Diesel F150 rumor
- Thread starter Wandering Sagebrush
- Start date
Advmoto18
Senior Member
Ford has had that on the drawing board for several years. A prototype F-150 diesel engine was on a stand at the Detroit Motor Show a few years ago.
However, payload will likely be decreased due to the increased weight of the engine compared to the gas engine(s).
However, payload will likely be decreased due to the increased weight of the engine compared to the gas engine(s).
Between the added expense of the motor itself, the extra weight and associated decrease in payload, the extra complexity in order to meet emissions (VW not withstanding), the sensitivity to fuel quality, the expensive maintenance requirements, I really wonder if it's really worth it. Mileage is a little better, but a lot if it is lost because emissions requirements (at least on the larger trucks, they inject extra fuel to burn off accumulated soot in the exhaust filter, probably drops overall mileage by 10-15%). The high pressure fuel pumps are very sensitive to any water in the fuel, and if they go, you just bought a new fuel system (~$20k for a Ford 6.7L), and it won't be covered by warranty because it was bad fuel.
Granted the torque and ease of pulling almost anything is great with the diesels, although I would guess they would be downsized quite a bit in a lighter duty truck. I love mine, it's a great driving machine and handles everything with ease (with the exception of keeping fluid in the radiator, but that's another story), but I think next time I'll go with a gasser. Oil changes are a lot cheaper and easier, and flushing out a tank of bad gas is cheaper than replacing a complete fuel system because of water in fuel.
Granted the torque and ease of pulling almost anything is great with the diesels, although I would guess they would be downsized quite a bit in a lighter duty truck. I love mine, it's a great driving machine and handles everything with ease (with the exception of keeping fluid in the radiator, but that's another story), but I think next time I'll go with a gasser. Oil changes are a lot cheaper and easier, and flushing out a tank of bad gas is cheaper than replacing a complete fuel system because of water in fuel.
smlobx
Lost again
I think some of the comments above are from people who have never had a diesel.. ;-)
I've had diesels in various forms for more than 20 years and my latest is a Jeep Grand Cherokee with their 3.0 L turbo diesel. Even with the fuel prices being low this thing is like having a V-8 under the hood.
On a recent trip to NH I averaged 30.5 mpg in over 2000 miles of mostly highway driving.
When Ram decided to offer it as an option in their half ton pick ups they expected it to take up about 10% of their sales. In fact it has pushed over 20% and they have increased production to try and keep up with the demand.
Is it for everyone? Certainly not but if you want a truck with fantastic range (my GC has over 700 miles range) and more torque than most gas engines (particularly at lower rpm's) it is a no brainer. For those of us that like to travel offroad the lower torque availability and longer range are fantastic attributes.
Btw, the weight difference between my diesel and the gas engine is about 80 pounds and part of that is due to the upgraded transmission used over the V6 gas engine.
According to the article Ford might be combining it with their new 10 speed tranny and if so I would expect it to get even better mileage than the Ram.
I've had diesels in various forms for more than 20 years and my latest is a Jeep Grand Cherokee with their 3.0 L turbo diesel. Even with the fuel prices being low this thing is like having a V-8 under the hood.
On a recent trip to NH I averaged 30.5 mpg in over 2000 miles of mostly highway driving.
When Ram decided to offer it as an option in their half ton pick ups they expected it to take up about 10% of their sales. In fact it has pushed over 20% and they have increased production to try and keep up with the demand.
Is it for everyone? Certainly not but if you want a truck with fantastic range (my GC has over 700 miles range) and more torque than most gas engines (particularly at lower rpm's) it is a no brainer. For those of us that like to travel offroad the lower torque availability and longer range are fantastic attributes.
Btw, the weight difference between my diesel and the gas engine is about 80 pounds and part of that is due to the upgraded transmission used over the V6 gas engine.
According to the article Ford might be combining it with their new 10 speed tranny and if so I would expect it to get even better mileage than the Ram.
Advmoto18
Senior Member
Diesel engines tend to be far more reliable and require less maintenance than gasoline engines because less heat generated due to 40 octane fuel. Diesel engines are heavy because they can't be made from light weight materials.
I would always choose diesel over gasoline for a work or camper pickup truck.
Prior to 2004, diesel fuel was and should be less expensive than gasoline due to far less refining required. While the increased cost per gallon was due to ultra low sulfur diesel,it still should be far cheaper than gasoline. But, the US last built a refinery with significant capacity in 1977!!! Therefore, current demand for gasoline far exceeds diesel and precious refinery time is allocated to gasoline. Refineries didn't upgrade their facilities to produce ULS fuel to the extent they were able to produce LS fuel. Today, diesel supplies are far less due to refinery and pipeline slug allocations.
VW had little to do with diesel fuel and everything to do with criminals attempting to avoid regulations in order to enhance the bottom line. Hopefully, some people will go to prison in Germany for the illegal VW activities.
I would always choose diesel over gasoline for a work or camper pickup truck.
Prior to 2004, diesel fuel was and should be less expensive than gasoline due to far less refining required. While the increased cost per gallon was due to ultra low sulfur diesel,it still should be far cheaper than gasoline. But, the US last built a refinery with significant capacity in 1977!!! Therefore, current demand for gasoline far exceeds diesel and precious refinery time is allocated to gasoline. Refineries didn't upgrade their facilities to produce ULS fuel to the extent they were able to produce LS fuel. Today, diesel supplies are far less due to refinery and pipeline slug allocations.
VW had little to do with diesel fuel and everything to do with criminals attempting to avoid regulations in order to enhance the bottom line. Hopefully, some people will go to prison in Germany for the illegal VW activities.
Ace!
Gone Traveling
Maybe diesel engines used to be far more reliable or require less maintenance, but it is not necessarily the case today. Ford for example built the V10 engine engineered with a 400k mile service life, typically in fleet or commercial applications. It requires less maintenance than the diesel and is lighter in weight (offers higher payload in similarly equipped trucks).
Advmoto18
Senior Member
Not to get into a pissing contest Ace, but, I'm not sure where you sourced the data to make the statement in your first sentence. My wife's uncle owns several Ford dealerships. We were just talking about diesel engines over Christmas. Labor hours expended per unit and recorded maintenance visits to southeast dealerships for E/F-150 and E/F-250 gasoline engines far exceeds ALL Ford diesel motor variants combined installed in all F and E models! Including the problematic 6.0. Which was a design issue. And this is not to imply Ford gasoline engines are problematic! Simply, per unit, gasoline engine trucks and vans require more visits to the maintenance department than Ford diesel engines.Ace! said:
Other then preventive maintenance (oil, filters, batteries, hoses, etc) and not including upgrades (suspension, rear bumper, Bully Dog chip, etc), I have spent a grand total of $32 dollars out of pocket for a single engine mechanical problem that developed while driving along in my 2003 F-250 7.4 Super Duty. I perform scheduled maintenance on or before recommended miles. I generally do not wait for parts to fail before replacing same. Every part installed on every vehicle has a MTBF (mean time between failure) value.
Having said that, I am about to replace some more factory installed tired parts. Is there a problem? Nope. But, better to have fresh parts before beginning a long Baja trip.
And why don't I drive a new Super Duty purchased from my wife's uncle? I have 97,000 miles on my 2003 7.3. I have installed countless upgrades. The truck drives like a dream with the Old Man Emu suspension. While I would like to get better MPG (7.3 MPG suffers with ULS fuel), I'm not to the point where I'm ready to write a check for $65,000 for a new F-350 (my next truck) with diesel fuel currently priced at $1.85 in NC. Perhaps when the Ford beer can technology is put into the Super Duty. I keep throwing my money at motorcycles, not pickup trucks.
The best diesel engines? Probably Mercedes Benz. Austro engines are derived from MB diesel truck engines and installed in the Diamond DA-42 (twin engine) airplane. Exceptionally reliable engines and a great airplane to pilot! And one that literally sips fuel consuming a total of ~12 G/H at cruise, both engines combined!
Ace!
Gone Traveling
No pissing contest, you're right, less maintenance. Gas trucks require less oil, but more often. They require spark plugs at 100k miles and diesels don't have them; however, the cost for maintenance items is less in a gas engine. Also, the heavier weight of the diesel wears suspension/drivetrain parts faster, as the components are not different between a gas and diesel engine. The reliability comment came from a Ford engineer working on engines, that the gas engines (not Eco-boost) were designed with an equivalent service life.
It's not so much the motor, it's all the emissions equipment and the added complexity that comes with it. DEF isn't a big deal, until you get the notice that you have ~500 miles to add more before it cripples you to under 50/mph, then stops you completely. While DEF is usually readily available, it's not always handy. Having a single O2 sensor fail would shut you down (on the Ford, since been updated to only cripple you). The DPF system with the extra fuel injection to burn off soot is counter to the mileage savings. The ULS fuel as stated before is more expensive and there isn't as much refinery capacity. It also doesn't have as much lubrocity as the older LS fuel so it's generally not a bad idea to use additives. Interestingly Biodiesel does have better lubrocity so a blend is helpful. Bio though is more likely to hold water in suspension which is very bad for the HPFP.
I'm not familiar with how the smaller diesels such as used for passenger cars handle their emissions. I believe it''s the same concepts/components just on a smaller scale. As the 3/4t, 1t, and bigger are pretty much the same systems throughout the commercial trucks, I tend to think they are probably upsized to deal with a higher workload. I would imagine the amount of soot generated by a 1t dually hauling a 45' 25klbs 5th wheel up Sherwin Grade is going to be more than any 1/2 ton pick up would generate.
Older diesels like the 7.3 and Cummins 24v don't have these complexity issues and, if maintained will outlast the vehicles they are in. A straight unadulterated diesel can't be beat, it's all the systems that now come with them that cause the problems
I'm not familiar with how the smaller diesels such as used for passenger cars handle their emissions. I believe it''s the same concepts/components just on a smaller scale. As the 3/4t, 1t, and bigger are pretty much the same systems throughout the commercial trucks, I tend to think they are probably upsized to deal with a higher workload. I would imagine the amount of soot generated by a 1t dually hauling a 45' 25klbs 5th wheel up Sherwin Grade is going to be more than any 1/2 ton pick up would generate.
Older diesels like the 7.3 and Cummins 24v don't have these complexity issues and, if maintained will outlast the vehicles they are in. A straight unadulterated diesel can't be beat, it's all the systems that now come with them that cause the problems
Advmoto18
Senior Member
Well written Bad Habit!
The 7.3 is quite easy to work on compared to the 6.*s. Especially, the turbo section.
While I guess most of us lust for that new pickup truck (regardless of make and engine), I'm hard pressed to think when I really will let my '03 7.3 go. It is simply too reliable, upgraded to my whims and with 97,000 miles, I'm not even 1/3 of the way through the service life of the major engine components. And being retired, I don't want to let a penny needlessly slip away, unless its another motorcycle.
The 7.3 is quite easy to work on compared to the 6.*s. Especially, the turbo section.
While I guess most of us lust for that new pickup truck (regardless of make and engine), I'm hard pressed to think when I really will let my '03 7.3 go. It is simply too reliable, upgraded to my whims and with 97,000 miles, I'm not even 1/3 of the way through the service life of the major engine components. And being retired, I don't want to let a penny needlessly slip away, unless its another motorcycle.
Rusty
Senior Member
hear, hear.....Bad Habit said:
Stan@FourWheel
Senior Member
For years, our customers have been chomping at the bit for a 1/2 ton truck available with diesel and that gets good mpg. But now that the Ram 1500 is available with the Diesel, I have only seen a couple of customers come in with them. Might be a good seller in some parts of the country, but our customers don't seem to be racing out to buy them for some reason ?
If you have the cash $$ it is probably a sweet truck.
The customers I have talked with lately have crunched the numbers and seem to be going with the gas engine because the MPG vs. $ savings are just not there for the average customer. The cost of the diesel would take a long time to ever realize any savings. It seems to be more of a "want" thing. They bought the Ram 1500 Diesel because they wanted the better MPG, more torque, and longer range. But they didn't buy it for cost savings. But that's my gut feeling at this point. Guess time will tell.
I think the Nissan Titan is now available in Diesel ($55,000 K +), and I have not had one recent conversation with anyone looking at them, and have not seen any customers come in with one ? Same sort of thing. Really expensive for a 1/2 ton truck.
If I was going to drop $45,000 K for a new truck specifically to haul a camper, I would go get a 3/4 or 1 Ton truck and be done with it. Ram 2500 / Chevy 2500 / Ford F-250, etc.
.
If you have the cash $$ it is probably a sweet truck.
The customers I have talked with lately have crunched the numbers and seem to be going with the gas engine because the MPG vs. $ savings are just not there for the average customer. The cost of the diesel would take a long time to ever realize any savings. It seems to be more of a "want" thing. They bought the Ram 1500 Diesel because they wanted the better MPG, more torque, and longer range. But they didn't buy it for cost savings. But that's my gut feeling at this point. Guess time will tell.
I think the Nissan Titan is now available in Diesel ($55,000 K +), and I have not had one recent conversation with anyone looking at them, and have not seen any customers come in with one ? Same sort of thing. Really expensive for a 1/2 ton truck.
If I was going to drop $45,000 K for a new truck specifically to haul a camper, I would go get a 3/4 or 1 Ton truck and be done with it. Ram 2500 / Chevy 2500 / Ford F-250, etc.
.
Ace!
Gone Traveling
I think you're right Stan. People want more power, better mileage, etc. but don't realize the costs associated with it. That's the deal breaker for a lot of people once they start figuring out what they can afford.
jackattack
Advanced Member
Also, the diesel powerplant in the half tons seems to take more of a bite out of payload, they are prioritizing mileage at the expense of capacity. I think the 2.7eb F150 competes just fine with the Ram eco. I don't see why Ford would bother bringing yet another engine to market in that truck, especially when you take into account the emissions/mileage requirements of light duty vehicles.
CALIcamperdad
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 237
The International Harvester 7.3 is a 500,000 mile engine. 97K is hardly broken in ;-). We have two family members with well over 300,000 on their 7.3s. Transmissions 150k, truck paint 12-15 yrs interiors 200k. The costly stuff is cosmetic and behind the 7.3 Ha
Similar threads - WTW
- Spanoff
- Gear Exchange
- Replies: 4
- Views: 498
- dfuson
- Trucks, Truck Accessories & Mods
- Replies: 5
- Views: 1K
- zslamon18
- Gear Exchange
- Replies: 2
- Views: 810
- drumwood
- Gear Exchange
- Replies: 1
- Views: 597
