Gas vs PSD
Elder User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: WV
Go back and read my reply again. I said with the proper gearing a car/truck with less crank hp/tq can put more power to the ground. Regardless of weight or times in the 1/4, the Mustang would have still put more power to the ground even if it was 3,000 lbs heavier. It would have been slower, but it would have still made less power at the crank and more power at the wheels. And for the record, the Mustang was only 200 lbs less than the Camaro. Can you tell a difference in how your truck runs if you have one passenger with you?
Then go back and read my calculations. Even though the 6.4 has 650 lbs of tq at the crank, the v10 still put more power to the ground when both were ran at peak tq doing the same speed. You can take an engine with 10,000 lbs of torque at the crank at 1,000 rpm's, but if it redlines at 1,000 rpm and you have to run a crazy tall gear just to turn 65 mph, then you are going to put less power to the ground than a v10. It's a pretty simple equation. When you run out of rpm's you have to shift to a taller gear to go faster. When you switch to a taller gear you are still making the same power at the crank but much less at the wheels.
Then go back and read my calculations. Even though the 6.4 has 650 lbs of tq at the crank, the v10 still put more power to the ground when both were ran at peak tq doing the same speed. You can take an engine with 10,000 lbs of torque at the crank at 1,000 rpm's, but if it redlines at 1,000 rpm and you have to run a crazy tall gear just to turn 65 mph, then you are going to put less power to the ground than a v10. It's a pretty simple equation. When you run out of rpm's you have to shift to a taller gear to go faster. When you switch to a taller gear you are still making the same power at the crank but much less at the wheels.
Elder User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: WV
89 octane jet no, but I haven't seen any diesel jets either. Have you seen diesel at cold temps? It gets pretty cold at 30,000 ft above sea level, diesel would be like jello up there. They normally use this stuff called jet fuel, the carbon chain is smaller than diesel to increase the freezing point and prevent gelling. I have seen plenty of gas powered planes though, they use 101 octane leaded aviation fuel.
Read about it here:
Jet fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Check this out:
"Kerosene-type jet fuel (including Jet A and Jet A-1) has a carbon number distribution between about 8 and 16 carbon numbers; wide-cut or naphtha-type jet fuel (including Jet B), between about 5 and 15 carbon numbers."
Remember gasoline is between 6 and 12 carbons long while diesel is 8-21 carbons. jet fuel pretty much lands between gas and diesel with Jet B being more gas like and Jet A being more diesel like, but neither Jet A or B are gas or diesel.
So no, jets don't run on diesel.
Hotshot
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,008
Likes: 7
From: Austin, TX
Hold on let me check something else... you know its not just rods that your going to need to set up a turbo right? to run 10psi you should need more than that, but i haven't messed with any V10's either. you gonna be able to keep EGTs low enough to tow with a turbo gasser? i don't know b/c i've never known anyone who tows daily with a turbo'd gasser.. it's going to be a lot less reliable i bet too..
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
A turbocharged gasoline can just as easily make peak torque down low. For example, a 1989 Chrysler Turbo II engine makes 170 lb-ft @ 2400 RPM. Modern turbocharged gasoline engines can make peak torque as low as 1800 RPM (perhaps even lower in some cases)
And don't forget Fords fairly new EB 3.5l. If memory serves me correct it makes 350tq from 1500rpm-5500rpm.
You gonna be able to keep EGTs low enough to tow with a turbo gasser?
Tuned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 262
Likes: 2
I agree that it is HP and not torque that keeps the load moving. With that being said, the 6.4 will have a commanding lead in the beginning so you may be moving faster in 2 second with the V10 but you are still not ahead.
That's great that you got your calculator out and crunched some numbers but that's all they are, numbers. Ever hear of a headwind? What about starting on a hill? Who says the load may be too heavy for the V10 to accelerate into the higher rpms? It happens. The diesel starts out with an abundance of torque down low.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
That's great that you got your calculator out and crunched some numbers but that's all they are, numbers. Ever hear of a headwind? What about starting on a hill? Who says the load may be too heavy for the V10 to accelerate into the higher rpms? It happens. The diesel starts out with an abundance of torque down low.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
I will agree with you that torque is important, but torque to the rear wheels, not the crankshaft, is what is important. Take this for example. A 6.4 with a 4.10 gear and 6 speed manual against a 6.8 with a 4.10 and 6 speed manual. The manual has a 3.30 1st gear, so a 13.53 final drive ratio. 2nd has a 2.1 ratio for an 8.61 final drive ratio.
By the time they reach 3,000 rpm both will have a rear wheel rpm of 222. (3,000/13.53=222). At that point they are doing the exact same speed(but not at the same point on the road since the 6.4 pulled out faster) but the 6.4 is pulling the load easier than the v10. At 3,000 rpm the 6.4 is making 350 hp and the v10 is making 261 hp. Rear wheel tq is 350x5252/3,000 rpm=8,280 for the 6.4 and 261x5252/3,000=6,175 for the v10.
Now, the 6.4 has pulled as far as it can go and has to shift to 2nd while the v10 can pull another 2-3k rpm easily. The 6.4 shifts to 2nd and pulls all the way to 3,000 rpm again and the v10 has pulled to 5,000 rpm in 1st. In 2nd at 3,000 rpm the 6.4 has a rear wheel rpm of 3,000/8.61=348 rpm. The v10 is at 5,000 rpm in 1st and has a rear wheel rpm of 5,000/13.53=369 rpm. The v10 is now going faster in 1st than the 6.4 can go in 2nd.
Rear wheel torque at this point is 350x5252/348=5,282 for the 6.4 and 362x5252/369=5,152 for the v10. The 6.4 is putting a little more tq to the ground, but the v10 is closing the gap and is going faster(though still behind in the race). Once the 6.4 has to hit 3rd gear because it has ran out of rpms, the v10 is still going to be in 2nd gear, gaining speed and actually putting more tq to the ground as it passes the 6.4. Funny thing is, that is exactly what happened in the magazine test that someone posted back on about page 5......
By the time they reach 3,000 rpm both will have a rear wheel rpm of 222. (3,000/13.53=222). At that point they are doing the exact same speed(but not at the same point on the road since the 6.4 pulled out faster) but the 6.4 is pulling the load easier than the v10. At 3,000 rpm the 6.4 is making 350 hp and the v10 is making 261 hp. Rear wheel tq is 350x5252/3,000 rpm=8,280 for the 6.4 and 261x5252/3,000=6,175 for the v10.
Now, the 6.4 has pulled as far as it can go and has to shift to 2nd while the v10 can pull another 2-3k rpm easily. The 6.4 shifts to 2nd and pulls all the way to 3,000 rpm again and the v10 has pulled to 5,000 rpm in 1st. In 2nd at 3,000 rpm the 6.4 has a rear wheel rpm of 3,000/8.61=348 rpm. The v10 is at 5,000 rpm in 1st and has a rear wheel rpm of 5,000/13.53=369 rpm. The v10 is now going faster in 1st than the 6.4 can go in 2nd.
Rear wheel torque at this point is 350x5252/348=5,282 for the 6.4 and 362x5252/369=5,152 for the v10. The 6.4 is putting a little more tq to the ground, but the v10 is closing the gap and is going faster(though still behind in the race). Once the 6.4 has to hit 3rd gear because it has ran out of rpms, the v10 is still going to be in 2nd gear, gaining speed and actually putting more tq to the ground as it passes the 6.4. Funny thing is, that is exactly what happened in the magazine test that someone posted back on about page 5......
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,724
Likes: 4
From: Rogersville, TN
Hold on let me check something else... you know its not just rods that your going to need to set up a turbo right? to run 10psi you should need more than that, but i haven't messed with any V10's either. you gonna be able to keep EGTs low enough to tow with a turbo gasser? i don't know b/c i've never known anyone who tows daily with a turbo'd gasser.. it's going to be a lot less reliable i bet too..
Thread Starter
|
Modular motor junkie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 6,190
Likes: 8
From: Texas
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10.
How often do you snap drive line parts getting that rolling? Thats what I would worry about.
Thread Starter
|
Modular motor junkie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 6,190
Likes: 8
From: Texas
How much HP/TQ would you make with turbo and injectors? How much can you make for any amount of time with out getting your EGTs to high?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,724
Likes: 4
From: Rogersville, TN
That's great that you got your calculator out and crunched some numbers but that's all they are, numbers. Ever hear of a headwind? What about starting on a hill? Who says the load may be too heavy for the V10 to accelerate into the higher rpms? It happens. The diesel starts out with an abundance of torque down low.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
If you are talking about a 4 speed automatic 3.73 geared v10, then yeah it would have a harder time getting that load started than a diesel. But put a ts or a manual behind it and 4.30's out back and it would get the load moving pretty easily(ask LSchicago, he pulls that much weight with his v10). A 3v 4.6 with the 6 speed tranny will actually get it moving from a dead stop faster/easier than a 7.3 with a 4 speed auto(ask Tom, he has driven both with the same trailer). Once again, it comes down to how much power the gearing lets it put to the wheels.
Hotshot
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,008
Likes: 7
From: Austin, TX
And don't forget Fords fairly new EB 3.5l. If memory serves me correct it makes 350tq from 1500rpm-5500rpm.
Ford seems to think so. The next generation F-150 will have an EB 3.7l TT with and estimated output of around 400hp and 400tq. Its reported that the engine is designed to handle EGTs over 1700 degrees F. I think you would be really surprised at what even 6lbs of boost can do on a 5.4l or 6.8l engine.
there is a difference between stock turbo setups and aftermarket. my stock turbo would pull 15lbs of boost when the truck was dead stock and it wouldn't even touch 1000* EGT when the truck was stock. now i am trying to make max power and the EGTs will easily pass up 1600* on a decent run. either way we look at it an aluminum melts around 1250* so if you stay over that long you will melt a piston.. now these newer engines may be using different pistons and stuff, i don't know. i know that boost makes a lot of difference in a gasser. i have seen turbo'd gassers make big power, but when you start shooting for more power out of an engine that wasn't designed for it and then go tow 20k lbs every day with it i have to think big problems will follow. I know i can build a 600hp tow rig that will make around 60lbs of boost in a diesel and not have a problem, but diesel doesn't burn as hot as gasoline so if the same principal follows for gas pistons then your gonna have to spray water and possibly use an air to water IC to keep it cool, but i haven't personally turbo'd a gasser so i don't know for sure..
Has anyone figured out that this thread is going nowhere??? 340+ pages of arguement... this thread has no purpose.
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,561
Likes: 423
From: Long Island USA
Yes it does, it keeps the inevitable gas-vs-diesel argument contained in a single thread 
Hotshot
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,008
Likes: 7
From: Austin, TX
I know I could pull harder, its just a matter of how much money I put into it. I know a 1500 HP V10 could be made with enough cash thrown at it, I have seen 1500 HP 4.6s running 30+ pounds of boost.
How much HP/TQ would you make with turbo and injectors? How much can you make for any amount of time with out getting your EGTs to high?
How much HP/TQ would you make with turbo and injectors? How much can you make for any amount of time with out getting your EGTs to high?
go turbo your truck, get it running, and see how it tows. add up your receipts and post the number and post the dyno results... In the meantime my junk with 313k miles will outpull yours and get better mileage. i currently get 22mpg empty and around 15 towing..
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,724
Likes: 4
From: Rogersville, TN
The reason it is going nowhere is because the majority of the people in here haven't even driven the type of truck they are bashing. Or they are comparing their current diesel(or gasser) to a gasser(or diesel) that they had 20 years ago.
Elder User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: WV
I agree that it is HP and not torque that keeps the load moving. With that being said, the 6.4 will have a commanding lead in the beginning so you may be moving faster in 2 second with the V10 but you are still not ahead.
That's great that you got your calculator out and crunched some numbers but that's all they are, numbers. Ever hear of a headwind? What about starting on a hill? Who says the load may be too heavy for the V10 to accelerate into the higher rpms? It happens. The diesel starts out with an abundance of torque down low.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
That's great that you got your calculator out and crunched some numbers but that's all they are, numbers. Ever hear of a headwind? What about starting on a hill? Who says the load may be too heavy for the V10 to accelerate into the higher rpms? It happens. The diesel starts out with an abundance of torque down low.
All you V10 guys like to talk with your calculators. fact is, you are not living in a vacuum. Ever pulled a 45' gooseneck with 15 2K lb round bales? The V10 even with 4.30s would struggle to get that load moving out of our field. The cummins (with monsterous off idle torque) grunts getting it moving. God forbid what it would do to the V10. IMO.
you're talking about a trailer that weighs 35,000lb+, sorry the F450 isn't even rated for that. You connect that to any light weight truck and you'll be WAY over the payload for it too. rule of thumb is that goosenecks tongue weight should be around 20-25% of the total weight, your looking at over 7,000lbs of tongue weight. What kind of truck are using to pull that agian? I would like to see a picture of any 3/4 or 1 ton truck connected to such a trailer. My guess is that you are using a medium or heavy duty truck to do that, not a light duty truck. That's a great comparison, medium duty truck versus light duty truck... Where is that vacuum?
I have loaded my truck with 50 square bails of hay, then put a full wagon behind it. IF each bail weighs 40lbs, that's 2000 lbs in the bed. The trailer has about 150 on it, so it weighs about 6,000lb plus 1,0000 for the trailer it's self. All together about 9,000lbs of hay. But pulling it out of the field is nothing compared to pulling my 12,000 horse trailer up the WV mountains. Pulling out of field is just going 5mph, going up the mountains I'm hitting 70 mph.
you seem to be loosing me here though. You start off by saying HP is everything, yet your going with the 6.4 which has less HP?
Thread Starter
|
Modular motor junkie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 6,190
Likes: 8
From: Texas
you're talking about a trailer that weighs 35,000lb+, sorry the F450 isn't even rated for that. You connect that to any light weight truck and you'll be WAY over the payload for it too. rule of thumb is that goosenecks tongue weight should be around 20-25% of the total weight, your looking at over 7,000lbs of tongue weight.