The TFL guys bought a 7.3L

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:


How about I put it this way. I tow a 9500# TT. For my lifestyle I don't need a diesel anymore. My truck sits for weeks at a time. I would like about 50 more HP and 75 lbs more of TQ. That would be about perfect for my camping style. What I don't need to do is spend $10,495 for a diesel that's overkill for my situation.
I think you're missing the point of gas owners. Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that most just want a decent amount of an HP/TQ increase and don't need the massive power output of a diesel at the cost of the option when it's not something thats being used enough to validate.

Why do one have to "need" the power of a diesel in their justification for it, but would turn around and buy a more powerful and expensive gas engine even though the base gas engine will do just fine? You don't need a 7.3L or an addition 50 hp or 754 lb-ft to pull a 9,500 lb trailer. Heck, you don't even need an SD to do that. But I bet you want it just like you want more power. No need to justify things by saying you don't need it if you end up buying something you don't need in the first place. You don't need a 9,500 lb RV, but I bet you spent more than what a diesel upgrade costs because you wanted one.

I just don't get why needs and recouping your money always comes up when talking about a diesel engine upgrade, but never does when talking about a gas engine upgrade.

How do you know what I need or don't need?

So a half ton F150 will not pull your 9,500 trailer? If not, wouldn't a 6.2L SD? If so, then you don't need the power of a 7.3L. However, you would spend the money to get one because you want one just like most diesel engine owners do.

Seriously you are going to drive yourself insane. You are seeking an answer that fits neatly in a Venn diagram. A primary tennent of economics is that of the rational consumer.

"A consumer is rational if he decides for the option that maximizes his/her utility."

You have your hook into this theory that choosing gas over diesel or vise versa somehow is primarily derived from this magical ability to perform a "single" specific task. And deviating from this option in your purchasing decision for someone else makes little sense. For every normative argument you make I or anyone else can make an opposite or different argument and neither would be incorrect because it reflects "their" rational decision.