Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If you think that a diesel that is running at redline is more efficient than a gas engine running at half throttle, I really don't know what to say. thats a tad assumptive, Ive never once mentioned running at redline....what exactly makes you think a diesel would be at redline and at the same speed ( lets say 75mph ) the gas would be at half throttle????????????? if anything, at the same speed, diesels lope.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) if anything, at the same speed, diesels lope.... It all depends on the gearing, but if they're both doing, say, 2500rpm at 65mph, the gasser is the one that's loping along, relatively speaking--the diesel is much closer to its redline than is the gasser. Edited July 10, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 It all depends on the gearing, but if they're both doing, say, 2500rpm at 65mph, the gasser is the one that's loping along, relatively speaking--the diesel is much closer to its redline than is the gasser. 3.5EB redline - 6000 rpm EcoDiesel redline - 4500 rpm Something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) thats a tad assumptive, Ive never once mentioned running at redline....what exactly makes you think a diesel would be at redline and at the same speed ( lets say 75mph ) the gas would be at half throttle????????????? if anything, at the same speed, diesels lope.... If Sooner's point doesn't clear things up, this should make it easier for you to understand: Why don't semis come with 2.0L diesel engines in them? Edited July 10, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If Sooner's point doesn't clear things up, this should make it easier for you to understand: Why don't semis come with 2.0L diesel engines in them? I should have stated with the same gearing I suppose..and why dont semis come with 2.0 engines and 25 speed trans....lol. I suppose I could have simplified buy basically comparing a regular Jetta and a diesel, that may have simplified things...my basic point was that diesels respond better mileage wise under load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 It all depends on the gearing, but if they're both doing, say, 2500rpm at 65mph, the gasser is the one that's loping along, relatively speaking--the diesel is much closer to its redline than is the gasser. I would go so far as to say most manufacturers tune gearing to engines sweet spot for assumed average speeds, that said, anyone care to chime in at what a 6.7 diesel is turning at 65 compared with the V10?...or even 6.2?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 my basic point was that diesels respond better mileage wise under load. --up to a point. If you put a 2.0L Jetta diesel in an F350/trailer with a combined weight of 16,000 lbs, it's going to be far less efficient than a 6.8L V10 hauling the same weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 --up to a point. If you put a 2.0L Jetta diesel in an F350/trailer with a combined weight of 16,000 lbs, it's going to be far less efficient than a 6.8L V10 hauling the same weight. much like the ecoboost in the Explorer.....youve lost me again Richard...fords 5 cylinder diesel is NOT a 2.0, neither is there 4.4....and I thought I went off in tangents....I used the Jettas as a case study as they are the same size/ weight etc...yet for some unbeknownst reason the Diesel gets WAY superior mileage.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 much like the ecoboost in the Explorer.....youve lost me again Richard...fords 5 cylinder diesel is NOT a 2.0, neither is there 4.4....and I thought I went off in tangents....I used the Jettas as a case study as they are the same size/ weight etc...yet for some unbeknownst reason the Diesel gets WAY superior mileage.... The statement that you repeatedly make: "diesels respond better mileage wise under load" is not an absolute truth. And it is so far from being absolutely true, that it is possible that the EcoDiesel would see a greater loss in efficiency under certain loads than would the 5.0L or 3.5L EB engines toiling under the same loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The statement that you repeatedly make: "diesels respond better mileage wise under load" is not an absolute truth. And it is so far from being absolutely true, that it is possible that the EcoDiesel would see a greater loss in efficiency under certain loads than would the 5.0L or 3.5L EB engines toiling under the same loads. given similar displacements, or in this case the 3.2 ( or fingers crossed 4.4 ) vs the 3.5, 2.7 ecos or 5.0 I will beg to differ, we will agree to dis-agree on this one Richard....PS, the same guy putting the 2.0 diesel in the F450 King Ranch, is also working on the 5.0...lmao. Ecoboost in an AWD DSG Fiesta..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The statement that you repeatedly make: "diesels respond better mileage wise under load" is not an absolute truth. And it is so far from being absolutely true, that it is possible that the EcoDiesel would see a greater loss in efficiency under certain loads than would the 5.0L or 3.5L EB engines toiling under the same loads. will be interesting to see how the Transits drivetrains match up real world, both empty AND laden....$ on the 3.2.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 given similar displacements Displacement is only tangentially involved. Power output required / Maximum power available is a significant factor in engine efficiency. This isn't up for 'agree to disagree' consideration: It's a basic reality of engine mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Dean, you are using diesel as an absolute like RJ mentioned. The reason you see the 6.7L fare so much better under load than any other engine in the SD is because the capabilities of the 6.7L are so much higher. Consider the 6.2L with 400 ft-lbs. The 6.7L has 860. The 6.7L has DOUBLE the torque! So you aren't comparing apples to apples. As I mentioned earlier, a smaller (less powerful if you will) engine will see a greater decrease in efficiency when the load increases. The 6.7L is loafing along because it has such great capability. That is why you see a much less decrease in fuel economy when comparing the 6.7L to any gasser ever offered in the SD. Now, compare the 3.5L EB to the Ram EcoDiesel (which comes with 3.92 gears BTW). They are rated the same on torque, while the EB has 125 more HP. I would contend that you would see similar drops in fuel economy with similar loads on those two engines simply because they are rated near the same. Based on the site I posted earlier, the Ram ED loses about 57% of it's highway figure when towing (28 down to 12). Compare that to the EB which goes from 23 down to 10, making a 57% loss in fuel economy from the highway figure. So, as you can see, similarly capable engines (meaning similar torque numbers) lose similar percentages of fuel economy when towing similar loads. Now, if the Ram diesel was larger and had 500+ ft-lbs of torque and was still rated at 28 MPG highway, then you would probably see 14 MPG towing only losing 50% of the highway figure. Make sense? My SD loses about 40-45% of it's highway number when towing our 9k loaded fifth wheel. But, then again, it has 650 ft-lbs of torque. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Dean, you are using diesel as an absolute like RJ mentioned. The reason you see the 6.7L fare so much better under load than any other engine in the SD is because the capabilities of the 6.7L are so much higher. Consider the 6.2L with 400 ft-lbs. The 6.7L has 860. The 6.7L has DOUBLE the torque! So you aren't comparing apples to apples. As I mentioned earlier, a smaller (less powerful if you will) engine will see a greater decrease in efficiency when the load increases. The 6.7L is loafing along because it has such great capability. That is why you see a much less decrease in fuel economy when comparing the 6.7L to any gasser ever offered in the SD. Now, compare the 3.5L EB to the Ram EcoDiesel (which comes with 3.92 gears BTW). They are rated the same on torque, while the EB has 125 more HP. I would contend that you would see similar drops in fuel economy with similar loads on those two engines simply because they are rated near the same. Based on the site I posted earlier, the Ram ED loses about 57% of it's highway figure when towing (28 down to 12). Compare that to the EB which goes from 23 down to 10, making a 57% loss in fuel economy from the highway figure. So, as you can see, similarly capable engines (meaning similar torque numbers) lose similar percentages of fuel economy when towing similar loads. Now, if the Ram diesel was larger and had 500+ ft-lbs of torque and was still rated at 28 MPG highway, then you would probably see 14 MPG towing only losing 50% of the highway figure. Make sense? My SD loses about 40-45% of it's highway number when towing our 9k loaded fifth wheel. But, then again, it has 650 ft-lbs of torque. well put and I completely understand tjhose facts....but boy, are we all on different trains of thought....so, lets throw capacities out, Ive never mentioned them, or GVWRs....if Ford puts the 3.2 diesel in the F-150 it will get better mileage than the gassers in similar circumstances....would lay money on it...you guys can disagree all you want....or mention one at redline and one not????? where the heck did THAT come from....? Edited July 10, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) lets throw capacities out, Ive never mentioned them, or GVWRs. You *can't* throw capacities out. You can't make any comparison at all between engines of any sort without acknowledging capacities. Edited July 10, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You *can't* throw capacities out. You can't make any comparison at all between engines of any sort without acknowledging capacities. quick question....then, if diesel does NOT have any viable advantage, which is how I am translating yourr train of thought...why is the 3.2 offered as an alternative in the Transits........... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You *can't* throw capacities out. You can't make any comparison at all between engines of any sort without acknowledging capacities. Im specifically referring to putting the 3.2 in a 1/2 ton ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 well put and I completely understand tjhose facts....but boy, are we all on different trains of thought....so, lets throw capacities out, Ive never mentioned them, or GVWRs....if Ford puts the 3.2 diesel in the F-150 it will get better mileage than the gassers in similar circumstances....would lay money on it...you guys can disagree all you want....or mention one at redline and one not????? where the heck did THAT come from....? Which engine do you want to compare it to? Considering that the 3.2 has what, 200HP and 350 ft-lbs, I would say the 3.2 would get 3-4 MPGs better than the 3.5 EB empty and towing up to maybe 5k lbs. After that, I would say they would be pretty close in MPGs with the diesel slightly ahead. Compared to the 2.7L, I would say the 3.2L would get 1-2 MPG better across the board, whether it's empty or loaded. So yes, the diesel will get slightly better MPG. However, if you throw fuel and maintenance cost into the mix, the costs will be about the same, if not more for the diesel. And the diesel won't have the pep the gasser has since it has much less HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Which engine do you want to compare it to? Considering that the 3.2 has what, 200HP and 350 ft-lbs, I would say the 3.2 would get 3-4 MPGs better than the 3.5 EB empty and towing up to maybe 5k lbs. After that, I would say they would be pretty close in MPGs with the diesel slightly ahead. Compared to the 2.7L, I would say the 3.2L would get 1-2 MPG better across the board, whether it's empty or loaded. So yes, the diesel will get slightly better MPG. However, if you throw fuel and maintenance cost into the mix, the costs will be about the same, if not more for the diesel. And the diesel won't have the pep the gasser has since it has much less HP. probably correct, however, I think the ratings ( check what happened to the ecoboost in the Transit ) are indicative of the platform ( Transit ) so im guessing there would be a little unleased in the F-150 platform....now the 4.4 is anyones guess....man would that be a coup in the F-150/ 250... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 probably correct, however, I think the ratings ( check what happened to the ecoboost in the Transit ) are indicative of the platform ( Transit ) so im guessing there would be a little unleased in the F-150 platform....now the 4.4 is anyones guess....man would that be a coup in the F-150/ 250... Agreed, I think the 4.4 would make a great towing engine. Too bad the costs would be so high. If the 3.2L in the Transit is 5-6k, just imagine what the V8 would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Agreed, I think the 4.4 would make a great towing engine. Too bad the costs would be so high. If the 3.2L in the Transit is 5-6k, just imagine what the V8 would be. I think the $ were a deciding factor for sure....I was also told that its capabilities would possibly hurt 6.7 sales....sigh.....I still think theres a market for a mid capacity Superduty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 quick question....then, if diesel does NOT have any viable advantage, which is how I am translating yourr train of thought...why is the 3.2 offered as an alternative in the Transits........... The advantage of a diesel is *contingent* on external factors. A 2.0L Jetta diesel would present no advantage over a 6.8L gas engine in a Super Duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Mike Levine explains why the diesel is in a Transit and not a F-150 half-ton... Mike Levine 6/16/14 5:53pm We are giving Transit buyers the choice of a diesel because most are commercial customers, and many of their vehicles are high-mileage with longer in-service periods. For these customers, a diesel engine represents a better value due to its superior fuel economy and lower long-term operating cost per mile driven. - Mike Mike Levine EcoBoost is a better value for F-150 customers than diesels. EcoBoost doesn't carry the large price premium of a diesel engine and regular unleaded gasoline costs about $.25 per gallon less than diesel fuel. Light-duty trucks also tend to run unloaded/empty compared to a commercial van duty cycle. -Mike Mike Levine Good feedback. EcoBoost costs less than a diesel, produces the same torque (420 lbs.-ft.) as the competitive diesel engine in the segment, can tow 2,000+ lbs. more and uses fuel that's less expensive. -Mike http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/we-are-giving-transit-buyers-the-choice-of-a-diesel-bec-1591655752 Edited July 10, 2014 by Bryan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The advantage of a diesel is *contingent* on external factors. A 2.0L Jetta diesel would present no advantage over a 6.8L gas engine in a Super Duty. ? you have COMPLETELY lost me when comparing a 2.0 to a 6.8...do you REALLY think engineers would actually do that Richard?....if you , then we need to talk.....capacities and capabilies are class contingent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) ? you have COMPLETELY lost me when comparing a 2.0 to a 6.8...do you REALLY think engineers would actually do that Richard?....if you , then we need to talk.....capacities and capabilies are class contingent. It is *your* assertion that a diesel is always more efficient than a gas engine. Not mine. Edited July 10, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.