Gas engine and Diesel of same specs.Pull the same.

Jarlaxle wrote:

john&bet wrote:

DSteiner51 wrote:
There is no replacement for displacement is what I've seen posted here numerous times. It will be interesting to see if they'll have any comments on this.

Yip, part of the simular size Cummins would be L's, so maybe he needs an 8.3L Cummins to compare to. But wait they don't put it in a pickup.

Actually, most Cummins 8.3's have LESS power than the 5.9 Rams. Many of them are <300HP.

Yip, I know that. Just speaking to Liter size. Part of the spec. he was talking about. :)

john&bet wrote:

DSteiner51 wrote:
There is no replacement for displacement is what I've seen posted here numerous times. It will be interesting to see if they'll have any comments on this.

Yip, part of the simular size Cummins would be L's, so maybe he needs an 8.3L Cummins to compare to. But wait they don't put it in a pickup.

Actually, most Cummins 8.3's have LESS power than the 5.9 Rams. Many of them are <300HP.

Engineer9860 wrote:
Additionally, the 8.1L has a ton of asphalt ripping potential locked away in it by GM under the guise of torque management, something that never seemed to be hidden in the 454/7.4.

I'll say! 550 hp and 690 lb-ft ?!?

wikipedia wrote:
Power output ranges from 340 hp (254 kW) to 550 hp (410 kW) and torque from 455 lb·ft (617 N·m) to 690 lb·ft (936 N·m).

Guys, comparing the 454 to the subject of this thread is not fair to the 454.

Even though the 454/7.4L and the 8.1L are built from the same foundation, they are no where comparable in performance. If you have ever driven a 7.4, and an 8.1, the difference will be very noticeable immediately.

Additionally, the 8.1L has a ton of asphalt ripping potential locked away in it by GM under the guise of torque management, something that never seemed to be hidden in the 454/7.4.

I know in 1996 the 454 Went Vortec, so multiport EFI.
Before that they were TBI. I had an 89 and while it was reliable and got the job done. My newer 6.0 gasser tows much better than the old TBI 454 I had.
Having said that my BIL has a 1998 5 speed CTD and towing his trailer with my truck feels similar but it has to REV and burn the fuel to keep up with it.

His truck is 215 HP and 440 FT/lbs of torque.
My truck is 300 HP and 345 ft/lbs of torque.
That torque makes all the difference.

I like the diesel better but I couldn't justify the extra cost at initial purchase as I don't drive it daily. Mine is an 02 with 32,500 miles on it.

I've driven several 454s from the first Chevelles to mid 90s suburbans. The older ones ran good but the 90s were slugs. My campus 8.1 has 47k hard neglected miles but I think it would embarress the best stock 454 I've driven. Craig

I think an 8.1 would beat an older stock CTD in nearly every way and maybe even towing up a mtn. Craig

I know that to be true, since my older 1st generation Ford V10 will too. Loaded to 16,500 combined with my '98 class C motorhome I followed a friend with a 1996 2500 Dodge Cummins towing a travel trailer at about 14,000 combined. Going up hills I could pass him easily any time I wanted. Of course, he got much better mileage.

Back when I owned a 96 Chevy K3500 with the Vortec 7.4 automatic with 4.10's, I would occasionally help my BIL tow his hay trailer which weighed 15k +. Towing this weight, the Chevy would not pull overdrive on the flats. Compared to his 97 Ford F350 PSD 5 speed manual with 3.55 gears, which would easily pull overdrive on the same route, it was obvious the low end power of the diesel was a better puller. Now if I wanted to let the 7.4 rev a bit, it would outpull the PSD on the hills (4000 rpms), but the fuel mileage was really the biggest difference. The 7.4 would get 6 to 7 mpg, whereas the PSD was getting 11 to 12 mpg.

I would also pull an approximate 7k travel trailer with the Chevy across Nevada on I-80. The Chevy had to run hard to pull 3rd (direct) with this trailer on the hills, sometimes dropping into 2nd to maintain speed. Again fuel mileage was around 8 to 9 mpg on this drive. I later bought a 2002 Dodge CTD 6 speed manual with 3.55 gears. On this same trip with the travel trailer, the Cummins would pull some of the hills in 6th, with a drop into 5th(direct)and run right up the hills with out further down shifts. Fuel mileage was 12 to 13 with this combo.

Now I know that comparing the 7.4 isn't the same as the 8.1, but it doesn't have that much more power than the 7.4, and where it does have more power is higher in the rpm band. Empty with the 7.4 I'd get at best 13mpg, where the Cummins would get 18 to 20.

I'm not knocking the gas engines. I really liked the 7.4, especially when it was empty as it would really run. As with any gas engine, you just need to let them rev and they will pull. But get up in elevation with grades to pull, and have a head wind, the Diesel is hard to beat.

Rich

My campus service truck is an 8.1. It's a beast when it's not in the shop but that's another story. The older stock CTDs are detuned and lethargic but it doesn't take much to broaden the power band and up the hp/tq a bunch. I think an 8.1 would beat an older stock CTD in nearly every way and maybe even towing up a mtn. Craig

DSteiner51 wrote:
There is no replacement for displacement is what I've seen posted here numerous times. It will be interesting to see if they'll have any comments on this.

Yip, part of the simular size Cummins would be L's, so maybe he needs an 8.3L Cummins to compare to. But wait they don't put it in a pickup.