earlier. Diesel's generally-speaking don't need to shift a lot to stay in their useful RPM band.

I'm not arguing for or against one engine type or the other...I'm merely disputing your claim that torque numbers are irrelevant. The torque numbers (and RPM) tell you how horsepower is delivered, which I consider to be very relevant for any truck or 4x4.

 

[nickw]

Well, that answers my initial question.



Which one is more capable (diesel vs gasoline) depends on what capabilities you're looking for: if you want to tow or haul weight or crawl over technical terrain, arguably a diesel does provide better performance, which is not to say that a gasoline engine can't perform the same tasks.

I understand how torque relates to horsepower. The reason low-end torque is so highly coveted by many 4x4 and truck owners (and thus the reason why diesel still has a large consumer base) is because low-end torque translates into more usable horsepower at lower RPM's, which is the part of the RPM band that is more relevant to truck-like applications (towing, hauling, 4x4 driving, ect.). Again, that's not to say that gasoline engines can't perform the same functions; in fact, the more dedicated truck gasoline engines try to replicate that low-end torque (turbo charging, large displacement). But the driving characteristics are still different between gasoline and diesel in that regard.

Nothing wrong with downshifting by the way. I'm just pointing out that high-reving gasoline engine will generally require more down shifting to keep the RPM's where they need to be for useful power delivery, which is contrary to what you claimed earlier.

I'm not arguing for or against one engine type or the other...I'm merely disputing your claim that torque numbers are irrelevant. The torque numbers (and RPM) tell you how horsepower is delivered, which I consider to be very relevant for any truck or 4x4.

You missed the next sentence relating to me driving a diesel "...plenty of them", I've owned several and like I said, they are great in the right situation.

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.

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.

 

[shade]

I don't understand the argument that diesels are better for offroad use when it comes to the engine's ability to power over difficult terrain. In that respect, as long as the drivetrain is able to keep the wheels turning, does the rpm of the power source or the torque it produces really matter?

I'm not picking sides in any of this, but I'm genuinely curious about this point.

 

[nickw]

I don't understand the argument that diesels are better for offroad use when it comes to the engine's ability to power over difficult terrain. In that respect, as long as the drivetrain is able to keep the wheels turning, does the rpm of the power source or the torque it produces really matter?

I'm not picking sides in any of this, but I'm genuinely curious about this point.

You are right, power source is relatively meaningless as long as it's geared correctly and most have the ability to destroy axles in the right situations, even the small 4 cylinders, before they run out of power.

 

[nickw]

Old trucks with 3-4spd transmissions could still get the 8-10mpg that modern gas trucks get while towing, just not as quickly because of the low power smog engines. The average 80s 5.7L V8 is lucky to make 150hp. Theres also a broad range because of maintenance issues. One old truck will drive/tow fine, and then another will be a gutless dog because the carb tuning is off. No idiot light to tell you theres a problem. Beyond the on board diagnostics, the benefit to a newer truck is the unloaded economy. Put the modern drivetrain in the old truck and it will get just as good unloaded economy, besides any aerodynamic efficiency (which isn't much, no matter how smooth they make a new truck it's still a brick wall going down the road).

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

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