Big Muddy rancher said:RoperAB said:Well wouldnt the concept of bigger cubic inches and lower RPM torque be better?
Example look at big trucks. 2100rpm is max and most of the torque is well below that. The lower the rpm the longer the engine lasts and the better the fuel mileage.
Remember Macks old 237 inline 6. With a turbo it was called the 300. That was a great little engine. You could lug it down to 1100rpm<had to watch the pyrometer>. Been years since I drove one but I think most of the torgue was below 1500rpm.GMC in 2008 is coming out with a light duty diesel for its half ton truck line. I guess its sapposed to be great on fuel. To me this makes more sense than these current high output Cummings/ Duramax that get 13mpg.
You know years ago I drove gravel trucks with 366/427 gas motors! I hauled all over the States with a 318 detroit! Haha I think the horsepower of these new diesel pick ups is starting to get a little silly.
I liked the first Dodge diesels that they came out with. The trucks were well built, got good fuel mileage, had good power and were affordable to buy.
Before I would spend $65,000 on a new dually diesel I would go out and buy a 5 year old Kenworth.
Heck I was driving one today. That's what we have for hauling hay. I used to haul cattle when we ran yearling but my pot went to pot .
My son just can't believe how quick it starts . Ours is a 1980 WL Model which was an aluminum cab and frame cabover. Kinda rough on these goat trails we have to drive .
Mine was a 1975 R-Model conventional with a 5 and 2 transmission, cammel back suspension.
Haha To me this was big power! after driveing gas 366 and 427 with 5 and 4 transmissions and old 318 Detroits or 3208 Cats!
But those old 300hp Macks where the best motor Mack ever made. I drove lots of the 350 Macks but they were not as good. Mack also made 8 cyl. diesels<I never drove one> but I have heard they were not all that good.