Why Diesel???

   / Why Diesel??? #141  
RobJ said:
It's hard to say economy these days. Factor in a near $7000 option on the Ford and diesel running about $.40 more per gallon these days, and the new emissions cutting mileage, if you factor in the price per mile it'll take years and well over 100,000 miles to just break even. And it's hard to justify all this for the average guy to tow an atv on a 4x8 trailer a few times a year. :) Or driving those heavy kids to school. :D

Just say...

I'm rich and can afford what I want or
I tow heavy ALL the time.

I can deal with that argument.

Ok

I have a Diesel Truck because i tow heavy and it just plain works better for me.

I have a diesel Car for the ECONOMY!!!!!!!

i dont buy the more expensive oil change. My oil changes cost me $30 with good quality Shell oil and WIX filters. and i will put either 10 or 15 K miles on that oil change depending on the vehicle.

Im sure these 2 diesels i have will last way beyond the so called "break even point"

and you said it right.............diesels arent for everyone. But i darn sure love mine. :D :D
 
   / Why Diesel??? #142  
Can't argue on the car. However a hop over to vw.com and there is no mention on the TDI on anything, except they are looking for the one with the most mileage. Go build a car and it doesn't show up anywhere...unless I'm missing it. I found a couple reviews on the 2008 but no mention of the diesel costs. I went over to nada.com and they mention the 2.5l tdi but no pricing. So I have no idea what the up charge is for the diesel on a car. My guess is diesels are not as popular in cars because of the hp. for some reason we Americans want a Civic that runs 14's off the floor instead of 40 mpg. :(

Rob
 
   / Why Diesel??? #143  
RobJ said:
Can't argue on the car. However a hop over to vw.com and there is no mention on the TDI on anything, except they are looking for the one with the most mileage. Go build a car and it doesn't show up anywhere...unless I'm missing it. I found a couple reviews on the 2008 but no mention of the diesel costs. I went over to nada.com and they mention the 2.5l tdi but no pricing. So I have no idea what the up charge is for the diesel on a car. My guess is diesels are not as popular in cars because of the hp. for some reason we Americans want a Civic that runs 14's off the floor instead of 40 mpg. :(

Rob

Actually there are several states, CA and VT being two that did not allow new diesel car sales...The VW TDI is the first of the fifty state diesel cars available...MB E320 will be the next...
 
   / Why Diesel??? #144  
Diesel, for me as well. My Dodge CTD gets about 25MPG my Jetta TDI gets 46.5MPG both hand-calculated numbers. Driving around 65MPH. When towing my 5er at the same speed, truck mileage drops to 13.7 MPG. Oil and filter change at 10,000 miles using Rotella oil. Actually, oil changes are about even with the gassers if you take in to consideration the frequency of oil changes.
 
   / Why Diesel??? #145  
cp1969 said:
But the trend is toward fewer gears in Class 8 transmissions. Lots of 7 and 9 speeds; Mack used 5 speeds for years (may still for all I know). It had to do with the useable torque range of engines getting much wider. In the old days, with only a 200-300 rpm range of useful torque, many gears were required. With a wide torque range, you don't need all those gears.
We used to call them constant torque or high torque rise engines although I don't recall if that was proper.

I drove Mack's with the 237 and the 300HP ratings with the 5 speed. I also drove a Diamond Reo with a 270 Cummins set up the same way though that one had this wierd Spicer 7 speed in it. I also drove a Mack Cruiseliner with a six speed but the extra gear was an air switched deep reduction gear for off road use.

I do not recall the RPM's that these engines worked at but you could and did lug them down. You did have to get used to holding them in say fourth gear as you pulled a hill because fifth would be too tall.

The RPM's did not readily drop off so they were slower to shift. An engine brake was a godsend to shift on a hill. You could use it to drag the RPM's down or else you did not have time to shift and would end up more or less dead in the water.

Shifting these babies to some practice. That 7 speed Spicer I mentioned? I got "replaced" on that job and the first day the new driver took it out and promptly blew the tranny.

I ran that Cruiseliner two years throughout the northeast. With it's little 300, it was weenie by today's standards but overall, not bad to live with. Certainly, it was easier than say a 318 Detroit with a 13 speed that you never stopped shifting.

By the way, I also drove an R model Mack which is still on the road with a five speed but it was not the constant torque engine. It had an auxillary tranny with reverse, high and low range but low was only for off road. I only drove it a couple of times but I think it was rated around 300HP.

I think that one was a seventy something year. The truck is in use and somewhat restored actually. I have driven 5 and 4's as well as some old B models with twin sticks but this one was different for sure.

FWIW, the truck I drive daily is a KW T800 with a 465 Cat and a 8speed EF. Not my choice but I can pull most of the hills with just one drop and never more than two. With those wider ranges, you need to watch the torque load on the drive train.

Sorry to deviate on the main topic but I thought some readers might find this interesting.
 
   / Why Diesel??? #146  
I had to drive a Mack F-700 with the V8 325 Maxidyne engine and the 5 speed Maxitorque trans. Top speed in 4th was 45 mph. When you shifted to 5th it took a long time for speed to build up. Never could get used to letting the engine pull down so low before you downshifted to 4th. Liked driving the Freightliners and Petes with the 400 Cummins and 13 speed RoadRangers a lot better.
 
   / Why Diesel??? #147  
Z-Michigan said:
GM is still selling their precambrian 4.3L V6, for crying out loud, and I don't know of significantly better options from Ford, Chrysler or Nissan. Toyota has a decent 4.0L V6 with modern tech, but it clearly doesn't get lots of attention either. QUOTE]


whats wrong with precambrian era engines?

4.3 is a good workhorse, pretty much a sawed off 350 V8
 
   / Why Diesel??? #148  
KICK said:
whats wrong with precambrian era engines?

4.3 is a good workhorse, pretty much a sawed off 350 V8

GM has upgraded the smallblock V8 about four times since creating the 4.3L V6, and has done only one half-hearted upgrade to the 4.3L V6. If the 6 represented the technology in my GM 5.3L V8 (2007 model), it would probably be wonderful. Instead, it's about the only authentic early 80's technology still for sale in a new vehicle.

The 4.3L is adequate for 2wd trucks that are parts-taxi beaters or similar ultra mundane pickup uses, but it is neither refined nor efficient.
 
   / Why Diesel??? #149  
QRTRHRS said:
We used to call them constant torque or high torque rise engines although I don't recall if that was proper.

I drove Mack's with the 237 and the 300HP ratings with the 5 speed. I also drove a Diamond Reo with a 270 Cummins set up the same way though that one had this wierd Spicer 7 speed in it. I also drove a Mack Cruiseliner with a six speed but the extra gear was an air switched deep reduction gear for off road use.

I do not recall the RPM's that these engines worked at but you could and did lug them down. You did have to get used to holding them in say fourth gear as you pulled a hill because fifth would be too tall.

.


thats exactly what they called them... hi torque rise engines

pretty neat in their own way, they had a lower peak horsepower output but the peak torque figure was really high, so the horsepower curve on the engine was flat but the torque rise from fated speed was around 80%, compared to a standard diesel engine which probably had a torque rise of 25 %

they were designed to be lugged down, and use less gears
 
   / Why Diesel??? #150  
Z-Michigan said:
GM has upgraded the smallblock V8 about four times since creating the 4.3L V6, and has done only one half-hearted upgrade to the 4.3L V6. If the 6 represented the technology in my GM 5.3L V8 (2007 model), it would probably be wonderful. Instead, it's about the only authentic early 80's technology still for sale in a new vehicle.

The 4.3L is adequate for 2wd trucks that are parts-taxi beaters or similar ultra mundane pickup uses, but it is neither refined nor efficient.

I have a 93 fullsize with 4.3, currently has 248,000 miles. doesn't use any oil between changes, still has 55 psi oil pressure.

I didn't buy it to pull a 5th wheel trailer or a bulldozer, got it to haul stuff that fits in the bed.

In reality I dont think anyone buys one thinking its a Peterbuilt, but you got plenty of people out there who know that engine works well, if used as intended

still gets 19mpg on the hiway

funny thing is our family business had 5 more trucks over the years with that engine and we never had any problems with them. some of em lived a pretty tough life on top of it and weren't maintained in the manner that you would expect for long service life, yet they soldiered on for a long time

sorry if they aren't all that modern but change for changes sake doesn't make much sense to me.

whats to improve?
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2017 Rogator RG1300B Dry Fertilizer Applicator (A51039)
2017 Rogator...
2008 STEPHENS 220BBL CRUDE OIL TRAILER (A50854)
2008 STEPHENS...
2018 Bobcat T590 Two Speed Compact Track Loader Skid Steer (A50322)
2018 Bobcat T590...
Caterpillar D5K2 LGP Crawler Tractor Dozer (A50322)
Caterpillar D5K2...
New Holland TS6. 120 Tractor (A50322)
New Holland TS6...
2015 Chevrolet Impala Sedan (A49461)
2015 Chevrolet...
 
Top