Gas vs Diesel

[arizonadirtslinger]

It's really personal preference but in my opinion for the weight you will be hauling look into trailer brakes a trailer brake controller and beef up the truck with air bags in the rear or add a leads if its squatting

 

[87-ranger]

My daily driver is a diesel pickup. It is actaully one of the most hated diesel motors ever built. But i have helped build and maintane all of the big three, and can tell you i still wont buy another diesel pickup other than a powerstroke. I wont even build a frankenstein of the three, no need. At any rate...

I enjoy driving a diesel pickup because in California, everybody drives like an idiot. The simple fact that i weigh more than MOST personal vehicles out there, makes me feel better. So if you want to plow into me, or brake check me or manuever around me in a hurry, i wony be scared to hit you. I never am. Its insured, but my family isnt. With the duramax weighing 2k less and the cummins almost 1k less, i will take my chances.

I run royal purple oil in mine. When i order from an forum vendor, it costs me $170 for 5 gallons of syn oil, two oil filters (only needs one) and three fuel filters (takes two). This leaves me with a few spares, just in case. I run my oil for 8k miles, and have yet to have an issue. Which is pretty good considering my diesel motor is notorious for throwing a fit when not maintained. Yes this is expensive when compared to an oil change for a small gasser, i get it. A diesel will really give you options as far as hauling goes.

I also own a 2011 crew cab FX2 EcoBoost. AMAZING TRUCK. Absolutely LOVE this truck. Plenty of power, super comfy. Just an outstanding platform. I have towed up to 9800 lbs with it, and it did very well. But the price tag in a new one is cents over 50k, and a used one can be found as low as 35k, in good shape.

If you seriously plan on towing consistently and comfortably, buy a diesel. Its heavy and steady, and will tow whatever you want. If you want some honest info on diesels, PM. I will tell you the ups and downs of owning one. Remember, my DD is a diesel.

 

[Will]

The real argument, though people don't see it, is turbocharged vs naturally aspirated. It doesn't matter where the fuel comes off of the distilling column--it matters how much air the engine can inhale for which to burn the fuel.

A typical gasoline engine injects the fuel outside of the combustion chamber. Or worse, it draws it in through venturi action 12" from the combustion chamber--as in a carb. That means the air that gets squeezed by the piston has already been mixed with the fuel. This air gets hot when it gets squeezed, plus there are already hot spots in the combustion chamber, and the fuel can explode before the spark plug energizes. That's a bad thing. You want one explosion, and at the right time. Not two explosions, one of which is way early while the piston is still coming up.

Direct injection is the cure. There is no fuel in the air while the engine ingests it and compresses it. The fuel still does not matter. Any direct injected motor is better than any motor that has to compress an already volatile fuel/air mixture. A direct injection motor compresses the air and then squirts in the fuel. The fuel has no time to heat up and make trouble--it goes off at the right time.

Off the top of my head, I know the approximate specs of 2 direct injection gas motors. One is the Ecoboost F150 which makes 400ft# of torque with a turbocharged gas motor of 3.5 liters. My wife's Honda Pilot is not turbocharged and not direct injected and even with over 10-1 compression, only makes 250ft# of torque--and at a high rpm: 4,500. The Ecoboost makes diesel-like numbers because it has a turbocharger and makes them at low rpms and reliably on pump gas because it is direct injected.

The Mazdaspeed 3 is also direct injected and turbocharged. It is a 2.3 in a front drive car. It makes way more power and torque than a front drive car is capable of handling--the computer won't give it the full beans until you are in 3rd gear. It's over 260hp and 280ft#--torque available at low rpm. That's a 144cid motor.

Both of these direct injection gas motors, with turbos, are making torque in the same ratio as the new diesels--about 2ft# per cid. All the diesels are around 400cid and making around 800ft#. Plus, gasoline is a dollar cheaper per gallon today.

For some reason, though, the super sophisticated gas motor still gets rubbish for mileage. I want a Speed 3, but I get 39mpg town and 50mpg highway with my old '96 VW Passat Tdi. My Passat is 400# heavier than a Speed 3 and gets twice the highway mileage. I don't know what is going on. I want to think the direct injection tubocharged gas motor could be built down to a 100hp version and kick ass in economy. I haven't seen it. I want to think a 7-liter F350 indirect turbo gas motor could compete with the diesels. I haven't seen it.

I have seen a lot of gasoline motors in trucks. I used to own a Ford L700 with an FT361 and that thing couldn't have made it across the state pulling a tanker trailer full of gas. My bus has exactly the same displacement and hauls 11,000# more weight with the LN700 empty and would kick it's ass in a race. That anemic 7-1 compression gas motor, governed to 3,600rpm had no power. It need it's 10 gears just to drive around. God forbid you actually load it.

The first fuel injection systems for gas motors were adopted from diesel engines and were direct injection. Once the carb was developed, that was way cheaper and better at the time so fuel injection for gas motors was abandoned. The first mass produced fuel injection system was on a Volkswagen Type-3--the fastback--in 1967. It was later called the Bosch Jetronic. Transistor development was the thing they were waiting for. Early vacuum tube versions of electronic controls has the warm-up problem, like on our old Sear black-n-white TV when I was a kid. I never knew Hulk was green or the they all had different uniforms on Star Trek.

Anyway, VW needed fuel injection because air-cooled motors are rubbish and they needed to get them to pass the brand new 1968 emissions laws. We had a 1969 VW with the first ever mass produced EFI and it worked great. I inherited that car as my second-ever car and spent a lot of time ripping out all that crap and installing a Holley Bug Spray.

That was the level of my ignorance. I'm ashamed of it now all these years later, and astounded to find people that still feel a carb is better than fuel injection.

Not only is a carb crap--so is spraying the fuel into the intake manifold or onto the back of the intake valve. The correct place to spray the fuel at is into the combustion chamber at the exact moment the super charged, after-cooled chamber is ready for fuel. Any engine that can't meet that criteria is far from consideration of being the best.

Diesel vs gas? We don't know yet. I think for what we are all talking about, diesels have the edge. I drive 4 diesels regularly, all in different types of vehicles. It's nice to fill my VW at 600 miles with 15 gallons with all the school and activity driving I do with 5 kids. It's nice to get 21mpg on trips with the 15-pax van. No vehicle made that burns gas can rival this. With gas a buck cheaper, I'm open to it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

For some reason, though, the super sophisticated gas motor still gets rubbish for mileage. I want a Speed 3, but I get 39mpg town and 50mpg highway with my old '96 VW Passat Tdi. My Passat is 400# heavier than a Speed 3 and gets twice the highway mileage. I don't know what is going on. I want to think the direct injection tubocharged gas motor could be built down to a 100hp version and kick ass in economy.

I bet the Speed 3 is a lot cleaner out the exhaust than a '96 diesel though. That is almost getting back to the "if it don't smoke too bad its ok" for diesel emissions. Emissions have really tightened up since then.

The new Ford 5.0 has bosses in the heads for direct injection... apparently since they are beating the tar out of the competition per cube with that they have they must be holding that potential in reserve.

Back in the 60's and 70's tractor companies offered gas and diesel options for the same model of equipment (like tractors and combines) The old IDI N/A diesel always had more cubes to get similar power to the carberated gas version. The diesels were far, far better on fuel for the most part though.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

nuff said

 

[Ozwynn]

yep, what he said.

And what Will said. I heard a rumor (maybe it was here) that Ford is working on a 6.2L ecoboost as an alternative to the 6.7L powerstroke.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

yep, what he said.

And what Will said. I heard a rumor (maybe it was here) that Ford is working on a 6.2L ecoboost as an alternative to the 6.7L powerstroke.

I heard it awhile ago and was saying it on here but I haven't heard a thing one way or another for quite awhile.

Hang it up in the "interesting rumor" section for now.

 

[Will]

Some of it is what you are used to or prefer. My dad is visiting with his 1500 Dodge with a 3.7, 6-speed. I killed the motor a few times driving it. It's weak and sensitive and takes some getting used to. It should be an automatic--too much vehicle for not enough motor. When I try the clutch, I like to feel the engine come up with a bit of protest, not die. I'm used to my 1.9 Passat diesel. As a test, I put the Passat into 5th gear and let the clutch out without ever touching the throttle. I got 26mph at idle. A diesel feels a lot thicker down low and I like that. My Tdi is a really fun car to drive. Huge, thick bursts of torque after each shift and no waiting for rpms to build up. Gas motors aren't like that. Even direct injection gas motors won't be like that. Diesels can always have more air than they need in the chamber and are eager to burn more fuel. Add fuel--instant torque. Direct injection gas eliminates gasoline's instability issues, but you still have to wait for air.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The reasoning in my EB 6.2 rumor was because eventually people are going to fall off paying for the ever increasing premium of owning a diesel. It is what a $12k option in a 3/4 ton or one ton now? The little one in the half ton Rams is $4k which I think is plenty pricey for what it is. Eventually there will come a point largely thanks to the EPA that people will say "screw it" and want something else.

I do wonder if they backed off the power on these things out of the factory if some of the emissions junk may not be required.

With the DEF mandate CaseIH deleted pretty much everything else they had going for emissions stuff. Basically 1990's emissions/tech with a DEF system, the techs love it for simpilicity compared to what they were doing before.

 

[bobbywalter]

nuff said

thats a fair assessment of the average truck owner anywhere regardless of powertrain.... in the early to mid 90's the saturn crowd was on a stupid useless vehicle craze..(probably still is even know they ended up with them lol)..very anti suv to say the least, one group i investigated out of curiosity thought that there should be laws banning fullsize trucks to the general public....they are a danger on the road...un needed. one should have to demonstrate need for such a vehicle. i actually had a diesel rabbit at the time i met a guy after inquiring about his ban stupid useless vehicle sticker. i am sure it only got worse as the internet developed...





the rabbit cost zero to drive because i got fuel at work for free and it didnt eat much anyway... and i used it when i could, but at the time that was not very often....my ranger was still powered by the 2.9 then and got 14-16 mpg which seemed fine at the time.

nuff said

??really?? my psd e350 would annihilate anything in the truck market made to the point it rolled off of the assembly line...and still crack 22 mpg plus cruise lightly laden.


i challenge you to install a gasoline engine that would power my rusty old ranger truck in its current form with its current performance capacities as the minimum standard, yet it would decrease my operating costs over the diesel engine in it now.....

simply put, it would be pretty tough to do. i dont think anything out there currently offered would do it...very close...but not able to best an engine designed in 1977.

to be fair, if my truck was a normal 2wd ranger it would be easily doable. but it is not, because of that the diesel shines.

The real argument, though people don't see it, is turbocharged vs naturally aspirated. It doesn't matter where the fuel comes off of the distilling column--it matters how much air the engine can inhale for which to burn the fuel.



yes, it does matter where it comes off of the distilling column. there is potentially more energy for a filthy ice to waste less towards heat depending on where it comes from on the column....i know you know that and maybe intentionally over looking it...


For some reason, though, the super sophisticated gas motor still gets rubbish for mileage. I want a Speed 3, but I get 39mpg town and 50mpg highway with my old '96 VW Passat Tdi. My Passat is 400# heavier than a Speed 3 and gets twice the highway mileage. I don't know what is going on. I want to think the direct injection tubocharged gas motor could be built down to a 100hp version and kick ass in economy. I haven't seen it. I want to think a 7-liter F350 indirect turbo gas motor could compete with the diesels. I haven't seen it.


leveled....direct and made to compete emmissions withstanding....the diesel will always return better economy over a given load simply because of the fuel... all things maxed in the same direction...towards that goal.


Diesel vs gas? We don't know yet. I think for what we are all talking about, diesels have the edge. I drive 4 diesels regularly, all in different types of vehicles. It's nice to fill my VW at 600 miles with 15 gallons with all the school and activity driving I do with 5 kids. It's nice to get 21mpg on trips with the 15-pax van. No vehicle made that burns gas can rival this. With gas a buck cheaper, I'm open to it.


they have the edge currently, and its possible, sensless arbitrary legislative goals will eliminate the potential, but highly unlikely...look at europe and most of the rest of the world

The reasoning in my EB 6.2 rumor was because eventually people are going to fall off paying for the ever increasing premium of owning a diesel. It is what a $12k option in a 3/4 ton or one ton now? The little one in the half ton Rams is $4k which I think is plenty pricey for what it is. Eventually there will come a point largely thanks to the EPA that people will say "screw it" and want something else.

I do wonder if they backed off the power on these things out of the factory if some of the emissions junk may not be required.

With the DEF mandate CaseIH deleted pretty much everything else they had going for emissions stuff. Basically 1990's emissions/tech with a DEF system, the techs love it for simpilicity compared to what they were doing before.

well, its possible the strangle of senseless regulation will continue to limit our options here and push diesel out of the cost effective range...may even be the goal of some of the morons in charge because of the level of intellectual dishonesty involved with perceived image and idealism....and anti-capitalism being the key binder...(well against real capitalism anyway)

but try as they are...not likely.

i am betting multi fuel engines will be a stop gap looking at what has been going on the last 10-12 years. whether pilot injection/ng setups or ope engines...theres allot to offer.

while the diesel is going through what cars did in the late 70's to late 80's on the emissions front...there will be a peak and drop with development. i am hoping we are on the down hill here myself...for me 4 k on the 1500 is fair for the type of driving i do unless it proves unreliable like the early gassers...and some other diesel offereings....that would suck. i would return the investmet in less then 2 years....after warranty i would modify it to really be cost effective. like i always do

look how much rusty hates efi.....they all said it was the end of high performance and it did add costs initially...and he still believes it despite 600 hp cars rolling off the showroom floor that wont require anything but oil changes for 100k.....and most cars today wont need plugs for 200k if the oil and filters are half-ass maintained properly....shitty cars will outrun any 60's hotrod and get triple the economy.


and...no way i would add 12 k for a diesel option to an otherwise suitable truck. i wouldnt think twice about buying a 08-10 ram though....or a 7.3 psd. but in that line...if there was no cost difference...would you consider it then??


there are many new types of engines out of primary development, a 2 stroke diesel i have known about since the first parts casting some years back, is able to pass euro 6 with no urea system. at a 4 liter dv test it made 900 ft pounds...

so..a 2 liter would be plenty for my needs.


all comes down to needs regardless. if i did not have a diesel....even at 4 dollars a gallon...my truck would have to sit...and thats the reality of it.

and i dont like my engine at all....it is stinky and vibrations are worse then the gasser....but it is much more cost effective to operate or it would not be in there.

after towing with a turbo diesel, i prefer them. but i will drive whatever i have to, to get by.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

and...no way i would add 12 k for a diesel option to an otherwise suitable truck. i wouldnt think twice about buying a 08-10 ram though....or a 7.3 psd. but in that line...if there was no cost difference...would you consider it then??

No, my little 5.4 does all I ask. It doesn't get the most wonderful gas milage while dragging something but it is paid for and I know it inside and out.

I love how it starts in the cold, only one battery, no glow plugs, no heaters whatsoever, no fuel treatment... it just goes. The PS pump makes some noise around 5* and colder at startup but otherwise it just don't care. I have put 85k miles (111k miles on it currently) on it and have put $40 into it for repairs aside from brakes, tires and fluid changes... sway bar end links.

It pulls whatever odd piece of equipment I latch onto it fine and didn't blink at pulling my biggest tractor wherever I wanted back when I was into tractor pulling. No I wouldn't go charging across the Rockies with it but since I wasn't going that way I really don't care.

I would rather (I would actually love to) get a car for dd and leave the '150 for snow driving, towing and all around when I need a truck. I only drive 12 miles a day to work and back so it isn't a big deal... a car would be pennies on the dollar vs a diesel truck and a much better fairweather highway driver.

That diesel Ram was just shy of $50k, which I thought was a tad high for a cloth seat half ton that really wasn't anything too fancy, there is some fat to be shaved but it would take a long time to pay for itself vs what I have that is probably halfway through its lifespan (starting to rust like all good trucks do around here)

The beef I have with the modern diesels is that they are more like the feedback 2.8 in a RBV than a blown 5.8 in a Shelby. So much crap on top of crap... they are rube goldberg contraptions that struggle to work correctly. They might get there eventually but the treehuggers are not letting up on them yet. Right now there is no way I would stand in line for one without the intention of dumping a ton more money into it to delete a bunch of stuff.

If somebody gave me a new one (the only way I can figure the cost which is huge not being a factor) I would happily take it don't get me wrong, and then I would happily sell it and pay my off my house

For that matter I wouldn't really be that crazy about trading it in on a new gasser either, it isn't quite the carb vs efi comparison. It is a ton more tech to get another 5mpg and another 100+hp I really don't need.

 

[bigmark303]

The diesel vs gas ratio now a days is drastic. The majority of the full size truck owner crowd buying new 2012 to present are going with gas over diesel.

10-20 years ago yeah a diesel made great torque for a pickup, but that was when engines all together in full size trucks were not making anywhere near the power they do today.

The majority of diesel business I get is the young kids in the Cummins crowd. All older Dodge Rams used for rolling coal and absolutely nothing useful as to have the need for a diesel pickup truck. I have one regular with a Chevrolet Duramax. Duramax is a dying bread at least where I am. The rest of my diesel business is all older 7.3 and 6.0 Fords that either plow or are farm use. I do not have any at all new business for any new diesel. The diesel owners I deal with when they purchase a new truck its a gas model. Im in a colder climate so the maintenance and reliability of a gas engine is 10x cheaper than a diesel. Not to mention the new gas engines produce such overkill power for a pickup truck while still returning the same mileage as a diesel.

 

[superds]

For that matter I wouldn't really be that crazy about trading it in on a new gasser either, it isn't quite the carb vs efi comparison. It is a ton more tech to get another 5mpg and another 100+hp I really don't need.

I have a 2013 F150 with the 5.0. Don't count on another 5mpg on top of what older EFI will get. I get 17 mpg highway (interstate) in the summer and lately it's been 14-15mpg with this cold weather. My 99 Explorer (5.0 4x4-two speed tcase conversion) would get 16 mpg in same conditions, dropping to around 13 mpg in the cold wind. My 94 F150 5.0 4x4 would get 17 mpg same conditions, dropping slightly in the winter or around town driving. My next pickup will probably be an Ecoboost F150, I have to think something out there will get better fuel economy without breaking the bank and that might be my best option for the sporadic towing I do (car trailer).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have a 2013 F150 with the 5.0. Don't count on another 5mpg on top of what older EFI will get. I get 17 mpg highway (interstate) in the summer and lately it's been 14-15mpg with this cold weather. My 99 Explorer (5.0 4x4-two speed tcase conversion) would get 16 mpg in same conditions, dropping to around 13 mpg in the cold wind. My 94 F150 5.0 4x4 would get 17 mpg same conditions, dropping slightly in the winter or around town driving. My next pickup will probably be an Ecoboost F150, I have to think something out there will get better fuel economy without breaking the bank and that might be my best option for the sporadic towing I do (car trailer).

That is about what I get with my '02. I have heard the new 5.0's are more consistant than the EB. If you need/use the V8 power you are going to feed it either with a heavy foot stoplight to stoplight or with something tied on the back. The 5.0 don't really care quite so much.

EDIT:

I will add though that even though the milage is the same... you have a far, far safer truck. If I was to ever settle down and start a family mine would probably go the trip on that premise alone... also it is only a scab. It was pretty good in its day for safety but now... not so much.

 

[wildbill88]

how do get fire from key switch to starter on 1988 ford ranger how many wires hook to starter