Test Drive Ford Superduty

[DBinSD]

Originally Posted by Can of beans

you mean like the gas turbine locomotives

Totally not related or relevant!

Those were still a diesel-electric platform not a diesel-direct and were highly inefficient. They will NOT be used again.

The “gas” was not the fuel either. The fuel was still DIESEL.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

Like I said a whole lot of nonsense to be read here when it comes to Gas and Diesel engines.
When they begin to rip out the Diesels from locomotives and replacing them with gasoline engines give me a call.

Traction motors anyone?

Something tells me you're not ready for that conversation. And we don't want the EV guys evangelizing in here. Diesels forever!

[jcl]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

Like I said a whole lot of nonsense to be read here when it comes to Gas and Diesel engines.
When they begin to rip out the Diesels from locomotives and replacing them with gasoline engines give me a call.

Not sure the relevance of a locomotive as a tow vehicle for an Airstream, but since you asked....

They have begun. Not gasoline, but gas. LNG carried in a tender car. Dual fuel with up to 90% substitution of diesel with natural gas, or HPDI using Westport injectors, developed for the EMD engines and others. Testing is going on around North America by multiple railroads. Lower fuel cost, lower emissions, same performance and power characteristics.

Lots of links if you would like to a Google it, but here is one to get you started.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...endlyer-future

[Wconley]

I always like how discussions of TV, weight distribution hitches and the like can stay on the OP topic. ��

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

Like I said a whole lot of nonsense to be read here when it comes to Gas and Diesel engines.
When they begin to rip out the Diesels from locomotives and replacing them with gasoline engines give me a call.

Yeah, locomotives sure do accelerate fast. So do semi trucks.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by pteck

Traction motors anyone?

Something tells me you're not ready for that conversation. And we don't want the EV guys evangelizing in here. Diesels forever!

What we have here is a bunch of retired dudes arguing about which reciprocating engine is best. I bet most don’t even know what a reciprocating engine is, or that they’ve been around in one form or the other for 200 years.

[RandyNH]

Originally Posted by jcl

Not sure the relevance of a locomotive as a tow vehicle for an Airstream, but since you asked....

They have begun. Not gasoline, but gas. LNG carried in a tender car. Dual fuel with up to 90% substitution of diesel with natural gas, or HPDI using Westport injectors, developed for the EMD engines and others. Testing is going on around North America by multiple railroads. Lower fuel cost, lower emissions, same performance and power characteristics.

Lots of links if you would like to a Google it, but here is one to get you started.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...endlyer-future

That seems like it would make for quite a spectacular derailment

[Baby Zeppelin]

From the OP:

Originally Posted by Hans627

Yesterday I took a test drive in a Ford F-250 and a F-350. The 250 had a gas engine and the 350 had a 6.7 PS. I was surprised that it seemed like the F-350 had a better ride than the F-250.

Was it my imagination? Does that seem logical?

I wanted to drive a F-250 with the 6.7 PS but there were none available. Apparently its late in the season for the 2018 models and too early for the 2019 models.

So how did we get so far off topic with never ending arguements of diesel vs. gasser torque and speed up hill and so on...???

FWIW I have an F250 6.2l gas truck and am quite happy with it.

For other opinions go to https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...-thoughts.html

[tbashin]

This is a good example of why I don't like forums. Too much opinion to wade through to find too little helpful info.

[sheriff1]

Originally Posted by tbashin

This is a good example of why I don't like forums. Too much opinion to wade through to find too little helpful info.

And yet, here you are...

[mojo]

Originally Posted by RandyNH

That seems like it would make for quite a spectacular derailment

Everyone likes to rubberneck at a train wreck....and that's what this thread has become.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by RandyNH

That seems like it would make for quite a spectacular derailment

Actually, no, the opposite. No significant diesel storage on board, and it is diesel that is the high risk. Look at videos of oil tanker trains.

I worked on the cryogenic tanks. LNG isn’t flammable. There are highway truck, Marine, rail, and off highway equipment versions of LNG tanks. Pretty hard to get a fire, let alone an explosion.

And if there is a spill, there aren’t the environmental contamination issues of oil, for example.

OTOH, there is a risk of burns from contact with cryogenic materials. Don’t put your hand in it.

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by mojo

Everyone likes to rubberneck at a train wreck....and that's what this thread has become.

Hi

No more so that the other 9,723 threads on the same topic over the last couple years ...

Bob

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by mojo

Everyone likes to rubberneck at a train wreck....and that's what this thread has become.

Yeah, sort of happens every time someone brings up torque -vs- horsepower or gas -vs- diesel. This has both. And so it goes.

[franklyfrank]

My 6.7 power stroke will snap your neck pulling a hole shot when driving solo. It's every bit as snappy as my Ecco boost was.
And my reference to Locomotives and Semis was to point out the heavy duty uses for Diesel engines vs gas.

[uncle_bob]

Hi

For a long time, diesel was the cheaper fuel in terms of MPG / $. That made it the obvious choice for a high power application. At least in the part of the country I live in, the state tax guys have eliminated that. Most of the time diesel appears to be selling for *more* than gas on an MPG adjusted basis. ( gas at $2.43 a gallon and diesel at $3.72 a gallon last week).

Bob

[pteck]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

My 6.7 power stroke will snap your neck pulling a hole shot when driving solo. It's every bit as snappy as my Ecco boost was.
And my reference to Locomotives and Semis was to point out the heavy duty uses for Diesel engines vs gas.

The 6.7 Power Stroke is a superlative motor. It's output, durability, and efficiency is unmatched. Among all passenger vehicles, even exotics, it arguably is one of the, if not, the best diesel motors.

Point is, this single motor doesn't define all diesel motors. For every great diesel motor, there's a bunch of crappy ones. Just like gas motors. Nor does that diesel locomotive have much of anything to do with your truck. BTW, almost all modern locomotives are hybrid, with electric motors providing the actual tractive force. Diesel powers the generators which provide the electric power to drive the locomotive.

Not everyone needs this pinnacle 6.7 motor, to do a relatively welterweight job of towing an Airstream. If you can afford it, and you appreciate the balance of qualities it brings, more power to you. But just because the motor is awesome doesn't automatically mean its the best at everything, e.g. handling. Nor does it mean other choices can't do a great job.

[Daquenzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gMV35SbAOY

So the F250 base truck with 6.2 L did the gauntlet test in about 8 minutes 53 seconds. There were 12 brake applications down the hill. Gas mileage is 2.9

The F250 King Ranch did the gauntlet in about 8 minutes with only 1 brake application down the hill. Diesel mileage 4.1

Both will pull a great deal of weight. Clearly the diesel did better. But the gas will do the job. And it will especially do the job for an Airstream.

Is the diesel F250 better? Yes.

Is it necessary? Personal choice.

I just really wish they would put a turbocharger on the gas 6.2 L engine so it did better at altitudes.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

~~
I just really wish they would put a turbocharger on the gas 6.2 L engine so it did better at altitudes.

If they're going to build a V8 Ecoboost they'd probably use the 5-liter or something smaller. They couldn't keep tires on a twin-turbo 6.2.

My partner's wagon makes 603 hp from a 4-liter V8 with twin turbos. Oh, and 627 lb-ft of torque. You don't understand neck-snapping acceleration if you haven't ridden in something like THAT. And no we don't tow the Airstream with it, even though its brakes are way better than an F250. [emoji38]

[pteck]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

If they're going to build a V8 Ecoboost they'd probably use the 5-liter or something smaller. They couldn't keep tires on a twin-turbo 6.2.

My partner's wagon makes 603 hp from a 4-liter V8 with twin turbos. Oh, and 627 lb-ft of torque. You don't understand neck-snapping acceleration if you haven't ridden in something like THAT. And no we don't tow the Airstream with it, even though its brakes are way better than an F250. [emoji38]

And half the weight! Neck snapping indeed.

...but it's a gasser.