Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

JPhelps wrote:

Hey T&P. Remember that one person telling us that HP is just a calculation and doesn't really exist like TQ does? Lol

LOL, that guy was right. Look up the definition.
You will notice that 'torque' is the measure of 'work'. Work requires a force. That force is torque. All horsepower adds to the equation is time, so horsepower is just the ticking of the clock.

This guy quoted below works with horsepower all the time for his livelihood and this is what he has to say about it.

What This Means
As we proved above, horsepower is simply an extrapolation of torque applied over time. When an engine is measured for its power potential on a dynamometer, horsepower and torque are not measured as separate entities. Rather, torque is measured, and horsepower is then calculated given the torque at the specific RPM level.
Car owners often use “horsepower” as the end-all be-all rating for engine performance. This perspective is flawed. First of all, when you hear of a car having X horsepower, it only refers to the peak horsepower on the dyno graph. Secondly, it doesn’t indicate what the shape of the torque curve is. You can feel the torque that an engine generates as you’re pushed back into your seat.

http://www.roushperformance.com/blog/2010/12/the-meaning-of-horsepower-and-torque/

Bye,,,,, again.

But if you are talking about a chassis dynamometer (that is what you will find in the field)
They measure horsepower and the torque has to be calculated.

Also torque is not a measurement of work. Torque is only a force measurement. You can have a 1000 ft lbs of torque with no work being done.

But if you have 300 hp work is being done.

When you are being pushed back in you seat that is horsepower.

Hey T&P. Remember that one person telling us that HP is just a calculation and doesn't really exist like TQ does? Lol

LOL, that guy was right. Look up the definition.
You will notice that 'torque' is the measure of 'work'. Work requires a force. That force is torque. All horsepower adds to the equation is time, so horsepower is just the ticking of the clock.

This guy quoted below works with horsepower all the time for his livelihood and this is what he has to say about it.

What This Means
As we proved above, horsepower is simply an extrapolation of torque applied over time. When an engine is measured for its power potential on a dynamometer, horsepower and torque are not measured as separate entities. Rather, torque is measured, and horsepower is then calculated given the torque at the specific RPM level.
Car owners often use “horsepower” as the end-all be-all rating for engine performance. This perspective is flawed. First of all, when you hear of a car having X horsepower, it only refers to the peak horsepower on the dyno graph. Secondly, it doesn’t indicate what the shape of the torque curve is. You can feel the torque that an engine generates as you’re pushed back into your seat.

http://www.roushperformance.com/blog/2010/12/the-meaning-of-horsepower-and-torque/

Bye,,,,, again.

FishOnOne wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:


Here's your sign.... anytime you want to see work get done, with heavy loads... ships, freighliners, trains, whatever, where there is heavy weight involved, invariably, the drive plant chosen is a turbo diesel. End of subject matter. It's never a race, when work needs to be done, it's what kind of power your motor makes under the peak curve that matters, and how far away you can stay from being at the peak curve while doing the required work, leaving a margin of safety for the longevity of the motor.

Actually, in many of your examples, the drive plant chosen is actually electric. Trains for example, electric motors, that might be powered by diesel gen sets. Cruise ships are powered in the same manor.

It's also worth mentioning that nearly everywhere, engines are rated by hp. Certainly in the oil field engine skids are never measured by the torque output, always hp. Same goes for those motors on the cruise ships.

Too funny... I've read sooo many responses with errors from Niner

Actually, he makes a good point. You don't want to be operating at peak power all the time. How often do we call for rated power from our engines? Low and mid range power is very important in normal operation. I would rather have 20 more hp at 2000 RPM than 30 more at 5000. That is a diesel's forte. Turbo gassers do pretty well in that respect as well but not as efficiently.

Fordlover wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:


Here's your sign.... anytime you want to see work get done, with heavy loads... ships, freighliners, trains, whatever, where there is heavy weight involved, invariably, the drive plant chosen is a turbo diesel. End of subject matter. It's never a race, when work needs to be done, it's what kind of power your motor makes under the peak curve that matters, and how far away you can stay from being at the peak curve while doing the required work, leaving a margin of safety for the longevity of the motor.

Actually, in many of your examples, the drive plant chosen is actually electric. Trains for example, electric motors, that might be powered by diesel gen sets. Cruise ships are powered in the same manor.

It's also worth mentioning that nearly everywhere, engines are rated by hp. Certainly in the oil field engine skids are never measured by the torque output, always hp. Same goes for those motors on the cruise ships.

Too funny... I've read sooo many responses with errors from Niner

NinerBikes wrote:


Here's your sign.... anytime you want to see work get done, with heavy loads... ships, freighliners, trains, whatever, where there is heavy weight involved, invariably, the drive plant chosen is a turbo diesel. End of subject matter. It's never a race, when work needs to be done, it's what kind of power your motor makes under the peak curve that matters, and how far away you can stay from being at the peak curve while doing the required work, leaving a margin of safety for the longevity of the motor.

Actually, in many of your examples, the drive plant chosen is actually electric. Trains for example, electric motors, that might be powered by diesel gen sets. Cruise ships are powered in the same manor.

It's also worth mentioning that nearly everywhere, engines are rated by hp. Certainly in the oil field engine skids are never measured by the torque output, always hp. Same goes for those motors on the cruise ships.

Well said Spoon!

Don

Wow...

The Ecodiesel looks like a great truck for the people that tow light and want better gas mileage both towing and non towing.

The Ecoboost has a couple years history of being a great truck for people that tow heavier weights than the Ecodiesel, but without significantly better towing mileage. Non towing mileage is potentially better than traditional engines.

Both sound like great trucks for people with different needs. It is absurd that people are diehard brand loyal that they feel they have to put down the other manufacturer to feel better about themselves and "their trucks". If you don't like the Ecodiesel, don't buy one. If you don't like the Ecoboost, don't buy one.

Why do some people feel the need to denigrate the competition? For those that hate the Ecoboost, do you realize that without the competition from the Ecoboost, the Ecodiesel may never have been made? For those that hate the Ecodiesel, just wait to see what other manufacturers have to do to compete with it. Competition is a GOOD THING for truck buyers. It forces the other guys to make a better product for a better price.

This is something I never thought I would say 5 years ago.
" I sure like the clean looking exhaust of my Ecodiesel".
" I sure hate the dirty looking exhaust of my Ecoboost".

Here's the car for hybridhunter.

The World's Best Car

Hybridhunter wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:
Yawn. The Ford has 85 horsepower more than the Ram. Of course the Ford will win.

Yep, 35% more HP for the EB.

But less torque and fewer gears and 10% less torque.
HP beats torque, even with a lesser gearbox. And it was not even close!

APT wrote:
No surprises from me. If you arbitrarily limit engine speed to 3000rpm the Ram diesel would be quicker and use less fuel. That's how many truck owners drive. But WOT that 2.7L looks like a great combo. I can't wait to see EPA ratings and real world owners!

If you arbitrarily cap frivolous engine option spending at $2K, you wouldn't be able to buy one.

larry barnhart wrote:
I think there is a different driving style for different drivers so different vehicles seems to be a good thing. Some like to race and some like to enjoy the drive.

chevman

You like to smell the roses when you pass? You don't like having power in reserve when climbing? You'd rather run the ED at 100%, when you could instead run the 2.7 at 80%?

News flash, the ED makes 240hp at 3600rpm, the 2.7 makes almost the exact same at that rpm, slightly more actually. So racing or not, when climbing a hill, real world conditions, you will be working the ED 100% not so with the 2.7L

Newsflash, I'm never ever near that 240HP peak figure while towing. Another Newsflash, I drive the speed limit, I'm not racing to the top of anything. Your arguement is based solely on peak numbers. Only an idiot runs their motor while trailering at peak numbers. I'm lucky if I do use peak torque, at around 1700-2400 rpms, but I'll never run a diesel anywhere near peak horsepower.

Here's your sign.... anytime you want to see work get done, with heavy loads... ships, freighliners, trains, whatever, where there is heavy weight involved, invariably, the drive plant chosen is a turbo diesel. End of subject matter. It's never a race, when work needs to be done, it's what kind of power your motor makes under the peak curve that matters, and how far away you can stay from being at the peak curve while doing the required work, leaving a margin of safety for the longevity of the motor.