(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

o/t gasser vs. diesel engines

B

bobs old iron

Well-known Member
talking with friends, friendly arguing over trucks, as we do also about other things, saw a gmc commercial about a 400hp engine, he tells me it a powerful engine,[same talk about other models with about/around same hp] i say sure, but lets hook it up to my r-v [13k lbs] or goose with tractors [10k] and see how strong/easy [take off] that Gasser pulls against diesels, [regardless of brand, not starting long arguments among yt members,lol] not naming any brand, do you kinda agree...just for fun...bob
a55210.jpg

a55211.jpg
 

I pay very little attention to the ads and commercials claiming 300 horsepower or 400 or even more horsepower. If you read the actual engine specs for those engines you will find that to achieve that kind of horsepower from that engine, the RPMs of that engine need to be somewhere up in the stratosphere, and normal driving techniques will NEVER see those screaming RPMs. Also, if you notice the actual TORQUE ratings of those engines, you will find that most of them probably could not pull the hat off your head.

The length of the stroke is where the torque comes from, and most of those engines are way too short-stroked to pull it off.
 
LOL If they are the same HP and torque they are going to pull the same cause the HP and torque are the same. Shift points may be different cause of the HP Torque curve. Kinda funny but the 7.2 non turbo produced less HP and torque (185 HP & 360 FP) than the 7.5 (460) gas (245 HP &400FP in the later FI models). Even the old carb model delivered 212HP and 342 FP after the compression ratio was lowered to burn unleaded. I owned a 77 F250 with a 460 C6 auto. 11-13 MPG depending on loaded heavy or not reguargless of speed. The 88 F250 6.9 4 speed manual diesel got about 18 empty and 12 loaded heavy at 55 and under. Both were 2 wheel drive. I had fewer problems with the 460. I liked both trucks.

Rick
 
Odd thing I see in the specs. on Ford's new eco-junk is the torque fgures are at only 2500RPM something like 400 ft lbs. All the others were at 4-5000 ? or something like that.
 
(quoted from post at 13:10:17 12/01/11)
I pay very little attention to the ads and commercials claiming 300 horsepower or 400 or even more horsepower. If you read the actual engine specs for those engines you will find that to achieve that kind of horsepower from that engine, the RPMs of that engine need to be somewhere up in the stratosphere, and normal driving techniques will NEVER see those screaming RPMs. Also, if you notice the actual TORQUE ratings of those engines, you will find that most of them probably could not pull the hat off your head.

The length of the stroke is where the torque comes from, and most of those engines are way too short-stroked to pull it off.
Click to expand...


Rusty is right......I was researching diesel pickups for a friend who was in the market about 3 years ago. 2 brands listed HP and torque and at what RPM, the 3rd didn't mention RPM's at all. When I finally found out the torque was achieved at over rated RPMS for that engine I was shocked :shock: ....not telling ya brand!

Rick.
 
Any gas engine will have more power and torque then an equal diesel engine. By "equal" I mean same bore and stroke and same aspiration. A 135 c.i. gas engine easily makes the horsepower and torque as a 152 diesel. GM/Detroit Diesel made the 379 (6.2 liter) diesel to make power equal to the 305 gasser.

Granted there are not that many matched engines out there that were made in gas and diesel - but there are some in road trucks and farm tractors. Deere 202 and 144. Ford 172. With cars and pickups - Olds 350. Isuzu 1.8 liter. In old trucks, Hercules, IH and Continental were known for many.

In your case - I know nothing about the engines involved.
 
There was a very similar topic to this not too long ago, turns out some people take it quite personally whether the rest of the world drives a diesel or gas.

As for me, I like diesels, they run at lower RPMs to make similar power to gassers, and last a lot longer if taken care of, and I prefer towing with an engine that can be run at lower RPMs without lugging. That said, I have yet to own my own diesel pickup, and have towed lots and lots with gas engines, and they all pulled the load just fine.

When I do finally get a diesel truck for on the farm, I think a K5 International with a DT466 and a RTO6610 "Baby Roadranger" would be a nifty truck. 8)
 
Hey . . .you got me thinking with that photo of the Mack. I used to drive a Thermodyne Mack that looked similar. Beautiful trucks.

Back in the late 60s when I was driving that Mack, my boss had something small that looked similar. A Mack pickup truck. It sat behind our truck garage for years, parked next to our old fleet of gas Brockways. I've always wondered if Mack actually made those little pickups but never got around to researching it.
 

Here's another thought on the matter. Why does a pickup truck that will be moving only 10 tons or less, need a 400 horsepower engine, when an 18 wheeler can easily move 40 tons cross country with that same 400 horsepower, In fact, quite a few of those older 18 wheelers could do a remarkable job of hauling 40 tons with only 200 horsepower??
 
anybody notice the on these new engines how the claimed power is only in a very small area of the rev range, or is it me? Years ago we all made do with 100hp (maybe), but nearly everything had gobs of torque, so pulling wasn't too much of an issue, now these trucks seem to make all their power and torque at high rpms ... just like race engines... just my thoughts, give me an old inline 6 anyday over these new v8's
 
(quoted from post at 14:35:12 12/01/11) anybody notice the on these new engines how the claimed power is only in a very small area of the rev range, or is it me? Years ago we all made do with 100hp (maybe), but nearly everything had gobs of torque, so pulling wasn't too much of an issue, now these trucks seem to make all their power and torque at high rpms ... just like race engines... just my thoughts, give me an old inline 6 anyday over these new v8's
Click to expand...

I'm conjuring up images of an 8.1 litre in-line 6 going head to head with the 8.1 litre V8 in my dooly. I think I would place my money on the in-line 6.
 
The difference in the 3-400 HP pickup engine and the semi's engine is about a 1000 foot pounds of torque at 400 HP.
My cat truck engine is 550HP @ 1850 torque with peak torque at 1200RPM and peak HP at 1600RPM. Rated engine speed is at 2100RPM. A bit of difference from that pickup engine running 400HP @ 2800RPM with peak torque at ??? .
I think my old 6.9 runs peak torque at around 1400RPM and runs out at about 2800RPM engine speed.
 
Ive only had two heavy duty gasser pickups. The rest have all been diesel and always fords till I recently bought my first cummins. At one time we had two identical 96 f-350s on the farm except one had a 7.3 diesel and one had the 7.5 460 gasser. That 460 was a pullin beast just as the 7.3 but the 460 got a heck of a lot less mpg than the diesel drivin around town/farm and pullin the gooseneck.I do think the diesel pulled our trailer a lot better and didnt seem to work as hard to me as the gasser did. I dont think todays gassers can even come close to a diesel.Look at what ford and dodge did for a brief while. they tried a v10 to offer a gas motor to people who didnt want a diesel and they were horrible from what I read and hear. Horrible fuel milage and still unable to pull like a diesel. My other thought is why would all these manufactures of farm and heavy equipment have went to or stayed with a diesel if they were not better thatn a gasser.They just cant get the torque and hp outa a gasser like a diesel. My two cents.
Nick
 
thats because the ecoboost has twin turbos so you get a long flat torque curve. The naturally aspirated engines are usually a sharp curve at screaming rpms. Hardly anything anymore makes its power below 5000rpm, thats probably why the fuel mileage sucks on most new engines.Make an engine that makes peak torque at about the same rpm as normal cruise speeds and I bet the mileage would be a lot better.
 
Did it look like this??
I've seen several Pick ups with KW and Pete sheet metal,A body shop in Prescott Az has a 3500 Dodge Diesel roll back with White 3000 sheet metal.Back home a body shop at Morris ILL had a 1 ton something with Brockway sheet metal.I think they are pretty neat but I can't imagine the work and materials put into creating one of these one off pick up trucks.
a55221.jpg
 
If the trucking industry had a demand for gas engines, they would probably outperform the diesels when it comes to horsepower and torque. It has always been like that and probably always will be. But there is little demand for HD gas engines. That might change with all the emissions regs and prices differences between LNG, gasoline, and diesel.

Several companies are now offering Cummins ISX engines for big rigs that run on natural gas (not gasoline). They are making just as much power as their equal sized diesel versions.

One example is the Westport 915 cubic inch Cummins run on natural gas.

Wesport HD475 natural gas engine – 467 horse at 1400 RPM and 486 horse at 1600 RPM. 1750 lbs. torque at 1200 RPM.

If GM decided they wanted to make a gas engine built as HD as the Isuzu-Duramax, with same bore and stroke, same turbo boost, etc. it would perform just as well if not better on gasoline. It would just be a pig on fuel mileage and there is no demand for such an engine.
 
Go www.lilbigrig.com.
He doesn't have Macks but he does have KW and PETE fiberglass rebody kits for pickups.
 
My boss's Mack pickup actually came from Mack. It was a Mack Model ED made in 1938.

I don't know a lot about them. I do know that Mack Juniors were made in the 1930s in Michigan and were Reo powered. Then Mack came out with the ED pick-up truck. I helped my boss get it running once but have no idea what sort of gas engine it had.

Mack Junior made 1937 (based on Reo parts)

<a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/jdemaris/?action=view&amp;current=mackjr7.jpg" target="_blank">
mackjr7.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a>

<a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/jdemaris/?action=view&amp;current=mackjr6_1937.jpg" target="_blank">
mackjr6_1937.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a>

Mack ED sold in 1938

<a href="http://s104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/jdemaris/?action=view&amp;current=Mack1938EDtruck.jpg" target="_blank">
Mack1938EDtruck.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a>
 
Boy these pictures of Mister "B" just seam to be everyware these days. Anyway here is a couple more. I do like trucks like it though. Bandit
a55227.jpg

a55228.jpg
 
<a href="http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r16/Wardner/?action=view&current=CAtrip002.jpg" target="_blank">
CAtrip002.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket


<a href="http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r16/Wardner/?action=view&amp;current=CAtrip010.jpg" target="_blank">
CAtrip010.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket
</a>
</a>

Diamond T also built a heavy pickup. Hauled this from Barkerfield, CA to New Haven, CT. Cab in bed is for my IH KB-5 with 4-53 DD. It has more power than the former 283 Chevy which replaced the 233 Green Diamond 80 hp flat head six.
 
yea, but they are neat to copy and look at, some times to use with a thread to make the conversation better...bob
 
The pickup is a model 202 I'd guess.
I had a 404 for about 17 years.
Still have a set of side plates for one.
One of them sits on top of the window by the sink.

100_05131.jpg
 
Reading this, everone is talking Ford and mopar. Makes me love my Duramax even more.
 
This one is the real deal. Some low profile tires a ford dually bed and the rest is all Mack right down to his air brakes! Mister "B" runs great and looks beautiful and has a sound all his own. Bandit
 
Years ago my dad ran a Sunoco gas station and every now and then the regular driver would drive there spare truck in. It was a GMC conventional with twin gas V6s in it and had a sound all its own. Dad ask him one day how it run with the 8500 gallon tanker, He said I can pass anything on the road but a gas station. Said it got about 5 mpg so them just used it for local deliveries while there regular trucks were being serviced. I know when he left the station he was out of site in nothing flat, Man that truck could flat move! With the price of diesel being $.70 a gallon higher than gas it would be about even to drive it now. Bandit
 
Back in the 1980's I ran several 855 cummings engines on irrigation wells on natural gas. they came from cummings with lower compression heads and of course spark ignition. But speaking of gas engines, in the early 60's I owned a 14 wheeler semi that I hauled grain and cottonseed from west Tex. into Oklahoma grossing 59000 lbs pulling it with a 283 cu chevy.
 
Mack did make a 1/2 ton pickup back in the '30's.
One sold at an auction near here for over $60,000. It looked pretty good but was advertised as "not a perfect restoration".

They also had a restored Reo pickup there. It sold for over $20,000. I think they said the Mack was built by Reo and rebadged Mack.

I know I took pictures, but can't find them now.
 
Yeah, I remember my old '63 Galaxie 500 XL had a 300 hp 390 that got it's horsepower at 4600 RPM and it's 427 Ft. lbs. of torque at 2800 RPM. Now that was gross horsepower at the crankshaft not net horsepower at the rear wheels...which was considerably less.
My '77 F-250 with a 460 made 236 net horsepower (at the wheels I guess) at 4200 RPM and 417 ft. lbs. of torque at 2400 IIRC.
My '51 G John Deere tractor with 424 cu. in. (.090 in. overbore) of engine makes 64 hp at 1100 crankshaft RPM and 58 hp at 975 RPM according to my friend's belt driven M @ W dyno. And it burns more gas than the car and pickup combined...hee,hee. Ah, maybe not at peak power though....
 
(quoted from post at 12:55:25 12/02/11) Yeah, I remember my old '63 Galaxie 500 XL had a 300 hp 390 that got it's horsepower at 4600 RPM and it's 427 Ft. lbs. of torque at 2800 RPM. Now that was gross horsepower at the crankshaft not net horsepower at the rear wheels...which was considerably less.
My '77 F-250 with a 460 made 236 net horsepower (at the wheels I guess) at 4200 RPM and 417 ft. lbs. of torque at 2400 IIRC.
My '51 G John Deere tractor with 424 cu. in. (.090 in. overbore) of engine makes 64 hp at 1100 crankshaft RPM and 58 hp at 975 RPM according to my friend's belt driven M @ W dyno. And it burns more gas than the car and pickup combined...hee,hee. Ah, maybe not at peak power though....
Click to expand...

I'll take a 390 any day over a 460.
 
(quoted from post at 19:01:22 12/01/11) If the trucking industry had a demand for gas engines, they would probably outperform the diesels when it comes to horsepower and torque. It has always been like that and probably always will be. But there is little demand for HD gas engines. That might change with all the emissions regs and prices differences between LNG, gasoline, and diesel.

Several companies are now offering Cummins ISX engines for big rigs that run on natural gas (not gasoline). They are making just as much power as their equal sized diesel versions.

One example is the Westport 915 cubic inch Cummins run on natural gas.

Wesport HD475 natural gas engine – 467 horse at 1400 RPM and 486 horse at 1600 RPM. 1750 lbs. torque at 1200 RPM.

If GM decided they wanted to make a gas engine built as HD as the Isuzu-Duramax, with same bore and stroke, same turbo boost, etc. it would perform just as well if not better on gasoline. It would just be a pig on fuel mileage and there is no demand for such an engine.
Click to expand...


A new HD gasser with direct injection burning cheaper fuel than diesel. If driven like a car as diesel pickups are 98% of the time. The gasser would cost less per mile. A lightly loaded diesel has trouble matching a lightly loaded gasser's efficiency.
Now running down the road making 300+ HP continuous or running an irrigation pump 24/7. Advantage to the diesel if operating at 70+% of full rated power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
John Deere 7710- Blue plastic found inside transmission from
Replies
2
Views
497
Mike M
M
O
Cost today, gas VS diesel?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
5K
buickanddeere
B
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top