What year was that VW diesel? I heard good things about the 2006 TDIs, better MPG than a prius (not saying much, I know) and quite fun to drive.
Diesels are a superior design of engine, period. But in reality, you don't really have to run them on diesel and nothing else, it is possible to make a diesel engine to run on any liquid fuel if built right. The lack of a throttle valve means that a well made diesel will always get better MPGs than a well made gasser. The fuel system also lends itself more easily to multifueling.
But What I have noticed, is that consistently, diesels are being used more and more for high power instead of fuel economy. The example of the australian ranger shows that its possible to have your cake and eat it too, they are rated at 30 MPG. The F100 in argentina also draws a good compromise for power and economy. Theres nothing wrong with high power, but it would be nice to have the choice of better economy.
Here, the go big or go home mentality is still king, but with fuel prices creaping up, something has got to give.
The Jetta was an 06.........incredible economy, incredible highway cruiser. Well built and very German feeling (even though built in Mexico...LOL!!)
Huge Turbo lag and very sluggish.
Diesel being superior is 100% subjective and based on one's priorities.
I understand the cetane rating and the amount of boost a diesel can take to make power......but try to remember, it HAS to have forced induction to even come close to making spark ignition power.
Audi racing's engineering masterpiece is ONLY mo' better because of an allowable increase in displacement AND 50% more boost. (why the governing body gave so many concessions all at once is baffling)
Cube for cube, boost to boost, a diesel is waay behind a gasser in performance.......notice, please, I DID NOT say economy.
FTE Fred has stated on more than one occasion his oil burning Ranger may be one of the slowest vehicles in existence. (possible paraphrasing, I'm sure he'll correct me)
As far as multifueling..........I studied this and actually bought an '80 Mercedes turbo diesel beacuse research showed both the fuel lnes and pump were suited for playing with alternative fuels.
I was gong to save the world and drive the Mercedes on waste veggy oil....had it a few months; could never get used to driving it.
Unfortunately today, my understanding is the uber-high pressure diesel pumps and other fuel system parts do not like the absolute crud older diesels could thrive off of............and U.S. emissions are really a thorn in the side of diesel manufacturers.
Any engine failure of a VW TDI, the dealer FIRST checks the fuel!!!
BTW, besides owning the TDI, I drive PSD's at work.......you're correct, something has to give concerning our dependance on crude, but IMHO diesel has failed in the American market concerning cars in the past in everything from Nissans, Toyotas, Peugots(sp?), Fords, GM's etc.....we just don't like them.
Yes, I agree that the power to weight is in favor of the gas engine. I look at it from the standpoint of what an engine is supposed to do: convert heat into usable work, the more more work done compared to the fuel consumed, the better.
From what I've seen, horsepower is easy to get, but efficiency is not, so thats my measure of a good design. But I am the first to admit not everyone shares that view, and there is more to a good engine that strictly MPG.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
The figures for the prices where taken from my research and that of a study done by a professor at a collage. (what collage I can't rember but I will get that info to you) I also go the info from the book Freedom from Oil. (availabol at any book store) The figures where for all trucks not just one brand. Also factored into the price difference was the need in most cases to buy a stronger transmission. The numbers were just rough number that was close to the middle. If you got a car that was diesel for only 1,100 more then you made a good deal according to the numbers that i've seen.
The point of my comments was never about the drivability or capabuility of diesel vs gas it was mearly to isllistrate that most people are unable to make the diesel's gas milage benifit them.
I don't know how much more expencive the new F-150 diesel will be compared to the gasser. I would probly buy the diesel but not for the fuel savings but for the improved capabuility that it will bring.
Your points are valid and every individual that is put in the position to buy a gas or diesel should consider all the pro's vs con's not just the fuel economy.
Good on you for questioning my facts, to few people do that now. I have no problems citing my sources and if you have sources that differ from mine I encourage you to tell me.
Like I've said, I've always agreed with the reasoning concerning the "break even" point concerning the 3/4 ton gassers vs diesels......especially when you add in maintenance. But I just want to make the small correction that NONE of the big 3 trucks is more than a $7,000 difference from the top gasser to the diesel.
A quick check on Edmunds shows invoice difference for the Cummins is only $4,400 for the manual to $5,700 for the automatic.
GM prices the Duramax at $6,000 + $1,000 for the Allison.
Ford from memory was $7,000 for the PSD but the V10 was $600.....both use the same torqueshift.
The TDI was $1,100 more than the top gas offering which I THINK was a turbo 2.5 gasser......there were, of course, cheaper gas motors.
Your $5K difference may be alluding to Mercedes and vehicles like the VW Toureg(sp?).....those diesels were a good deal more but we're talking vehicles that are in the $70,000+ price range anyway.
As far as capability concerning 1/2 tons.............dude, I don't know. You're still using the same brakes, frames, axles etc. While the diesel will certainly bring the instant economy people want (However, like you and I agree, OVERALL economy will be based on initial cost) I highly doubt capability will be improved......in fact, if GVW's and CGVW's stay the same, the diesel will have LOWER ratings assuming the motor weighs more.
Yes, I agree that the power to weight is in favor of the gas engine. I look at it from the standpoint of what an engine is supposed to do: convert heat into usable work, the more more work done compared to the fuel consumed, the better.
From what I've seen, horsepower is easy to get, but efficiency is not, so thats my measure of a good design. But I am the first to admit not everyone shares that view, and there is more to a good engine that strictly MPG.
1,000,000% agreed...............and right at this EXACT moment, MPG is not at the top of my priorities. (and I realize how that sounds)
Obvious mpg is not the priority,otherwise the jetta would be going through the roof in sales.(45mpg) To my knowledge it is the highest even over the hybrids. But why are all the commercials on hybrid this, hybrid that? I was in the _LOCAL_ Ford stealership yesterday and the majority of the literature was on fuel mileage wise vehicles, n fact could not locate a single f-superduty piece. Either gas or diesel engines have been proven to be able to accept 100% RENEWABLE fuel sources and nobody CARES(big fuel companies) to start producing these products shows me personally that it is all about the Benjamins. As a small kid i remember stories of shine runners running on 100% Moonshine(100% Ethanol) and getting the same performance. And if anyone thinks that is bad, what about the Top Fuel class dragsters? Tv also shows People running 100% biodiesel that they have extracted off of Used Fry Oil, but then of course the vehicle is so old that there is no possible way that it still has the warranty(Benjamins, Benjamins)
I have seen as many TDIs as hybrids where I live, but there is a problem with the high purchase price. The thing is, if some one is going to spend $30000 for a fuel friendly car, chances are they can afford to buy fuel for it, and if there is a bigger, more comfortable vehicle in the same price range, than anyone would be tempted to get the less efficient car.
Fuel efficiency and the environmental movement as well intended as they may be, are not enough. If it comes down to spending your hard earned Benjamins, than you are going to opt for the most you can possibly get with them, and theres no sin in that.
The F150 is a vehicle that has consistently delivered a good balance of low cost, adequate build quality, and performance that made it the real world compromise that made financial sense to many buyers for 3 decades now.
But times are changing, and where there used to be an affordable workhorse that could literally earn its keep by working, the F150 seems to be taking the form of an expensive toy for the weekend. This makes it more of a luxury than a necessity, and with the cost of each new version going up, the limit is (in my opinion at least) in sight. The cab is even bigger (trying to compete with mega-cab dodge no doubt), and the box continues to shrink. As for trim levels, all the new ones relate to luxury options, not capability, or performance.
So at the end of the day, what problem is the new F150 solving? Power is not much better, at least not yet, and I guess we can assume for the moment that fuel economy doesn't even matter. The interior is very nice, but, thats a lot of expence for a nice interior. Is the "new truck smell" worth that much?
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
I have seen as many TDIs as hybrids where I live, but there is a problem with the high purchase price. The thing is, if some one is going to spend $30000 for a fuel friendly car, chances are they can afford to buy fuel for it, and if there is a bigger, more comfortable vehicle in the same price range, than anyone would be tempted to get the less efficient car.
Fuel efficiency and the environmental movement as well intended as they may be, are not enough. If it comes down to spending your hard earned Benjamins, than you are going to opt for the most you can possibly get with them, and theres no sin in that.
The F150 is a vehicle that has consistently delivered a good balance of low cost, adequate build quality, and performance that made it the real world compromise that made financial sense to many buyers for 3 decades now.
But times are changing, and where there used to be an affordable workhorse that could literally earn its keep by working, the F150 seems to be taking the form of an expensive toy for the weekend. This makes it more of a luxury than a necessity, and with the cost of each new version going up, the limit is (in my opinion at least) in sight. The cab is even bigger (trying to compete with mega-cab dodge no doubt), and the box continues to shrink. As for trim levels, all the new ones relate to luxury options, not capability, or performance.
So at the end of the day, what problem is the new F150 solving? Power is not much better, at least not yet, and I guess we can assume for the moment that fuel economy doesn't even matter. The interior is very nice, but, thats a lot of expence for a nice interior. Is the "new truck smell" worth that much?
Excellent post.
To take your point even futher. What problem was the 97 solving over the previous generations? I suppose we can say they are much safer, but honestly that is all we really got. Each revision brings us closer and closer to a luxury toy.
If i compare my fathers 87 to my 06 I see we get simliar fuel economy, both are able to haul our quads and boat. Both can safely carry a simliar amount of firewood or whatever we are hauling. Both are acceptably comfortable for long trips.. Mine may win a drag race but his has the stronger transmission. So what I see we have gained in 20 years is a safer and quieter truck.
I will not argue that overall my truck isn't better. I'm sure that would be obvious to everyone. But what bothers me is how little progress there has been in these past 20 years.
Honestly what sold me my new truck was the fact that it had a warrenty and also I live in the rust belt of PA so not many older trucks are rust free. Had a found a 80's or even 70's F150 without rust that i trusted to get me to work everyday, I would have never considered the new one.
Ford makes a v10 when gas is over $3/ gallon. That says it all about the vision of Ford. They will AGAIN be 10 years behind imports in fuel economy.
haha i dont think the v10 was meant to compete with imports on fuel economy, i think it was made to be the best gas enginge available for towing, and right now it deff is
my dad told me back in the 70s people had the technology to get vehicles to go 40 mpg.He said the reason why they didnt because the oil companies would buy the rights to whoever made the FI or carbs.Idk if thats true but i can say **** you oil companies
my dad told me back in the 70s people had the technology to get vehicles to go 40 mpg.He said the reason why they didnt because the oil companies would buy the rights to whoever made the FI or carbs.Idk if thats true but i can say **** you oil companies
No thats a myth. That one surfaces every few years.
No thats a myth. That one surfaces every few years.
Yup. For cars, the claim was 90-100MPG. And the story always goes on to describe how an oil company bought the car and told the owner (or inventor) to shut up.
There are some examples of oil companies buying out battery technology, or solar panel patents, but the 100 MPG carb never existed to begin with.
The claim is that the fuel gets vaporized buy a long heater duct to make it "burn better", and it goes back to the 1930s when the idea was first publicized. According to the newspaper articles of the era, the goofs managed to temporarily crash the price of oil when they first went public with the idea, but the technology was never proven, and the stock market readjusted after a few days (and after scientists dissected the concept). But every generation since then comes up with the same myth every now and then. You can even buy plans on the internet of fuel vaporizers (I'd sooner buy a lottery ticket).
Technically, I am driving a vapor fueled vehicle already, and while I am very happy with propane as a fuel, I can assure you, I get no where near 40 MPG!
The main energy loss in a piston engine is not the carb, valves, or heads.... its the water jacket and radiator (also heat lost to the exhaust gasses), and the cylinder part of the engine has remained unchanged since the first reliable engines ever built. Anything you add in the form of multivalves, electronic controls and so on, will help the power output and make the engine operate more consistently, but the real calculated efficiency of the gasoline internal combustion engine cannot pass ~30%. Emissions and accessories only take away from that small portion, so 25% is closer to what you get at the crank.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Well worth the read, considering its not a publication like treehugger.org, and the man raising the concerns is in fact the CEO of an oil company. The CEO of shell has also known to be concerned about unsustainable oil demand:
Yeah i think there is no disputing that oil is a finite resource.
I am just shocked that our governments are so far behind on this issue. they have taken NO action to plan for the future. Its a scary thought actually. Its also scary how most of us humans think that this earth is here to be our personal playground and garbage can.
As for the global warming and climate change I will not dispute the climate is changing. It has changed throughout its history. Not always warming either. There seems to be cycles.
I just don't feel that we have been given enough data to prove that humans are responsible for the climate change. I have searched and searched on this issue and really can only find subjective arguements. If I was provided data I would accept it, its just that hasn't happened, or been made public yet.
Also I am somewhat skeptical that that data can exsist. Humans have been able to record these factors accuratly for 200 years at the most. 200 years out of the estimated 5 billion (age of the earth) is not enough to observe a real trend. Its like taking a tenth of a second of your day and using that to guess what the rest of the day is going to hold.
Having said all that, I am a huge believer that we need to start taking better care of this earth. Global warming may not be true, but what is true is that rivers are toxic, air is polluted, and no matter how desolate the area I've ventured to, there is always garbage and signs of humans.
I always think of the native american proverb. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our grandchildren."
Yeah i think there is no disputing that oil is a finite resource.
I am just shocked that our governments are so far behind on this issue. they have taken NO action to plan for the future. Its a scary thought actually. Its also scary how most of us humans think that this earth is here to be our personal playground and garbage can.
As for the global warming and climate change I will not dispute the climate is changing. It has changed throughout its history. Not always warming either. There seems to be cycles.
I just don't feel that we have been given enough data to prove that humans are responsible for the climate change. I have searched and searched on this issue and really can only find subjective arguements. If I was provided data I would accept it, its just that hasn't happened, or been made public yet.
Also I am somewhat skeptical that that data can exsist. Humans have been able to record these factors accuratly for 200 years at the most. 200 years out of the estimated 5 billion (age of the earth) is not enough to observe a real trend. Its like taking a tenth of a second of your day and using that to guess what the rest of the day is going to hold.
Having said all that, I am a huge believer that we need to start taking better care of this earth. Global warming may not be true, but what is true is that rivers are toxic, air is polluted, and no matter how desolate the area I've ventured to, there is always garbage and signs of humans.
I always think of the native american proverb. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our grandchildren."
Amen to that.
There is a fuel economy bill that is currently before Congress that would establish mandatory fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. It is expected to pass the lower house (if it hasn't already), but hopes are low for it ever being passed into law. Have you heard of the "Zero Emission Mandate"?
Even if it were, if would not affect "light" trucks like the F150, because of its high GVW rating. Also, if we are to believe this projection that economy standards need to be pushed past 90 MPG, than cars like the prius and even small diesels will not be enough.
To reach such a goal, the piston engine itself may have to be eliminated altogether, but that won't be easy when you consider that it is the mainstay of every successful economy, and perhaps more importantly, people generally have a sentimental attachment to it. The sound and feel of a V8 is almost bread into us by now.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
