Go Back   iRV2 Forums > TRAVEL TRAILER, 5th WHEEL & TRUCK CAMPER FORUMS > Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-09-2015, 11:02 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
harleyjt's Avatar
 
Newmar Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 1,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post
What's wrong with my math?? 410-90= 320hp so at 7,000' he's down around 90hp.
I'll say exactly 86hp if that helps
actually 86 is what he loses, not what he's left with. 410 x 21% = 86.1 loss. 410 - 86 = 324 hp still left.
jt
__________________

__________________
2005 Newmar Kountry Star Gas 3742
Workhorse W24, 8.1L/Allison 5-spd
JT, Em & the boys, Kong & Baxter (rescued grey tabbies)
harleyjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-10-2015, 07:56 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 134
Just returned from out trip to SD, MN, and NE. Pulling a 38' 13k plus toyhauler. On last years trip, not loaded as heavy got 8 mpg and this year , the same. the difference, having re geared to the 4.56 gear, was the pulling experience. Last year with the 3.73, cruising on the interstate, about 65 mph, was running mainly 3rd gear and many times in second. This trip, was running 4th and 5th and sometimes on the flat 6th. Rpm difference was before, running about 3500 rpm at best and most of the time 4ooo plus. This year, running about 27 to 3800 rpms. So much nicer experience not having the erratic up and down shifts and the high rpms. Power is also greatly enhanced. As we were on the back roads and thanks to our U-Connect, made an unplanned trip through the Indian reservation on the NE corner of Nebraska. The gravel/ dirt many time one lane road with grades similar to truck runaway ramps, not to mention the bridge, 10' wide, no rails, and a 5 ton rating were all part of the adventure. Didn't say anything about the bridge until after crossing when DW asked, "how much do we weigh? Oh, about 13K give or take. lol Be cautious of Miss U-Connect. lol Memories. LOL DW also recorded Last Will and Testament. lol Paying attention to road so don't know where I'm at in it.
__________________

__________________
SDCOToyhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 12:41 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 314
My 6.4 pulls a work and play 30fbw without much fuss. Yes it kicks down and revs to breath...it has to because it doesn't have the luxury of a turbo to squeeze more air in. People equate rpm to working hard. That diesel is working hard as well, but it's the turbo spinning at insane speeds stuffing 2x atmospheric pressure into the cylinders.

This pulled just as well, maybe better, than my 1st gen power stroke(5sp 4.10)...just differently.

Empty at 68 19-20mpg is no problem. Towing is 8-10 unless it's windy. First trip with the WnP we went from 2200' here to burges Jct at over 8000' with 10 miles of as much as 8% grade. The EVIC showed 7.3 at the top. On the way back that climbed into the high 9s before a front start to move in with some nasty side winds.

At the same speeds, my dad's deleted 2012 ram (6.7l 4.10 deleted) is about mpg worse empty and 1mpg better loaded.
__________________
drittal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 01:09 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Outdoors RV Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nowhere, now here. Freedom!
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by drittal View Post
People equate rpm to working hard. That diesel is working hard as well, but it's the turbo spinning at insane speeds stuffing 2x atmospheric pressure into the cylinders.
Which is why it's more efficient under similar conditions, as you noted later in your post.

Yes, they will both pull the load. If the diesel engine you compared your gasser to is pulling the same load in the same conditions at the same speed and getting 1MPG better, it is more efficient pulling that load. If you only two once or twice a year, it will probably not matter which you have to tow.

I live in my trailer. I'm glad I have a '14 Ram 2500 diesel. And the lower diesel goes under gas /gal, the happier I get.
__________________
ORV 19B Full Timer, '14 Ram 2500 Diesel and a GSD. This signature updated, May 1, '17.
Currently funemployed in Vancouver WA de K7NOL 146.52Mhz Safety? (CLICK ME!)
1bigmess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 10:10 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigmess View Post
Which is why it's more efficient under similar conditions, as you noted later in your post.

Yes, they will both pull the load. If the diesel engine you compared your gasser to is pulling the same load in the same conditions at the same speed and getting 1MPG better, it is more efficient pulling that load. If you only two once or twice a year, it will probably not matter which you have to tow.

I live in my trailer. I'm glad I have a '14 Ram 2500 diesel. And the lower diesel goes under gas /gal, the happier I get.
No, it's more efficient because the diesel contains about 14% more energy combined with leaner air/fuel ratio of a diesel motor vs gas.

That said, EPA regs on diesels and modern advances in gas tech have closed the gap between two. Like knock sensors and mds on my 6.4. Diesel cars dominate in Europe but not here because EPA kills their power and mileage and adds thousands to the cost. This is why VW cheated and now owners are pissed because their power and mileage are going to fall off dramatically.

Case in point, the ecoboost. 12.5:1 compression ratio, direct injected, and twin turbos. Pull something heavy with a 5.0l f150 then the same load with a 3.5 EB F150 and the difference is almost like comparing gas to diesel power. The low end torque compared to the 5.0 loving 5k+. it is this low end that most consumers equate to not working as hard vs high rpm revs seeming to work harder. Both engines have nearly the same hp/tq numbers and probably do nearly the same amount of work given the same load. They just do it differently

I know Ford is working on a 5.0l version for mustang, raptor, and maybe the SD. If this happens it could be a game changer in the segment. Many of us don't need 900lbs of torque. The big 3 knew this and we're working on smaller diesels, but EPA regs have shelved the projects because pollution control equipment pushed the cost too close to their larger brethren aND lesend the ga in in mpg. But, if they can offer a solid 550-600lbs at 2400rpm, with similar MPG as the entry gas, for a premium of $2500-3500 over base vs $8000 for diesel, I can see it being successful. Especially since they would not have to be tested for cafe in the SD. For those of use who do not tow 15-17k 5ers full time... mmm daddy.

I had 2 EB F150 before this Ram. If it was an option in the F250 I would have looked a bit harder at a Ford SD. I have no doubt that it would have pulled my camper just as well as my current 6.4, it just had no hope of handling the tongue weights of the toy haulers I wanted that were capable of handling my barracuda.
__________________
drittal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 12:36 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Outdoors RV Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nowhere, now here. Freedom!
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by drittal View Post
No, it's more efficient because the diesel contains about 14% more energy combined with leaner air/fuel ratio of a diesel motor vs gas.
Actually, we are both right.

Ever driven a diesel that was naturally aspirated? The turbo makes a huge difference. Recapturing some heat and pressure from the exhaust to boost cylinder charge makes a big difference. Turbo charging also reduces cylinder temps, adding to engine longevity. The diesel can run in a lean condition that the gasser can't, so that does help diesel fuel economy. Add it all up and the premium for turbo charging either the gasser or diesel is a win. And if you have to sell that turbo charged tow vehicle,you'll likely get the premium you paid for the turbo charged engine back.

Remember that I was responding to someone that said the turbo was spinning at insane speeds to make the power. That is why I think we are both right. You just took more time to write it all out, and I appreciate it.
__________________
ORV 19B Full Timer, '14 Ram 2500 Diesel and a GSD. This signature updated, May 1, '17.
Currently funemployed in Vancouver WA de K7NOL 146.52Mhz Safety? (CLICK ME!)
1bigmess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 12:40 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
89sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 879
Don't forget about the extra $$$ you paid for the diesel you have to make up before you break even on the cost. Which for most owners will be never...
__________________
89sandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 01:53 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Outdoors RV Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nowhere, now here. Freedom!
Posts: 2,999
The extra almost $8k I paid for my diesel is worth it in ways that go beyond simple math for me. Exhaust brake, pulling power (I live on the West Coast so hills and mountains are a daily thing), and right now I can get diesel for cheaper than gas where I roam.

I may not break even financially, but I don't have to.
__________________
ORV 19B Full Timer, '14 Ram 2500 Diesel and a GSD. This signature updated, May 1, '17.
Currently funemployed in Vancouver WA de K7NOL 146.52Mhz Safety? (CLICK ME!)
1bigmess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 02:48 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigmess View Post
Actually, we are both right.

Ever driven a diesel that was naturally aspirated? The turbo makes a huge difference. Recapturing some heat and pressure from the exhaust to boost cylinder charge makes a big difference. Turbo charging also reduces cylinder temps, adding to engine longevity. The diesel can run in a lean condition that the gasser can't, so that does help diesel fuel economy. Add it all up and the premium for turbo charging either the gasser or diesel is a win. And if you have to sell that turbo charged tow vehicle,you'll likely get the premium you paid for the turbo charged engine back.

Remember that I was responding to someone that said the turbo was spinning at insane speeds to make the power. That is why I think we are both right. You just took more time to write it all out, and I appreciate it.
Yes. I owned an 86 GMC 6.2. The turbo makes more power by stuffing more air and fuel into the cylinders above and beyond what is capable by the motor on its own, not increasing it's fuel efficiency.
__________________
drittal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 03:06 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Outdoors RV Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nowhere, now here. Freedom!
Posts: 2,999
Feel free to prove this wrong where efficiency is mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-diesel
__________________
ORV 19B Full Timer, '14 Ram 2500 Diesel and a GSD. This signature updated, May 1, '17.
Currently funemployed in Vancouver WA de K7NOL 146.52Mhz Safety? (CLICK ME!)
1bigmess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 04:50 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigmess View Post
Feel free to prove this wrong where efficiency is mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-diesel
Volumetric efficiency, yes. Fuel efficiency, no. More air mean more fuel, NA or force inducted. Where a turbo motor shines it can be fuel efficient running at normal pressures, and powerful when the turbo spools up. Compressing the air creates heat though and without an intercooler intake air temps can really climb, especially when the compressor is powered by exhaust gases.

My 6.2 was very fuel efficient, but gutless.
__________________
drittal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 05:01 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Outdoors RV Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nowhere, now here. Freedom!
Posts: 2,999
If were not comparing volumetric efficiency, aren't we comparing apples to oranges?
__________________
ORV 19B Full Timer, '14 Ram 2500 Diesel and a GSD. This signature updated, May 1, '17.
Currently funemployed in Vancouver WA de K7NOL 146.52Mhz Safety? (CLICK ME!)
1bigmess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 06:30 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89sandman View Post
Don't forget about the extra $$$ you paid for the diesel you have to make up before you break even on the cost. Which for most owners will be never...
Nonsense... It's made up in spades when you go to sell it. And you got to enjoy twice the torque and 50% better mpg the whole time you owned it!!!
__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 06:44 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by drittal View Post
Volumetric efficiency, yes. Fuel efficiency, no. More air mean more fuel, NA or force inducted. Where a turbo motor shines it can be fuel efficient running at normal pressures, and powerful when the turbo spools up. Compressing the air creates heat though and without an intercooler intake air temps can really climb, especially when the compressor is powered by exhaust gases.

My 6.2 was very fuel efficient, but gutless.
The diesel engine compresses that volume of air twice as hard (compression ratio) and the diesel fuel converts way more of it's energy into power (vs heat).
Not all diesels are turbos and there are plenty of turbo gassers out there now.

At the end of the day and all things being equal (engine size, turbo, etc.) a diesel will always be more efficient, converting more energy into work than a gasser.
__________________

__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dodge 4.7 vs. 5.7 Hemi rideandslide Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 8 03-30-2015 07:49 PM
Heard About Ford F350 6.0 What About F450 6.4? Jhuff8181 Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 15 10-02-2014 08:55 AM
Dodge 2500 6.4 Hemi Gas Mileage ? rideandslide Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 6 07-28-2014 05:56 AM
1500 Hemi Question Lori Meyer Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 31 04-29-2014 10:53 AM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.