dirtwarrior17 said:
semis have around 1300-1500 ft lbs with about 350 hp...my uncle owns his own 2002 big rig and can attest to these numbers.
Not taking sides, I have no interest in this, but it took me all of 1 minute to find this info on the net:
"According to Volvo, the new VT 880 combines a dramatic design with high-output engines, including the new Volvo D16 engine, with ratings up to 625 hp with 2,250 lbs-ft. of torque, the most powerful truck engine available." If you start arguing that those aren't "the norm" then that should have been stated before. You can't make blanket statements and be right even half the time.
I used to be very anti-diesel, but with the economy, longevity and low-end power they provide, I've come around. Especially since I've realized that top-end in a 5500lb truck (if you are lucky) means nothing if I can't get it moving. Swapping FI into a truck to equate to the 6.2L (just in wheeling ability alone) is going to be more expensive and more complex, thats the nature of electronics.
Year for year, size for size, I think it's pretty obvious that diesels are more economical and make better power down low where we typically want it. Even at 74 more cubic inches, the 6.2 still beats the same year 305 in economy, and if carbed 305, the diesel will wheel better. If you start looking at even newer truck engines, the torque output of the diesels is STAGGERING compared to gas engines. Again, compare apples to apples...same years, similar displacement.
Why the discussion went from NA 305 and NA 6.2L to turbos and the like I'm not sure. Nature of a discussion I guess. I've driven a 6.2/TH400/3.08/31" truck, and as long as *I* was the one that shifted the gears, it had decent acceleration. Certainly no worse than my 305/700/3.08/31" truck.
Heck, check out GM's own specs here:
1996
And here:
2004
I see that in 2004 you have no choice in turbo diesel, but still, compare apples to apples. You can't buy, from the dealer, with a warranty, a GM truck with more torque than the diesel for MY 2004. Keeping it simple by comparing GM to GM. I mean it's not even close, with 93 more cubic inches for the gas. Peak torque is MUCH lower, and I guarantee the mileage is MUCH less with the 8.1. (one thing I can't find is EPA MPG ratings for them, apparently its because they aren't required to rate the 6000/8100 for economy, how convenient) GM has had just as much time to develop all of their engines, and the gas lags behind even more now if you ask me.