EcoDiesel power bump?

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#21
Besides emissions, one of the reasons we don't see diesels with 100hp per liter IN A WORK TRUCK is due to thermal efficiency. The EGTs on a diesel tuned to those levels is extremely high...to the point of engine damage if not managed properly. This affects longevity. Does the 6.7 Cummins make 670hp or even close to that? They can be tuned to those levels but warranty claims for roasted pistons and turbos from people expecting to tow heavy would be frequent.

Those of us with performance diesels have the ability to detune for towing...and we accept that damage can occur if we drive them too hard for too long. We have guages and watch EGT, Boost, and Transmission temp and know the safe limits.
 

habu987

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All
Site Supporter
Tracking order
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
186
Points
43
#22
Besides emissions, one of the reasons we don't see diesels with 100hp per liter IN A WORK TRUCK is due to thermal efficiency. The EGTs on a diesel tuned to those levels is extremely high...to the point of engine damage if not managed properly. This affects longevity. Does the 6.7 Cummins make 670hp or even close to that? They can be tuned to those levels but warranty claims for roasted pistons and turbos from people expecting to tow heavy would be frequent.

Those of us with performance diesels have the ability to detune for towing...and we accept that damage can occur if we drive them too hard for too long. We have guages and watch EGT, Boost, and Transmission temp and know the safe limits.
Speaking as someone who's only ever driven a diesel once...and that was a Audi A3 loaner for a whopping day and a half...I didn't know about the thermal efficiency aspect.

Also speaking as someone who's absolutely not an engineer and isn't a gear head, I wonder if a diesel can be engineered in a way that would allow that kind of performance without being either cost prohibitive or too bulky/heavy?
 

SpeedyV

5thGenRams Supporter
Site Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2018
Messages
872
Likes
785
Points
93
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
#23
Speaking as someone who's only ever driven a diesel once...and that was a Audi A3 loaner for a whopping day and a half...I didn't know about the thermal efficiency aspect.

Also speaking as someone who's absolutely not an engineer and isn't a gear head, I wonder if a diesel can be engineered in a way that would allow that kind of performance without being either cost prohibitive or too bulky/heavy?
It's possible, of course. But you hit the nail on the head with cost. Cost and reliability are primary drivers.

Consider the 3/4-ton and 1-ton truck market for a second. The diesels available from the big three have power outputs exceeding the engines of dump trucks and tractor-trailers of years past, mostly for competitive reasons. They are producing many thousands of those engines, which reduces the relative cost of R&D, yet it still costs $9-10K extra to upgrade to a diesel drivetrain in those trucks.
 

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#24
Speaking as someone who's only ever driven a diesel once...and that was a Audi A3 loaner for a whopping day and a half...I didn't know about the thermal efficiency aspect.

Also speaking as someone who's absolutely not an engineer and isn't a gear head, I wonder if a diesel can be engineered in a way that would allow that kind of performance without being either cost prohibitive or too bulky/heavy?
The newer diesels also use the engine controls (ECU) to automatically detune under heavy loads. When Exhaust Gas Temperature runs high for extended periods (15 seconds or more), where metal parts would begin to anneal or melt, then fueling is reduced. So that beastly torque monster is detuned to safe levels. The same vehicle unloaded can develope short burst of higher power output for acceleration. The old Powerstroke 7.3 was known as a towing beast as was the 5.9 Cummins. They were tuned to run wide open with maximum loads all day without damage. They only made 250-275hp.

If the 3.0 EcoDiesel is tuned to 300hp/500tq from the factory, expect it to detune after 10-20 seconds of heavy use. The CRD injection and turbo in the current '14-'18 Ecodiesel supports 320hp/530tq already. It's just not safe to do so if the driver is not experienced. Damage can occur under heavy loads. It does make driving unloaded in traffic or passing on highways fun.
 

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#26
Looks like GM hit 282 hp and 450 lb-ft with the Duramax. If Ram is still going for the most powerful 3.0 diesel, I'm calling 290 hp and 460 lb-ft.

https://www.tfltruck.com/2018/10/3-0-liter-duramax-figures-leaked/
Interesting. I notice towing is only 7800 lbs. With 450 ft lbs, it should tow more. I suspect it is tuned hot but will detune under load to protect the motor. 92 hp/litre is hot. A 6.7 Cummins factory tuned to that level would produce 630 hp / 1005 tq. but they arent. These 3.0's are much closer to the limits.
 

habu987

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All
Site Supporter
Tracking order
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
186
Points
43
#27
Interesting. I notice towing is only 7800 lbs. With 450 ft lbs, it should tow more. I suspect it is tuned hot but will detune under load to protect the motor. 92 hp/litre is hot. A 6.7 Cummins factory tuned to that level would produce 630 hp / 1005 tq. but they arent. These 3.0's are much closer to the limits.
From one of the comments on the article: "The somewhat low tow rating is probably a result of complying with J2807- it has various acceleration and hill climb requirements that end up being mostly a horsepower limitation. Notice that GM’s V6 and Turbo4 also have similar tow ratings."

Way outside my wheelhouse, so no idea if that's remotely the case or not.
 

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#28
From one of the comments on the article: "The somewhat low tow rating is probably a result of complying with J2807- it has various acceleration and hill climb requirements that end up being mostly a horsepower limitation. Notice that GM’s V6 and Turbo4 also have similar tow ratings."

Way outside my wheelhouse, so no idea if that's remotely the case or not.
Just read some tech articles on J2807. Complying with J2807 means that, with whatever tow weight they publish, they must be able to pass the performance testing. A reduced rating is an indication that the vehicle can only pass the test at that lower tow weight. Most likely the "rated" HP/TQ is not available 100% of the time due to thermal limits. The EcoDiesel at 240 HP / 420 TQ has similar tow ratings. I saw a Hill climb test with the 3.0 Powerstroke and 3.0 EcoDiesel. The Powerstroke was slower yet had higher HP/TQ. Manufacturers are defueling under heavy loads to protect these tiny diesels from melting...yet rating them at "peak" ratings. Expect more of this as the light duty diesel market heats up with the big 3 offering similar engine options.
 

Bwarren2

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
168
Likes
38
Points
28
Age
48
#29
Buyer beware on the eco diesel, FCA stopped selling them over the emissions lawsuit, but I am not sure if they have fixed the cam issue that was causing mass failures. Go read up on eco diesel issues, I am glad I did, I was considering a 2018 1500 eco. The salesman pointed me a in a different direction because of this
 

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#30
Buyer beware on the eco diesel, FCA stopped selling them over the emissions lawsuit, but I am not sure if they have fixed the cam issue that was causing mass failures. Go read up on eco diesel issues, I am glad I did, I was considering a 2018 1500 eco. The salesman pointed me a in a different direction because of this
For most of us with failures, we lost the bottom end. The cam was a myth started by a YouTube video. There was never a cam that slipped timing of all the failures documented.

The main bearing failures are attributed to improperly bored journals that caused binding forces and premature failure. FCA is painfully aware of this. The next gen 3.0 should address this. In the mean time, I'll enjoy a Hemi. I'll miss my EcoDiesel though. It is amazing in the Grand Cherokee. Just had quality/assembly issues.

As far as the EPA goes, all the diesels are under rediculous scrutiny and have experienced delays to market. The ever changing tougher standards are ruining them. I'd like to see the standards rolled back or at least frozen until manufacturers can catch up and make reliable emission systems. It's ridiculous.
 

habu987

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All
Site Supporter
Tracking order
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
252
Likes
186
Points
43
#31
For most of us with failures, we lost the bottom end. The cam was a myth started by a YouTube video. There was never a cam that slipped timing of all the failures documented.

The main bearing failures are attributed to improperly bored journals that caused binding forces and premature failure. FCA is painfully aware of this. The next gen 3.0 should address this. In the mean time, I'll enjoy a Hemi. I'll miss my EcoDiesel though. It is amazing in the Grand Cherokee. Just had quality/assembly issues.

As far as the EPA goes, all the diesels are under rediculous scrutiny and have experienced delays to market. The ever changing tougher standards are ruining them. I'd like to see the standards rolled back or at least frozen until manufacturers can catch up and make reliable emission systems. It's ridiculous.
If the next gen 3.0 isn't a dog, and I get another Ram after the lease of my soon-to-arrive truck is up, I'll likely go with the 3.0.

Diesel around here is usually around the price of 89 gas and $0.20-0.30 per gallon more than 87. If I could get >10% better fuel economy while maintaining the same or similar performance, and not have to pay an outrageous upcharge for the 3.0, I'd definitely go for it in 2021.
 

ExcursionDiesel

Site Supporter and Tracking
Site Supporter & Order Tracking
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
298
Points
63
Age
47
#32
If the next gen 3.0 isn't a dog, and I get another Ram after the lease of my soon-to-arrive truck is up, I'll likely go with the 3.0.

Diesel around here is usually around the price of 89 gas and $0.20-0.30 per gallon more than 87. If I could get >10% better fuel economy while maintaining the same or similar performance, and not have to pay an outrageous upcharge for the 3.0, I'd definitely go for it in 2021.
You'd be well pleased with the performance. The 3.0 actually feels quicker than the Hemi under daily driving conditions due the the peak 430 ft/lb torque occurring at 1750 rpm. At full throttle, the Hemi obviously wins but who drives around at full throttle? My Grand Cherokee averaged 28.5 mpg and 32 mpg on long trips at 75mph on flat terrain. Honestly the best powertrain in a vehicle I've ever owned. The Ecodiesel paid for itself twice over in fuel cost in five years.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top