You choose - loaded gas or basic diesel?

[Buck50HD]

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.

[otrfun]

OhhWell wrote:

otrfun wrote:

OhhWell wrote:

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 horsepower

I get your technical point; however, I believe you missed my point.

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?

You're jokin', right?! If not, is it possible you have horsepower and torque confused? There's a reason why diesel engines are so popular--it's NOT because they have horsepower--it's because they have TORQUE. Again, torque pulls the trailers, hauls the goods, does the work in the realworld. If horsepower was doing all these great things why don't we see Indy 500-type engines powering big trucks? They're small, lightweight, and they produce 700+ horsepower. There's a reason why you'll never see one in a big truck--it's because they have very little torque.

P.S. I see your point about gearing down to increase torque. However, if this was an efficient process, can you explain why we don't see 700+ horsepower Indy 500-type engines powering big trucks?

[OhhWell]

otrfun wrote:

OhhWell wrote:

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 horsepower

I get your technical point; however, I believe you missed my point.

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?

[Jarlaxle]

The first one will be the better choice, one hundred percent of the time.

[otrfun]

OhhWell wrote:

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 horsepower

I get your technical point; however, I believe you missed my point.

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.

[OhhWell]

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 horsepower

[Buck50HD]

otrfun wrote:

Buck50HD wrote:
It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)

True.

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.

[rtate]

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.

[dadwolf2]

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.

[otrfun]

Buck50HD wrote:
It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)

True.

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.

[Buck50HD]

It could be powered by a solid fuel rocket with no torque at all and still make it up a 6% grade:)

[otrfun]

Buck50HD wrote:
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

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.

[Buck50HD]

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

[FishOnOne]

Very nice truck... BTW looks like a jewel! :W

[john_bet]

otrfun wrote:

goducks10 wrote:

otrfun wrote:
It's an interesting dilemma when folks like the OP find a 1/2 ton truck too little truck, and a 3/4 ton diesel too much truck.

The Big 3 diesel "torque war" has created an interesting situation. For those folks who tow mid-sized loads, they're going to be left with an interesting choice in the next couple of years. Either a 450 ft. lb., high revving, fuel hungry, gasser, or a 1,000 ft. lb., stump-pulling, diesel monster-truck.

IMO, it's a ridiculous to have nothing in-between. Any suggestions?

You bring up a common situation. Mine's like you stated. We only tow a 9000lb 5'er but we tow in Oregon and are living at 132' El. Every where we go is up over a mtn pass. Lots of up and down heading east or west. We towed 7300lbs with a 1/2 ton gasser all over Oregon and Nor Cal. Lots of revving. Nature of the beast I guess.

We now tow with a 3/4 ton diesel. Is it necessary for 9000lbs? Maybe, maybe not. If I was in Tx or Fl no. But with the mtns all around it just makes it more relaxing. Don't get there any faster. And in reality the newer 400+hp-400+tq gassers with a 4.10 would probably be more than adequate. I do get 10.5-11.9mpg. A gasser won't do that. But then there's the fuel cost difference. Do I need a 1 ton. Heck no. Could I get by with an HD F150? No because my RAW is 4900lbs. 100lbs more than the HD @4800. Am I overkill on my truck? Sometimes, like when just cruising down the freeway at 62-65mph in 6th at 1600rpms. But hit the mtns and it makes more sense.

Sometimes it's not always cut and dried. If I was towing 11-12,000lbs it would be simple. Or like I said if I lived in a flat state it would be another factor in decision making.

Too many variables for one simple answer.

Yes, given the choices we have right now, you're take is right on the money. It's a major compromise when you have "mid-sized" towing requirements.

I guess what I was hinting at, is the need for either a Heavy Duty 1/2 ton or a "light-duty" 3/4 ton diesel with a "mid-sized" diesel engine. Something with 500-550 ft. lbs of torque that delivers better MPG's than the current 3/4 ton diesel offerings (and much, much better MPG's than the current high-torque V8's). Something like this would be the perfect combination for those that have "mid-sized" towing requirements (10,000-12,000 lbs.). If such a beast were available, you would see a lot less threads about gas vs. diesel and/or 1/2 ton vs. 3/4 ton.

The 5.0L Cummins that Dodge/Ram was gonna use would have fit your wishes exactly.

[Redsky]

Third choice is to put less into the trailer or to buy a lighter trailer. Manufacturers have spent the past 10 years working to make their trailers lighter and at the same time more spacious with one or more slide-outs. While traveling I have seen a big shift in the average size trailer at campgrounds with a lot more small trailers pulled by mid-size SUV's.

Whenever I ask one of the owners about their trailer they are universally happy with it and not one has said that they plan to sell it and get something bigger (which would also require a new tow vehicle). But they are using them on short trips of a couple weeks and not using them to spend weeks or longer at a locations much less full time RVer's.

I appreciate having the diesel when going up and especially when going down steep grades but I also know that the time I spend in such areas is less than one percent of our time on the road and amounts to less than 40 minutes in total on the average 2-3 week trip we take through the mountainous western states.

When I go up a 10 mile 8% section of highway at 65 MPH instead of 45 MPH I know I have saved a trivial amount of time. It is really only when going down a 8% grade one a 20-30 mile section of road and having the speed control of the diesel and not having to seldom touch the brakes that I truly find the diesel beneficial and that is more in stress reduction for that short period of time.

There is absolutely no need to rationalize buying diesel anymore than wanting air conditioning or satellite radio or heated seats or a travel trailer with a large screen TV, forced air furnace, large fridge, dry bath, etc. for "camping".
The only mistake is to confuse these luxuries as being necessities for traveling.