Gale Banks is off his rocker!

[16919]

I can not believe I heard this from his mouth on TRUCKS today... . he actually said that the future in diesels is to DECREASE TORQUE and raise the horsepower by RAISING the RPMS. He said that he wants to see all the diesel V8's turn 7,000 RPMS. Yes 7,000 rpms, now in the sled pulling world sure, but on the street? Don't get me started on how much of an idiot this guy is... I just thought I would pass this statement on.

 

[RustyJC]

Gee, it sounds almost like he's describing the diesel in the Audi R-10 race car, except I believe it tops out at 6000 RPM, and it's a V-12. I'd say it performs pretty well, wouldn't you? :-laf



Rusty

 

[JasonCzerak]

that's an old show (2 or 3 years old). 800hp? big deal. 7000rpm's Sure, Lets see it.



If none of his truck show this year and run down a track (straight or curvey). Well, there's not much you can do, except laugh even harder.

 

[JasonCzerak]

Gee, it sounds almost like he's describing the diesel in the Audi R-10 race car, except I believe it tops out at 6000 RPM, and it's a V-12. I'd say it performs pretty well, wouldn't you? :-laf



Rusty

yeah, 6000rpm's in a smaller motor then our cummins. The new 2. 0 liter TDI runs 4000-ish RPM's stock

 

[RustyJC]

The point is, it's making 650 BHP reliably for endurance racing applications using RPM instead of pure torque, and the lower torque allows it to be built in a much lighter package than a B-series Cummins. That has advantages for performance applications such as the R-10.



And at 5. 5L, it's not that much smaller in terms of displacement.



Rusty

 

[Forrest Nearing]

he's not off his rocker... you can make more power with a lighter engine and drivetrain and have an actual performance vehicle instead of a big ol' truck w/ an overdesigned engine that can kinda go quick in a straight line.



horsepower wins races, torque breaks things

 

[Allnew2Me]

Forrest, I had heard a quote similar to yours but it was attributed to Carrol Shelby and was a little different "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"

I don't remember where I heard that one.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

SO, after all this has been accomplished on these "new diesels", what will be their remaining advantage over a comparable gas engine?

 

[Forrest Nearing]

Forrest, I had heard a quote similar to yours but it was attributed to Carrol Shelby and was a little different "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races"

I don't remember where I heard that one.

obviously, you want a big fat powerband, but a diesel is at no loss for torque, so our focus should be on horsepower, the torque is going to come with it.



line up a 700rwhp D-max that makes 1100ftlbs of torque, and a 550rwhp Cummins that makes 1250ftlbs of torque. put them in equal weight/aerodynamic vehicles, and that D-max is going to leave the Cummins in the dust, it's also going to handle better because less weight over the nose, and aluminum heads make for a lower center of gravity.



am I planning on buying a d-max? heck no!!!! but on my truck, I'd like to make 700+rwhp. I could care less how much torque it makes because it's already too much!

 

[RickFox]

I always thought it was: Torque get you moving, HP keeps you moving. So based on the statement, would the 550/1250 dodge get out of the hole but loose it on the top end where the 700/1150 D-Max would end up catching it in the end?



Rick

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

obviously, you want a big fat powerband, but a diesel is at no loss for torque, so our focus should be on horsepower, the torque is going to come with it.

That's only currently true because today's diesels are engineered around a relatively long stroke, low RPM engine - even the Duramax, compared to gas engines.



SO, we build lighter blocked, short stroke diesel engines - probably V8 or V6, since that's the direction even Cummins is taking - and we essentially have a GAS engine that's running on diesel. And while the slower burning diesel fuel might contribute to SOME difference in torque, probably not nearly as much in a high RPM engine as in a low RPM one.



Plenty of current gas engines are delivering close to 300K miles before overhaul - a domain formerly owned by diesels. Variable timing valvetrains are providing improved low end torque to the gassers, and they too make use of turbos and other forced induction for added power and flexibility.



SO, I ask again WHAT will there be, if any, practical advantages in a high RPM diesel over a similar gasser in real world applications? Will they really be enough for a significant number of buyers to choose one over a gas powered vehicle?



GM made a serious error in judgement in trying to make a diesel engine out of a small block GM gas engine - sorta looks like we're now seeing dedicated effort to pull diesel engineering and design over into gas engine characteristics. Personally, I think it defeats the traditional underlying advantages diesel engine operation was built upon - and I'm not interested!

 

[TBartlett1]

Torque gets the load moving, HP tells you how fast you can go!

 

[JasonCzerak]

obviously, you want a big fat powerband, but a diesel is at no loss for torque, so our focus should be on horsepower, the torque is going to come with it.



line up a 700rwhp D-max that makes 1100ftlbs of torque, and a 550rwhp Cummins that makes 1250ftlbs of torque. put them in equal weight/aerodynamic vehicles, and that D-max is going to leave the Cummins in the dust, it's also going to handle better because less weight over the nose, and aluminum heads make for a lower center of gravity.



am I planning on buying a d-max? heck no!!!! but on my truck, I'd like to make 700+rwhp. I could care less how much torque it makes because it's already too much!

Get you head outa the first and second gen mind set. look at the CR motors. they make the HP and torque th dmaxes do.





my dyno graphs shows smoother torque and HP lines moving upward from left to right. Every other non 3rd gen truck at the last dyno even twas a HUGE spike at 1600rpm and dropped like rock after that, good for pulling, not for racing.

 

[RustyJC]

Remember, you can multiply torque with gearing, but you can't multiply horsepower!!



Rusty

 

[JasonCzerak]

high RPM's

here's the thing. I don't think anyone will ever reliability get 6000+ rpms outa the Dmax, ps, or cummins. Simply put, it's original intention was to be under 3200rpm.

Major internal rotating mass modifications and testing pending that is. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of them modifications is a shorter stroke.

The audi does it only because they have built a custom motor, custom block. custom internals.

 

[Forrest Nearing]

lighten the recip assy, lower the torque, increase the power

 

[JasonCzerak]

Remember, you can multiply torque with gearing, but you can't multiply horsepower!!



Rusty

!!!!



One day, and experiment should be done. 500 flyWHP ricer motor. 500FlyWHP diesel motor. and have a gear set for the diesel and one for the ricer to be swapable.



The diesel will get to 600feet and be out of rpm.



The ricer will be stalling at the line. or have a really smelly clutch!



Swap gear sets, they both have the same ET and MPH





I agree with banks' ideas for racing, I just don't think they can do it. They've been advertising this "crap" of theres for years and we never see it in competition. We've got average Joe's here makin 1000RWHP at under 3000rpm in a dmax, and they are like, we've got 600HP and we've put millions into ours!... Big deal.



Frankly, them tv infomercials these Spike TV shows do are retarded. Ever watch the new guys on Trucks do anything? It's like a 1000 monkeys trying to write a novel. Just look at that slower then snail snort V8 S10. How can you swap in an v8 in an S10 and have a truck that's slower then with the 4 cylinder? (well, appears slower on the show). baaah.



Lets Banks do his thing, once (big thing here WHEN) he proves it, maybe we'll have a little respect?

 

[Sled Puller]

Drag racing and road racing, sure Banks theory MIGHT work. (Waiting to see it proven. )



However, in truck applications on the street towing, run coast to coast with a high revving V-8 that is shy on tq, vs the opposite- and see which one lasts the longest, and gest the best mileage.



Oh, and the beauty of Diesels sledpulling, IS the massive tq, with a little more rpm than normal.





On the other hand, do any of you remeber when Penske brought his new Mercedes engines to Indy? They built a lower revving, bigger cube engine after the track sharpened the corners. The cars had to slow down more to go AROUND the corners, not cut them off.



I believe his cars were lapping the field, because they had the tq to pull them out of the turns.



That was a good lesson for anyone paying attention.

 

[RustyJC]

Actually, Penske's engines took advantage of a loophole in the rules allowing greater engine displacement for a pushrod engine design. The Penske engines pushed the definition of "pushrod" to the edge and were banned after 1 year.



The extra displacement without the traditional pushrod RPM disadvantage led to Penske's dominant performance.



From Penske's website:

1994 Penske PC-23



1994 Indianapolis 500 Winner

Driven By: Al Unser, Jr.

Engine: Ilmor Mercedes-Benz 500i pushrod

Horsepower: 800 @ 9,800 RPM

Al Unser, Jr. won the 1994 Indianapolis 500, the 10th Indy 500 win for Penske Racing in this PC-23

Rusty

 

[Sled Puller]

Right! The extra displacement gave them more tq, to compensate for less rpm.