SVTPerformance Fueling the Fire : Gas Vs. Diesel Debate

[SecondhandSnake]

The ISB is beautiful in its simplicity. Unfortunately, it's not in a Ford (not counting the F-650 or F-750) and still is packed with emissions crap. I'd like to see Cummins convert it to DOHC and make it all aluminum.

Good to see someone knows that you can get a Ford with a Cummins.

However I don't think the I6 SOHC design is the limiting factor in power. The ISB actually has a 385/1000 rating floating out there, and I'm sure more is possible. However this rating is only offered for emergency and RV use. If anything I think that the ISB might be a bit reigned in in the Ram chassis to keep it from destroying Dodge's parts. (Which it seems to do well at even at this rating.)

I wouldn't be surprised with a wet sleeved aluminum block though. It had been done with the 5.9 in the past, not sure why it isn't there for the 6.7.

And the emissions crap is only going to get worse come 2013.

In the end though, you really can't go wrong with the ISB. It's simple and extremely easy to work with, as are all other Cummins engines. Seriously, go look at a Navistar, Ford, Detroit Diesel, or Volvo engines. The complexity is downright frightening. Not to mention it certainly doesn't have a problem making power, even if it comes with less from the factory. Plus it uses the least emissions equipment out of the bunch.

Of course I might be a bit biased...

 

[SID297]

Good to see someone knows that you can get a Ford with a Cummins.

However I don't think the I6 SOHC design is the limiting factor in power. The ISB actually has a 385/1000 rating floating out there, and I'm sure more is possible. However this rating is only offered for emergency and RV use. If anything I think that the ISB might be a bit reigned in in the Ram chassis to keep it from destroying Dodge's parts. (Which it seems to do well at even at this rating.)

I wouldn't be surprised with a wet sleeved aluminum block though. It had been done with the 5.9 in the past, not sure why it isn't there for the 6.7.

And the emissions crap is only going to get worse come 2013.

In the end though, you really can't go wrong with the ISB. It's simple and extremely easy to work with, as are all other Cummins engines. Seriously, go look at a Navistar, Ford, Detroit Diesel, or Volvo engines. The complexity is downright frightening. Not to mention it certainly doesn't have a problem making power, even if it comes with less from the factory. Plus it uses the least emissions equipment out of the bunch.

Of course I might be a bit biased...

The ISB is currently a flat tappet OHV engine. There's lots of room for improvement there. With the addition of DOHC and TIVVT they could do in cylinder EGR treatment. This would remove the need for an EGR cooler. With the addition of a more advanced fuel system they could possibly remove the need for much of the exhaust after treatment as well.

Currently, diesel emissions technology is basically where its gasoline counterpart was 40 years ago (remember big blocks making less than 200 HP?). I'm sure it will improve with time.

 

[Blown_By_You]

i bet that 8 foot bed looks retarted. and why would you get the SRW?

WHY would you get DRW??

First, it's hideous.. Its huge, and you have 4 expensive rear tires to replace oke:

Maybe SRW isn't redneck enough looking for you

 

[REX-RACER]

Insurance cost is less on the gas trucks, but that's mostly due to their overall lower replacement costs if totaled. Whipple is supposed to be coming out with a blower for the 6.2L. Should be fun if you added some E85 to the mix.

Lethal just put up an announcement on their FB page that Whipple has finished testing a 2.9l blower for the 6.2l Raptor:

EXCLUSIVE NEWS & Insider Information from Whipple Superchargers: they've tested the 2.9L Whipple kit for the SVT Raptor and the results are in! With the base kit, including a GT500 throttle body, the kit put out an impressive 520rwhp @ 5700rpm, and 500ft/lbs torque @ 3600rpm. This was at 8.5 psi and on 91 octane. An available upgrade will be the Whipple billet twin 75mm throttle body, which adds 25hp and 15ft/lbs torque. This news only means the release of the kits is closer than ever! Are you excited? We are.

My assumption would be that this blower should adapt to the 6.2l F-150 & SD trucks as well . . .

 

[brianz426]

Great write up. Here's my .02; Over the past 15 years I've pulled my open car trailer with a '89 360 cu in 3/4 Ton Dodge p/u a '98 5.7L 1/2 ton Suburban and '97 5.8L Ford F250 Ext Cab w/ 5spd. All of them were adequate for local towing. Once I began traveling longer distances with family, tools, jacks extra set of wheels and tires etc. the short commings of a 1/2 ton suspension and the small block V-8 (in the Suburban) were readily apparent. Even the two Pick ups with me only and all the stuff mentioned above became a problem when traveling in mountainous terrain. There was nothing worse than having to do 80-85 down a hill for the purpose of hoping to be able to maintain 50 by the time you got to the top of the next grade. I now have an '08 F250 SRW short bed Crew Cab 6.4. I've put 40k on it since '08 and it's been great. It moves effortlessly with 2,000lbs.+ in the bed (when I use it for work), and it tows effortlessly up hills with car trailer, and a bed full of stuff for a weekend at the track. I'm expecting this truck to exceed the 210,000 miles my Suburban gave me. Yes it was expensive but so far I feel like it's been worth it, I guess time will tell. If I was buying a new truck today I would give the new EcoBoost F150 serious consideration.

 

[Jdaniel]

Living in the Rust Belt, I see many Diesels (mainly pick ups) that are rust buckets. The engine does last longer as stated but they are eye sores and would never past a safety inspection if the state of MI had one. One thing to consider is how with the rest of the vehicle hold up.

What does this have to do with the difference between a diesel and a gas engine? A frame on a gasoline engine will rust just as fast as the frame on a diesel. :??:

 

[Dusten]

Travis, this looks an awful lot like an arguement we got into on Coal Rollers a few years ago, with all the same points I made. I know I eventually left the diesel realm for most the reasons pointed out. I went the Ecoboost route and couldn't be happier.

 

[SecondhandSnake]

The ISB is currently a flat tappet OHV engine. There's lots of room for improvement there. With the addition of DOHC and TIVVT they could do in cylinder EGR treatment. This would remove the need for an EGR cooler. With the addition of a more advanced fuel system they could possibly remove the need for much of the exhaust after treatment as well.

Currently, diesel emissions technology is basically where its gasoline counterpart was 40 years ago (remember big blocks making less than 200 HP?). I'm sure it will improve with time.

Whoops, I was thinking of the ISX 15/11.9 when I said SOHC. I've been buried in ISX 11.9 work lately so it's tough to get off my mind.

I agree that DVVT would be an incredible asset to emissions and power. However I don't see the EGR cooler going away anytime soon based on the EGR fraction required and heat rejection required. Of course this is unfortunate based on the fact it's a weak link and the added heat rejection required of the cooling package. It would be nice to toss EGR all together, but it does help fuel economy dramatically.

A next generation of fuel system is already in the works. What concerns me is the safety issues of such high pressures. A rupture in such a high pressure line could do some serious bodily harm. (Meanwhile us gas guys are still using venturi-based mixers.)

And I wouldn't put diesel emissions technology on par with gasoline. I'm in the natural gas side of things, and we're pretty much the same as gasoline aftertreatment. We have EGR and a catalyst, occasionally some CCV, that's it. Our 07 engine wasn't even changed to meet 2010 regulations, and don't expect to see much for 2013. Diesel on the other hand is a nightmare, particularly with the SCR/DEF systems. Note that the Cummins ISB doesn't need it, unlike the Powerstroke and Duramax. :rolling:

On the diesel side I only see much more sophisticated, complex, and expensive aftertreatment in the future. However you'll also see dramatically improved fuel economy and smaller commerical engines available.

 

[SID297]

Travis, this looks an awful lot like an arguement we got into on Coal Rollers a few years ago, with all the same points I made. I know I eventually left the diesel realm for most the reasons pointed out. I went the Ecoboost route and couldn't be happier.

It does feel that way. And word is that CR might be on its way back.:beer:

Whoops, I was thinking of the ISX 15/11.9 when I said SOHC. I've been buried in ISX 11.9 work lately so it's tough to get off my mind.

I agree that DVVT would be an incredible asset to emissions and power. However I don't see the EGR cooler going away anytime soon based on the EGR fraction required and heat rejection required. Of course this is unfortunate based on the fact it's a weak link and the added heat rejection required of the cooling package. It would be nice to toss EGR all together, but it does help fuel economy dramatically.

A next generation of fuel system is already in the works. What concerns me is the safety issues of such high pressures. A rupture in such a high pressure line could do some serious bodily harm. (Meanwhile us gas guys are still using venturi-based mixers.)

And I wouldn't put diesel emissions technology on par with gasoline. I'm in the natural gas side of things, and we're pretty much the same as gasoline aftertreatment. We have EGR and a catalyst, occasionally some CCV, that's it. Our 07 engine wasn't even changed to meet 2010 regulations, and don't expect to see much for 2013. Diesel on the other hand is a nightmare, particularly with the SCR/DEF systems. Note that the Cummins ISB doesn't need it, unlike the Powerstroke and Duramax. :rolling:

On the diesel side I only see much more sophisticated, complex, and expensive aftertreatment in the future. However you'll also see dramatically improved fuel economy and smaller commerical engines available.

The ISB requires SCR/DEF in some applications, take a look at the Dodge 4500 and 5500 trucks. Word is the entire Ram line will feature SCR/DEF in the near future.

 

[SecondhandSnake]

The ISB requires SCR/DEF in some applications, take a look at the Dodge 4500 and 5500 trucks. Word is the entire Ram line will feature SCR/DEF in the near future.

Yeah, if you get the commercial cab and chassis, (or any Autocar, Peterbilt or Kenworth) with the ISB the SCR/DEF is required. I believe the emissions regulations are different based on the payload of the vehicle, thus the commercial grade chassis are held to much more stringent regulations. In the meantime the 2500/3500 still have the advantage, which is no small feat.

And there's no doubt in my mind that by 2013 it will have the SCR/DEF system for even the "personal use" 2500/3500. The regulations keep getting tougher and tougher.

Meanwhile we'll stay happy with our current three-way catalysts for natural gas. :banana:

 

[SID297]

Yeah, if you get the commercial cab and chassis, (or any Autocar, Peterbilt or Kenworth) with the ISB the SCR/DEF is required. I believe the emissions regulations are different based on the payload of the vehicle, thus the commercial grade chassis are held to much more stringent regulations. In the meantime the 2500/3500 still have the advantage, which is no small feat.

And there's no doubt in my mind that by 2013 it will have the SCR/DEF system for even the "personal use" 2500/3500. The regulations keep getting tougher and tougher.

Meanwhile we'll stay happy with our current three-way catalysts for natural gas. :banana:

I don't believe Dodge is moving to the SCR/DEF system on the lighter trucks for emissions reasons, but because the current system is very expensive (the catalyst uses rare metals to get the job done) and produces poorer fuel mileage than the competitors SCR/DEF systems.

 

[SID297]

Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, Ford has just issued this press release:



DEARBORN, Mich., Dec. 7, 2011 – Budget cuts and financial restrictions are daily realities for city and town governments, so finding ways to save money is imperative.

For municipalities and others seeking a cheaper alternative to replenish an aging medium-duty truck fleet, Ford offers the 2012 Super Duty F-650 with a gas engine – a class exclusive in the medium-duty truck segment. The gas variant costs thousands of dollars less than diesel trucks of its size.

Class 6 and 7 medium-duty trucks are the workhorses of municipal fleets, from single-axle dump trucks to highway plow trucks.

“The gas-engine F-650 is a highly capable truck that is Built Ford Tough without sacrificing comfort and fuel economy,” said Todd Kaufman, F-Series Chassis Cab Marketing manager.

The F-650 6.8-liter Pro-Loader with 19.5-inch wheels starts at $54,840 MSRP and the F-650 6.8-liter Dock Height with 22-inch wheels starts at $55,065. The average vehicle savings for an F-650 gas model compared to F-650 trucks with diesels is $8,300.

Power and flexibility

The 6.8-liter three-valve gas engine renders 362 horsepower and 457 lb.-ft. of torque. The engine couples with a Ford 6R410 six-speed transmission with double overdrive gears for improved fuel economy. Further, an optional gaseous fuel preparation package is available for conversion to compressed natural gas or propane fuels if desired, another option for fleets to lower their operating costs.

The all-new F-650 is Ford-designed and Ford-built with a new interior providing comfort unexpected in a work truck.



2012 Ford F-650 gas model with 6.8-liter V10

For municipalities and others seeking a cheaper alternative to replenish an aging medium-duty truck fleet, Ford offers the 2012 Super Duty F-650 with a gas engine – a class exclusive in the medium-duty truck segment. The gas variant costs thousands of dollars less than diesel trucks of its size.

Ford has heard from municipalities around the country that they need a lower-cost, yet highly capable medium-duty truck to help keep their streets clean of dirt and snow.

In response, Ford has created the new 2012 F-650 with a 6.8-liter V10 gas engine option and fuel-efficient six-speed transmission that promises to save municipal customers with tight budgets an average of $8,300 per vehicle compared to the F-650 diesel model.

All 2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 models will have available SYNC® technology to help keep drivers better connected without them having to divert their eyes from the road. Last month, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued a ruling prohibiting Interstate commercial truck and bus drivers from using hand-held electronics while behind the wheel. Ford SYNC allows drivers to communicate wirelessly without sacrificing safety.

 

[Nate_V8]

So they are still using the V10 huh?

 

[SID297]

Yep, I believe you can get it in the F-450 and 550 chassis cabs.