My have things changed

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Over 10 years ago when people posted their new truck HP figures people were coming back with posts like: "When is the HP madness going to stop." "This HP thing is out of of control, it's madness". "When are the manufactures going to think about fuel mileage?" We have enough HP, we don't need anymore." All of these comments were made at engine from 320 to 375 HP.

Fast forward to now. People are now talking cr@p about the SBC with 370, 380 HP! Talking about how old tech like push rod engines are like buggy whips, bla, bbla, bla...........

My have times have changed. Make up your mind people! :R

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

jaycocamprs wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

BenK wrote:
Gasoline has fewer BTU's per unit measure than diesel, so diesel will most always produce more power per gallon

Nope. Not the way it works Ben. Nitomethane is the most commonly used powerful motor fuel ever. Look up how many BTU's it has.

Yea but the nitro cars are burning close to 5 gallons of it, in a 1000 feet

Nope. Try 13 to 15 gallons/ run.

And that's my point. It has so little BTU's/gallon it take a lot of fuel to make a run.

[1320Fastback]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The top fuel dragsters he is talking about only go 1000 ft, not a quarter mile.

Never heard of such a thing. Since when?

Had to look it up as I did not know either but since July, 2008 after Scott Kalitta was killed.

[Cummins12V98]

ShinerBock wrote:
The top fuel dragsters he is talking about only go 1000 ft, not a quarter mile.

Never heard of such a thing. Since when?

[ShinerBock]

The top fuel dragsters he is talking about only go 1000 ft, not a quarter mile.

[Cummins12V98]

jaycocamprs wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

BenK wrote:
Gasoline has fewer BTU's per unit measure than diesel, so diesel will most always produce more power per gallon

Nope. Not the way it works Ben. Nitomethane is the most commonly used powerful motor fuel ever. Look up how many BTU's it has.

Yea but the nitro cars are burning close to 5 gallons of it, in a 1000 feet

1,320’

[jaycocamprs]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

BenK wrote:
Gasoline has fewer BTU's per unit measure than diesel, so diesel will most always produce more power per gallon

Nope. Not the way it works Ben. Nitomethane is the most commonly used powerful motor fuel ever. Look up how many BTU's it has.

Yea but the nitro cars are burning close to 5 gallons of it, in a 1000 feet

[ShinerBock]

valhalla360 wrote:


You are confusing the ability to generate more HP with fuel efficiency.


Sure a modern 3.0l turbo diesel can produce the power of a bigger NA diesel...but it uses pretty much the same fuel when both engines are producing identical power. As long as the engines are within normal operating ranges, power is largely a function of HP output.

As far as comparing to my brother-in-law, that was based on following him, so similar speeds and driving pattern. The trucks are within a couple hundred pounds. So no, being turbo doesn't automatically result in better efficiency.

And you are confusing how a gas engine operates with a diesel. Two different things. Gas engines have to stay within a certain air/fuel ratio(roughly 14.7:1 +/-3 parts air) meaning the more air you add, the more fuel you must add. Turbos do slightly improve a gas engine's thermal efficiency

Diesels can operate at a much wider air/fuel ratio from as low as 14.5:1 all the way up to 80:1 or even 100:1 depending on the engine. An N/A diesel does not have the ability to run that lean because it cannot suck enough air for the fuel being added as with any engine that operating at low rpms. Adding a turbo allows the engine to increase the amount of air to the same parts fuel making more power with the same amount of fuel. Turbos also increase a diesels thermal efficiency even more than a gas engine.

All three half ton 3.0L diesels don't just produce the same power as an old N/A HD diesel it exceeds it by at least 50 or hp and over 100 lb-ft all while using less fuel. Hell, even my 2.0 liter turbo diesel in my car makes more power and torque than the old Ford 6.9L and 7.3L N/A diesels.

I am not believing you on your brother in law story. So you are telling me that you two filled up and followed each other for a whole tank and refilled up again just to record each others mileage? And that a 2008(with emissions) truck weigh's within a couple hundred pounds of an old N/A engine truck? I am more surprised that you were actually were able to keep up with him in an old N/A diesel. I remember driving my grandfather's 185hp/338lb-ft 7.3L IDI, and it could even get out of its own way let alone keep up with a 350+hp/600+lb-ft 2008 turbo-diesel.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

BenK wrote:
Gasoline has fewer BTU's per unit measure than diesel, so diesel will most always produce more power per gallon

Nope. Not the way it works Ben. Nitomethane is the most commonly used powerful motor fuel ever. Look up how many BTU's it has.

[Groover]

Diesels used to be adjusted so that they ran rich under heavy loads and smoked a lot. This did actually produce more power. With the better fuel mixing and added oxygen from a turbo they get more complete combustion for better efficiency. One of the selling points of turbos when they first came out was reduced fuel usage.

[BenK]

Gasoline has fewer BTU's per unit measure than diesel, so diesel will most always produce more power per gallon

ICE's at best, the last time checked, only utilize <50% of the energy potential a gallon of fuel consumed, so there is head room to improve both power and MPG

Science will continue to discover new laws of physics that will improve power and MPG

*ALL* crude graphs, reports, etc (to date) listing the end of supply has fine print..."known reserves"...and they are finding more reserves all the time...but it will end...just not as soon as they say...

Power has the bottom line of ultimate and actual PSI on the piston tops. Factored by the area of that piston top. Limiting factors are mainly with both material science and thermal dynamics. Toss in manufacturing science

[valhalla360]

ShinerBock wrote:

Yes. Compare a 2015-2016 F150 3.5L N/A(that is the only years Ford put an N/A 3.5L in an F150) fuel mileage to a 3.5L Ecoboost engine and you will notice that the Ecoboost uses more fuel. The concept around the Ecoboost is that it uses less fuel than larger displacement engines while delivering better fuel economy and more or the same power than that larger engine.

A diesel is not like a gaser and is not regulated by air. Diesel is regulated by fuel and uses whatever air that it has available to burn said fuel. The more air you add to same amount of fuel will increase its horsepower and its efficiency. Add a turbo to a diesel and inject the same amount of fuel, and you have more horsepower without using more fuel. Add an intercooler and the same amount of fuel and again, you will have more horsepower with the same amount of fuel.

This is a major reason why small 3.0L diesels have the same amount of horsepower and torque of the larger displacement diesel engines of 20 or 30 years ago while using less fuel. Things like turbos, intercooler, higher injection pressures, and so on allowed a 3.0L diesel today have the same(if not more) amount of power than a 7.3L or 8.9L diesel of yesterday. However, as with anything, there only so much power that can be had on the same amount of fuel and in order to make more power you will need more fuel.

What people also tend to forget about all of this is that you need to compare power ratings and capabilities of these engines from those decades ago(not halt ton to half ton or HD to HD), and in this regard they have increased efficiency significantly. A half ton diesel has the same if not more power than big HD diesels of years ago while having the same capabilities. So if you needed to tow 8k back then, then you would have needed an HD truck, but today it can be done with a half ton with a smaller displacement engine that makes the same if not more power while achieving much better fuel economy.

Today's HD trucks with 6.X liter engines also grew in power and capability and can be compared to medium duty to light heavy duty trucks with 12.X liter and up engines from decades ago in terms of what they can haul and in that regard they are way more efficient. People tend to wrongfully compare HD trucks of today to HD trucks of yesterday even though the capabilities of the two are no where near each other. Largely because what we tow nowadays is much heavier than we towed back then. You would need a class 4, 5, 6, or 7 truck back then to tow what class 2b and 3 trucks can tow today.

In regards to your old N/A diesel to your buddies 2008. I am willing to bed that his truck is a lot larger and heavier, you are comparing old highway speeds that used to be 55 mph or 60 mph to today's speed limits of 70 and 75 mph, different driving styles, and a way more powerful engine that adds more fuel for more power, but if it it added the same amount of fuel then it would make more power than the N/A diesel while achieving the same if not better fuel economy.

You are confusing the ability to generate more HP with fuel efficiency.

Sure a modern 3.0l turbo diesel can produce the power of a bigger NA diesel...but it uses pretty much the same fuel when both engines are producing identical power. As long as the engines are within normal operating ranges, power is largely a function of HP output.

As far as comparing to my brother-in-law, that was based on following him, so similar speeds and driving pattern. The trucks are within a couple hundred pounds. So no, being turbo doesn't automatically result in better efficiency.

[Groover]

ksss wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
People always complain about this topic when their favorite brand is behind the competition. When their brand is ahead of the competition then all this power is great.

When I need to wear a G suit for hard acceleration, we then have enough power. Kudos to Ford for dominating the power category this year.

I rode in a friend's Model 3 with the performance package recently and actually got a little light headed when he punched it. Their pickup will probably offer as much power so you have something to look forward to there.

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
When we bought our last car I didnt even care enough to look under the hood to see if it had an engine let alone ask about hp. With the truck I want enough power to pull my 5ver 60 mph up a 8% grade. I think the 2020 Ford is finally there.

The Power Stroke has a good balance of power and fuel economy.

That is only two of the three things I look for in a truck. The other is reliability which exceeds the other two in my opinion especially since i can easily add power later. Other people might sacrifice reliability for more power in stock form, but that is there business.

Although I look for sustained power, not short burst power. Short burst power figures that can only be achieved when the engine temps are cold mean nothing to me.

[FishOnOne]

4x4ord wrote:
When we bought our last car I didnt even care enough to look under the hood to see if it had an engine let alone ask about hp. With the truck I want enough power to pull my 5ver 60 mph up a 8% grade. I think the 2020 Ford is finally there.

The Power Stroke has a good balance of power and fuel economy.

[Cummins12V98]

FishOnOne wrote:
People always complain about this topic when their favorite brand is behind the competition. When their brand is ahead of the competition then all this power is great.

I am more than happy with my weak 385hp 865tq. That's saying a lot since I tow more combined weight here than anyone I have heard of @ 35k combined all over the West Coast.

Oh yea my pathetic 6 speed that runs between 165 and 172 on any grade at any temp. Oh yea they also put the same trans in many MD applications.

OH let's not forget I controlled my 33k combined load down several miles of 14% grade in 6th gear by just using cruise control.

I am now rethinking things, I wish I had "MORE" of everything. :R