2018 F150 3.0 Diesel Speculation and Facts
11-24-2017, 06:17 PM
#152
11-24-2017, 06:35 PM
#153
HP vs Torque is also application specific. You can do more work with a 3HP high torque hit & miss than with a high HP low torque inline 4. That would be in cases where you need lifting power instead of pulling power. If you need 400 lb/ft of torque to lift a ton up 2 stories, no matter how much HP the engine has, if it can't produce enough torque, that load isn't going to get there. It may get off the ground, but at some point it will just hang there and not make it all the way up.
Sure you can add large flywheels, and gearing to make it work, but consider this, if you are a farmer, out at the barn, which would you rather have, a small long stroke high torque single cylinder engine, or a 4 cylinder with a huge flywheel and other associated gearing that probably takes up 3 times the space to do the same job?
That is probably the only time where this would actually apply though.
Sure you can add large flywheels, and gearing to make it work, but consider this, if you are a farmer, out at the barn, which would you rather have, a small long stroke high torque single cylinder engine, or a 4 cylinder with a huge flywheel and other associated gearing that probably takes up 3 times the space to do the same job?
That is probably the only time where this would actually apply though.
11-24-2017, 07:38 PM
#154
It's called gear or geared reduction. Nothing is direct drive, so the example above is not even theoretical, it's imaginary.
Your statement suggest you are drinking the Kool-Aid lol. Torque matters, it just relates more to how effortlessly it generates it's horsepower. Torque as we refer to it, is just low rpm horsepower. It doesn't indicate speed, power, or capability. It's just a reference point, inside the horsepower.
You got it, it will be pokey.
Your statement suggest you are drinking the Kool-Aid lol. Torque matters, it just relates more to how effortlessly it generates it's horsepower. Torque as we refer to it, is just low rpm horsepower. It doesn't indicate speed, power, or capability. It's just a reference point, inside the horsepower.
You got it, it will be pokey.
My reading of several different sources strongly suggests it will get mileage not seen in a truck on this side of the pond. Play whatever numbers games you like, but speed is pretty low on the 'gotta have list'.
Then I see your user name and it all becomes clear.
11-24-2017, 08:44 PM
#155
Did you gloss over my very first sentence? Appears you did.
In Some Applications
An old hit and miss, with that large flywheel produces gobs of torque, at a very low RPM. Perfect for field work driving a drill rig, or lifting heavy bails in the barn.
A Hit and Miss runs at about 350 RPM, produces somewhere between 1 1/2 HP and 6 HP, with TQ around 43 Lb/ft and higher. Any other engine, no matter what the HP is, turning at the same RPM wont produce the same torque. A 7 HP Briggs, turning 3500 RPM produces a little over 7 lb/ft. So a Hit and Miss, without any additional gear reduction units to lower the RPM, would be the simple easy choice, in this application.
Just saying, in SOME applications, a low HP motor, with gobs of torque is a better solution, than a high HP motor that has to run at high RPM to produce the same amount of torque and requires gear reduction units to lower the output RPM.
In all other applications where Speed/RPM is the need, then of course HP is king!
11-24-2017, 09:00 PM
#157
Well lets see ....
Whatever. You must have referred to the climate change, and if you believe that we are responsible for the planet warming, well, I have a bridge to sell you too.
IOW Prove it
Whatever. You must have referred to the climate change, and if you believe that we are responsible for the planet warming, well, I have a bridge to sell you too.
IOW Prove it
11-25-2017, 11:17 AM
#158
Not really a fair point. The reason I say sort of is that there is very clear evidence that the particulate standards have reduced the work truck mileage almost 50%. While there are mental midgets that roll coal and should be 'educated' (via ticketing - you smoke you pay) there also are greenies that believe we should never ever use any hydrocarbons and should be fined for our 'carbon footprint'.
They, Al Bore, and others of that ilk may have a better idea but it has yet to be proved. All the hullabaloo about 'global warming' and 'climate change' has ALWAYS ignored FACTS. Little things like the volcanic activity beneath the Antarctic that is melting fastest. Or the fact that the vast majority of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is actual part of the output of other active volcanoes. Do the research yourself.
YMMY
They, Al Bore, and others of that ilk may have a better idea but it has yet to be proved. All the hullabaloo about 'global warming' and 'climate change' has ALWAYS ignored FACTS. Little things like the volcanic activity beneath the Antarctic that is melting fastest. Or the fact that the vast majority of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is actual part of the output of other active volcanoes. Do the research yourself.
YMMY
Where did I mention anything about global warming that would prompt your non-sequitar rant about it? Particulates are about lung disease, not ‘carbon footprints’.
The following users liked this post:
isthatahemi (11-25-2017)
11-25-2017, 02:55 PM
#159
To your point, I guess some prefer life in the slow lane, to each his own. But don't fool yourself thinking you are saving money, lower operating costs, or not having a huge compromise power wise. (in this case and the transit), by purchasing a diesel.
11-25-2017, 09:56 PM
#160
My username is a play on the dodge commercial from 10 years ago, that's it that all. My sig paints a better picture about what I'm all about. I have to purchase a company truck for my business early next year, and at the moment, the transit diesel I'm driving makes a strong case for the elimination of diesel engines in "trucks". A slow truck is less useful, and to a point, less safe when trying to do anything under load.
To your point, I guess some prefer life in the slow lane, to each his own. But don't fool yourself thinking you are saving money, lower operating costs, or not having a huge compromise power wise. (in this case and the transit), by purchasing a diesel.
To your point, I guess some prefer life in the slow lane, to each his own. But don't fool yourself thinking you are saving money, lower operating costs, or not having a huge compromise power wise. (in this case and the transit), by purchasing a diesel.
Fair enough. I never mentioned a thing about money, operating costs, or other compromises since those are factual things that are currently hidden by Ford. The testing that has been done on the Land Rover with the Lion engine suggests some numbers that will probably improve with the F150 version for a couple of factual reasons. #2 is weight and #1 is the 10 speed transmission. There is some speculation that there are other improvements, but I leave that to those that like to make up stories.
The actual numbers for diesels work out to be about 20% more than for gas, in the 3/4 ton class vehicle. That includes almost $8K acquisition, more expensive oil, higher maintenance costs, and slightly higher fuel costs.
However in the 1/2 ton range (using the Dodge Ecodiesel since I have access to that info from my son) we are actually seeing that it will break even around 60K miles, if the EPA mileage is used. What he is seeing is that if he goes 5 under, he gets mileage in excess of what EPA expected to his 4x4.
You are welcome to do whatever pleases you the most with that information, I just shared what I know.