Diesel truck discussion

That's why the etorque hemis were not being sold for a while in Canada.

 

2019 Ram 1500 Rollout Slowed Down By Delayed EPA Approval

 

Ive got an 18 chevy 3500 with the new duramax. Its ok..

 

If the manufacturer's would tell the EPA to take a hike in unison & build what people want to buy the EPA would become pretty irrelevant pretty quickly. 2000 model year emissions standards are plenty good for clean air & mileage. Now the reductions in emissions are a few percent of a few percent. Not really meaningful to air quality, just difficult or impossible to meet. Same with mileage, a good running Buick 3.8L in a full size LeSabre would get 25 to 28 MPG on the highway with good power, nice ride & room. I'll take that over a Ford Focus that gets maybe 32 MPG & rides like a go cart any day. I so wish VW had simply taken their Diesel cars to another market & told the EPA to pizz off when they had the chance. That would've set a nice precedent. When the clowns run the circus the rest of us pay the high cost of admission.

 

Exactly, "they" are doing to diesels what they did to gas engines in the late 70's / 80's with all the smog pumps and other crap.
That's the reason I jumped into oil burners back then. Now with the exception of maybe a "hot shot" operator, gas seem's to be the obvious choice once you get over your own ego. That seem's to come with age, at least it did in my case. Still have a 99 F 450 kicking around with the trusty 7.3 and only 70k on the truck.

 

The cost savings on fuel is not there anymore either

 

This is true, mostly, but, what I will say is, since then, we went from 100-150 hp shoe boxes (that lasted 100,000 miles if you were lucky) to 3-4-500 hp family cars that emit rainbows and unicorns from the exhaust.

My 2001 Cummins is rated at 235 hp and 465 ft lbs of torque and has zero emission controls. Look what we have now, just 17 years later. Don't get me wrong, I don't like this government regulation any more than anyone else, but power and emissions have improved! and not just a little bit.

 

In case there are doubters.

 

We have no reason to doubt.

 

my 6.0 2004 deleted gives me apx 15.5mpg pulling 10k at 65 mph. v10 was 8, 5.4-is 10 - 12 , so for me it works at present. both the v10 and 6.0 have plenty more to do any passing or super long climb, 5.4 not so.

 

I had to order mine to get it configured just the way I wanted, but they did have a crew cab long bed on the lot they tried to get me to take. Told me they could find anything and have it in a few days, came back 20 minutes later and said my truck didn't exist- it could be built, but up to that date it had never been produced optioned the way I wanted it.

 

Usually it's rotti doing the reposting...

 

I was thinking more like this!!!

 

Absolutely correct and I did over generalize in that comparison. For me it's a trade off (today's modern diesels) between doubling power at the cost of 2x,3x or more, the complexity of what used to be an engine that was beautifully simple in it's operation and maintenance. Don't get me started on the price's, gas or diesel. I'd do back flips for a 3/4 or 1 ton diesel that used this high technology to deliver "only" 250-300 hp and deliver 40+ mpg, or at least have that choice.

 

bang , you know you could take that picture when it's not rolling at 55 mph.

I had 420k on my original engined 86 2.9 v6 bronco II. That was when a drunk driver ran his red light and totalled it. So I have zero reason to doubt.

 

just imagine if they loosened the emissions just a little, we might have 1500 lbs. of torque now.

 

we have it already in the L9

 

Don't think that'll fit in a pickup.

 

its only 3000 lbs.

and the logical choice is you actually need 1500 ft lbs...