No diesels in half ton Fords. Dodge is the only one that does that and it only comes in the fully tarted $50,000 monster...
I'm back to looking at used trucks, I can't believe I'd never looked at Autotrader before. Turns out a Toyota dealership I pass every day has a couple trucks I'm interested in for around half what I would have paid for a new one. -Curt ________________________________ From: Hendrik and Fay via Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com> To: Fmiser <fmi...@gmail.com>; Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Horse power vs. torque vs nuts It's horses for courses, if you're likely to tow a lot and load the truck up then yeah a bigger more torquey engine would be the go but to add some perspective, modern Merc V6 engines produce more horsepower than the Euro version M100 but not as much torque. However if you do the occasional tow and load er up now and then, a smaller more efficient engine would be alright. Guess it also comes down to which is the better engine, no point cheaping out with the V6 if the V8 is a more reliable engine. How much extra do they want for a manly Diesel version, you could put vertical stacks on it and some air horns and hang out at truck stops. Oooh don't forget the balls out the back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_nuts Hendrik who has a wimpy 4 banger ute, which needs a good tune up On 30/07/14 14:10, Fmiser via Mercedes wrote: >>>> OK Don wrote: >>>> >>>> IIRC, the V8 has more torque, which is what a truck needs. >>> Fmiser wrote: >>> >>> Well, no. Not really. But sort of. >> Jim wrote: >> >> It's a good first approximation. Torque maps to >> acceleration, whereas horsepower maps to top speed. >> A 200HP 400#' engine will likely be _far_ more drivable >> than a 300HP 200#' engine, assuming equivalence in other >> broad parameters. (RPM range, reasonable number of >> gears, etc.) > The physics principles say "no" - horsepower is horsepower. But - > the perception of the person controlling the engine speed says > "Physics - go jump in a lake!". > > I suspect your definition of "drivable" is probably similar to mine > - if high RPM (with high noise and high fuel use) is necessary to > "access" the torque then it is less pleasant to drive. Thus if > your 200 HP engine required high RPM to get it's 400 lbs-ft of > torque but the 300 HP engine had it's 200 lbs-ft available from a > low RPM I think we would consider the 300 HP more drivable. (I > realize that with most modern internal combustion engines the > scenario I just mentioned is unlikely). > > So with a suitable transmission, and a willingness to put the > engine in the right RPM range, the 300 HP engine will out > accelerate the 200 HP. Probably. Though torque curves, > transmission ratios, RPM limits, etc. really muddle things. > > -- Philip _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
