You choose - loaded gas or basic diesel?
If you had to buy a SD/HD truck today, what would you choose... a loaded, leather gas model or a diesel with cloth and just a few basic gadgets? Assume similar price, which is what I am finding.
Forum Discussion
otrfun wrote:
OhhWell wrote:
I get your technical point; however, I believe you missed my point.otrfun wrote:
Who in the heck says that? Torque is a measure of force and horsepower is a measure of WORK.
As they say, torque does the real work, not horsepower.
You can multiply torque through gearing. You can't increase your horsepower through anything besides upgrading the powerplant.
Definition of horsepower
It's just a case of semantics. Notice my use of the word "real" work. I'm talking about work as defined by the average person:
"activity involving physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result"
If someone needs to haul or tow a lot, and wants to "achieve a purpose or result", which engine would be the better choice?
1. An engine with 400 HP and 200 ft. lbs. of torque.
2. An engine with 200 HP and 400 ft. lbs. of torque.
I think most would choose engine #2. Why? Because in the above scenario an abundance of torque allows them to "work" at "achieving a purpose or result" much easier than an abundance of horsepower.
I would pick engine 1 any day of the week. I might actually have to climb a hill at some point. I'm assuming that in this scenario, the same exact transmission isn't forced on both engines?- The first one will be the better choice, one hundred percent of the time.
OhhWell wrote:
I get your technical point; however, I believe you missed my point.otrfun wrote:
Who in the heck says that? Torque is a measure of force and horsepower is a measure of WORK.
As they say, torque does the real work, not horsepower.
You can multiply torque through gearing. You can't increase your horsepower through anything besides upgrading the powerplant.
Definition of horsepower
It's just a case of semantics. Notice my use of the word "real" work. I'm talking about work as defined by the average person:
"activity involving physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result"
If someone needs to haul or tow a lot, and wants to "achieve a purpose or result", which engine would be the better choice?
1. An engine with 400 HP and 200 ft. lbs. of torque.
2. An engine with 200 HP and 400 ft. lbs. of torque.
I think most would choose engine #2. Why? Because in the above scenario an abundance of torque allows them to "work" at "achieving a purpose or result" much easier than an abundance of horsepower.otrfun wrote:
As they say, torque does the real work, not horsepower.
Who in the heck says that? Torque is a measure of force and horsepower is a measure of WORK.
You can multiply torque through gearing. You can't increase your horsepower through anything besides upgrading the powerplant.
Definition of horsepowerotrfun wrote:
Buck50HD wrote:
True.
It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)
Don't get me wrong, the 6.2 is a very capable engine and will definitely get the job done. Just sayin', the 6.2 is gonna have to pull significantly higher RPM's than the Ecoboost for the same amount of torque--it will be a different towing experience.
Yes, for sure it will be different. But, it's nothing foreign to me. I used to pull a 7000lb TT with a 4 spd GM 5.3. Flat cruising was 2700RPM and even slight hills were at 4k in 2nd gear! This setup will be much better. I still have a little better power than the eco to compensate for the heavier vehicle. We may make one trip every few years out west to high elevation so I'm not too concerned about the loss of boost there.mtofell1 wrote:
jasult wrote:
yep, any one who keeps their truck for long haul will buy a diesel.
This has been the standard diesel mantra for the last 10+ years and I have to call BS. Not on you, jasult, by any means... just the theory that gets thrown around. Yes, the engine (and maybe a good tranny) will last 250K or more but there are A LOT of other components in modern day trucks that don't last anywhere near that long and are REALLY expensive.
Turbos, injectors, head gaskets to name some of the more expensive ones. Then there are just the normal truck things that aren't going to last anywhere near as long as the engine - hubs, suspension parts, interior finishes, dash lights, power windows, exhaust systems, starters, alternators, water pumps.
I am not worried about keeping my truck until I am 70 years old, but I just pulled the trigger on a new Ram 3500 diesel, srw, short bed, crew cab. I am 75 years old.
Realistically, if people want a diesel, buy it for the towing performance. Don't get sucked into thinking you'll keep it until you're 70 years old. Unless you're a mechanic or want to become one.- How big/heavy is the trailer/5th wheel we are talking about? I prefer diesel. There is a lot of mark up for trim levels.
Buck50HD wrote:
True.
It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)
Don't get me wrong, the 6.2 is a very capable engine and will definitely get the job done. Just sayin', the 6.2 is gonna have to pull significantly higher RPM's than the Ecoboost for the same amount of torque--it will be a different towing experience.- It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)
Buck50HD wrote:
As they say, torque does the real work, not horsepower. If you compare the Ecoboost and F250 6.2 torque curves you'll see some very dramatic differences. In a nutshell, the Ecoboost delivers 420 ft. lbs. of maximum torque at a very low, diesel-like, 2500 RPM--the 6.2 develops 405 ft. lbs. of maximum torque at a much, much higher 4500 RPM. You're definitely gonna notice the difference in torque curves the first time you tow with the F250.
Just ran some numbers to see how much of a difference it would be, eco vs 6.2, for power in each gear. It just so happens that the engine speed is almost identical between the two trucks for all gears. Here is the power deficit of the 6.2 in each gear compared to the eco (approximate numbers from eyeballing Ford power curves). This assumes a speed of 62MPH.
6: -10HP
5: -20HP
4: -40HP
3: -25HP
2: +25HP (peak vs peak, which is debatable because most eco's make 380+ vs the advertised 365HP)
You can see the biggest difference is in 4th, which is where the eco first reaches peak torque of 420 ft-lb.
I was also interested in how the 6.2 compared to the eco if it ran 1 gear lower.
5: +30HP but +400RPM (6.2 in 5th vs eco in 6th)
4: +20HP but +700RPM
3: +30HP but +900RPM
2: +95HP but +1950RPM
So, on average, the eco has about a 1/2 gear advantage on the 6.2 and anywhere from 200-450RPM advantage.
Finally, considering I rarely needed more power than 4th gear at 2800RPM with the eco, the 6.2 in 3rd gear at 3700RPM makes 30HP more. So, I shouldn't need any more than that during our typical trips, even with the 1000lb heavier vehicle.
Haven't hooked up to anything yet but the 6.2 sure sounds awesome! That's one thing I did miss when I had the eco. Can't wait to hook up. Only problem so far is that it's too tall for the garage door opening:S
