Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Diesel vs  GAs units

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
RQ - 13 Aug 2005 20:18 GMT
From following the news groups it would appear that diesel units are
preferred over gas except there is quite a capital cost difference.
When looking at used units where the spread in costs seems to narrow
somewhat, I would like to know if there are any downside aspects to a diesel
unit.
Are they more expensive to service, repair etc.    Thanks for any opinions
offered.

rq
Hunter - 13 Aug 2005 20:24 GMT
>When looking at used units where the spread in costs seems to narrow
>somewhat, I would like to know if there are any downside aspects to a diesel
>unit.
>Are they more expensive to service, repair etc.    Thanks for any opinions
>offered.

Hi RQ,

You don't buy a diesel to save money.  You buy it for the torque.

Diesel fuel is more expensive, diesel engines are more expensive,
repairs are more expensive (but rarely needed) and oil changes are
more expensive.

Fuel used to be cheaper but in the last year I've found it to be more
expensive than regular gas...and sometimes hi test.

It sure is nice to have a diesel though, when you are pulling a heavy
trailer over mountains.

Hunter
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
Lou@GoForIt.net - 13 Aug 2005 22:29 GMT
> >When looking at used units where the spread in costs seems to narrow
> >somewhat, I would like to know if there are any downside aspects to a diesel
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
> but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"

For the technically challanged.  Torque = power:-))

Lou
Will Sill - 14 Aug 2005 00:02 GMT
I see where "RQ" <qurandc@shaw.ca> contributed:
>From following the news groups it would appear that diesel units are
>preferred over gas except there is quite a capital cost difference.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Are they more expensive to service, repair etc.    Thanks for any opinions
>offered.

Here are my non-emotional thoughts to consider when deciding on
gas vs diesel:

NOISE (-).  Despite claims that the latest GM diesel is so quiet
people are engaging the starter after it's running,  for many people
(especially the ones not in the cab!) diesel clatter is a serious
drawback.  (Yeh, I know some love it, too!)

FUEL EFFICIENCY (+).  Diesels are a clear, hands-down winner in this
category, though this isn't a big deal in economic terms because the
price of fuels fluctuates and diesel is often higher... much higher at
the moment.

LONGEVITY (+).  Though often wildly exaggerated by diesel proponents,
the kinds of diesel engines commonly used in rv's do have a longer
life-expectancy than competing gas engines.  This is not because
diesels are inherently that way, but simply because the ones in use
are originally designed for commercial service.  Most can outlast the
vehicle they are shipped in!

DEAD WEIGHT (-).  With the possible exception of the GM Duramax,
there is a significant weight penalty. The engine is a lot heavier -
harder on tires, chassis, etc.

COST (-) While proponents rationalize this issue, you pay a big
premium to own a diesel.  You may of course get some of it back when
selling, but those of us who buy for ourselves rather than for the
next buyer really can't justify the cost on economic grounds unless we
drive so many miles that the fuel efficiency offsets the cost -- and
that is a LOT of miles! No, I dunno how many.

TORQUE (+/-)  The rhetoric about diesel "torque" is mostly bafflegab.
Most truck diesels _are_ designed to produce their power at moderate
engine speeds (compared to gas engines) in order to last a long time.
The perception that they "pull better" is not imagination, but so
what? They also require more gears because they are not as flexible.
The typical truck engine also will not produce the raw horsepower of
an equivalent gasoline engine, and would self-destruct if revved up to
try.   In this regard they are simply *different*, neither better nor
worse.

REPAIR COSTS (-)  Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
going to cost MORE to fix a diesel if/when it breaks.   Modern gas
engines have very long service intervals, and if you do suffer an
actual engine-related failure, you can replace the whole engine for
the price of a repair job on a diesel.  

SERVICE AVAILABILITY (-)  The increased popularity of diesels is
changing the situation, but at this time you can find more people
competent to fix your small-block Chevvy than are available to fix
your PowerSmoke.

FUEL AVAILABILITY (-)  While widely available, even off the beaten
path,  even die-hard diesel owners admit you must be careful where you
buy to avoid getting contaminated fuel,  and much more finicky to keep
water out of it.  And there are many MORE places where gas is
available.

ENGINE BRAKING (-)  Not a Big Deal but nevertheless a fact - diesel
engines are more efficient in part because they don't pull a vacuum on
the intake, and thus have less drag with the throttle closed.  That is
part of why there are so many engine brakes sold.

WINTER STARTING  (-) Face it - even tho modern diesels are much
improved in terms of cold-weather starting, they do NOT handle bitter
cold as well.  Gasoline does not turn to jelly on cold days, nor does
it grow algae in humid conditions!

BIG RIG? (+) Diesel is the only way to go even if the disadvantages
bug you.   While Chrysler & Ford have recently built V10's for
light-duty trucks, nobody builds any gas engines that are really
suitable for hauling heavy loads.  IMO if you are running a GCW over
8-10 tons, you probably ought to be running a real diesel truck engine
rather than a stressed-out  gasser.

BOTTOM LINE:  Diesel vs Gas need not be an emotional choice, and it is
virtually made for you if you feel you must have a really large rv.
But for the rest of us,  a gas engine might actually be a better
choice.  When it comes to getting the job done, what counts is not
whether the engine is diesel or gas, but whether it is well matched to
the load, the transmission, and your expectations.

    =============================

This lecture brought to you free by Will Sill KD3XR, who hopes you
are not offended by anything you read, inferred, assumed, presumed
or otherwise guessed I might have possibly meant as demeaning -
unless of course you are personally a humorless nitwit who WANTS
to be insulted.  In which case be my guest.

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
D.J. Osborn - 14 Aug 2005 01:18 GMT
"Will Sill" <will@epix.anet> wrote (in part):

> TORQUE (+/-)  The rhetoric about diesel "torque" is mostly bafflegab.
> Most truck diesels _are_ designed to produce their power at moderate
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> try.   In this regard they are simply *different*, neither better nor
> worse.

This is simply not true.  Mr. Sill demonstrates (once again) that he either
simply doesn't understand the relationship between torque and horsepower, or
that this is yet another subject about which he is willing to knowingly make
false statements.

The additional torque produced by typical diesel engines (and the fact that
it typically comes at a lower RPM than an "equivalent" gasoline engine)
makes them clearly superior for towing and for use in large motorhomes.
Furthermore, consider that the diesel-powered pickup trucks from Chevy/GMC
(for example) have the same number of gears in their automatic transmissions
as the gasoline-powered trucks from the same corporation. The diesel engine
does *not* require "more gears."

The "raw horsepower" of the diesel engine is about the same as that of the
"equivalent" gasoline engine, but it comes at a much-more-useful lower
RPM -- which translates into improved fuel economy and engine life.

Bottom line:  Those who have towed (or driven large motorhomes) with
"equivalent" diesel and gasoline engines will tell you that the diesel
engine is clearly superior. Mr. Sill is as clueless on this subject as he is
on the subject of straight-six engines in Chevrolet TrailBlazers!

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Jim Redelfs - 14 Aug 2005 03:54 GMT
> gas vs diesel:
>
> NOISE (-)...for many people...diesel clatter is a serious drawback.

You ain't just a-woofin'.  I have become SO annoyed at the diesel-powered
Dodge Ram's that roar through the campground that I refer to them,
tongue-in-cheek, as STEALTH pickups.  (Yech)

(Yeah, yeah...  The "latest" Cummins is quieter, blah, blah...)

> COST (-) While proponents rationalize this issue, you pay a big
> premium to own a diesel.

Bingo.  This was a major consideration when purchasing my Silverado.  The
concept of amortization applies here somewhere.  All I knew was that I
wouldn't be driving enough miles to make the added expense (et al) worthwhile.

> You may of course get some of it back when selling, but those of us who
> buy for ourselves rather than for the next buyer really can't justify
> the cost

This is SOOOO refreshing!  I buy for *ME* - not the next guy.  If my choice
reduces the value at trade-in, so what?  That's the "price" I paid to have it
MY way.

> TORQUE (+/-)  The rhetoric about diesel "torque" is mostly bafflegab.

Oops.  As a believer in statistics and controlled testing, I am convinced that
the diesel is superior here.  By how MUCH is certainly debatable.

> WINTER STARTING  (-) Face it - even tho modern diesels are much
> improved in terms of cold-weather starting, they do NOT handle bitter
> cold as well.  Gasoline does not turn to jelly on cold days, nor does
> it grow algae in humid conditions!

These factors were foremost on my mind when I bought my pickup.  It's a
four-mile drive to/from work for me.  In eastern Nebraska in the winter, a
diesel wouldn't really warm-up before I arrived at work and shut it down.  
There goes the exhaust system.  Then, of course, there's our humidity in the
summer.

> BOTTOM LINE:  Diesel vs Gas need not be an emotional choice, and it is
> virtually made for you if you feel you must have a really large rv.
> But for the rest of us,  a gas engine might actually be a better
> choice.

I still wonder why the makers of BIG, front engine motorhomes DON'T use diesel
engines.  Could it be the up-front CO$T "penalty"?

           :)
JR
Signature

2000 Skamper Ultra 249 TT
2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD
Vortec 8100 - Allison 1000

D.J. Osborn - 14 Aug 2005 04:23 GMT
>> gas vs diesel:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> that
> the diesel is superior here.  By how MUCH is certainly debatable.

For towing large loads, or moving a large motorhome, there's not much debate
about the *significant* superiority of the diesel.

>> WINTER STARTING  (-) Face it - even tho modern diesels are much
>> improved in terms of cold-weather starting, they do NOT handle bitter
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> diesel
> engines.  Could it be the up-front CO$T "penalty"?

Noise, noise, and noise. It's easy to handle the noise of the rear diesel
engine when one is riding up front. It's simply too noisy for most people up
front when the diesel engine is also up front--between the driver and
co-pilot.

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Hunter - 14 Aug 2005 05:10 GMT
>I still wonder why the makers of BIG, front engine motorhomes DON'T use diesel
>engines.  Could it be the up-front CO$T "penalty"?

Could it be the noise?

Hunter
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
Jim Redelfs - 14 Aug 2005 08:42 GMT
> Could it be the noise?

That's two "votes" for the noise.  I had never considered that but it sure
makes sense to me.  Danka!

          :)
JR
Mark Tetrault - 14 Aug 2005 10:16 GMT
>> Could it be the noise?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>           :)
>JR

You and all others NEED to hear a Duramax. I was a diesel mechanic in my
working career, and I KNOW diesels. My Duramax is 75% quieter than the
Cummins or PSD. It is not to say that you can't hear it's a diesel at
idle or driving it down the road, it's just that it is so quiet as
compared to the others.

When I took delivery I walked up to the truck and didn't realize it was
idling until I opened the drivers door. It is really quiet.

Mark
Hunter - 14 Aug 2005 15:14 GMT
>You and all others NEED to hear a Duramax. I was a diesel mechanic in my
>working career, and I KNOW diesels. My Duramax is 75% quieter than the
>Cummins or PSD.

Hi Mark,

We're not talking pick up trucks though, we're talking about the noise
in diesel pusher motorhomes.

Hunter
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
RAM^3 - 14 Aug 2005 19:42 GMT
>>> Could it be the noise?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Mark

Mark -

The High Pressure Common Rail [HPCR] fuelling system, common to the Duramax,
6.0L Navistar, and Cummins, along with the introduction of Pilot Injection,
has brought all of those so equipped to a new level of "quietness" that,
quite simply, must be experienced to be believed.

Those accustomed to the earlier generation of diesels will find it quite
difficult to accept the fact that many older gasoline-powered vehicles are
noisier than the current production of HPCR-equipped diesels. <G>
HD in NY - 14 Aug 2005 23:37 GMT
snipped
> Those accustomed to the earlier generation of diesels will find it quite
> difficult to accept the fact that many older gasoline-powered vehicles are
> noisier than the current production of HPCR-equipped diesels. <G>

And I'll second that. You're so right, that the lower sound
must be experienced to believe how quiet they are.
HD in NY
Jim Redelfs - 15 Aug 2005 00:33 GMT
>> That's two "votes" for the noise.  I had never considered that but it
>> sure makes sense to me.  Danka!

> You and all others NEED to hear a Duramax.

Oh, I have.  It is amazingly quiet.  This is accomplished, at least in part,
by injecting a "pre-charge" of fuel immediately prior to the main charge.

           :)
JR
tat-2 - 16 Aug 2005 04:51 GMT
I think I'd trade some noise in on longevity.
My E350-460 Is making a lot of noise and the power up hill isn't that great.
I run the heater.

My next RV will only be diesel.

My thoughts, not yours!

Ed

> From following the news groups it would appear that diesel units are
> preferred over gas except there is quite a capital cost difference.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> rq
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.