Gas vs. Diesel - New 2018 F150

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

It would matter if we had manual transmissions. Nowadays fluid converts torque to a usable rpm. Hence the term “torque converter” lol

We drive a six speed manual. The torque I care about for towing is rim-pull. The flywheel torque is but an intermediate value, of no real consequence. I achieve the necessary torque to the wheels with one of the six gears available.

We special ordered the vehicle, over the objections of the dealer, at my wife's insistence. They said she should take an automatic from inventory. She said that wouldn't be called driving then, it would just be called steering. They didn't have a come-back for that. Eleven years later, and we still use the dealer for service. Last time we picked it up, there were two service technicians and a service writer wanting to talk about the vehicle. Two of them had never seen a BMW X series sport utility with a stick. They wanted to know if we wanted to sell it. She just smiled. Not a chance.

[Daquenzer]

Back to the discussion of F150 diesel to F150 gas. I have an F150 Ecoboost (2017). Love the truck. I looked at the specs of the diesel and still have yet to figure out the selling point. The Ecoboost is a cheaper, more powerful, and a highly tested engine. It might not get the better gas mileage of the diesel, but diesel fuel is about 50 cents a gallon more in my area. Then there’s the maintenance cost of diesel, DEF, etc. For a TV the F150 Ecoboost is just a better combination IMHO. Maybe I’m missing something.

By the way I saw a gauntlet test of the Tundra gas vs the Tundra diesel and the Tundra gas was better than the diesel. Don’t get the love affair with the word “diesel.”

[jcl]

The manufacturers didn't want to build a half ton diesel pickup, and they were fine not having one until one did build one. Then they all had to.

The only reason it exists is for fuel economy claims when running empty.

Ford doesn't expect more than 5% of F150 customers to opt for the diesel. It is a niche product. You aren't missing anything.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

Back to the discussion of F150 diesel to F150 gas. I have an F150 Ecoboost (2017). Love the truck. I looked at the specs of the diesel and still have yet to figure out the selling point. The Ecoboost is a cheaper, more powerful, and a highly tested engine. It might not get the better gas mileage of the diesel, but diesel fuel is about 50 cents a gallon more in my area. Then there’s the maintenance cost of diesel, DEF, etc. For a TV the F150 Ecoboost is just a better combination IMHO. Maybe I’m missing something.

By the way I saw a gauntlet test of the Tundra gas vs the Tundra diesel and the Tundra gas was better than the diesel. Don’t get the love affair with the word “diesel.”

You're right. Anyone who can read data objectively, makes this decision quite simple. There are indeed individuals, namely jobbers with determined loads, and lots of miles that the efficiency will give them an advantage in running costs. Then there are those, that will blindly think diesel = performance and will opt for the diesel "because they tow".

I believe the gautlet test you are referring to is the Nissan Titan (not Tundra). As Toyota has not brought their world market diesel to the US. It's similarly ~250hp and ~440tq, to the F150 diesel.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by pteck

You're right. Anyone who can read data objectively, makes this decision quite simple. There are indeed individuals, namely jobbers with determined loads, and lots of miles that the efficiency will give them an advantage in running costs. Then there are those, that will blindly think diesel = performance and will opt for the diesel "because they tow".

I believe the gautlet test you are referring to is the Nissan Titan (not Tundra). As Toyota has not brought their world market diesel to the US. It's similarly ~250hp and ~440tq, to the F150 diesel.

Yep. It was Nissan.

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Torque is not a measure of power. It’s a twisting force. Torque can be multiplied through gears. Power cannot be multiplied.

Sport bikes have a lot more power than my Harley, but a lot less torque. This is why I can release the clutch on the HD and take off at 500 rpm but the sport bike has to rev and slip the clutch at 2000 rpm to take off. Pickup trucks have a torque converter which “slips” allowing the engine to reach power at whatever rpm is needed for the gas or Diesel engine.

The only way an engine can do more work is if it makes more power. This is why the 6.7 Powerstroke will pull a heavier load up a hill at a given speed than the 6.2 gas engine. It has more power. The higher torque means that it will also develop that power at a lower rpm.

Torque and Power are two different units of measure. One is force, the other is work done per unit time. One is not better than the other.

Torque makes the Harley more fun but it doesn’t make it faster!

Understand.



I am use to 3 to 4 seconds to 60 mph out of 3200 lb. vehicles. I am not use to bone stock 8800 lbs. of Diesel powered truck getting to 60 mph in under 7 seconds and keeps on going. I wish I had a picture of the guy driving the FORD Raptor, however had to keep my eyes forward on the road. Thought about using the rear very mirror.



How about the Indian? Have you seen "The Worlds Fastest Indian"?


Best regards and safe travels............

[VernDiesel]

I always read TQ was power, the ability to turn that crank and overcome the force or load against it. More TQ overcomes a bigger load. And that HP was power over time. So slightly less TQ could do slightly less maximum work at a time or rpm but that with more HP ie done faster it still might do more work over the same time or at a greater speed.

This is often what we see climbing a grade enough torque for a particular gear spun to a higher rpm through more HP finds its way to the top first.

Said another way, TQ is how much work it will do at a given rpm HP is how fast it will do that work at a given rpm. So if it only needs 400TQ to overcome the force against it but through more HP meets that 400TQ need at 1,000 rpms faster it’s going to get their first.

Same gear 500TQ will move something 400 TQ may not but again if 400 TQ is enough power to move it and has 100 more HP it will make it move faster. Hense still do more work over the same time.


Yea the small diesel is a nitch motor. Good for 5 to at best 10 percent of the 1/2 ton market. Ford or otherwise. Its not to replace any gas motor but to fulfill the lineup. If you put on a lot of miles especially if you tow frequently but not super heavy then its a great choice for you. Its not however the economic choice for the average 1/2 ton buyer who rarely tows or doesn't put big miles annually on his truck. When no one was building a 1/2 for this buyer it was no big deal as buyers made due. But when Ram did, it became a profitable nitch market success because it picked up new buyers who wanted a pick up but wouldn't buy one due to mileage AND because it took market share from Ford GM & lots of Toyota's due to their terrible fuel economy. I've seen lots of this from the beginning through today on the 1500diesel forum. Obviously Ford and GM were not ok with giving up even a relatively small amount of market share.

The mini van was another even greater success for Chrysler. When I had four small children needed utility and mileage it was the bomb. We bought 4 of them over the years. Today smaller familys and marketing has largely killed it. Little league moms bought the pitch that they looked better younger & cooler in an SUV, that they got out of town and did fun stuff like camping and boating. Plus Reagan cut taxes and deregulated the economy and the economic boom made buying an SUV and paying a little extra for fuel no longer a deal breaker. I just hope ill marketing and missed the mark disgruntled buyers don't kill the small diesel option for the half ton. If entrepreneurs build a better mouse trap hybrids etc for the consumer thats good. But if ideologue gov kills its for their purposes that would suck. For me its as perfect as the mini van was then. I bought one because I wanted to replace my car with a truck but needed better economy to do it. That or let the new truck set in the garage while I daily drive an old beater econobox to work which didn't appeal to me. Shortly after purchase I stumbled across the transport business and made lemonade with my lemons. I couldn't make a profit towing with a gasser. It probably wouldn't be here towing trailers with 425,000 on it either. Well 371k before pushing out a head gasket but you follow me.

Someone mentioned low HP with Ram ED only 240 HP well duh if you need to go fast buy one of the gassers. Don't bitch and tell the next guy he shouldn't have one. I have an old hot rod for when I want to go fast. 30 mpg hwy in a capable full size appealed more to me. PPEI has a "race" tune for the ED Ford will be the same. Plug it in and you have 300 HP 530 TQ still not as fast ie as much HP as the gassers but no slouch. Keep your foot out of the turbo and speed down you can still get fantastic economy. With the 10 speed it will tow more than you should with only a half ton platform. Turbo brake simply a software change away helping control your speed down a long grade when a trailer is pushing you is very re assuring. 293,000 out of my original brakes. Ultimately buy what suits your prioritys but to say you can't see why anybody would want one and why they are selling seems short sighted to me.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by VernDiesel

I always read TQ was power, the ability to turn that crank and overcome the force or load against it. More TQ overcomes a bigger load. And that HP was power over time. So slightly less TQ could do slightly less maximum work at a time or rpm but that with more HP ie done faster it still might do more work over the same time or at a greater speed.

This is often what we see climbing a grade enough torque for a particular gear spun to a higher rpm through more HP finds its way to the top first.

Said another way, TQ is how much work it will do at a given rpm HP is how fast it will do that work at a given rpm. So if it only needs 400TQ to overcome the force against it but through more HP meets that 400TQ need at 1,000 rpms faster it’s going to get their first.

Same gear 500TQ will move something 400 TQ may not but again if 400 TQ is enough power to move it and has 100 more HP it will make it move faster. Hense still do more work over the same time.

That’s completely incorrect, sorry. Torque is a force, it is not a measure of work. You’ve got force and work backwards.

Amps don’t do anything without volts. Amps and volts make watts happen. Same with torque, rpm, and horsepower. Can’t change physics.

[slowmover]

TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed.

You guys are quibbling over irrelevancies. The TV “problem” of power has been a dead issue for years. Same for brakes now that 4-whl disc is standard.

What’s left is still what matters more: steering, handling, braking. Too big a TV is a wallowing pig. When it most matters.

Comparing pickups: if one has variable-ratio rack & pinion steering (and the others do not) here’s your choice. Same for IFS with 4WD. The other choices without that are no longer in the running.

Among all types: fully independent suspension with short rear overhang trumps others. Go and argue the merits of type design within the class, and dimensions pertaining. You might get somewhere.

Arguing about engine power today is like arguing paint color: irrelevant.

.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by slowmover

TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed.

You guys are quibbling over irrelevancies. The TV “problem” of power has been a dead issue for years. Same for brakes now that 4-whl disc is standard.

What’s left is still what matters more: steering, handling, braking. Too big a TV is a wallowing pig. When it most matters.

Comparing pickups: if one has variable-ratio rack & pinion steering (and the others do not) here’s your choice. Same for IFS with 4WD. The other choices without that are no longer in the running.

Among all types: fully independent suspension with short rear overhang trumps others. Go and argue the merits of type design within the class, and dimensions pertaining. You might get somewhere.

Arguing about engine power today is like arguing paint color: irrelevant.

.

Sure would help if your point were actually relavent to the thread. As it is, it doesn't add anything of substance to differentiate between the F150 gasser or diesel. They all will tow the load.

And come on, variable ratio steering??? Serious?

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by slowmover

TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed.

You guys are quibbling over irrelevancies. The TV “problem” of power has been a dead issue for years. Same for brakes now that 4-whl disc is standard.

What’s left is still what matters more: steering, handling, braking. Too big a TV is a wallowing pig. When it most matters.

Comparing pickups: if one has variable-ratio rack & pinion steering (and the others do not) here’s your choice. Same for IFS with 4WD. The other choices without that are no longer in the running.

Among all types: fully independent suspension with short rear overhang trumps others. Go and argue the merits of type design within the class, and dimensions pertaining. You might get somewhere.

Arguing about engine power today is like arguing paint color: irrelevant.

.

Relax. Just clarifying physics. This topic has been discussed since high school and knowledge is sparse.

Couldn’t care less about powerplant choice in a 1/2 ton truck, since I don’t plan to own one.

[Daquenzer]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/ho...the-difference

NOTE LAST SENTENCE!

[ITSNO60]

Pretty much all the reasons for owning a diesel are gone now. When, and if my 7.3 ever dies I'll probably go with a gasser. Same with our 31 year old Mercedes diesel. Yes they are dirty by todays standards but they just keep going.

[VernDiesel]

Countryboy, Reads to me that its not that I have it backwards its that you read over it.

"the ability to turn that crank and overcome the force or load against it" "And that HP was power over time."

I tried to further describe the relationship of the two with example but Slowmover did it better and more concisely; "TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed."


ITSNO60, "Pretty much all the reasons for owning a diesel are gone now." Seems like a pretty crazy statement to me. I presume you mean due to today's 8-9-10 speed transmissions and the grossly overtaxed diesel prices in some states?

[pteck]

Originally Posted by VernDiesel

Countryboy, Reads to me that its not that I have it backwards its that you read over it.

"the ability to turn that crank and overcome the force or load against it" "And that HP was power over time."

I tried to further describe the relationship of the two with example but Slowmover did it better and more concisely; "TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed."


ITSNO60, "Pretty much all the reasons for owning a diesel are gone now." Seems like a pretty crazy statement to me. I presume you mean due to today's 8-9-10 speed transmissions and the grossly overtaxed diesel prices in some states?

That's because you do have it backwards.

Countryboy is correct.

Torque is a twisting force- (it doesn't do any 'work' itself- it is simple an application of energy).

Work (or 'stuff') happens, when torque is applied and movement occurs. Better known as HP.

"the ability to turn that crank and overcome the force or load against it"

This is the very definition of HP - when torque is allowed to act through a distance (hence doing work):

"TQ tells you IF you can make the ascent. HP, the speed."

So now we're making excuses for diesels to mosey up a hill? It's always been about how performant a tow vehicle is up a hill.

[VernDiesel]

So how far does it move with zero torque? I believe it doesn't. Not being a smart arse here just asking. Would a 1,000 HP 1 TQ engine move your truck and trailer up the grade quickly or no matter the new 10 speed not have enough torque to move it into a tall enough gear to move at any decent speed. Maybe its just yes that dress does make your butt look fat.

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by VernDiesel

So how far does it move with zero torque? I believe it doesn't. Not being a smart arse here just asking. Would a 1,000 HP 1 TQ engine move your truck and trailer up the grade quickly or no matter the new 10 speed not have enough torque to move it into a tall enough gear to move at any decent speed. Maybe its just yes that dress does make your butt look fat.

Bingo...........LOL

[jcl]

Originally Posted by VernDiesel

Not being a smart arse here just asking. Would a 1,000 HP 1 TQ engine move your truck and trailer up the grade quickly or no matter the new 10 speed not have enough torque to move it into a tall enough gear to move at any decent speed. Maybe its just yes that dress does make your butt look fat.

Theoretically, it would move your vehicle up the hill at the same rate as any other 1000 hp engine. The trouble is, with only 1 lb-ft of torque, your example engine is spinning at over 5 million rpm. Literally. We're going to need a new transmission design here. You don't need a taller gear, you need a lower gear.

This is called reductio ad absurdum, taking an argument to an illogical extreme.

[KCCO]

This thread has taken an absurd turn a long time ago.

Much of what has been typed has turned into people trying to prove themselves right, and nothing to do with anything that matters......

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by KCCO

This thread has taken an absurd turn a long time ago.

Much of what has been typed has turned into people trying to prove themselves right, and nothing to do with anything that matters......

It’s actually a good discussion, no reason to get angry. There are several very good posts in the thread, by people who are obviously involved in vehicle engineering, design, and testing. Unfortunately not everyone understands physics, torque and horsepower. There is no proof required. It’s a mathematical equation between the two. They are related. By the way, you can generate power without any torque, if you use a linear device that doesn’t rotate. There are magnetic linear motors that do this. Obviously these devices have no practical application in a vehicle.

A reciprocating engine (piston engine) actually is a linear device which converts each power stroke to rotation through the crankshaft. The more power per stroke, the slower that engine needs to turn to do the same job. Gasoline burns quicker than diesel but diesel does more work per combustion stroke (given same size) so the engines are geared lower. An extreme example is a two stroke engine. You need to slip the clutch pretty good on a two stroke dirt bike to get the rpm up high enough to move the bike. These engines have very low torque.

Original discussion was about the new Ford diesel in the half ton, which develops about 240hp. The contention that the 425 hp V8 will pull more weight uphill at a given speed is not a matter of opinion. There is no reason to get angry or dismiss the discussion as “ridiculous”. Hill climbs are an excellent way to compare vehicles’ ability to pull the weight but if you compare an engine with twice the power it’s not a fair test especially given automatic transmissions with 10 speeds and torque converters.