F-150 Diesel

[Clutch]

Since this is a powerstroke the warranty is 5yr 100k miles, not the typical 60k miles.

So I have to trade it in in 4 years instead...still too soon. I like to keep my trucks 10-15 years. Not very keen on current throw-a-way attitude most Americans have. Like to make stuff last. Especially now that I am getting closer to retirement. Next truck I buy...will probably be my last.

I just don't see those diesels going 300K without major expensive repairs. Unless you guys can guarantee it won't.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

My experience is that the turbo gasoline engines do fairly well in easy, unloaded driving. When you put them to work or encounter real-world conditions, their efficiency doesn't hold up as well compared to diesels. With that said, I'm glad to see Ford offering turbo gasoline's, in addition to turbo diesels and naturally aspirated v8's. I'm always in favor of giving more options to the consumer.

Honestly, it gets better than my Tundra did when towing, or under any conditions. The key is watching the boost gauge and being very aware that more boost = more fuel. With the exception of pulling a 30' camper, I have never gotten under 20mpg. Even pulling the camper I was only down to 15mpg.

While a diesel would net better MPG's, the increased purchase price, cost of fuel and oil changes, the diesel will not pay off for the vast majority of owners.

Since the diesel only comes in the more expensive trim packages, it's more of a status symbol than anything. Put it in a XL-STX available to the nonfleet owners and then you would have something.

 

[Buliwyf]

So I have to trade it in in 4 years instead...still too soon. I like to keep my trucks 10-15 years. Not very keen on current throw-a-way attitude most Americans have. Like to make stuff last. Especially now that I am getting closer to retirement. Next truck I buy...will probably be my last.

I just don't see those diesels going 300K without major expensive repairs. Unless you guys can guarantee it won't.

+1.

The F150 STX with the 5.0L is the one I still push to people that keep their trucks as long as they can. Simple, reliable, plenty of power, cheap, not bad economy. If I could spec an olde 2v 4.6L I would.

I think the diesel is just for diesel fans. Or long range expo types, jealous of the Australian guys. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dock Rocker]

Something everyone forgets is that they now offer a truck that is the same size as a 1/2 ton truck (roughly) that makes almost 1000 ftlbs of torque and has a warranty. I remember when a cab over 18 wheeler didn’t make that kind of power.

If you want that kind of power in a small package you will have some issues with space. That’s what the cab issues are to service the turbo.

The fuel efficiency is better than my half ton GMC in a 3/4 ton f-250 14.2 mpg avg vs 16.7 avg over 100,000 miles. Plus it’s a ton of fun to drive. It will be deleted soon so the reliability will be there and the fuel efficiency will go up a couple of miles per gallon.

Diesels aren’t for everyone but they work.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dalko43]

Honestly, it gets better than my Tundra did when towing, or under any conditions. The key is watching the boost gauge and being very aware that more boost = more fuel. With the exception of pulling a 30' camper, I have never gotten under 20mpg. Even pulling the camper I was only down to 15mpg.

While a diesel would net better MPG's, the increased purchase price, cost of fuel and oil changes, the diesel will not pay off for the vast majority of owners.

Since the diesel only comes in the more expensive trim packages, it's more of a status symbol than anything. Put it in a XL-STX available to the nonfleet owners and then you would have something.

Well when you're towing, accelerating, going uphill or just carrying a heavy load (which is certainly not unheard of for people on this forum), going into boost seems unavoidable. Empty and moderate driving, I'm sure that v6 ecoboost does fairly well on mpg's. But a lot of reviews and owner feedback have indicated that turbo v6 gets quite a bit lower than the EPA's rating for real-world driving applications.

The 'pay-off' for diesel depends on a few different factors (fuel costs, driving style, annual mileage). If someone were say doing lots of long distance trips with a heavily-laden vehicle, I could see the diesel option paying for itself quicker than say if it were just used as a grocery-getter.

I do agree that Ford is foolish to limit this option to the higher trims. Hopefully that mistake gets corrected in the near future.

 

[Dock Rocker]

Since the diesel only comes in the more expensive trim packages, it's more of a status symbol than anything. Put it in a XL-STX available to the nonfleet owners and then you would have something.

I this is marketing 101. Early adopters aren’t typically fleet people. Ford wants all of the early adopters to show off the higher trim levels and get them out into the street. The lower trim levels will follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaveInDenver]

I this is marketing 101. Early adopters aren’t typically fleet people. Ford wants all of the early adopters to show off the higher trim levels and get them out into the street. The lower trim levels will follow.

Has this occurred with the Colorado/Canyon diesel or 1/2 ton Dodge yet? It appears you need LT or higher in the Colorado still. That's not bad, I guess the equivalent of SR5 in Toyota?

 

[Clutch]

Has this occurred with the Colorado/Canyon diesel or 1/2 ton Dodge yet? It appears you need LT or higher in the Colorado still. That's not bad, I guess the equivalent of SR5 in Toyota?

Dodge does...or at least did. Could get the diesel in the WT RC model. Though I don't see it for '19. Guessing they are battling it passing emissions the last time I heard. Looks like the regular cab is gone too.

 

[Dalko43]

Dodge does...or at least did. Could get the diesel in the WT RC model. Though I don't see it for '19. Guessing they are battling it passing emissions the last time I heard. Looks like the regular cab is gone too.

It has EPA certification now. Though that 3.0l ecodiesel has had its fair share of reliability issues. I know a few owners on here have reported relatively trouble-free ownership, so maybe that's just a few bad apples creating a bad name for the whole group..I'm not sure.

It would be nice to see Ram re-engage with its Cummins partnership for these newer diesel application. They should be putting (or at least have the option) of the new 2.8l Cummins in the Jeep and they should let Cummins develop a new engine for the 1500 platform...this outsourcing to VM Motori is not a good move in the long run IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Well when you're towing, accelerating, going uphill or just carrying a heavy load (which is certainly not unheard of for people on this forum), going into boost seems unavoidable. Empty and moderate driving, I'm sure that v6 ecoboost does fairly well on mpg's. But a lot of reviews and owner feedback have indicated that turbo v6 gets quite a bit lower than the EPA's rating for real-world driving applications.

With my truck, 70mph on flat ground is 0 boost, hence that's where I set my cruise. 80mph spools the turbos up a few pounds, so I drop to right around 19mpg.

Most people that get crappy fuel economy are also enjoying every pound of that boost.... It's pretty addictive actuailly. Also, If you are traveling at 20mph faster than the vehicle was during the EPA test... then naturally you are going to get worse fuel economy. ?

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The F150 STX with the 5.0L is the one I still push to people that keep their trucks as long as they can.

Dollar for dollar the STX package is hard to beat. I loooove mine.

 

[DaveInDenver]

They should be putting (or at least have the option) of the new 2.8l Cummins in the Jeep

Do you mean the R2.8L that's available as a crate engine? If so I'd also very much like Cummins to get manufacturer support to continue to develop it. Right now the repower kit is Tier 0 and Tier 1 compliant, which makes it's unsuited by EPA standards for anything newer than 2000. So, so close.

 

[Dalko43]

With my truck, 70mph on flat ground is 0 boost, hence that's where I set my cruise. 80mph spools the turbos up a few pounds, so I drop to right around 19mpg.

Most people that get crappy fuel economy are also enjoying every pound of that boost.... It's pretty addictive actuailly. Also, If you are traveling at 20mph faster than the vehicle was during the EPA test... then naturally you are going to get worse fuel economy. ?

This is true. I think Cummins or another big engine maker did a fuel efficiency study recently where they concluded there was a 20%-30% variance in mpg based purely on driver habits.

And yeah, those EPA testing standards do seem a bit outdated. What speed are they even using for that highway rating? 70-75mph seems to be the new 55mph in many areas.

I do like Ford's use of the turbo gasoline...anything that increases the fuel efficiency of these trucks is a good thing IMHO. However, in my driving experiences, it's tough to achieve these EPA ratings for gasoline engines most of the time. Hills, more aggressive tires, strong winds, heavy loads, cold weather (to name a few factors) all contribute to an average mpg that is a bit lower than what the EPA ratings advertise. And FWIW, I'm a slow driver (at least when it comes to trucks and 4x4's).

 

[Dalko43]

Do you mean the R2.8L that's available as a crate engine? If so I'd also very much like Cummins to get manufacturer support to continue to develop it. Right now the repower kit is Tier 0 and Tier 1 compliant, which makes it's unsuited by EPA standards for anything newer than 2000. So, so close.

Yep, the current version of the 2.8l Cummins is not EPA-compliant for the newer trucks. But I'm sure Cummins could make it compliant if it wanted to. It already has an EGR and Diesel Oxidation Catalyst, so with some tuning and SCR and DPF, I'm sure Cummins could easily bring it up to modern standards.

I think Jeep/Ram are really screwing the pooch by going with VM Motori for these smaller diesel options. The 2.8l Cummins would be a better fit (size and weight wise) for the Jeep. The 3.0l ecodiesel just seems too powerful and too big by comparison. A lot of people would argue that the only reason Ram kept its place in the truck market was because of its relationship with Cummins. It would seem more logical for FCA to double-down on that relationship rather than move away from it.

I think the Italians make great sports cars, but I don't have the same faith in them when it comes to truck/jeep engines...that's my 2 cents.

 

[Clutch]

. A lot of people would argue that the only reason Ram kept its place in the truck market was because of its relationship with Cummins.

Some say the Dodge chassis is merely a shipping crate for the Cummins engine...