Next boat .... second thoughts
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"akheel" wrote in message
...

In 1985 I acquired a Volvo Turbo Diesel 780 sedan.

Well, within two years, it was smoking so bad that cars behind me would
slow down to get out of the cloud. By 30,000 miles I took it to the
dealer to figure out the problem. By now it was out of warranty (much
shorter warranties in thoses days). Compression was bad, but they didn't
know why. Pulled the heads and reported to me that the cylinders had
"enlarged." Enlarged? I've worked on cars since high school (all gas) and
had never seen that one. Bad rings, valves, but enlarged cylinders? I
asked them how that happened after 30,000 miles and they couldn't answer
me. I answered them: since the car had always been serviced at the
dealer, the car was either poorly serviced or poorly built, but either
way I ought not to pay. After weeks of threatening letters and promised
lawsuits directed to Volvo North America in New Jersey, they capitulated
and rebuilt the engine at Volvo's expense. They made me pay for the new
belts and hoses. I traded it on a Ford Tarus wagon within a week and
never looked back.

The point is, that we drove the car like we drive our gas cars, and not
with a light foot. We revved it high going up the onramps, drove it to
the ski lodge up the mountain at full speed and even took it on a car
rally or two. With the turbo, it had plenty of power and high revs to do
these things. But stamina it didn't have. The thing was toast after
30,000 miles. I will never own another diesel in a car as long as I live,
unless that's the only thing going. As lots of the other posters have
said, they are NOT made for high revving.


Turbo diesels have improved immensely since 1985. Hours between rebuilds
may have decreased from the old, low RPM, non-turbo diesels, but they
still provide a very decent service life, usually 3 or 4 times that of a
gasoline engine. I've had somewhat newer Volvo turbo diesels in a boat
(1999), a Ford truck (that engine had some issues, but when it was fixed,
it ran it great) , a John Deere tractor and in a Dodge (Mercedes)
Sprinter. You can stand beside the Sprinter while it's running and not
realize it's a diesel.

I really like modern diesels. I traded the '05 F-350 diesel truck in for
an '07 gas powered Ford Ranger.
I regret that now. The F-350 had twice the pep, got better fuel mileage
and hauled or towed anything.

Eisboch

For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... driver only)

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... driver only)


Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12 mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. Seems like I am
always stopping for gas. The F-350 PS was good for well over 400 miles per
tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... driver only)


Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12 mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. Seems like I am
always stopping for gas. The F-350 PS was good for well over 400 miles per
tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch



Hmmmmm. When I had a "splashtruck" some years ago, I got well over 20
mpg under almost all conditions. That was in Jax, of course, where there
was almost no bumper to bumper traffic in those days. I had the 3.0
liter engine, 2-wheel drive, automatic.

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... driver only)


Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12
mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. Seems like I
am always stopping for gas. The F-350 PS was good for well over 400
miles per tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch

Hmmmmm. When I had a "splashtruck" some years ago, I got well over 20 mpg
under almost all conditions. That was in Jax, of course, where there was
almost no bumper to bumper traffic in those days. I had the 3.0 liter
engine, 2-wheel drive, automatic.

Mine's a 4x4 and has the larger engine, so that probably accounts for the
poorer mileage. A Ranger is a great, reliable little truck, but it doesn't
compare to the bigger ones.

Eisboch

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... driver only)

Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12
mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. Seems like I
am always stopping for gas. The F-350 PS was good for well over 400
miles per tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch
Hmmmmm. When I had a "splashtruck" some years ago, I got well over 20 mpg
under almost all conditions. That was in Jax, of course, where there was
almost no bumper to bumper traffic in those days. I had the 3.0 liter
engine, 2-wheel drive, automatic.

Mine's a 4x4 and has the larger engine, so that probably accounts for the
poorer mileage. A Ranger is a great, reliable little truck, but it doesn't
compare to the bigger ones.

Eisboch




No, but I still have a fond spot in my heart for my blue ranger
splashtruck. It was cute as a button. I towed my 18' Sea Pro all over
Florida with it. The boat ramps I visited were pretty good, so I never
felt the need for a 4X4.

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

On Mar 5, 10:31*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
. ..
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:ivSdnSLji6Fu_VPanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews. com...
For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... *driver only)

Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. *I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. *It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. *It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12
mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. *Seems like I
am always stopping for gas. *The F-350 PS was good for well over 400
miles per tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch

Hmmmmm. When I had a "splashtruck" some years ago, I got well over 20 mpg
under almost all conditions. That was in Jax, of course, where there was
almost no bumper to bumper traffic in those days. I had the 3.0 liter
engine, 2-wheel drive, automatic.

Mine's a 4x4 and has the larger engine, so that probably accounts for the
poorer mileage. *A Ranger is a great, reliable little truck, but it doesn't
compare to the bigger ones.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a 1990 mercury wagon. A beast of a car! the 302 is limp
though. driving with some common sense it will get about 22-23 mpg.
Pulling a 23' cuddy, it squats to pee. the engine in the boat is
bigger than whats in the car. keep it out of overdrive and run about
50 and it gets about 12... maybe. But it's was cheap to buy and I'm
not a slave to fashion. I think I like it because the wife and
daughter dont..

Mines just like this crown vic... exactly!

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member...022_3_full.jpg

Next boat .... second thoughts
 

"Eisboch" wrote in
:

I will never own another diesel in a car as
long as I live, unless that's the only thing going. As lots of the
other posters have said, they are NOT made for high revving.


Turbo diesels have improved immensely since 1985. Hours between
rebuilds may have decreased from the old, low RPM, non-turbo diesels,
but they still provide a very decent service life, usually 3 or 4
times that of a gasoline engine. I've had somewhat newer Volvo turbo
diesels in a boat (1999), a Ford truck (that engine had some issues,
but when it was fixed, it ran it great) , a John Deere tractor and in
a Dodge (Mercedes) Sprinter. You can stand beside the Sprinter
while it's running and not realize it's a diesel.

I really like modern diesels. I traded the '05 F-350 diesel truck in
for an '07 gas powered Ford Ranger.
I regret that now. The F-350 had twice the pep, got better fuel
mileage and hauled or towed anything.

Eisboch


I don't have a problem with diesels in high torque, low revving
situations,like a big ole truck or boat. I just wouldn't have one in any
car. This whole thread was started about some high revving diesels in a
boat that seemed like they could be a problem. The whole point of diesels
are their incredible torque. Everytime they try to make one into a high
revving sports car engine, its disaster. Yet they keep trying. I keep
reading about a Mercedes diesel that's supposed to be as quiet and clean
as a gas engine. What's the point! Gas is cleaner and quieter already and
getting more so, the fuel is the same or cheaper cost, and easier to use
(I hate filling a diesel tank on a car; because of the foaming it takes
forever). The slightly better mileage (again I talking about a car) is
usually more than offset by the intial higher investment. By they time
they come up with a good diesel car, they could have perfected the fuel
cell and eliminated the whole internal combustion mess anyway!