what new diesel do you trust? going gasser?

[Buliwyf]

Oops. My mistake thanks. Getting my Ford engines mixed up. Hopefully they'll have DI next year on the 5.0, 6.2, and ECO.
-
Yeah I got the phaser noise. Hasn't hurt anything. But the engineer that designed it is a joke. How could such racket be acceptable engineering? Sounds like a blown engine half the time. Shame on Ford. I'm considering the Crane kit that locks the assembly down. But I'd rather not lose any power.

 

[D45]

I personally would not buy any new diesel..........they are extremely expensive and over priced, they are not proven, they have too much emission restrictions and are not efficient

Buy used or buy a gasser

 

[Kaisen]

Hopefully they'll have DI next year on the 5.0, 6.2, and ECO.

I hope so!

GM's new Direct Inject 6.2L in the trucks makes 460 lb-ft and a very broad torque curve.
Compared to Ford's current 6.2L at only 434 lb-ft and quite peaky

Direct injection and higher compression would really make the Coyote and Hurricane into monsters! Should improve fuel economy too

 

[Flys Lo]

2005 was the big chassis change for Ford Super Duty, including going to coil springs in the front, bigger brakes and bearings (and bigger wheels to clear), the 3V version of the 6.8L V10, and the 5R110 Torqshift automatic (same as the diesel). I had a 2007 Ford Crew Diesel and really liked that truck. I had a 2000 E350 15 passenger with the earlier V10 and that was also a trouble-free motor.

For the gas motors, 05 also brought some better gear ratios (4:10's standard, 4:30's option), and with the revised coil suspension they also updated the wheel offset to provide less load on the ball joints/hubs/bearings.


As long as you can afford it, I wouldn't look at a truck prior to 05 because of the improvements made, ride/handling and braking performance in particular. The previous 4 speed transmission (4R100) fitted on 99-04 gas trucks wasn't as nice as the 5 speed (5R110), and is much more likely to die - although with a lot less frequency behind a gasser than a diesel.
08 got some significant interior (and exterior) upgrades, as well as longer rear springs (better ride/less axle wrap), which might be worth considering if that interests you, but the main updates of value to the gas motors came in 05.
11 introduced the 6.2 - which has proven to provide better gas milage with the 6 speed trans (6R140) than the 5.4 or 6.8 - and better performance. Although some people do miss the low rpm torque that the 3V 6.8 had.
more interior and exterior updates, rear suspension that is even more "compliant" (provides a good ride unladen... but sags a lot with a load), and lots more option packages, like proper locking rear diffs, and the wheel bearings were made are bigger again.

If you do get a Ford gas motor, look into getting the engine and trans tuning done by Mike at 5star. I admin ford-trucks.com (where there are lots of happy gas truck owners) and they all swear by his tuning: http://5startuning.com/

 

[Larry]

Gasoline baby!

 

[surlydiesel]

Gas. Loved my Ford Diesels but it's just not worth the expense in this country. We don't embrace it and end up paying out the nose when we try to. I'd get a 2008 or newer truck. I like that styling a lot and think it's an ok mix of new and old. Unless you're towing heavy loads, I'd just get the 5.4.

Cheers,
Jorge

 

[TooTall'sTruck]

Also consider that your wife (not derogatory but she will never hear the pedal hit the carpet while driving) will be driving it, and sleepy dirt roads on the weekend. That duty is set to a 4cyl diesel not a V8. I say this because of the emmision systems, the V8 regen systems would be forever problomatic, they work the best when used passivily. That means that the "magic temp" in the DPF is created naturally by using lots of fuel. The truck needs to be worked to be reliable, there are too many people cruising in a new diesel and they never get their EGT up for long periods of time. I would go with the gasser, unless....the new Dodge V6 diesel would be decent for a 1/2 ton but if wifey wants a 3/4+ go for it. But I would avoid the newer diesel engines for your needs.

 

[huntsonora]

I hope so!

GM's new Direct Inject 6.2L in the trucks makes 460 lb-ft and a very broad torque curve.
Compared to Ford's current 6.2L at only 434 lb-ft and quite peaky

Direct injection and higher compression would really make the Coyote and Hurricane into monsters! Should improve fuel economy too

Kaisen, what do you anticipate the economy to be in the new 6.2 engine with direct injection? What does the torque curve look like?

Thanks in advance

 

[Larry]

Kaisen, what do you anticipate the economy to be in the new 6.2 engine with direct injection? What does the torque curve look like?

Thanks in advance

I watch the GM Powertrain website daily and there hasn't been any HP/Torque charts published yet. They haven't even loaded any of the 2014 EcoTec3 engine details yet either outside of the few blurbs through GM media. My guess the 6.2L would be around 14 City/19 Hwy with a combined of around 16 MPG.

 

[huntsonora]

I watch the GM Powertrain website daily and there hasn't been any HP/Torque charts published yet. They haven't even loaded any of the 2014 EcoTec3 engine details yet either outside of the few blurbs through GM media. My guess the 6.2L would be around 14 City/19 Hwy with a combined of around 16 MPG.

That would be impressive! When the dealership decided to change the deal we had I decided to wait and see how the 6.2 looks

 

[Kaisen]

Kaisen, what do you anticipate the economy to be in the new 6.2 engine with direct injection? What does the torque curve look like?

Thanks in advance

The 2014 Corvette's 6.2L LT1 is much more similar to the truck's 6.2L (L86) than they'd have you believe. There are differences, most of which are to shift the power curve lower in the rev band (shifted roughly 500 rpm lower) where it's more appropriate for a truck. In the Vette, the 6.2L makes 455 hp and the same 460 lb-ft of torque (+5 hp/tq with performance exhaust). The LT1's power curve has been released, and the truck's is similar, if not slightly stronger down low.

The truck is said to make more than 400 lb-ft of torque from 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm, with the 460 peak at 4100 rpm

When I said Ford's 6.2L was peaky, in comparison it makes less than 300 lb-ft at 2000 rpm and doesn't break 400 lb-ft until over 4000 rpm

Ford's own data:

Toyota's 5.7L has an almost identical torque curve to Ford's 6.2L

I think Larry's probably right with the EPA estimates, although I'd bet 20 mpg for a 2wd and 19 mpg 4x4

 

[huntsonora]

The 2014 Corvette's 6.2L LT1 is much more similar to the truck's 6.2L (L86) than they'd have you believe. There are differences, most of which are to shift the power curve lower in the rev band (shifted roughly 500 rpm lower) where it's more appropriate for a truck. In the Vette, the 6.2L makes 455 hp and the same 460 lb-ft of torque (+5 hp/tq with performance exhaust). The LT1's power curve has been released, and the truck's is similar, if not slightly stronger down low.

The truck is said to make more than 400 lb-ft of torque from 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm, with the 460 peak at 4100 rpm

When I said Ford's 6.2L was peaky, in comparison it makes less than 300 lb-ft at 2000 rpm and doesn't break 400 lb-ft until over 4000 rpm

Ford's own data:

Toyota's 5.7L has an almost identical torque curve to Ford's 6.2L

I think Larry's probably right with the EPA estimates, although I'd bet 20 mpg for a 2wd and 19 mpg 4x4

That's impressive! Thanks for the info! Looking forward to seeing one when they come out

 

[Kaisen]

Here's the OLD truck motor's official SAE curve (6.2L L94):

Add a little less than 20 horsepower and add roughly 40 lb-ft torque across the curve and you've got a good idea what the L86 looks like, same peaks. It's likely that the higher compression and direct injection could add some bulge at the lower end (as you see in the LT1 Vette's curve).

 

[redthies]

Any idea on actual mpgs out of the 2010 L94 in real world 4x4 truck use?

 

[Kaisen]

Any idea on actual mpgs out of the 2010 L94 in real world 4x4 truck use?

That's a tough one. Most people who buy the 6.2L's don't care about fuel economy. They bought them for the luxury (Escalade, Denali) or performance. So they don't drive them in a way that helps fuel economy numbers.

I only have two personal anecdotes, one being a 150 mile drive in a new 2013 Yukon Denali AWD last winter. Half was 55mph rural, and half was 75 mph freeway. The DIC showed I was getting 20-21 mpg on the rural two lane (60-63 mph) and 17-18 mpg on the faster freeway (75-79 mph). I did not refill it so there was no hand calculation. Typically, the winter blend fuels are good for robbing 1-2 mpg, so take that grain of salt. The second drive was a few years ago in a 2009 Escalade ESV AWD (Suburban) that I drove ~600 miles pure freeway at 75 mph. That was summertime with a/c, five people and luggage. That hand calculation was 18.4 mpg. These are only two small datapoints and don't reflect how everyone drives. I'm sure you'd hear of other people getting 13 mpg too.

A very good friend of mine bought a 2013 Escalade AWD this Spring and claims he got 20 mpg one tank. I didn't grill him on the details of the drive, just passing on that he's impressed with the fuel economy. He doesn't drive it much, and just turned 2000 miles last weekend. He has other cars and motorcycles he drives when the weather is nice.

It's also worth note that I get quite good fuel economy out of most vehicles. I frequently get 16 mpg on the freeway from my 8.1L Sub. So YMMV