Diesel News: POST HERE

[jeepdreamer]

Man on the moon...

Never? Hmm... I don't think I would say the "N'' word since who knows where we will be in 20-50 years (other than much older..haha). Is that a high bar to try and reach? You betcha! But hey...we can put folks on the moon...right?
I just look at some of the other diesels out there like many of the VWs...knocking down almost 50mpgs! And they don't suffer for drivability at all. In fact I am hoping to find a decent one while I'm overseas and bring it back with me to transplant into my jeep. Should be funny to see what kinda MPGs I will see in "the brick"!?!

 

[cletaco]

Oh, I don't doubt at all that efficiency can improve vastly, but the vehicles that get that kind of efficiency will not look at all like those on ExPo, what with lifts, big tires, and enough gear to go to the moon. You either beat physics by blasting through gravity and the atmosphere (and get the worst MPG's to do it) or succumb to physics and camp out of a FWD VW Golf Tdi. It certainly can be done, but not many guys on this forum will dig giving up their rigs! A pickup with a RTT is a brick wall, and a little diesel engine can't change that fact. Probably the best solution is to use whatever mode suits the conditions: Walking, bike, motorcycle, an efficient car for daily cummuting (if you can't cycle), and a fuel swilling truck when called for. It doesn't make much sense to tool around in a gear laden truck as a DD, or for that matter a big SUV for commuting to the office. If appropriate choices are made (if financially possible), that would go a long way to lessening the impact on the planet.

 

[haven]

Pickuptrucks.com has a Ford 6.7L Powerstroke diesel pickup with the upgraded programming. They tested the new package on the dyno at Banks Engineering. Result: max gain of 45 ft-lbs and 21 hp at the rear wheels over the baseline the same truck set before the upgrade.

One flaw in the test procedure is that the lowest setting on the dyno monitoring was 2000 rpm, and the Powerstroke is supposed to make more torque just off idle, about 1600 rpm. So the gain in torque may be somewhat higher than reported here.

Testing on the dyno indicated that the upgraded truck would be about 3 tenths faster to 60 mph. The test crew noted that the new engine seemed more drivable as well.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/0...ke-v-8-diesel-after-factory-power-update.html

 

[haven]

The federal government is working on new fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty trucks for 2014-2018. (Medium duty starts with pickups and vans like the Ford F250, and continues on up to trucks weighing up to 26,000 lbs. Heavy trucks weigh more.)

The National Academies of Science and Engineering published a report last Spring that describes technologies and policy changes that could be used to increase fuel economy. The technologies include using tires with lower rolling resistance, improving aerodynamics, and using improved engine and transmission technologies. Policy changes include tax incentives to purchase new fuel efficient models, higher fuel taxes, cap and trade requirements for carbon emissions, and training for drivers to show them fuel saving techniques.

The report also says that conventional measures of mpg for cars should not be used for medium and heavy trucks. Some sort of fuel economy per ton carried per mile driven calculation needs to be developed.

Among the report's findings is the observation that a direct injected turbocharged gasoline engine can produce similar power and torque to a conventional diesel engine, at about half the cost of the diesel ($4K vs $8K). That tells me that manufacturers could employ the gas engine and add other fuel saving technologies to the vehicle without increasing overall cost.

Here's the link to the Pickuptrucks.com article, which I see as too sensationalist to be considered journalism
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/0...rease-nearly-15000-to-meet-mpg-standards.html

and here's the National Academies press release announcing the completion of the study
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12845

The study itself is more than 400 pages, and is available for purchase for $45 here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845

 

[jeepdreamer]

Dreaming...

And imagine if all were diesels, Bio diesel was made to work year round w/no issues, and people quit being in such a hurry and slowed to 45-55mph!:Wow1:

 

[strider3700]

Among the report's findings is the observation that a direct injected turbocharged gasoline engine can produce similar power and torque to a conventional diesel engine, at about half the cost of the diesel ($4K vs $8K). That tells me that manufacturers could employ the gas engine and add other fuel saving technologies to the vehicle without increasing overall cost.

although getting the peak numbers to match is pretty easy and inexpensive to do getting a turbo gas engine to drive/feel remotely similar to a NA gas engine of equal power is very very hard. I'd hate towing a trailer if I needed to keep the boost up just to get down the road. The first time you lift and bog it down you'll be swearing about how it's the last turbo you'll ever buy.

 

[Pskhaat]

And imagine if all were diesels, Bio diesel was made to work year round w/no issues, and people quit being in such a hurry and slowed to 45-55mph!:Wow1:

And we would be burning our food supply and our GDP would suffer as all that time at 60% of our current commute speed equals lots of lost $, or rather that time would eat into our personal and family time, shifting again the societal norm of what we do in order to maintain some time away from work.

 

[Pskhaat]

The report also says that conventional measures of mpg for cars should not be used for medium and heavy trucks. Some sort of fuel economy per ton carried per mile driven calculation needs to be developed.

Will this metric be of GVWR or load capacity, just a thorn that could adjust final #s.

...the observation that a direct injected turbocharged gasoline engine can produce similar power and torque to a conventional diesel engine, at about half the cost of the diesel ($4K vs $8K).

Sure gas engines could always be made to match the final torque of the diesel, but the generally inherent over-stroked diesel design that lends itself to the torque RISE will not be there in an over-bored gasoline engine.

I drove 26k lbs of straight truck + a trailered Troopy respectfully with a hair over 200hp International diesel, I guarantee my 212hp 1FZ-FE Toyota engine would die up the first on-ramp. It ain't the absolute #s here, it is the shape of the torque that is important.

 

[jeepdreamer]

And we would be burning our food supply

Not really. There are ways to develop BIO using non food related sources. Alge that grows from solar tubes being one example. Hmm...free electricity AND free fuel...:wings: Free being subjective of course.

and our GDP would suffer as all that time at 60% of our current commute speed equals lots of lost $, or rather that time would eat into our personal and family time, shifting again the societal norm of what we do in order to maintain some time away from work.

Well, at the rate we are going we all won't have to worry about having jobs! There are many alternatives we have just somehow chosen to be led to believe a daily commute is "required". One would have to get very serious about change before that could be reversed but it is doable. Personally I would love for folks to stop and spend a great deal more family time. Their kids would benefit from having the folks around, couples would build stronger relationships...and perhaps there would be less divorce and less drain on the welfare system.?
I am trying to avoid going all political here. Who am I to preach? Nobody really..just an Average American that loves his country and has hopes that we can make some hard decisions that will honestly and truly return us to the greatness we once held. No fluff or BS or agenda pushing to line pockets or boost careers. Just good old fashioned American work ethic and success.

 

[cwsqbm]

I drove 26k lbs of straight truck + a trailered Troopy respectfully with a hair over 200hp International diesel, I guarantee my 212hp 1FZ-FE Toyota engine would die up the first on-ramp. It ain't the absolute #s here, it is the shape of the torque that is important.

Its not about the shape of the torque curve (modern gas engines do pretty well with flat torque curves), but the ability to deliver maximum power for long durations efficiently. That Toyota motor would pull just as hard as the big diesel, if geared for it. It just wouldn't last long running at full throttle near redline all the time.

And there's the issue of efficiency.

 

[Pskhaat]

Its not about the shape of the torque curve (modern gas engines do pretty well with flat torque curves),

But why would a truck want a flat curve? For heavy trucks and non-racing off-hwy, you do NOT want a flat curve, you want a good fall-off of torque that should be in your driving RPM range.

but the ability to deliver maximum power for long durations efficiently.

Sure, but engines aren't necessarily the most efficient at maximum power, rather maximum power usually arrives right before damage starts occurring.

That Toyota motor would pull just as hard as the big diesel, if geared for it.

I've never been sold however on HP #s. Said diesel engine spun 600lb-ft of torque at 1800RPMs & ~11mpg, not at max HP.

 

[haven]

"...if I needed to keep the boost up just to get down the road."

You're thinking of 1990s turbocharging, where the boost didn't build until high revs. Today, gas engines can be tuned to produce peak torque down low in the rev range, just like a diesel.

Case in point: Ricardo, the British automotive engineering firm, has been developing a 3.2L gas V6 that can substitute for a GM 6.6L Duramax diesel. Their V6 produces about 600 ft lbs of torque. They recorded a high of 850 ft lbs at 1600 rpm, but found that fuel consumption was a bit too high at this level of performance.

Ricardo calls their technology Ethanol Boost Direct Injection, or EBDI. The engines can be tuned to produce maximum power when running on a blend of ethanol and gas because ethanol resists detonation better than straight gas does. This means the engine can be built with higher compression heads. The EBDI engine can also run on regular unleaded.

Here's an article that talks about the EBDI engine
http://www.automotivedesign.eu.com/article/23278/Ricardo-begins-EBDI-V6-road-test-program.aspx

Here's the Ricardo web page about the project
http://www.ricardo.com/en-gb/Engine...-engines/Alternative-and-Flexible-Fuels/EBDI/

 

[Redline]

As a long-time heavy-duty diesel pickup fan (Ford fan too) I'm encouraged by what Ford is doing with their eco-boost engines. At least it looks good on paper.

With Ford's new 6.7L they may have overcome most of the emissions compromises in this post-2007-2010 diesel world as it relates to performance and economy. I'm still a diesel guy at heart, but there is something to be said for the relative simplicity and ease of burning gasoline.

 

[haven]

Pickuptrucks.com does us all a great service by testing diesel trucks in the real world, instead of simply repeating the puffery provided by the truck manufacturers.

Case in point: A test of the 2011 GMC Sierra 3500 HD vs 2011 Ford F450 SD, dragging 10,000 lb trailers up the 7% grade on I-70 to Colorado's Eisenhower Tunnel.

Result: The Sierra could pull at an average 66 mph, the F450 only 51 mph.

This result is a surprise to me, since the Ford 6.7L Powerstroke diesel has its peak torque available across a broader rpm range, and has more horsepower than the Sierra's Duramax 6.6L diesel has.

This points out that it's the total drivetrain package, not just the engine, that matters. The GMC's choices for transmission and rear end ratios made the difference.

The F450 may be superior to the GMC in other situations. In this particular test, towing a moderate load at highway speeds and high altitude, the GMC was clearly the better choice.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/0...li-3500hd-and-2011-ford-f-450-king-ranch.html

 

[Pskhaat]

This result is a surprise to me, since the Ford 6.7L Powerstroke diesel has its peak torque available across a broader rpm range, and has more horsepower than the Sierra's Duramax 6.6L diesel has.

Interesting flat curves. The comments on the site point to some final gear ratios and that a lower diff gear would have benefited the Ford. I don't know if I agree.