Ram Eco-Diesel vs F150 2.7 TT - Davis Dam

[Hybridhunter]

You just know it's not gonna be close!

So which is better? Horsepower or torque lol.
(The answer is both, apparently.)

[wilber1]

DI, turbo gassers can mimic diesel torque characteristics to a large degree, but not their fuel economy.

[NinerBikes]

The gasser folks are HP nuts, it suits their cause, the diesel folks are torque nuts. While the torque figure of ft lbs in itself is somewhat meaningless, when you want real work to get done, with current technology and fuel prices... the prize goes to diesel. Boats, cruise ships, over the road hauling, towing, anything heavy, turbo diesel and the torque numbers, while high and HP figures, while low, seem to be the day in and day out choice to get the heavy work done by industry and private party. In city traffic and off the line, I noticed it right away from my first stop at a red light when I test drove a 1600cc 1981 Jetta diesel coupe, compared to my 1600cc 1967 Beetle with sunroof. The motor pulled much harder, off of idle, than any gasser. It was that feature that sold me on diesel... well that and going from 27 MPG to 48 to 53 MPG... I halved my fuel expenses per week.

[wilber1]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Hybridhunter wrote:
The more important power becomes. Torque is a nothing number. 600ft lbs seems like a lot of torque, but at 1000rpms, its just over 100hp. I'm not sure how many times this correlation needs to be explained on one website. Horsepower, measured at any rpm, describes what the engine can do. And when passing and climbing, that extra 120hp is more than double the reserve power for passing or climbing.
This is the simple explanation of why tractor trailers are so damn slow. Even when not loaded. It's also the reason 1/4 mile calculators ask weight and horsepower..... and on and on

Gesus, this post needs to be a sticky. ^^^^^^ Nothing is measured in torque. Someone can say their engine put out 1000 ft/lbs. So? I would have no idea how much work that engine can do.

As pointed out above, it's a useless number that means nothing. If someone said their engine put out 500HP I know right off that thing can do a whole hell of a lot of work. It might do it at a high RPM or a low RPM or anything in-between; but I do know it can do a whole hell of a lot of work!

Never under estimate the value of 600 lb ft just off idle when you are trying to get 23K moving. Where an engine makes it's power is more important than peak when towing heavy. Listening to you guys, there isn't an 18 wheeler in the country that should be allowed on the road.

[rjstractor]

NinerBikes wrote:
Why would I even bother taking my sedate Grand touring sedan to the track? It was never designed or engineered to perform that function, all that constitutes is power drive train abuse. Which seems to be the problem with some of the posters around here, failing to understand the normal operating parameters of a vehicle and that towing duty is outside of those normal parameters, if done too frequently as a percentage of total miles driven.

I agree, hence the ";)".

[NinerBikes]

rjstractor wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
I'd also like you to put your MPG of your TSI up against mine... have at it. The issue is amount of work accomplished per gallon, and gasoline falls far short on the miles per gallon, compared to diesel, almost every single time.

Not trying to make this a gas vs. diesel p!$$ing contest. I'm well aware of the mpg advantages of the TDI vs. TSI. I'm also well aware that diesel fuel costs more and the TDI engine costs more, erasing a good part of the mileage advantage. My only point is that the nice flat torque curve that we both enjoy is a function of forced induction and direct injection, not fuel type.

Now, if you wanna race, it's on! 😉

Why would I even bother taking my sedate Grand touring sedan to the track? It was never designed or engineered to perform that function, all that constitutes is power drive train abuse. Which seems to be the problem with some of the posters around here, failing to understand the normal operating parameters of a vehicle and that towing duty is outside of those normal parameters, if done too frequently as a percentage of total miles driven.

I paid $3.83 for diesel this week in L.A. Premium at the same station is $3.77. RUG is $3.57. Well worth the price increase paid to me, for the BTU's gained.

[rjstractor]

NinerBikes wrote:
I'd also like you to put your MPG of your TSI up against mine... have at it. The issue is amount of work accomplished per gallon, and gasoline falls far short on the miles per gallon, compared to diesel, almost every single time.

Not trying to make this a gas vs. diesel p!$$ing contest. I'm well aware of the mpg advantages of the TDI vs. TSI. I'm also well aware that diesel fuel costs more and the TDI engine costs more, erasing a good part of the mileage advantage. My only point is that the nice flat torque curve that we both enjoy is a function of forced induction and direct injection, not fuel type.

Now, if you wanna race, it's on! 😉

[NinerBikes]

rjstractor wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
It's a non issue, for me, peak HP. Peak torque however, all in, full at 1750 rpms, 406 ft/lbs, may very well come a lot closer to being reached at peak, without straining the motor or fueling characteristics, from 1750 rpm to 2500.

As stated this is more a function of direct injection and turbocharging, not the type of fuel burned. The 1.8 TSI engine in my new VW Passat puts out its maximum torque from 1500-4500 rpm. The Ford Ecoboost engines have similar flat torque curves.

Funny, my 2.0L 2014 Passat TDI SE puts out 240 ft lbs of torque, at 1500 rpms. Your TSI, while 10% less displacement at 1.8L, puts out 200 ft lbs of torque, or 20% less.

K cals in a gallon of gas, when not cut with 10% Ethanol.... 110K cals, D2 diesel... 130 K cals. I've no idea what the calories per gallon are with E10, but I do know storage life of D2, if sealed, is measured in years, not weeks or a month, like E10 gasoline.

I'd also like you to put your MPG of your TSI up against mine... have at it. The issue is amount of work accomplished per gallon, and gasoline falls far short on the miles per gallon, compared to diesel, almost every single time.

2014 Passat TDI SE w/ DSG Fuelly log

[rjstractor]

NinerBikes wrote:
It's a non issue, for me, peak HP. Peak torque however, all in, full at 1750 rpms, 406 ft/lbs, may very well come a lot closer to being reached at peak, without straining the motor or fueling characteristics, from 1750 rpm to 2500.

As stated this is more a function of direct injection and turbocharging, not the type of fuel burned. The 1.8 TSI engine in my new VW Passat puts out its maximum torque from 1500-4500 rpm. The Ford Ecoboost engines have similar flat torque curves.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Hybridhunter wrote:
The more important power becomes. Torque is a nothing number. 600ft lbs seems like a lot of torque, but at 1000rpms, its just over 100hp. I'm not sure how many times this correlation needs to be explained on one website. Horsepower, measured at any rpm, describes what the engine can do. And when passing and climbing, that extra 120hp is more than double the reserve power for passing or climbing.
This is the simple explanation of why tractor trailers are so damn slow. Even when not loaded. It's also the reason 1/4 mile calculators ask weight and horsepower..... and on and on

Gesus, this post needs to be a sticky. ^^^^^^ Nothing is measured in torque. Someone can say their engine put out 1000 ft/lbs. So? I would have no idea how much work that engine can do.

As pointed out above, it's a useless number that means nothing. If someone said their engine put out 500HP I know right off that thing can do a whole hell of a lot of work. It might do it at a high RPM or a low RPM or anything in-between; but I do know it can do a whole hell of a lot of work!

[Hybridhunter]

The more important power becomes. Torque is a nothing number. 600ft lbs seems like a lot of torque, but at 1000rpms, its just over 100hp. I'm not sure how many times this correlation needs to be explained on one website. Horsepower, measured at any rpm, describes what the engine can do. And when passing and climbing, that extra 120hp is more than double the reserve power for passing or climbing.
This is the simple explanation of why tractor trailers are so damn slow. Even when not loaded. It's also the reason 1/4 mile calculators ask weight and horsepower..... and on and on

[ScottG]

The heavier the load gets, the more important torque becomes.

[NinerBikes]

Hybridhunter wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
I've trailered with gas and with diesel. Diesel should see about 30% more mpg, under equal conditions. Part of it is that diesel fuel is about 129,000 ,BTU's per gallon, and gas is 110,000 BTU's per gallon. The other is that due to the nature of the way the fuel burns, in diesel, versus explodes at ignition with a single ignition time with gas, the efficiency goes to diesel when running on any type of otto cycle powered engine. Diesel injectors now have multiple fuel injections /ignition points, as the fuel is injected and burned at various portions of the cylinder stroke, to accomodate the way the diesel fuel burns.

Gas is 43.90 HP/hr per gallon, Diesel is 50.87 HP/hr per gallon.

Diesel engines run at about 60% to 66% of the rpms that gas motors run at, making equal torque, so since the motor is spinning slower, there are also less parasitic losses of energy to the motor, and the transmission also.

The level of torque generated by a diesel is another factor in it's favor, at lower rpms, made possible by the pumping efficiencies of a turbo charger.

Cumulatively, that adds up to about 30%.

So if this high rpm theory was accurate, small Honda's wouldn't have been the paradigm of efficiency for 2 decades. As well, the ED and EB (3.5 anyhow) will run pretty much the same rpm, until the 240hp limit of the ED is reached, at which point, the EB will be on it's way to 360 hp.....
I think you have the benefits of turbocharging and direct injection confused with diesel benefits. Quite simply diesels main advantage is higher energy content, and no throttle. Beyond that, its all trade-offs based on design, some favor diesels, some gas. But it is trading one characteristic for another......that's it.
Either way 30% efficiency is not even close to reality, but that will become apparent when 2015 mileage numbers are released. Hard to compare with such disparate power ratings. An average of both torque and hp ratings might be a realistic way to compare?

You hardly if ever use 360 HP, or peak HP, on a gas model engine, in regular commerce driving conditions, or trailering.

I can see, quite literally, my fuel consumption in gallons per hour of diesel fuel, with my Scan Gauge II. About the maximum amount of fuel per hour that I will use is 9 or 10 miles per gallon, going 40 to 45 MPH up a steep grade. That puts my usage at somewhere between 4 and 5 gallons per hour of fuel being consumed. How much HP is that being made, out of that 240 HP capability? It's a non issue, for me, peak HP. Peak torque however, all in, full at 1750 rpms, 406 ft/lbs, may very well come a lot closer to being reached at peak, without straining the motor or fueling characteristics, from 1750 rpm to 2500.
Vehicle is a 3.0L TDI Touareg V-6, close enough to the Ram ED, for practical purposes... the ED makes more torque.

I owned a 1981 VW Jetta Diesel Coupe... 1588cc's 52 HP about 68 ft lbs of torque, and I would get 49 to 53 MPG all day long. No Honda in the 1980's was rated for that kind of freeway MPG's.

[Hybridhunter]

NinerBikes wrote:
I've trailered with gas and with diesel. Diesel should see about 30% more mpg, under equal conditions. Part of it is that diesel fuel is about 129,000 ,BTU's per gallon, and gas is 110,000 BTU's per gallon. The other is that due to the nature of the way the fuel burns, in diesel, versus explodes at ignition with a single ignition time with gas, the efficiency goes to diesel when running on any type of otto cycle powered engine. Diesel injectors now have multiple fuel injections /ignition points, as the fuel is injected and burned at various portions of the cylinder stroke, to accomodate the way the diesel fuel burns.

Gas is 43.90 HP/hr per gallon, Diesel is 50.87 HP/hr per gallon.

Diesel engines run at about 60% to 66% of the rpms that gas motors run at, making equal torque, so since the motor is spinning slower, there are also less parasitic losses of energy to the motor, and the transmission also.

The level of torque generated by a diesel is another factor in it's favor, at lower rpms, made possible by the pumping efficiencies of a turbo charger.

Cumulatively, that adds up to about 30%.

So if this high rpm theory was accurate, small Honda's wouldn't have been the paradigm of efficiency for 2 decades. As well, the ED and EB (3.5 anyhow) will run pretty much the same rpm, until the 240hp limit of the ED is reached, at which point, the EB will be on it's way to 360 hp.....
I think you have the benefits of turbocharging and direct injection confused with diesel benefits. Quite simply diesels main advantage is higher energy content, and no throttle. Beyond that, its all trade-offs based on design, some favor diesels, some gas. But it is trading one characteristic for another......that's it.
Either way 30% efficiency is not even close to reality, but that will become apparent when 2015 mileage numbers are released. Hard to compare with such disparate power ratings. An average of both torque and hp ratings might be a realistic way to compare?

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

The Eco-diesel is a $4000.00 up charge in trims up to the Laramie Longhorn. In the Laramie Longhorn and Limited it is a $2850.00 up charge. This just changed as you can now order the Laramie with the V-6. I'm not sure why anyone would order a V-6 gas engine in a truck doing any kind of real work but to each their own.

Don