Diesel News: POST HERE

[charlieaarons]

I agree that there are people who use pickups for towing heavy loads of 16,000 lbs or more. In my experience, they typically drive F350 and F450. The F250, which has single rear wheels, is limited to 12,000 lbs or so.

An F250-class truck with one of those new V6 diesels would have 500 ft-lbs of torque, more than enough for a wide range of towing tasks. The F350 and F450 would still be available with the larger V8 diesels.

I've made similar comments about the ridiculous hp/torque war with light diesels and the answers are always vehement. It does seem that the ratings are meeting and even exceeding the ratings on medium trucks, Class 6 and 7, with GVWs up to 33,000 lb. Some of these even move up into low Class 8 territory with Cummins ISBs and soon to be defunct Cat C7s. HP ratings are up to 330, torque up to 860. Not much different than the current pickups, with GVWs as low as 11-12000 lbs.
Somehow, people with Landcruisers in Australia manage with only ~300 ft-lb; people in Brazil manage with a 4.2L 6 cyl in F250s; and Mercedes Varios with ~16500 lb GVW manage with a 4.25L 4 cyl with 177hp and 500 ft-lb.
Yes, I know the speed limit for trucks is 85kph in Europe. Should a 8000 lb truck be allowed to tow a 24000 lb trailer at >70mph in the US?
Can anyone deny that there is a HP/torque war going on between the "Big 3" that is basically "mine is bigger than yours"?

Charlie

 

[Pskhaat]

...there is a HP/torque war going on between the "Big 3" that is basically "mine is bigger than yours"?

I wish the war was "mine is more economic than yours." I have no problem with overdone HP and torque but at least bring the trucks up into the 20+mpg city range out-the-door.

I've tried switching back to regular gas from E10 and have no increase in mileage, let alone 30%

This is for a 1FZ-FE Toyota engine. I'm not the only one who experiences this. I don't have any hard fact on this, but I suspect Toyota never took into consideration ethanol blends when designing that engine.

 

[charlieaarons]

Ford seems to have done that. But imagine what the economy would be with half the motor: 3.4L, 180hp, 370 ft-lb, 4cyl (half the internal friction).

Charlie

 

[Redline]

Yes, the numbers for the new 6.7L 'Ford Built' Power Stroke, including the MPG estimates, are impressive. Quite an improvement over the 6.4L.

Ford seems to have done that. But imagine what the economy would be with half the motor: 3.4L, 180hp, 370 ft-lb, 4cyl (half the internal friction).

Charlie

 

[dragogt]

I agree that there are people who use pickups for towing heavy loads of 16,000 lbs or more. In my experience, they typically drive F350 and F450. The F250, which has single rear wheels, is limited to 12,000 lbs or so.

An F250-class truck with one of those new V6 diesels would have 500 ft-lbs of torque, more than enough for a wide range of towing tasks. The F350 and F450 would still be available with the larger V8 diesels.

I'd be all for it as an Option not the only choice..

 

[haven]

4.4L turbodiesel an option for 2011 Range Rover

http://www.worldcarfans.com/110052726499/leaked-2011-range-rover-confirmed-to-receive-new-44-liter

The World Car Fans website is reporting that the 2011 Range Rover option sheet will include a 4.4L V8 turbodiesel, rated at 308 hp and 516 lb-ft. A Range Rover with 4.4L diesel and 5 speed automatic is expected to produce about 23 mpg. No word if this new engine will be available in USA.

This is substantially the same 4.4L diesel that Ford developed for the F150 and large SUVs. Maybe, as the federal mpg standards keep creeping higher, Ford will consider using this engine in its light trucks and truck-like SUVs. 400, even 450 lb-ft of torque is possible using the 3.6L EcoBoost V6 gas engine, but 500+ lb-ft sounds beyond the capability of a V6 gas engine that has to last many years and 100,000+ miles.

 

[olympiccop2002]

Would still love to see the 4.4L diesel in the F150. That would be a great combo.

 

[jeepdreamer]

The problem appears to be....Us!?!

So I have been reading the last dozen pages or so of this thread out of interest. I have a couple comments and maybe a question or two.
I would imagine that part of the issue (voiced I believe by Viggen) is something mentoined only once...Mind you I am a bit old fashioned in my beliefs so try and bare with me a little.
Diesels in general are more efficent. They also tend to last much longer than their gasser counter parts. So why do we choose, willingly, to buy a new vehicle avery few years? Cars are a little large to be considered disposable are they not? Not much resemblance to a ball point pen or a razor now are they? Growing up my father always influenced me to buy the "better quality" tools. If I couldn't afford them I would save up until I could get one. Quality, not quantity or a hope based on a warrenty, were what sold me on my tools.
So I ask, if diesels last longer, and perhaps cost a little more up front...Why do we compare them so much to their gas burning counter parts? I would feel the real and true "Value" of a vehicle would come from it endurance, as well as its performance.?.
The other question I have involves diesel itself...
It is my limited understanding that Diesel fuel, patroleum diesel fuel specifically, is LESS refined than gasoline..right? As I understand it diesel is fairly low on the the refinement scale in general? So my limited wisdom being what it is...why then is diesel MORE expensive to purchase??? Maybe I am wrong and maybe I missed some important fact. I don't deny the large possibility. But to me it would appear the a less refined product takes less effort and should cost less to produce...therefore, in theory would sell for less?
And last is my wonderment dealing with BioDiesel. This seems almost a circular discovery/use concept to me. Didn't Mr R. Diesel run his first engine on something made essentually from peanut oil or something? Hence, a Bio-fueld diesel was the first itteration. And given that technology is what it is today...One could easily believe that all those NASA scientists and engineers and think-tankers could honestly come up with a method of producing a Bio Diesel that does not require any assistance from its dead dino sibling? I am still in the learning phases of what Bio is, how it works, what it does and needs and what draw backs it may have. But there it is. It will and does work. Its not perfect...yet, but with little to no change it is feeasable to dump it in a truck and go. Supposedly it burns cleaner, give slightly more power, may raise the MPGs? Lots of stuff to be considered beneficial. Only major flaw (and maybe some minor ones too?) is the "Gelling" issue when cold...? As any that have read this so far have learned, I am no Rocket scientist. But even to my simple mind it seems that is an easier thing to fix or cure than how to dispose of the Lithium batteries that powered you electric hybrid car that have failed?? And that doesn't even go into the fact tha Lithium is even less common on earth, requires far greater effort to aquire and process... and then there is disposing of it..!?!
Maybe someone will be kind enough to point out my flaws and failures to understand stuff in general please? I'm all ears!:elkgrin:

 

[EMrider]

So I have been reading the last dozen pages or so of this thread out of interest. I have a couple comments and maybe a question or two.
I would imagine that part of the issue (voiced I believe by Viggen) is something mentoined only once...Mind you I am a bit old fashioned in my beliefs so try and bare with me a little.
Diesels in general are more efficent. They also tend to last much longer than their gasser counter parts. So why do we choose, willingly, to buy a new vehicle avery few years? Cars are a little large to be considered disposable are they not? Not much resemblance to a ball point pen or a razor now are they? Growing up my father always influenced me to buy the "better quality" tools. If I couldn't afford them I would save up until I could get one. Quality, not quantity or a hope based on a warrenty, were what sold me on my tools.
So I ask, if diesels last longer, and perhaps cost a little more up front...Why do we compare them so much to their gas burning counter parts? I would feel the real and true "Value" of a vehicle would come from it endurance, as well as its performance.?.
The other question I have involves diesel itself...
It is my limited understanding that Diesel fuel, patroleum diesel fuel specifically, is LESS refined than gasoline..right? As I understand it diesel is fairly low on the the refinement scale in general? So my limited wisdom being what it is...why then is diesel MORE expensive to purchase??? Maybe I am wrong and maybe I missed some important fact. I don't deny the large possibility. But to me it would appear the a less refined product takes less effort and should cost less to produce...therefore, in theory would sell for less?
And last is my wonderment dealing with BioDiesel. This seems almost a circular discovery/use concept to me. Didn't Mr R. Diesel run his first engine on something made essentually from peanut oil or something? Hence, a Bio-fueld diesel was the first itteration. And given that technology is what it is today...One could easily believe that all those NASA scientists and engineers and think-tankers could honestly come up with a method of producing a Bio Diesel that does not require any assistance from its dead dino sibling? I am still in the learning phases of what Bio is, how it works, what it does and needs and what draw backs it may have. But there it is. It will and does work. Its not perfect...yet, but with little to no change it is feeasable to dump it in a truck and go. Supposedly it burns cleaner, give slightly more power, may raise the MPGs? Lots of stuff to be considered beneficial. Only major flaw (and maybe some minor ones too?) is the "Gelling" issue when cold...? As any that have read this so far have learned, I am no Rocket scientist. But even to my simple mind it seems that is an easier thing to fix or cure than how to dispose of the Lithium batteries that powered you electric hybrid car that have failed?? And that doesn't even go into the fact tha Lithium is even less common on earth, requires far greater effort to aquire and process... and then there is disposing of it..!?!
Maybe someone will be kind enough to point out my flaws and failures to understand stuff in general please? I'm all ears!:elkgrin:

I've wondered the same to myself many times. Want an instant 25%-35% bump in vehicle fleet fuel efficiency? Easy, switch to diesel. Yes, a diesel motor option is typically more expensive. But too often the breakeven comparison is made without considering resale value or motor longevity. Net of higher resale and longevity, the extra cost of a diesel is less, perhaps substantially less.

As for fuel cost, I'm told that diesel is less expensive to produce than gas. But if you check the pump, you'll see that fuel taxes are substantially higher on diesel fuel. Like 2x as much as gas. So the lower refining cost is offset by higher taxes. That makes some sense to me because fuel taxes should have some connection to miles driven and road maintenance/repair costs. Semi trucks are the big users of diesel and they are certainly harder on roads that a prius.

Net net, I'd really like to see broader availability of small and medium size diesel motors in the US.
R

 

[biere]

My understanding of the current ultra low sulfur diesel fuel is that it gets refined twice to pull that much sulfur out of it. Running it through twice costs a lot. Diesel also competes with home heating oil for production capacity.

I remember when diesel was the cheapest fuel, and taxes are part of it, but this new ulsd needing to be run twice seems dang odd to require.

As far as comparing life expectancy of diesel vs. gas I think it is harder to do these days. A lot of today's gassers are running for a few hundred thousand miles, the car or truck is let go for reasons other than the engine needing rebuilt or replaced.

I own an 07 jeep with the factory mercedes diesel and I expect more life from the engine than the suv wrapped around it. I bought it because I prefer a diesel over gas and the better fuel mileage is nice but I doubt it will pay for the difference in purchase cost when all is said and done.

Buying a similar grand cherokee with a v8 and taking care of the v8 would probably let you run that vehicle about as long as I will run my diesel version.

I hope I am wrong and the diesel and vehicle last millions of miles but I doubt it.

Just my opinion on things these days.

I am kind of looking at heavier duty vehicles a bit because when playing in medium duty and heavy duty vehicles you are buying something made to run a half a million miles for medium duty in some cases and a million miles plus with heavy duty stuff. This is highway use though, they are not made for around town stuff and long life for the most part.

Today's emissions concern me more than anything else on today's diesel engines. I know a lot of folks have parts disappearing on some of the one ton diesels but depending on what comes down the road in the future I don't know what I want to mess with in the overall scheme of things.

I would prefer to buy something that would last a few decades though.

 

[haven]

Pickuptrucks.com is reporting that GM is looking again at its 4.5L V8 diesel. This "small" diesel would be offered in the 2500 and 3500 series trucks, maybe even the 1500. The 6.6L Duramax diesel would still be available in the 3500 with dual rear wheels. The driving factor in the decision is the EPA's rule that medium trucks need to get better fuel mileage.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/06/gm-ponders-reviving-45liter-duramax-v8-diesel.html

This new diesel produces about 500 ft-lbs of torque and is about 25% more fuel efficient than a conventional gas engine of the same power output. The problem is that the diesel is no more fuel efficient than a direct injected turbocharged gas engine with variable valve timing. The gas engine would be cheaper to build, too.

GM calls this sort of gas engine an Ecotec engine, Ford uses the name Ecoboost. GM has not shown an Ecotec engine this large, but Ford has talked about an Ecoboost V8 design for its hotrod F150s and the Shelby Mustang.

A diesel engine would probably have a longer time in service before needing an overhaul. This may be important to commercial trucking companies, but most 2500 series trucks are bought by individuals. How many of them would keep the truck long enough to need an overhaul?

 

[haven]

We thought the diesel torque wars were over for 2011, with GM the winner with 765 ft-lbs. Now rumors are circulating that Ford will add an engine management option to the 6.7L Scorpion V8 turbodiesel that will raise torque past 800 ft-lbs.

Your move, GM and Chrysler! At this rate we'll top 1000 ft-lbs by 2013.

 

[Pskhaat]

Those #s are crazy. I just drove a Class 6 Straight Truck with a 590 lbs-ft and only ~200+hp International pulling 26klbs + 4300lbs trailer up and down the Mogollon Rim and the Rockies. It wasn't fast but did just fine. These 700+ lbs-ft torquers are being deployed in Class 3 trucks!!!

BTW, I averaged about 11.5 mpg in said straight. I can barely achieve that under 6800lbs in my Cruisers, a mere 22% of the weight.

 

[chet]

I would like to see some detuners so gain some reliability back. maybe some more MPG too.

 

[SunTzuNephew]

GM and Chrysler are on the loosing side of that curve: They have older designs that have already been 'optimized'....Fords' new engine has nowhere to go but up. And I agree that the numbers are crazy, that enough is already enough, and decreasing reliability to get some sort of advantage at the urinal trough is stupid...

OTOH, I've ordered a 2011 Ford PSD