SO your stock 180hp,365tq truck will make a 225hp,450tq truck its *****?
Yeah, oK. Numbers do not lie
Actually, numbers are deceiving.
Too many people rely on the top numbers, but do not look at where those numbers occur. Far more only see HP as there reference to what makes up power.
When DeepRoots says the 2000hp feels less than the 1800hp engine, he's feeling the lack of torque within critical moments of demand.
Working engines are nothing like tractor pullers or drag vehicles... in spite of the record breaking truck with Detroit power.
An engine at work needs to be installed based on typical work, with moments of higher output and where they occur, and if they're even obtainable under typical conditions. So yes, when a 2000hp engine feeeeeels weaker than the 1800hp engine, it probably is in the power bands it's being operated in.
Like the twin 450 Cummins which couldn't pull schnitz at low end, and got totally spanked in the low end range, their engine choice was a huge mistake for the necessary application. On the other hand, it outperforms in all other aspects.
The point being, you have to bring the right tool for the job at hand. Unfortunately for them, they have nothing of the sort in their inventory, and after three days of wasted fuel, labor and a whole lotta unnecessary strain, the Cummins got spanked because they brought a knife to a gun fight.
Anyone can brag about their HP/tq settings, but unless they know where to apply them.... they.... don't... have... schnitz.
On single geared applications, this is especially true, like on vessels. A vehicle can get away with a lot more by finessing gearing, between clutching, tranny's and read ends.
I would say to DeepRoots to chnge out gears to a higher ratio, so that 2000hp engine can spool better within the torque range. His dilemma will be 'splainin to the owner why he needs to spend $50,000 to r/r a perfectly good tranny, to use more fuel in normal applications.... his close quarter maneuvering and high head current days, all justifiable, but on the normal or typical loooong pulling days.... will they just be using up more fuel for the benefits of small moments of need? We see this debate many times when someone wants to change out the rear end.... same type of argument. Gotta define exactly what you want specifically, and/or generally... then weight the benefits.
BTW- my 40'er is designed to torque away at jobs like the one I'm bragging about, with a compromised tranny to get somewhere. Also, the 6-71 only burns 4 gallons/hour at 1200rpm with a speed of 6.5 knots average. At 1500rpms, it burns 4.74gal/hr, at 17-1900rpms, I get about 8 knots, but fuel consumption goes to 6gal/hour. I'm into higher rpm, but my torque range is less than at 1200, which means the power is slipping and I'm not being pushed further per rotation of prop, in spite of its faster rotation for the rate of fuel burn. My best ever top speed run with empty tanks, no load aboard, going with the wind and current was 10.2 knots and 2000rpm.... of course that is only intermittent rpm because the DD isn't rated to run but temporarily at that rpm.... it's just a waste anyway when we look at the torque curves and fuel consumption increases.
This is the kind of cr@p commercial vessel owners and captains must think about, and dwell over daily. Reliable power, fuel efficient, yet make lotsa power fast when necessary. Detroit Diesel does all of that... again.... too bad Klownifornia and the EPA only cares about what comes out the stack, not what comes off the crank. In the case of Klownifornia, they'll lie about it to get their way.
