When will it end

[Hemling]

How much more powerful can new trucks get? I mean seriously it can't continue like it is with new engines doubling in power over the last 15-20 years. My kid will be driving a 1000hp daily driver and be like, "yeah my dad's old pos only has 450 hp".

[ShinerBock]

In many cases with a diesel, things that increase the engine's fuel efficiency also increase the engines power. Take high pressure fuel injection as an example. Having higher fuel pressures will enable you to get more out of a drop of fuel, but it also increases power output of a diesel. Then there is fuel timing which also increases fuel economy and power output.

I know people like to compare the fuel economy of an old 1992 Ram 2500 5.9L that only weighed about 6,000 lbs and had hardly any emissions equipment versus a 2016 Ram 6.7L that weighs 8,000 lbs and a full emissions equipment. Well that is not apples to apples. Not only is the engine displacement much larger, but so is the truck itself. Then there is the emissions equipment. I can guarantee that if you employed today's diesel technology to a 1992 5.9L Cummins truck (minus the emissions equipment) then it would get a hell of a lot better fuel economy then what they did back then.

So yes, they have been increasing the fuel efficiency of the engines themselves, but larger trucks combined with larger displacement and emissions equipment are making the added engine fuel efficiency a moot point. One big thing is the EGR. Diesels are most efficient when combustion temps are hot, but running hot causes NOx. So the EGR valve opens up to cool the intake air causing the engine to run less efficiently and cuts power. With addition of SCR, diesel manufacturers will be able to use the EGR less or not at all causing fuel efficiency(and power) to increase.

[TurnThePage]

I think the horsepower wars have increased efficiency too, especially for gas engines. When towing, my current truck gets over 3 mpg better than my last truck, while still having plenty of power available to maintain or increase speed at will.

[Redwoodcamper]

I have owned dozens of vehicles and never once thought to myself, "I wish I had less horsepower..." That includes a couple low 12 second cars and some 150hp 400lb motorcycles. Everyone is different. I do agree with some of the above posts about reliability and simplicity. I like working on an old 12valve more than my new 6.7.

[stevemorris]

horsepower and torque numbers are getting silly
I wish they would put their efforts into lowering the rpm of peak horsepower, particularly with gas engines.

peak hp for my truck is at 5500 rpm, who drives at 5000 rpm plus?

they should concentrate on getting higher hp at lower rpms, sure lower hp overall, but higher numbers at realistic engine speeds, like 2500 to 3000 rpm

[3oaks]

SweetLou wrote:
So what? They aren't racers if you keep it stock. Look at what the gassers are doing as far as cars. HP is still only 400 in a diesel so I don't get your point. In trucks its all about torque right? The design isn't about mpg, but the next thing they need to give us is the ability to switch off the HP and turn on MPG when you want it.

There you have it! 😉

If anyone wants increased MPG, lighten the load and/or reduce your speed.

Over the years people turned to towing much larger and heavier trailers along with loading the truck beds with more and more junk while traveling on the roadways faster than ever before. So while engines improved over the years so did the work that they are expected to do which contributes little to increase the MPG. :R

[TakingThe5th]

Unfortunately all of the power and mileage gains we see today come to us along with higher purchase and maintenance costs, more complexities and less reliability. I would like to see more simplified, elegant, and cost effective engineering solutions.

[1320Fastback]

Tvov wrote:

2001400ex wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

2001400ex wrote:
I wish they'd stop focusing on HP. 400/900 is plenty for any non commercial application. They need to shift their focus to fuel mileage more than they have.

Well I get between 11 and 12 MPG moving 20,000# down the road at between 60 and 65 mph. I also get between 19 and 20 MPG running empty. That is the equivalent of 2,500# eco car getting 50 to 60 MPG.

That's the same as 15 years ago. Granted emissions are less. But mpg hasn't improved on diesel HAD pickups, although they have on gas engines.

lol, you realize that rhagfo's truck is 16 years old? Of course, that does just agree with your point.

I remember back in the '80s when the Dodge Cummins truck were first becoming popular - people were saying they were getting 25mph or more on the highway (hauling a load, not towing), and everyone was AMAZED at how POWERFUL the engines were! And.... they were like 150hp.

Then, of course, you dive into obtuse discussions of torque (which I still don't really understand) and gearing.

Mines 25 years old and still gets those mpg numbers.

The fuel milage, like the OP questions is the exact reason I do not upgrade. Other than modern luxuries I would be getting the same or worse milage, much less reliability and a huge payment.

btw: the first cummins in a light truck was in 1989.

[wowens79]

SweetLou wrote:
So what? They aren't racers if you keep it stock. Look at what the gassers are doing as far as cars. HP is still only 400 in a diesel so I don't get your point. In trucks its all about torque right? The design isn't about mpg, but the next thing they need to give us is the ability to switch off the HP and turn on MPG when you want it.

An Econ switch would be nice. My wife's Honda CRV has one, and you can really tell the difference in power and fuel economy when you turn on the econ. I turn it off around town, but use it on the highway.

[boshog]

I think the horsepower/torque wars has become ridiculous. Good grief, some of the big class A diesel pushers are using the same Cummins ISB used in the RAMs.

According to Google searches, a diesel engine is 45% efficient, 15% greater than a gasoline engine. Let them focus on increasing reliability and efficiency and let Fastlane Trucks start measuring the MPGs up the Ike instead of times.

[spoon059]

Some people, like us, agree with this theory that there is plenty of power and we want better economy (or reliability) from our trucks. But then when you look at advertising and a lot of the "brand loyalists" on forums like this, you see them all talking about power and fastest up the Ike Gauntlet. Even though its mere seconds between competitors, that's all some moron's can focus upon.

dfletch wrote:
There's only so much energy in a gallon of fuel. I think they have squeezed about as much as they can out of it. The real issue is the weight you ask that gallon to pull around. As to horsepower you control how much you use and when I need it I'm glad it's there.

You are right, there is only a defined amount of energy, but how efficient are the engines right now? They are vastly more efficient than they used to be, but we are still not at 100% efficiency, so there is room for improvement.

The question becomes, what is the cost of that increased efficiency?

[SweetLou]

So what? They aren't racers if you keep it stock. Look at what the gassers are doing as far as cars. HP is still only 400 in a diesel so I don't get your point. In trucks its all about torque right? The design isn't about mpg, but the next thing they need to give us is the ability to switch off the HP and turn on MPG when you want it.

[ib516]

I'm pretty sure the next Cummins Ram will be 1000 lbs-ft. Think of the marketing hype they could do with that number! Really, it's not too far off now with Ford at 925 and the new Duramax at 910.

[STEVEO496]

I too would rather see increased MPG rather than HP/torque. I had a brand new 2000 F250 PSD 4x4 etc that would average an honest to God 19.5mpg pulling a car on an open trailer. Granted a box trailer drags the mileage down considerably. But I doubt very seriously any of the newer trucks will do that. Yes it had exhaust, intake and an 80hp tune. I figured it was around 325ish hp and it was enough for me. I just wish the manufacturers would offer an economy tune as well as a performance tune. I still feel like there's plenty more efficiency to be gained by internal combustion engines. 20 years ago we would have never believed that these trucks would be rolling off the assembly line with over 900 ft/lbs of torque...

[Tvov]

2001400ex wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

2001400ex wrote:
I wish they'd stop focusing on HP. 400/900 is plenty for any non commercial application. They need to shift their focus to fuel mileage more than they have.

Well I get between 11 and 12 MPG moving 20,000# down the road at between 60 and 65 mph. I also get between 19 and 20 MPG running empty. That is the equivalent of 2,500# eco car getting 50 to 60 MPG.

That's the same as 15 years ago. Granted emissions are less. But mpg hasn't improved on diesel HAD pickups, although they have on gas engines.

lol, you realize that rhagfo's truck is 16 years old? Of course, that does just agree with your point.

I remember back in the '80s when the Dodge Cummins truck were first becoming popular - people were saying they were getting 25mph or more on the highway (hauling a load, not towing), and everyone was AMAZED at how POWERFUL the engines were! And.... they were like 150hp.

Then, of course, you dive into obtuse discussions of torque (which I still don't really understand) and gearing.

[dfletch]

There's only so much energy in a gallon of fuel. I think they have squeezed about as much as they can out of it. The real issue is the weight you ask that gallon to pull around. As to horsepower you control how much you use and when I need it I'm glad it's there.