2011 F150 engine choices

[BCHauler]

If I was buying new, I would definately get a 150 with the Ecoboost. Being turbo boosted, it will perform even better in the mountains that cover BC where I live. As I spend a fair bit of time in big city traffic, the v6 will probably use less fuel while idling too.

I will be curious to see if they put this engine in the SportTrac as well. Smaller and lighter means even better economy one would think.

There is also an Ecoboost 4 cylinder in the works as well.

 

[brice]

BCH just hit on what is the most important aspect of the ecoboost imo, the performance at altitude. While the published power numbers for the 3.5 and 5.0 are close, the difference will be much larger when the air is thin. I'm not a fan of turbos on hardcore off road rigs, but for a d/d, weekend camping truck, and occasional tow rig this truck looks like it will be nearly perfect.

 

[Strizzo]

Although being turbo charged means you can always get a boost controller, bigger down pipe, and a huge intercooler and really up the power out put!

being direct injected, and computer controlled out the wazoo, this likely won't be the case. it took COBB tuning the better part of two years to crack open and tune the mazda 4cyl DI turbo engine, and i imagine the ecoboost won't be much different. to turn up the boost in the mazda, you have to adjust 5 or 6 different tables in the ECU to make the change work correctly.

not to say its not possible, just that its gotten a bit more complicated since the days of bleeder valve boost controllers.

 

[p71]

being direct injected, and computer controlled out the wazoo, this likely won't be the case. it took COBB tuning the better part of two years to crack open and tune the mazda 4cyl DI turbo engine, and i imagine the ecoboost won't be much different. to turn up the boost in the mazda, you have to adjust 5 or 6 different tables in the ECU to make the change work correctly.

not to say its not possible, just that its gotten a bit more complicated since the days of bleeder valve boost controllers.

The ecoboost in the taurus was retuned within hours of release... same motor, and I think same ECU.

 

[mustangwarrior]

The 3.5L Ecoboost turbo V6 4x4 rating is 15 mpg city, 21 highway. Power is 365 hp, 425 ft-lbs on regular gas. So you get more torque, a broader torque curve and better fuel economy if you buy the V6. But the turbo motor costs $750 more than the conventional V8.

Decisions, decisions.

whats another $750 when you're buying a $30k+ truck, i say go for it, i'm considering when i get out of college, by that time they will be 3-4 years old, and am considering getting a slightly used screw cab short bed 2wd, for a daily driver hot rod truck :wings:

 

[4Rescue]

the HP and TQ numbers for the ecoboost V6 are very good.

I wonder what kind of mileage they are expecting to get with a 4dr F-150.

While the power looks to be close to that of a diesel, i doubt the mileage will be close to what they could have got with a diesel

X2... Sounds to me like Ford is re-inventing the wheel. Diesel is proven and most important DURABLE... Time will tell, but I just don't see a twin Turbo GAS motor havein the longevity of a good ol' Turbo Diesel. In fact I'd bet money these won't turn out the kind of milage they're claiming. You can turbo-charge things all you like, all it does is ADD more air so you can ADD more fuel. There are Less BTU's of potential energy in Gasoline then there are in a comparable quantity of Diesel. THAT is how you get milage, through effiancy NOT claims that will never be substantiated...

In other words I'll belive it when I see it in the real world, NOT from some Ford PR guy who's job rides on the claims. All the big 3 have been trying to claim this and that and "My truck tows the most" well it hasn't ammounted to much. IMO Diesel IS and will always be the ONLY way to go.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Code Monkey]

I recommend that you exercise caution when looking just at peak HP/torque numbers, even when they are accompanied by RPM.

It is good to look at the 'big picture' of the HP and torque curves on a graph.

That said, a lot of really good new tech is out there, with variable cam timing and so on giving you your cake and letting you eat it too. I love my Bimmer with single VANOS (variable cam timing on the intake cam only) - it is smooth all across the RPM range, lot of torque down low and enough HP up high to push it right along - it never seems to have any holes or flat spots or places where it is left wanting (given it is a plain jane 2.5 liter version of the engine - yeah, there are larger and more sporty versions, but this is what it is and it suits me fine for a mix of sport luxury transportation coupe). A far cry from the days of when you had power either down low or up high, but never both.

Also, the twin turbo setup *might* help in less turbo lag (if any) and more tuned power across the band - *if* they are asymmetrical turbos in the sense that one is a different turbo than the other (often there will be a smaller turbo that spins up faster to prevent lag down low in the RPMs and a larger turbo to give more power in the middle to upper RPMs and throttle applications) - and not just one turbo for each cylinder bank.

I do prefer more cylinders for any vehicle that is towing or carrying a significant load - all else being equal more cylinders generally mean more usable power because there are more power impulses per revolution of the crankshaft. But - and it is probably a big but - without looking into it in any depth, I would guess that the V6 in this case is probably quite different from the V8 so maybe it is fine. I would suggest driving both, especially with something similar to the load you expect to be using it for, to see whether you like it before you buy it.

 

[Code Monkey]

X2... Sounds to me like Ford is re-inventing the wheel. Diesel is proven and most important DURABLE... Time will tell, but I just don't see a twin Turbo GAS motor havein the longevity of a good ol' Turbo Diesel. In fact I'd bet money these won't turn out the kind of milage they're claiming. You can turbo-charge things all you like, all it does is ADD more air so you can ADD more fuel. There are Less BTU's of potential energy in Gasoline then there are in a comparable quantity of Diesel. THAT is how you get milage, through effiancy NOT claims that will never be substantiated...

In other words I'll belive it when I see it in the real world, NOT from some Ford PR guy who's job rides on the claims. All the big 3 have been trying to claim this and that and "My truck tows the most" well it hasn't ammounted to much. IMO Diesel IS and will always be the ONLY way to go.

Cheers

Dave

I don't disagree with your characterization of diesel engines, but one of their big problems is weight. And this is a factor in 1/2 ton trucks like the F-150, especially the lighter duty versions - they just are not setup to take the weight of the current crop of diesels available for pickups (rumors of a high RPM V8 Cummins in the near future may put lie to that).

I don't see harm in trying to work with technology to get a better power curve from a gas engine in a lightweight package. Marketing characterizations aside. The direct injection is also promising - at least in theory if not real world application/implementation.

As you say though - the proof is in the eating of the pudding - and I too would wait until such engines are on the market and available for real world testing with real loads (not just a spin around the block). Indeed, I would let the 'first adopters' try them out for a year or two. Almost invariably the 'guinea pigs' find something that needs a redesign or at least a minor tweak. Ford has had some major problems with some of their big diesel engines, so I don't see why they wouldn't also have problems with a new gas engine (although I am guessing that maybe they have more experience with the gas engine tech).

 

[4Rescue]

Totaly valid points Code monkey... I knw that all the new Tech does SO much more then we could do with the old tech and YES, the new motors make more out of less. But I stand behind my initial point, Turbo's just make an engine able to burn MORE fuel in a cycle... I totaly agree that weight is a key problem, but when a truck is hauling tons of load, the weight of the Diesel engine is really not TOO much of a concern... Not to mention that I will always truct an Iron block/head motor to serve me longer then an Aluminum one.

Like I said, time will tell, but frankly they're playing a game of bait and switch and trying to avoid the laws of physics and thermo-dynamics here. Not to mention that Diesel could lead to less world war, No more oil spills (as in countries could MAKE their own fuel and we wouldn't be shipping it across thousands of miles of Ocean with the inherent risk) Lower emissions, and again, the most important: ENDLESS FUEL SUPLIES!!! The more companies push Diesel away the less faith I have that they care about anything but selling "the next big thing" ... Note to Car/Truck Co's the next "Big Thing" HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. Diesel is and always will be the BEST combustion engine cycle for power AND economy. Sorry, but Turbo's aren't new... YES, they've come a long way, and IF these are sequential, staged units that will help reduce lag, SURE they have usefull applications. But IMO if this takes away fromthe oppertounity to have smaller diesels across the board, it's WASTED tech. I've been an extensive Diesel user, and my Mom currently drives a VW TDi Jetta Sprt wagon. It get better milage then a Prius and there's no battery using up majorly FINITE resources like Lithium... And guess what, it's just a plain old Diesel like Rudolph designed a LONG time ago. Direct injection aside, it's still just an old Oil burner and there's NOTHING on the horizion that can touch it in terms of power delivery and fuel economy.

Am I a bit of curmedugon when it comes to Diesel's??? Absolutely, but only because I'm SICK of companies lying to people to sell them a product and claiming rediculous things they can never deliver. Will teh new TT V6 get better milage then a Low Compression N/A V8??? Sure, but not under constant load... It'll need to be spun up to a point where they may be near equal, but the V8 will have reserve power while the TT V6 will be working at maximum out-put.

I've seen this before when Turbo's were new and frankly things haven't changed that much. Yes they have less lag and Direct Injection has certainly led to more complete combustion cycles, but the overal opperation hasn't changed one bit.

"Time will Tell" but I'm willing to bet money this will not work out quite as "perfectly" as these PR hooligans are claiming. I'll bet that the HD diesel will always be and will eventual prove to be the best option for power and economy. The sooner these hoons get on with it and give us what WE WANT instead of trying to invent the "next best thing" the world will be a better place. I'm not saying to scrub the Twin-Turbo set-up, but I don't think it'll be QUITE the miracle Ford is patting itself on the back over. And IMO it will NEVER be a viable replacement for teh HD Diesel.

That's just my opinion but it's based of some pretty sound science eh And yeah, am I the only one who can see a few years down the road to the problems Ford will inevitably have with yet ANOTHER new motor. I'll take a Cummins CRD ANY DAY. Sorry Ford... Just not buying into the Hype just yet (or ever) Give us the OPTION to choose between a smaller Diesel and a TT Gas V6 and then maybe I'll see it as a fair fight, but when you only offer one theing and then compare apples to oranges... well I'll contimue to call THAT specious reasoning. "see, nobody wants a small diesel" Because we don't offer one. or "see, our TT Gas motor get's better milage then..." the motor we don't make or offer or have any real world figures for... COME ON. Quit force feeding us your "next big thing" I'm tired of people having to "drink the cool-aid" or walk...

Cheers

Dave

 

[p71]

X2... Sounds to me like Ford is re-inventing the wheel. Diesel is proven and most important DURABLE... Time will tell, but I just don't see a twin Turbo GAS motor havein the longevity of a good ol' Turbo Diesel. In fact I'd bet money these won't turn out the kind of milage they're claiming. You can turbo-charge things all you like, all it does is ADD more air so you can ADD more fuel. There are Less BTU's of potential energy in Gasoline then there are in a comparable quantity of Diesel. THAT is how you get milage, through effiancy NOT claims that will never be substantiated...

In other words I'll belive it when I see it in the real world, NOT from some Ford PR guy who's job rides on the claims. All the big 3 have been trying to claim this and that and "My truck tows the most" well it hasn't ammounted to much. IMO Diesel IS and will always be the ONLY way to go.

Cheers

Dave

The preliminary tests by third parties that I have seen are slightly beating the EPA averages...

Yes Diesel is more energy dense but a conventional engine is so ridiculously inefficient that some steps are available in efficiency.

As to turbos just allowing you to add more air so you can add more fuel... that is COMPLETELY inaccurate. Whilst you can use turbos to simply increase the volume of air in an engine, their efficiency assistance comes from their ability to recycle waste heat to start compression so you are not wasting fuel doing it. This holds true for diesel as well which is why turbo diesels beat the snot out of non turbos.

As to PR... yes it is often BS but the claims that my truck tows XYZ are generally substantiated... you just have to know exactly what they mean when they say "properly equipped".

I recommend that you exercise caution when looking just at peak HP/torque numbers, even when they are accompanied by RPM.

It is good to look at the 'big picture' of the HP and torque curves on a graph.

That said, a lot of really good new tech is out there, with variable cam timing and so on giving you your cake and letting you eat it too. I love my Bimmer with single VANOS (variable cam timing on the intake cam only) - it is smooth all across the RPM range, lot of torque down low and enough HP up high to push it right along - it never seems to have any holes or flat spots or places where it is left wanting (given it is a plain jane 2.5 liter version of the engine - yeah, there are larger and more sporty versions, but this is what it is and it suits me fine for a mix of sport luxury transportation coupe). A far cry from the days of when you had power either down low or up high, but never both.

Also, the twin turbo setup *might* help in less turbo lag (if any) and more tuned power across the band - *if* they are asymmetrical turbos in the sense that one is a different turbo than the other (often there will be a smaller turbo that spins up faster to prevent lag down low in the RPMs and a larger turbo to give more power in the middle to upper RPMs and throttle applications) - and not just one turbo for each cylinder bank.

I do prefer more cylinders for any vehicle that is towing or carrying a significant load - all else being equal more cylinders generally mean more usable power because there are more power impulses per revolution of the crankshaft. But - and it is probably a big but - without looking into it in any depth, I would guess that the V6 in this case is probably quite different from the V8 so maybe it is fine. I would suggest driving both, especially with something similar to the load you expect to be using it for, to see whether you like it before you buy it.

Couple of points; IIRC the ecoboost uses two matched variable turbos. The advantages of running asymmetrical turbos are largely overshadowed by the difficulty tuning them, and the fact that if you run the sequentially one will always be adding restriction to the other.

Also the ecoboost's dyno sheet shows a ludicrously flat torque curve. Peak horsepower is pointless... flat torque curves move mountains.

As to more cylinders sharing the load... from a technical point of view almost all modern engines only have one cylinder undergoing ignition at a time so from a practical point of view only one cylinder is ever really pushing the load... it is just that the more cylinders you have the smoother the handoff between the cylinders and the less harmonic issues you tend to have.

Also whilst it is not a direct comparison, every tractor trailer I have ever driven had a six cylinder in it.

I don't disagree with your characterization of diesel engines, but one of their big problems is weight. And this is a factor in 1/2 ton trucks like the F-150, especially the lighter duty versions - they just are not setup to take the weight of the current crop of diesels available for pickups (rumors of a high RPM V8 Cummins in the near future may put lie to that).

I don't see harm in trying to work with technology to get a better power curve from a gas engine in a lightweight package. Marketing characterizations aside. The direct injection is also promising - at least in theory if not real world application/implementation.

As you say though - the proof is in the eating of the pudding - and I too would wait until such engines are on the market and available for real world testing with real loads (not just a spin around the block). Indeed, I would let the 'first adopters' try them out for a year or two. Almost invariably the 'guinea pigs' find something that needs a redesign or at least a minor tweak. Ford has had some major problems with some of their big diesel engines, so I don't see why they wouldn't also have problems with a new gas engine (although I am guessing that maybe they have more experience with the gas engine tech).

I would suggest that you look at some of the PR stuff from Ford on this engine... true it is PR so it is slanted but the Torture test went way beyond a drive round the block. Just about every problem with the big diesels were due to conflicts between FoMoCo and the third party engine manufacturer; that is not to say they were the third party's fault, simply that it is a lot easier to implement tweaks and changes and improvements when all R and D is in house as opposed to trying to renegotiate a contract with a third party supplier (particularly one who is not putting their name on the product).

The weight problem with diesels is a non argument. You can build an extremely light diesel engine as long as you are willing to cap torque at a certain level. A 400 ft lb engine would be about the same weight at a gas motor, it is just when you try to extract 800 tq out that you need to go to massive blocks and rotating assemblies. The problem is getting the right balance of cost power and weight. The big three seem to think you can get two but not the third (as proof I give you the BMW 335d the MB bluetec and the Toureg diesel).

Totaly valid points Code monkey... I knw that all the new Tech does SO much more then we could do with the old tech and YES, the new motors make more out of less. But I stand behind my initial point, Turbo's just make an engine able to burn MORE fuel in a cycle... I totaly agree that weight is a key problem, but when a truck is hauling tons of load, the weight of the Diesel engine is really not TOO much of a concern... Not to mention that I will always truct an Iron block/head motor to serve me longer then an Aluminum one.

Like I said, time will tell, but frankly they're playing a game of bait and switch and trying to avoid the laws of physics and thermo-dynamics here. Not to mention that Diesel could lead to less world war, No more oil spills (as in countries could MAKE their own fuel and we wouldn't be shipping it across thousands of miles of Ocean with the inherent risk) Lower emissions, and again, the most important: ENDLESS FUEL SUPLIES!!! The more companies push Diesel away the less faith I have that they care about anything but selling "the next big thing" ... Note to Car/Truck Co's the next "Big Thing" HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. Diesel is and always will be the BEST combustion engine cycle for power AND economy. Sorry, but Turbo's aren't new... YES, they've come a long way, and IF these are sequential, staged units that will help reduce lag, SURE they have usefull applications. But IMO if this takes away fromthe oppertounity to have smaller diesels across the board, it's WASTED tech. I've been an extensive Diesel user, and my Mom currently drives a VW TDi Jetta Sprt wagon. It get better milage then a Prius and there's no battery using up majorly FINITE resources like Lithium... And guess what, it's just a plain old Diesel like Rudolph designed a LONG time ago. Direct injection aside, it's still just an old Oil burner and there's NOTHING on the horizion that can touch it in terms of power delivery and fuel economy.

Am I a bit of curmedugon when it comes to Diesel's??? Absolutely, but only because I'm SICK of companies lying to people to sell them a product and claiming rediculous things they can never deliver. Will teh new TT V6 get better milage then a Low Compression N/A V8??? Sure, but not under constant load... It'll need to be spun up to a point where they may be near equal, but the V8 will have reserve power while the TT V6 will be working at maximum out-put.

I've seen this before when Turbo's were new and frankly things haven't changed that much. Yes they have less lag and Direct Injection has certainly led to more complete combustion cycles, but the overal opperation hasn't changed one bit.

"Time will Tell" but I'm willing to bet money this will not work out quite as "perfectly" as these PR hooligans are claiming. I'll bet that the HD diesel will always be and will eventual prove to be the best option for power and economy. The sooner these hoons get on with it and give us what WE WANT instead of trying to invent the "next best thing" the world will be a better place. I'm not saying to scrub the Twin-Turbo set-up, but I don't think it'll be QUITE the miracle Ford is patting itself on the back over. And IMO it will NEVER be a viable replacement for teh HD Diesel.

That's just my opinion but it's based of some pretty sound science eh And yeah, am I the only one who can see a few years down the road to the problems Ford will inevitably have with yet ANOTHER new motor. I'll take a Cummins CRD ANY DAY. Sorry Ford... Just not buying into the Hype just yet (or ever) Give us the OPTION to choose between a smaller Diesel and a TT Gas V6 and then maybe I'll see it as a fair fight, but when you only offer one theing and then compare apples to oranges... well I'll contimue to call THAT specious reasoning. "see, nobody wants a small diesel" Because we don't offer one. or "see, our TT Gas motor get's better milage then..." the motor we don't make or offer or have any real world figures for... COME ON. Quit force feeding us your "next big thing" I'm tired of people having to "drink the cool-aid" or walk...

Cheers

Dave

I am not going to go into all the errors in that. I will concede that I was disapointed in the ecoboost's numbers. However it is tuned as a performance engine and as such it will outperform just about any domestic 1500 truck motor. It has more reserve power (TQ actually because that is what most people mean when they say power) than its rivals and gets substantially better mileage under load.

If you are coming from this from an eco point of view internal combustion hydrogen is far better than diesel... and is also easier to produce and plentiful than diesel. It has its own problems of course (primarily distribution and preignition).

If you are a fan of biodiesel, great... until you try to start your b20 vehicle on a subzero day... plant and especially animal based lipids are horrible at gelling which makes this product seasonal at best anywhere north of Oklahoma (unless you retrofit your vehicle with a tank heater... in which case you need to factor energy wasted keeping fuel at 60 into your gas mileage numbers).

Obviously what technology to go to is a big problem. If the solution were easy we would already have done it... I see ford's attempt as a good if slightly misguided one. On the other hand they no far more than I do so maybe they have some detail I do not.

thanks for listening.

 

[Redline]

x3!

I've never considered an F150 before (always wanted/needed 'more' pickup) but I'm excited and hopeful about the Eco Boost V6!. Forced-induction V6 at altitude... Bring It!

While a V6 will likely use a bit less fuel at idle than a V8, it surely won't sip like a diesel (air-fuel ratios), but when under load I'm very pleased with the diesel-like Torque & HP numbers. We shall see.

If I was buying new, I would definately get a 150 with the Ecoboost. Being turbo boosted, it will perform even better in the mountains that cover BC where I live. As I spend a fair bit of time in big city traffic, the v6 will probably use less fuel while idling too.

snip...

 

[4Rescue]

Sorry P71...An engine is an air pump plain and simple. I don't think you fully understand either what I said or how an engine works. I know that internal combustion engines are inefficient, but were talking reletive to one another. Diesel's BUT-potential density is the key factor. In fact since were talking about engines that RUN ON FUEL then it's really the most important factor. Hydrogen??? Sure it has plenty of PE, BUT to extract thattakes more energy then you get so NO, your Hydrogen theory doesn't "hold water" Bio-Haul, most specificaly blue-green algea has MASSive potential and is readily produced ANYWHERE wih sun and water. Thanks for playing though

I stand by my original statement(s) and I know what I'm talking about. Got several degree's to prove it.

Cheers

Dave

 

[tombodad]

Can't we all just get along?

There are both pros and cons to both gasoline and diesel engines, as well as any other fuel. If there was a prefect fuel, we would be using it, rather than paying Big Brother. If only someone could figure out Tesla's free energy!!!:victory:

As far as the Ecoboost goes, I think it is a huge step forward, not merely in technology, but in the mindset of the consumer, and the auto manufacturing industry. Traditionally, truck buyers care about size, power, toughness, not economy. This may have been the case 10 years ago. Now, with the strings of the economical purse tightened, and fuel prices soaring upwards, fleet owners, truck workers, and average joes are placing more and more importance on fuel economy.

America will probably never release from our "too much ic just right" vehicle sense. I personally drive an inefficient, large (relatively), fuel-hungry vehicle to and from work every day. Just me. Nothing in the bed, no off-road, not even highways. Could I do this same thing in a tiny econo-box? You betcha. Do I choose to? Nope. Why? (we could go deep into american psyche here) That's where Americans need to, but will never, change.

So the answer, do the best we can with what we have. Make the excessively large and powerful trucks as efficient, an cost-effective, as possible. Will they ever truly be maximized? Probably not. Do you think that the auto manufacturers and OPEC are truly not partnered for their mutual good? Don't be so naive...

 

[78Bronco]

Sorry P71...An engine is an air pump plain and simple. I don't think you fully understand either what I said or how an engine works. I know that internal combustion engines are inefficient, but were talking reletive to one another. Diesel's BUT-potential density is the key factor. In fact since were talking about engines that RUN ON FUEL then it's really the most important factor. Hydrogen??? Sure it has plenty of PE, BUT to extract thattakes more energy then you get so NO, your Hydrogen theory doesn't "hold water" Bio-Haul, most specificaly blue-green algea has MASSive potential and is readily produced ANYWHERE wih sun and water. Thanks for playing though

I stand by my original statement(s) and I know what I'm talking about. Got several degree's to prove it.

Cheers

Dave

Can you calculate the difference in capital and operating costs between diesel and gas engines over a span of 5 years and 20,000 miles per year (75% hwy/25% city) to illustrate how we are all so dumb?

The way I see it:

Diesel engines are more costly to repair, maintain and higher capital cost
Gas engines are cheap to repair, maintain and low capital cost

So if you spend $5,000 more on a vehicle equipped with a diesel engine you end up spending more over it's life span on (including maintenance and repairs) than you save on fuel when compared to a vehicle equipped with a gas motor. Don't get me wrong, I have a SUV with a small turbo diesel and really love it but it costs me a lot more to operate than it's gas cousin. Oil filter $30, takes 8 litres of Rotella oil, fuel filter $40 and I hate to think what an injector set, fuel pump and turbo is worth.

 

[4Rescue]

Only because they have a captured market. Diesel is RAW OIL... it only costs more because someone somewhere is getting rich off of it. In terms of pure mechanical standpoints... Engines haven't changed too much since the Model A. it's ALL around and around and up and down. Little things have changed and engines have gotten "tighter" tollerence wise. All of wich is good, but the overall principle and opperation is still the same. Sorry, unless someone has figured out how to make an engine run on a completely "Lean-burn" cycle (they can't) then adding a Turbo will ONLY be a function to ADD MORE FUEL. it's all about the Air-to Fuel Mixture and with the Turbo pumping in more air (and that Turbo decreases the effiancy too unless you have a MASSIVE inter-cooler) wich is then combined with MORE FUEL you effective end up with a motor that is small, but thirsty. Direct injection and fuel atomization as well as cleaner smother air-flow charectaristics have certainly improved in modern engines wich is why we're seeing fuel milage inclreases across the board in modern engines, but for every MPG tyhat a turbo gas motor can gain, you could gain (at least) 25% (and that's just a rough guess) MORE milage out of a silliarly well engineered Diesel. Case in point. My mom's 2.0 TDi Jetta wagon has a 2.0L engine that puts out as much power as my old Dodge Darts 318ci V8 from 1969. Modern Diesel engine IMO have come ALOT farther then modern Gas motors. There's MORE POTENTIAL energy in Diesel meaning that as effiancy improves tehn Diesel is the superior fuel to burn as a means of propulsion

Cost to opperate??? I dunno, my old 1.8T VW cost GOBS more to work on and opperate then my Dad's OLDER N/A VW Diesel Pick-up... GASP{. there ARE those of us out there that can work on their own trucks/cars so taking it to a dealer for "service" isn't a factor. You're COMPLETELY wrong in assuming that a Diesel costs more over it's Life span mostly because the Diesel will have a vastly longer Life span. So how can you compare tohe two. You can spend 25K keeping a Trubo'd Gas motor alive for 200K (assuming it's not a Toyota product then it's run forever ) but if you spend 25K keeping a Diesel alive for 400K how can you compare the two (agina the diesel will have nearly TWICE the life of a Gas motor with comparable power)... Clearly you can't so your argument has ZERO merrit. Have you owned many Diesel's??? I have and I can tell you that your statements are totaly off base. I've been maintaining them and driving them for years (don't currently have one in my 4Runner, but some day I'll have another one) and they're really simple, robust and LONG LASTING engines. The whole design and combustion cycle makes that the case, not MY personal love of them... This TT V6 will never eclipse the Modern (or even an old) Diesel... it's just NOT going to happen. Yes Modern emissions have made Diesel's more complicated, BUT some of us just throw that junk away, and running Bio-haul means I will NEVER have to worry about it anyways all the while running on a FAR more powerful (not HP, Tourque aka REAL power) and economy minded fuel. Plus I don't have to stop for fuel every 300 miles unlike a Gas motor will.

Another thing to think about, is making all this power with turbo's means you have to carry MORE FUEL wich is REALLY heavy so there goes all your weight savings right there...

Do diesel's cost more: sort-of. yes they cost more to work on because there aren't as many people out there to work on them. That said, quality diesel's have VASTLY loinger duty cycles then comparable Gas engine (not that there IS a Gas engine that can compare to a Diesel Liter-liter FtLb-FtLb.)