2013 Tundra vs 2013 Ford

[Diamondpilot]

The torque chart above shows exactly why I choose the 5.7L Hemi, considering I had the Chevy 5.3L dog motor. Look at how far you gotta rev that thing to get any torque out of it. What a pig! :yuck:

The Hemi takes care of me, as I tow moderate loads sporadically. For those towing heavy loads more frequently, I would think the arguement for diesel becomes stronger because the Ford EB fuel consumption should drop quite a bit, seeing as it is still a stoicheometric gasoline engine, right?

I guess I still don't see the case for the EB engine - much more expensive than the naturally aspirated V8s, so would not buy for light/moderate towing. Poorer fuel mileage than diesel for heavy towing, and debatable durability?

:confused3:

Our EB turns in 13 mpg pulling a 20' tandem axle enclosed box trailer. That's night and day difference from the normally aspirated V8 engines we towed the same trailer with turning in 8 to 9 mpg plus the EB will pull the guts out of the V8's.

Chris

 

[DeereMann]

Our EB turns in 13 mpg pulling a 20' tandem axle enclosed box trailer. That's night and day difference from the normally aspirated V8 engines we towed the same trailer with turning in 8 to 9 mpg plus the EB will pull the guts out of the V8's.

Chris

I don't get that - power is power? I get about 12.5-13.0 mpg pulling my single axle traler with bed & cab loaded.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I don't get that - power is power? I get about 12.5-13.0 mpg pulling my single axle traler with bed & cab loaded.

It's about torque. HP number sell vehicles to the blind. A steep torque curve from idle with a long flat band at around 2500 rpms will eat alive a angular torque curve that doesn't hit is peak numbers till 5000 rpms. This is where the EB shines making 85% of its HP and torque just above idea while the competition is screaming in the 4000 rpms range.

Chris

 

[DeereMann]

It's about torque. HP number sell vehicles to the blind. A steep torque curve from idea with a long flat band at around 2500 rpms will eat alive a angular torque curve that doesn't hit is peak numbers till 5000 rpms. This is where the EB shines making 85% of its HP and torque just above idea while the competition is screaming in the 4000 rpms range.

Chris

Sure, I concur & understand, as Mechanical Engineer.

But that's also why I can't understand how a spark-ignited, stoichiometric combustion engine can produce that torque (read: high cylinder pressure & temperature) at low rpm without detonating. Defies thermodynamics. Is it GDI that injects fuel just prior to spark?

If so, that's pretty much made into a diesel with only a couple exceptions - the extra energy available per unit volume of diesel fuel, and no SCR active catylist.

If this is all the case, then EB engine can't be much less costly that the V6 diesel Chrysler has coming out? And the diesel provides 28 mpg.

Again, so what's the benefit of EB?

 

[TheGoose]

I get about 10-12 mpg towing my 4-5K lb boat, just like my old 5.3L. Avg 16 mpg empty with mixed hwy/city driving. If you get the EB, buy it for the power, not the fuel economy. 3.55 gears 4x4 6.5' box.

 

[tcartwri]

Here is the area under the curve that was mentioned.

What's the source for this? They look like chassis dynos, except for the Ford's. Of course.

 

[fordmantpw]

Sure, I concur & understand, as Mechanical Engineer.

But that's also why I can't understand how a spark-ignited, stoichiometric combustion engine can produce that torque (read: high cylinder pressure & temperature) at low rpm without detonating. Defies thermodynamics. Is it GDI that injects fuel just prior to spark?

If so, that's pretty much made into a diesel with only a couple exceptions - the extra energy available per unit volume of diesel fuel, and no SCR active catylist.

If this is all the case, then EB engine can't be much less costly that the V6 diesel Chrysler has coming out? And the diesel provides 28 mpg.

Again, so what's the benefit of EB?

As far as detonation, that is the point of GDI. It helps lower cylinder temps and eliminates detonation. This can also be done with higher octane fuel, but the EB does NOT require premium. It is recommended for towing heavy at higher elevations, but it is not required.

You named a couple advantages of the EB over the diesel (no SCR active catalyst, no DPF).
Here are a couple more:
1) Less upfront cost. The EB is about $3k less than the diesel in the RAM
2) Less maintenance cost. Diesels just plain cost more to maintain.
3) Lower cost per gallon of fuel. Diesel is 15-30% higher than gas depending on time of the year
4) More HP. You get more HP in the EB with the same torque as the RAM diesel

Now, factor all of that in and you can see that the 5 MPG advantage isn't that much of an advantage cost-wise.

 

[fordmantpw]

View attachment 368439

What's the source for this? They look like chassis dynos, except for the Ford's. Of course.

If you would look closely, you will see that the peak numbers pretty much match up with the peaks provided by each manufacturer. That's not a Ford-biased graph like you would like everyone to believe, but an actual graph for each MFR. That's what's so great about the EB...a long, flat torque plateau for a torque curve. Very similar to a diesel.

 

[tcartwri]

If you would look closely, you will see that the peak numbers pretty much match up with the peaks provided by each manufacturer. That's not a Ford-biased graph like you would like everyone to believe, but an actual graph for each MFR. That's what's so great about the EB...a long, flat torque plateau for a torque curve. Very similar to a diesel.

It's not the peaks, it's the shape of the plots which is either totally bogus, or a mix of sources. They are definitely not engine room dyno's... except possibly the two from ford.

 

[fordmantpw]

It's not the peaks, it's the shape of the plots which is either totally bogus, or a mix of sources. They are definitely not engine room dyno's... except possibly the two from ford.

I'm not sure what you are having an issue with in the chart, but it looks pretty normal to me.