LowRyter wrote:

So many reasons that don't match the conclusions. Like saying the sun rises in the east and my Accord gets 30mpg. All true stuff but hardly related.

To sum it up: Absolute Power is One Thing, Power Curve is Everything.

FishOnOne wrote:

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I was never impressed with the Ford I6 that had 300 C.I. even when pulling at low rpms compared to Fords and Chevy's similar size V8's.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:



If anybody want's to learn why, this is a great video to learn from. If you just want to know about torque, start at the 3 minute mark and learn about long and short stroke and what it "doesn't do to engines."

Don't like videos? Fine. Lets talk about actual diesel engines.

Engine #1. 2006 LBZ 6.6 Duramax. (Why this engine?) Because I own it and know about it.

Engine #2. 2006 Ram Cummins 5.9.

Engine #1 according to the internet the Durmax has a bore of 4.055 and a stroke of 3.90. (almost a square engine)

Engine #2 according to the internet the Cummins has a bore of 4.02 and a stroke of 4.72.

According to a lot of people on here the Cummins should kill my engine in torque because of the long rod.

Here are the dyno numbers:

2006 Duramax puts out 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2006 Cummins puts out 610 ft/lbs of torque.
So much for the long stroke putting out more torque.

I can hear the fan bois all ready saying that's not fair!! Your Dirty Max is a waaaaaay bigger engine!!! Fine, more facts:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L vs 2008 6.7 Cummins:

2008 Duramax 6.6 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.
2008 Cummins 6.7 L = 650 ft/lbs of torque.

Well would you look at that? Same exact torque even though the Cummins has a waaaay longer stroke.

Engine Masters did a TV show a few months back about rod length. Everybody on the show (me too) thought the long rod engine was going to put out more torque. WRONG!! They were the same within dyno measurements. Link to Engine Masters rod article.

Me Again wrote:



When you say it would not pull it out of the water, what was happening? Spinning rear wheels? Transmission not able to put the power to the ground? Engine missed and farted?

The 300 I-6 Ford engine is legendary.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-ford-........ine-six-is-one-of-the-greates-1795351528

Ford is said to be working on a new I-6 for F-150s.



https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ford-stabbi........next-f-150-is-this-the-future-of-trucks/

FishOnOne wrote:

I drove a couple of the Ford fuel injected I6 F150's and they both were turds and I drove several V8 fuel injected 5.0 F150's and always felt like they performed so much better. One of the Ford I6 trucks I drove was my uncles/aunts truck when we would go water skiing I would back the boat into the ramp and also pull it out. There was one boat ramp on the Brazos river that F150 I6 couldn't even pull the boat out of the ramp. So we disconnected the boat trailer from that Ford and hooked it up to my dads 1981 Chevy C10 with a 305 V8 2.73 gear and we pulled that boat out of that ramp with no sweat. There were a few I6 die hard's on this site who swore that the Ford I6 was a torque monster, but that one truck struggled to even pull the trailer out of the ramp even without the boat. I want to say the I6 Fords, Chevy's and Jeep engines were prone to cracked heads and manifolds.

I bought a new 88 150 with injected I6. It had the 5-speed stick, with granny 1st/reverse. It would easily push/pull my 20' TT up/down
most inclines, using almost no throttle, just letting clutch out steadily.

Purchased new 92 150 with 5L 302 4-speed auto. Not near the low speed capability, but about the same towing capability at 65 mph, overdrive locked out, compared to I6 towing in 4th.

Jerry

JRscooby wrote:



As somebody that has used a lot of torque out many engines I can see a major problem with the numbers you post; You only list peak, and don't relate it to RPM. This would matter if the engine worked at that RPM. But most useful would to compare the graph of torque output over the RPM range.