Ram 1500 first modern half ton to offer diesel

[jejeosborne]

The difference is the Ecoboost does it by jamming a ton of air as well as a ton of fuel in at the same time whereas the diesel does it naturally without stressing the engine nearly as much. In the same sense though, that diesel will run out of stream quickly like the Ecoboost when the rpms climb which is where a big block gasser continues to shine pulling nearly to redline.

Not sure what you mean. Two V6 motors making 420 ft/lbs of torque at the same rpm are putting the same amount of stress on all components. That energy is transmitted to the crank the same way with the same forces. The smaller displacement diesel is actually stressed more than the gas motor in this example due to smaller components. Diesels have much higher compression and boost pressures than a gas motor. You mentioned not seeing many turbo gas motors because until recently, direct injection and engine control computers are fairly new.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Do you agree that in the SAME TRUCK with nothing different other than comparative gas and diesel engines, that the diesel will get better fuel mileage?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but is it worth the premium just like comparing a diesel car like the Passat to its gas counterparts? I think not and believe you do not either.

Chris

 

[Dmace]

Not sure what you mean. Two V6 motors making 420 ft/lbs of torque at the same rpm are putting the same amount of stress on all components.

To understand this somone would have to have a better understanding of the differences between compression ignition (diesel) and spark ignition (gas) engines. You obviously don't if you feel just because they both make 420 LB-FT (not ft/lbs) than the stress is exactly the same. Without writing a novel on engine design, here's a quick explanation again...
Gas engines make small quick explosions that "slap" the piston down creating rotational movement around the crank (torque). To make this high TQ, they need very large very powerful explosions (more stress). Diesel on the other hand does not "explode", it's more of a controlled burn as the air/fuel continues to expand and "push" the piston down. This very different way of pushing down the pistons is why diesel creates more TQ with less stress on components and loses less power under load than gas. On the flip side, gasoline engines rev faster making more HP due to the quicker process.

It's funny the Jeep diesel is rated at the same 420 lb-ft as the Ford Ecoboost, I hope RAM tweaks it just a hair to around 430 lb-ft or more for that "most powerful 1/2 ton engine" title. :laughing:
Then again, this is supposed to be the fuel efficient option not the power option but it will probably be the best at both.

Yes, but is it worth the premium just like comparing a diesel car like the Passat to its gas counterparts? I think not and believe you do not either.

Well that depends of course. The VW Jetta TDi is rated at 42 mpg yet most users are doing much better. My brother-in-laws 04 Jetta TDi consistantly gets 48-50 mpg with 75% highway use. It's certainly worth the premium over the gas version of the Jetta rated at 34 mpg which is a struggle to reach. Diesels always seem to surpass EPA ratings where gas versions rarely meet them.

 

[Egon]

<Gas engines make small quick explosions that "slap" the piston down creating rotational movement around the crank (torque). To make this high TQ, they need very large very powerful explosions (more stress). Diesel on the other hand does not "explode", it's more of a controlled burn as the air/fuel continues to expand and "push" the piston down. This very different way of pushing down the pistons is why diesel creates more TQ with less stress on components and loses less power under load than gas. On the flip side, gasoline engines rev faster making more HP due to the quicker process.>

There may be some who will talk about "controlled burn" for both diesel and Otto cycles.

Recall the use of lead in gasoline.

 

[Dmace]

There may be some who will talk about "controlled burn" for both diesel and Otto cycles.

Recall the use of lead in gasoline.

True, controlled burn is becoming more used in gasoline engines with new technologies. Another reason I chose the Mazda 3 SkyActiv over a diesel car. It uses the Atkinson style process under light loads keeping the intake valves open even at piston BDC to reduce pumping losses but with an electronically adjustable cam (up to 70 degrees of adjustment), it can run more like the standard otto cycle under load. This ability to switch between cycles with demand makes the normally aspirated direct injected engine more efficient and more powerful than a smaller displacement turbo charged engine like the Chevy Cruze Ecotec and Ford 1.0l ecoboost. Once this technology meets large pickup truck engines, it will be a more powerful more efficient option compared to diesel and turbo-charged engines like this RAM diesel and the Ford 3.5l Ecoboost.

 

[Ford850]

It's funny the Jeep diesel is rated at the same 420 lb-ft as the Ford Ecoboost, I hope RAM tweaks it just a hair to around 430 lb-ft or more for that "most powerful 1/2 ton engine" title. :laughing:
Then again, this is supposed to be the fuel efficient option not the power option but it will probably be the best at both.

It will need more than 430 for that title. Ford's 6.2 is already at 411 horsepower and 434 ft lbs, but you do give up a couple mpg's. However, I have a feeling that Ford has the next Ecoboost tune in their back pocket, waiting for the latest official numbers from Ram and GM. They already bumped the size of the turbos a bit for 2013, but didn't bump the tune to take advantage of them. Yet. I would not be surprised if they suddenly changed the PCM tune, from one day to the next, in their assembly of the Ecoboost. Then again, maybe that isn't possible in this series of trucks with all the EPA mandates and red tape.

 

[94BULLITT]

It will need more than 430 for that title. Ford's 6.2 is already at 411 horsepower and 434 ft lbs, but you do give up a couple mpg's. However, I have a feeling that Ford has the next Ecoboost tune in their back pocket, waiting for the latest official numbers from Ram and GM. They already bumped the size of the turbos a bit for 2013, but didn't bump the tune to take advantage of them. Yet. I would not be surprised if they suddenly changed the PCM tune, from one day to the next, in their assembly of the Ecoboost. Then again, maybe that isn't possible in this series of trucks with all the EPA mandates and red tape.

Ford reflashed the computer on the 6.7 to make more power than the duramax.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Well that depends of course. The VW Jetta TDi is rated at 42 mpg yet most users are doing much better. My brother-in-laws 04 Jetta TDi consistantly gets 48-50 mpg with 75% highway use. It's certainly worth the premium over the gas version of the Jetta rated at 34 mpg which is a struggle to reach. Diesels always seem to surpass EPA ratings where gas versions rarely meet them.

You are comparing a smaller lighter pre dpf version. My neighbors 12 model gets 38 in the winter and 42 in the summer. Round trip to Florida last summer he got 47.

Compare this to a direct injection gasser and the upfront cost makes it a tougher sell.



Chris

 

[Dmace]

You are comparing a smaller lighter pre dpf version. My neighbors 12 model gets 38 in the winter and 42 in the summer. Round trip to Florida last summer he got 47.

47 mpg vs a 34 mpg gas version and it's still not worth the diesel price premium?
Gee, you seem to have a neighbor for every vehicle we speak of.
Let's test that theory.
I think the 1961 Ferrari 250GT Spyder gets better fuel mileage than the 1931 Bugatti Royale Kellner Coupe, any neighbors wanna chime in...? :laughing:

 

[jejeosborne]

To understand this somone would have to have a better understanding of the differences between compression ignition (diesel) and spark ignition (gas) engines. You obviously don't if you feel just because they both make 420 LB-FT (not ft/lbs) than the stress is exactly the same. Without writing a novel on engine design, here's a quick explanation again...
Gas engines make small quick explosions that "slap" the piston down creating rotational movement around the crank (torque). To make this high TQ, they need very large very powerful explosions (more stress). Diesel on the other hand does not "explode", it's more of a controlled burn as the air/fuel continues to expand and "push" the piston down. This very different way of pushing down the pistons is why diesel creates more TQ with less stress on components and loses less power under load than gas. On the flip side, gasoline engines rev faster making more HP due to the quicker process.

It's funny the Jeep diesel is rated at the same 420 lb-ft as the Ford Ecoboost, I hope RAM tweaks it just a hair to around 430 lb-ft or more for that "most powerful 1/2 ton engine" title. :laughing:
Then again, this is supposed to be the fuel efficient option not the power option but it will probably be the best at both.

Well I do know a thing or two about engines and engine design. While I have less experience with diesels as an aircraft mechanic, I have some knowledge of their operation. Please explain why a Diesel engine is built much heavier than an equivalent gas engine. The higher compression adds a lot of stress is the reason. The ecoboost with direct injection allow the computer to control the timing of injection of the fuel and alter the burn cycle and the stresses of the explosion. That is how they get away using 87 octane pump gas without preignition and detonation.

Yes, I know you would like for them to tune a little more torque to be able to say they have the best torque. As mentioned, the 2013 ecoboost has compressors that are 3 mm larger. The current injectors are good for 500 HP. Simple tune to the computer and achieve more output.