195k on my 2003 f250 4x4 v10
doesnt pull away from my 2003 f350 service 6.0psd 181k
but the 4x4 has never had anyone but me work on it; no leaks, never a cel,
got the 6.0 couple months/6k miles ago
went to service;
found oil/soot in coolant res., coolant looked thin.
hoses on intake pipes leaking soot(pipes had weld spatter on edges, wore holes hoses ).
cold starts are hard, wait 5-10 after coil emblem goes out helps, but the colder it is the harder the starts.
need to determine if i need head gasket or not before proceding with egr/oilcooler fix.

V10 better than 6.0PSD? stock to stock? (dont care about mod to mod, thats bs)
I'll let you know

 

You're comparing a much hated diesel to a much loved gas engine.

There is no winning argument here.

 

Yeah... by Exxon/Mobil....

 

this idi with out pull a v10 https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...injectors.html

 

Let's look at stock trucks here a moment, V10 vs PSD (I'm gonna be a little bias and tote the 6.0L). And lets say the 2007 MY, in the CC/LB Dually configuration to measure apples to apples. Same Transmission and Axles the 5R110 automatic and 4.30LS.

GCWR - V10 - 23K - 6.0L - 26K
GVWR - V10 - 12.2K - 6.0L - 13K
Payload - V10 - 5500# - 6.0L - 5100#

Fuel Mileage is a little harder to figure, side by side. My truck gets 13.3 combined and about 15 mpg interstate. With a load it doesn't drop all that much. I will check what I can gather for milage on the V10, but we can agree its not as efficient. **On Edit: 10-12 combined, with 12-14 highway for the V10. With comparable loads, say 12-15k behind each of these trucks, you will see less of MPG drop with the diesels.**

Put both these trucks, with a monitor (not a mod for this discussion, but a tool for maintenance). And I take the 6.0L PSD over the V10 anyday.

 

And diesel owners compare EVERY diesel to the V10, hated or not. Search through this post and see how many 6.0 "purists" there are here and see how much they like you calling thier 6.0 the most "hated". I hated mine for a reason, it was a piece of garbage and I'll always feel like that simply because the thing was not productive and continually let me down.

I agree there is no winning this argument as there isn't a clear answer.

I just read someones post said the V10 isn't as efficient as the 6.0.... Its not just a matter of efficiency, but two different and equally ineffiecient drawbacks to both engines. One being of the amount of energy contained in equal amounts of fuel. Diesel burns hotter and has more energy to release. Gas not so much, so of course its going to take more fuel to do the same amount of work therefore making it less efficient. Take that statement into account and add this, gasoline is cheaper than diesel therefore reducing diesels' efficiency somewhat.

On the other side of that, the diesel engine has to be built heavier, with more expensive components to withstand that additional amount of energy released by its fuel. Not to mention the additional energy that is used to produce the larger, stronger diesel engine parts adding to the cost of the diesel engine. All of this adds up, making it inefficient on your wallet from the start.

So if you want to talk about inefficiencies, lets talk about all of them...

 

Won't argue the diesel is heavier, and costs more to operate. Weather that cost of operation, exceeds the cost of efficency, that I would need to get back to ya on. I would first need a somewhat agreeable set of mileage figures between the two engines, and then take into account initial price difference between the options, and regular maintenance costs over the course of say 200K? The other thing that would complicate the numbers is fuxuations in fuel costs, but we could probably set it at say todays for sake of argument.

This is a very interesting thread none-the-less, plenty of proponents of both sides.

 

i suppose it all depends on where you live. . .i dont see very many older diesels that arent stock, most of them are new-er with older guys drivin them. that bein said, when i see some kid with stacks and a diesel (doesnt matter what it is), hes usually makin a fool out of himself and everyone else who drives a diesel.

 

yes, lets talk about all of them. . . .

you only grazed the surface of reasons diesel is more efficient than a gasser. . .you stated that diesel fuel contains more energy (btu) than gasoline, which is correct. a gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTU, while a gallon of diesel contains 147,000 BTU. thats a 15% increase in BTU rating for diesel vs gas. . .but, thats not where the efficiency battle ends. the nature of compression ignition is superior to spark ignition in every way. diesels are 30-50% more thermally efficient than gasoline motors. why? ill put it in terms all the gassers can understand.

high compression makes the motor more efficient, right? if you bumped your compression up from 9:1 to 11:1 you would make more power, and your mileage would increase. of course, you'd have to run 93, but the fact remains you'd have a more efficient motor. diesels are between 16.5-17.5:1 for their compression ratio, which makes them leaps and bounds more efficient than their gasoline counterparts. diesels resistance to ignition is the REASON such high compression ratios can be utilized. even race fuel (c116) is limited to compression ratios nowhere near that of a run-of-the mill diesel engine. . .all on top of the already superior BTU rating makes the diesel that much more efficient.

oh it doesnt end there. . . .now we can move on to the injection systems. any gasser fan drooling over fords new 6.2's potential can mainly thank direct injection for the efficiency boost those motors have over the older fords. not only is the injector directly in the combustion chamber, its injected at a much higher pressure for better atomization. diesels have utilized direct injection for decades now. and, by nature of the fuel, diesel can injected at a MUCH higher pressure than even the most sophisticated gasoline injection systems (direct gasoline injection). direct diesel injection ranges from pressures of 4000 psi (first direct injection motor) to 36,000+ psi of the new common rail engines. the gasser would be lucky to see 400 psi. . . whats this mean? higher pressures equate to higher atomization coefficients. better atomization = higher efficiency. its the physical characteristics of gasoline that limit it to low pressure injection cycles. high pressure gasoline does not only make it much less stable, its "cleaning" characteristics are amplified and an injector that could withstand such abuse would be impossible/too costly to produce.

is that it? NOPE. . .the compression ignition diesel makes its power at 1/2 the rpm of a motor with similar displacement powered by gasoline. this means less fuel is needed to make the power. . . .equating to a more efficient motor.

a diesel motor is 30-60% more thermally efficient than a similar sized gasoline motor. this DOES NOT take into account its higher btu rating, and lower rpm power band. this just means more of the heat generated by the combustion translates into hp vs just leavin through the exhaust. if you combine the higher btu rating of diesel, its thermal efficiency stats, and the lower rpm needed to produce the same power (1/2 the rpm), you are lookin at a motor that is 50-100% more efficient than its gas brothers. this equates to a 50-100% boost in mpg over a gasoline counterpart.

so the argument of fuel cost vs efficiency is bogus to say the least. diesel and premium has lingered around 4.00 a gallon where i am. at this cost, diesel is 20-30 cents more than regular. thats a 5-7.5% increase in cost. if reg gasoline was 50% less, you could have a viable argument. 5-7.5% cost in fuel / gallon isnt even worth talkin about when the diesel is getting +50% better mileage (at least). . .its still a savings of 45-42.5% for even a modestly efficient diesel.

 

While there is nothing particularly wrong with this post, this is usually the point where the animosity starts again.

Please, everyone, keep it civil, and to the point.

 

How efficient is a diesel if you took the turbo off?

 

Not that one again....... its probably been 300 pages since the last time that was asked.


To answer the question, still more efficient than your v10. The turbo came on the engine, therefore it is an integral part of the engines design. Start pulling off parts that your v10 was designed with, and then come back and tell us about efficiency

 

I've had one of my boots pop off the IC tube, so the turbo was not doing any good, but I could still go 50 mph with no problems. How efficient would the V-10 be if you took the spark plugs out and tried to run the truck? I know you don't have a turbo, but again, we don't have spark plugs.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by plgebbia

…The turbo came on the engine, therefore it is an integral part of the engines design. Start pulling off parts that your v10 was designed with, and then come back and tell us about efficiency

More like complimentary… not integral. The engine could run without a turbo, right?
<O</O

Quote:

Originally Posted by miller_feed

I've had one of my boots pop off the IC tube, so the turbo was not doing any good, but I could still go 50 mph with no problems. How efficient would the V-10 be if you took the spark plugs out and tried to run the truck? I know you don't have a turbo, but again, we don't have spark plugs.

Take the spark plugs out, really??? That’s your comparison to driving without a turbo???
<O</O
The discussion was about efficiency. My question was how much is the turbo contributing to the efficiency of the diesel engine compared to one without. Could the 7.3, 6.0, 6.7 yadda yadda yadda still get 18+ mpg without the turbo? Who has(had) a non-turbo 7.3 and what mileage did you get? I’m not trying to take sides. I love my V10 but I haven’t ever driven a PSD so I don’t have anything to compare it too. If diesel engines are so grand why are auto manufactures adding turbos to gas engines here in the USA rather than switching over to all diesel powerplants?

 

It looks like you are looking at 4x4 specs. If so, the V10 is 12,600 GVWR with a max payload of 5300.

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas...df/103-105.pdf

And from the V10 mpg polls, it appears most get 10-12 combined, with 12-14 highway.