Ram 1500 with 3.0 diesel

VernDiesel wrote:
Semantics? I mean you are right about the turbo but as you say diesel lends itself to turbos or boost compression more so than gasoline. DI isn't going to go very far to bridge that gap. My 1987 computer controlled sequential port fuel injected and intercooled Buick grand national can normally (atmospherically)only take 17 to 18 psi of boost before risk of detonation or pre-ignition. And that is at 94 octane. When I did a Xylene mix which brought it up to 100 octane it was safe to 22psi. With race gas 24 to 26psi and the turbo itself became the limiting factor. Diesel does not have that problem.

Look I've raced and built a few engines but am no guru of fuel types or engine building. Anyway I don't see a turbo gas producing more than a turbo diesel at least not on pump gas. And assuming you make enough power then it becomes more about fuel consumption and possibly longevity Naturally I have been wrong before and I am always open to learn but I really think we are hi jacking the OP's thread. He wanted to know about the EcoDiesel as a potential TV for him.

Oh and the ED driver who flew up the grade dragging a trailer then slowed at the top probably overtaxed his cooling system and the computer pulled his fuel to protect the engine from an overheat situation. So it probably wasn't a power situation that you were seeing so much as a driver overloading his trucks cooling abilities. Great truck inside its reasonable for a half ton capabilities.

Take a look at the torque and HP of the 6.2 liter Hellcat. With the addition of turbos I think Hennessey has that engine making just a tick under 1000 lb ft of torque and over 1000 HP. It is making those numbers with only about 15 lbs of boost and no direct injection. There currently is not a high pressure gasoline fuel pump that pumps the necessary fuel for 700 HP. The stock Hellcat makes about 650 lbft of torque and 707 HP on 11.6 psi boost....again without direct injection. I think the Challenger is rated at something like 26 mpg with the Hellcat engine. Gasoline has tremendous potential for making torque.

These guys did not overheat, they flat ran out of HP at WOT for minutes at a time.

I know the feeling. I towed, and still tow with a 200 HP (now around 225 HP) turbo diesel. I have also towed the same grade with 200 HP truck a few times. I was down to less than 30 MPH though.

As far as the fuel thing goes:

Nitromethane has around 5000 BTU's/LB

Methanol has around 9,500 BTU's/LB

Gasoline has around 18,500 BTU's/LB


Engine size for engine size, boost for boost you can make more power as the BTU's go down for the fuels above.

Semantics? I mean you are right about the turbo but as you say diesel lends itself to turbos or boost compression more so than gasoline. DI isn't going to go very far to bridge that gap. My 1987 computer controlled sequential port fuel injected and intercooled Buick grand national can normally (atmospherically)only take 17 to 18 psi of boost before risk of detonation or pre-ignition. And that is at 94 octane. When I did a Xylene mix which brought it up to 100 octane it was safe to 22psi. With race gas 24 to 26psi and the turbo itself became the limiting factor. Diesel does not have that problem.

Look I've raced and built a few engines but am no guru of fuel types or engine building. Anyway I don't see a turbo gas producing more than a turbo diesel at least not on pump gas. And assuming you make enough power then it becomes more about fuel consumption and possibly longevity Naturally I have been wrong before and I am always open to learn but I really think we are hi jacking the OP's thread. He wanted to know about the EcoDiesel as a potential TV for him.

Oh and the ED driver who flew up the grade dragging a trailer then slowed at the top probably overtaxed his cooling system and the computer pulled his fuel to protect the engine from an overheat situation. So it probably wasn't a power situation that you were seeing so much as a driver overloading his trucks cooling abilities. Great truck inside its reasonable for a half ton capabilities.

Ford obviously believes diesel is the preferred fuel choice for heavy duty pickups or they would have put their money into developing a heavy duty eccoboost rather than the 6.7 Powerstroke.

hvac wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
While comparisons are being made between diesel and gasoline I think people might find the following facts interesting:
Diesel contains more BTUs per unit of volume than does gasoline, but, gasoline contains more BTUs per unit of weight than diesel does.

Because gasoline requires less air to burn than diesel does, gasoline engines produce more torque than do similar displacement naturally aspirated diesels do. It is the turbo that is responsible for the high torque value of the modern diesel engine not the fuel type....diesel engines lend themselves to turbos more so than gasoline engines. The direct injection (such as the eccoboost) engines are begining to change that. So potentially a 6.7 turbo gasoline engine could produce more torque and much more power than a 6.7 turbo diesel.

But fuel economy will be horrible. Fully loaded EB vs ED. No comparison. Small turbo gassers are worse than normally aspirated big block gassers when stressed.

Diesel contains about 11-15% more energy per gallon than gasoline so it does have an advantage from a fuel economy perspective, however the after treatment required to "clean" the diesel exhaust steals a significant portion of that advantage. Direct injection should allow for higher compression ratio gasoline engines and the removal of a throttle body restricting air intake. These two features alone should bring about more fuel efficiency from the gasoline engines.

I know we're off topic, but it is interesting conversation none the less.

I've had exactly the opposite experience as Stang when towing next to ED trucks. Just about a month ago on the rolling hills of I90 in Montana, I had my cruise set at 62mph and was cruising along in 5th gear with cruise control on and no downshifting. Mind you...the truck was wound like a top at 1900rpm! An ED blew my doors off on a long uphill. He must have been going 75 or so. The uphill lasted about a half mile. Just before the top, I passed him without any change in my "loping" condition. On the next downhill, he blew past me again. This happened for about 10-15 miles.

This led me to believe that he was interested in going that fast, but couldn't maintain it on those hills. I, on the other hand, could have easily climbed to any speed I wanted on the same hills.

All the x's and o's and arguing what if's..... I'll stick with what I have.

BTW, I'm averaging 10.8 mpg with 20k miles of towing. I consider that a fair deal for the power on tap.

PS: Seeing hundreds of other people towing on this trip, I can't believe how most people tow. I saw many, many less capable rigs that must run with their foot on the floor. Seems many folks don't mind abusing their equipment.

4x4ord wrote:
While comparisons are being made between diesel and gasoline I think people might find the following facts interesting:
Diesel contains more BTUs per unit of volume than does gasoline, but, gasoline contains more BTUs per unit of weight than diesel does.

Because gasoline requires less air to burn than diesel does, gasoline engines produce more torque than do similar displacement naturally aspirated diesels do. It is the turbo that is responsible for the high torque value of the modern diesel engine not the fuel type....diesel engines lend themselves to turbos more so than gasoline engines. The direct injection (such as the eccoboost) engines are begining to change that. So potentially a 6.7 turbo gasoline engine could produce more torque and much more power than a 6.7 turbo diesel.

But fuel economy will be horrible. Fully loaded EB vs ED. No comparison. Small turbo gassers are worse than normally aspirated big block gassers when stressed.

While comparisons are being made between diesel and gasoline I think people might find the following facts interesting:
Diesel contains more BTUs per unit of volume than does gasoline, but, gasoline contains more BTUs per unit of weight than diesel does.

Because gasoline requires less air to burn than diesel does, gasoline engines produce more torque than do similar displacement naturally aspirated diesels do. It is the turbo that is responsible for the high torque value of the modern diesel engine not the fuel type....diesel engines lend themselves to turbos more so than gasoline engines. The direct injection (such as the eccoboost) engines are begining to change that. So potentially a 6.7 turbo gasoline engine could produce more torque and much more power than a 6.7 turbo diesel.

Ok I guess my experience of older carberated gassers in the mountains and more modern fuel injected diesels left a void. I swear I have also read what I repeated but honestly I don't have anything other than those experiences to back it up. So I guess I stand corrected. Well fwiw my FI turbo charged & intercooled Buick Grand National was more sensitive to altitude than my diesel also.

I don't know why BTUs come to my head but more of this type of power detonation resistance not sure what the proper term is in diesel than in regular pump gasoline. They just always produce the same or more torque on less fuel.

As far as the EcoD I've had great luck with mine. Runs great tows well to the limits of the 1/2 ton platform. Responsive great on fuel quiet and smooth. The 8 speed is fantastic. Great gear spacing economy and keeping you in the powerband smooth and quick shifting. Basically only maintenance so far a light switch, wheel stud, tail light bulb, wiper blades and tires plus an alignment at 196k.

VernDiesel wrote:
KRSmitty You did not say what your towing needs are. Whats better a claw hammer or a sledge hammer.. depends on what you need to hammer.

But you did ask about the EcoD and since I bought mine new and have put over 200k on it I might be able to answer your questions. I use mine commercially to deliver Airstream TTs from the manufacturer in Ohio to dealerships through out the country especially over the western grades so I have a lot of towing and hauling experience with this truck.


I do have some other thoughts on other things I read in this thread. Turbos do help a bit with altitude but by far the greater difference is in fuel type. Diesel is largely unaffected to altitude in comparison to gas.

On the relationship between horsepower and torque. I find this concise and useful in understanding or comparing so to speak. It may not be all inclusive but it helps get a handle on what many people struggle with.

"Torque is how much work an engine will do at a given rpm. Horsepower is how fast it will do that work at that rpm."

Both are important and have their value but you start to see the relationship more clearly. Gearing being the same, the engine with the most torque will tow the heaviest load up a grade.

So simplistically if gearing were equal both the 420TQ ED and the 420TQ EB should move the same load up a grade. But the EB having superior HP (at whatever its 420 TQ is reached at) will move the weight or load up the grade quicker or with better wheel speed assuming the same gearing or more accurately final drive ratio.

That said I will pick the diesel to move the load up the grade as it will do it with significantly less fuel and runs no risk of altitude coming into play. Also generally speaking a diesel will last much longer doing that type of work. BTW my understanding is that the main reason for the less fuel consumption is that their is only 85% of the BTU or power in gasoline of that which is in diesel.

#1. Fuel has nothing to do with how an engine performs at altitude. At least with gasoline and diesel.

#2. The BTU's of a fuel has nothing to do with power it will produce. In fact; for every single fuel I can think of it's inversely proportional.