@Dirtman:
I'm talking F-150, Rangers and down. The 3.0 Ecodiesel doesn't compare well to 3.5 EcoBoost
Yes, Neighbour's grandfather had the original 5.7 Olds with the 350 diesel in it. Got good mileage, but was it ever a slug. The 6.2 was a separate engine from Detroit Diesel - it just needed compression lowered and turbo...
We also had a tandem with a 702 Chev V-12.
For keeping up with the combines in harvest, it trashed the tandem with the 855 Cummins. It would just rev so much faster, especially empty that you could get 5 loads in to 4. When there were thunder clouds on horizon, keeping the combines running meant more than couple gallons of fuel.
@snoranger:
The engineer in me abhors over fueling a diesel to the point it "rolls coal". And the Ranger on the calendar page for this month is more my interpretation of Race Truck.
"Tweaking diesels" is what got me sent off farm to university...
@RonD:
The F1 gasoline engines are exceeding 50% efficiency
Diesels don't get more MPG if the emissions controls reduce the efficiency thorough need to control NOx and soot to point where they are worse than that of gasoline ones.
@85_Ranger4x4 :
Get a truck with 3.73s, not 3.31s and put transmission in Sport mode. The nanny's that want good fuel economy numbers have neutered the truck from push you back in seat acceleration in stock setting.
So long as everyone is looking at hp numbers, pushrod engines will be rare - they just can't rev enough. 3.slo in my Ranger just can't compare with 3.0 Duratec in my daughter's Escape.