The specs say 20% better than the gasser which is around 16mpg so the new diesel should get 19ish mpg, right?

I think they should cut that motor in half, slap a turbo on it and put it in the Ranger and even in the F150 as a replacement for those in-line sixes they used to sell to make EPA numbers.

 

If I'm not mistaken the '08 f150 with the 5.4L are EPA rated at 18 MPG on the Highway. A 20% increase on that would be a rating of almost 22 MPG.

I'd be that Ford is saying that the 20% increase is on the 2009 numbers. With the new transmission, I bet the '09 rating will be anywhere from 20 - 22, which would put the diesel rating at about 24 - 26 MPG.

 

I couldn't agree more with Kel and Lead Head.

To the example with the 2 trucks, the gasser versus the dizzle, both geared the same and the gasser not being able to carry the same load. Here's why:

Your gasser can obtain a certain speed in any given gear, lets make it 50mph per each gear for the ease of argument. That means it can use it's entire rev range to move 50mph in 1st gear. The diesel, same power, can only move 30mph in the same gear, even though, it too is using it's entire rev range.

Basically, what that says is, the gasser's power is spread across a larger spectrum, a longer powerband, that needs to be made up for with gears - and that's what these guys have been saying all along.

Gear that 460 with some 5.88 gears, make it so it obtains the same speeds in each gear as the diesel, and you will see it tow the same exact load at the same exact speed.

The tall man and the short stocky guy example is great. on the 8000 hp and 50 torque example; that sounds like a jet engine . There are plenty of jet dragsters that accomplish the same thing as their nitro methane burning counterparts. They do have insane gearing on their side though if they're going to be used to move something attached to them; aka not by moving large amounts of air. To give you an example of this, here's a snippet on the chrysler turbine concept of the 60s:

Chrysler Turbine
THE TURBINE - An Alternative to the conventioal engine

the engine revved to 50,000 rpm almost, and used, in addition to the transmission gears and rear end gears, a reduction gear of 10:1 ratio, which turned the relatively low torque of the engine, into a much more useable and very respectable 425lbft of torque at a 4250ish rpm.

your 8000hp = (50tq * rpm) / 5252 equation would indicate the rpm would have to be:

8000 * 5252 = 42016000
42016000 / 50 = 840320 rpm.

that's well above even a jet engine, but that's about as close as you'll get to that . If indeed such an engine existed, it would be ridiculously powerful. Imagine putting 200:1 gears on that thing. Torque would get multiplied by 200, while rpm divided by 200. 50*200 = 10000lb ft of torque, and the rpm would be a more respctable ~4200 (still high for a truck, but it would be more down to normal useable rpms that we can use here on earth.

I'd say that engine could tow it's fair share... wouldn't you?

 

I'll wager Ford detuned the 4.4 in order to satifiy both legal and warrenty departments.

At least the aftermarket will fix the management overslight.

 

it'll definitely be interesting to see what kind of MPG and power the thing will be able to get with all the emissions restrictive crap removed...

 

ok. so dont get mad at me if im wrong but one thing i havent noticed anybody mention is where the power is placed. in order to get a gasser to put the torque at a usable range it would have to be geared much lower, thus eating up the speed it may have. if a vehicle has 8000hp its power will most likely be placed in a completely unusable range, which is why i believe that diesles are often prefered for towing because of the power placement, not nessesarily the amount of power

also dont chew me out if im wrong here but it was once explained to me that torque (more or less) is how much work can be done and HP is how fast you can do said work.

that is just my 2 cents

P.S. im not taking any sides on this whole HP vs TORQUE argument going on

 

ur pretty much right

 

You have to be careful with your terminology, though. Torque is a force, and "work" is actually a separate, defined concept in physics--force applied over a distance. HP is how fast you can apply torque. Like I said in a previous post, I could put a 5' cheater bar on a wheel, lift up with 100 lbs of force, and I'd be applying 500 ft-lbs of torque to the wheel. But, that would be at a very low horsepower...

Jason

 

anyone kno how many humans it would take to equal one hp

 

1 for brief periods of time, i think its something like .3-.4 HP continuous.

Odly, a horse can peak at 16HP

 

We did try back in phoenix to get a person dyno'd. Ran into a snag when trying to find something to attach the cable to sense RPMs tho. Mustang club dyno day - buncha rednecks with a dyno and some beer around...

 

Next time you do that, bring a bicycle, that should give you something to sense RPM

 

That's exactly right.
The problem with the towing debate is that you cant separate HP and TQ, they are always connected through that formula.
Diesels seem easier to tow with because of their lower revving engines.
Because of the RPM range of diesels, they do tend to be slightly better geared.
They also have a higher thermal efficiency (meaning better MPG, especially with towing. )
But, In my Opinion, Diesels do have some major advantages in towing-
First, their torque is stronger and more constant, so, a diesel engine is doing more work (maintaining a higher AVERAGE HP)
The other is the turbocharger. When i'm towing 10-12k lbs of firewood on a 1500lb trailer in the mountains, My turbo will spool, and if the RPMs dont build, the turbo will produce more and more boost. (to a point)
My dad and i were running up to our camp spot with a 12k lb fifth wheel, and he hit 31lbs of boost on a nearly stock truck. (intake and exhaust)
That boost made a world of difference (especially on a 7k' mountain pass!)
So, IMO, a diesel is better for towing, but not for the TQ, just for the overall performance, and the better fuel mileage.

 

For some reason I thought the 4.4L was going to be a V6 like the current 4.5L.

 

it should be less cylinders,less problems