Exactly....

What we need is a dial on the dash that gives us three different power levels along with appropriate shift strategies for the transmission.

250 / 350 / 450 HP would be great... Let me chose which strategy I need for my given situation.

And yes - I know that's what some people think the throttle pedal is all about - but I disagree... There are many different factors (like shift strategy) that come into play. Having the power to get the job done is important --- but eating me out of house and home when I'm not towing is just not where its at...

 

+5HP and a Little more Torque who cares. GM has been plagued with Recalls during the past few years. I would rather have my Truck in the Driveway, than in the Shop.

 

As long as the weight of the truck stays the same or gets heavier, the fuel economy isn't going to improve much. That's just physics, and I don't see the diesel engine itself becoming significantly more efficient any time soon. The upside to turbo charging is that you can have a multiple power levels out of the same hardware, by changing boost.


And Ford already offers a lower hp diesel option, the cab/chassis model, which some people don't want for that very reason. If they offered a higher power option for more money I would pay it.

 

Call me crazy but imo these are great times we live in. Horsepower wars have never been this good. Reliability is way up if you compare this 6.7 to the previous powerstrokes and they still get as good if not better mileage. The answer to how much power is necessary is always more in my books. If anyone from ford reads this i for one am very happy with the direction you have been heading, other than the crappy dpf, i realize this is epa mandated thou. Thank you, and dodge and chevy for the healthy competition to keep pushing the envelope. If all i was worried about was mileage i would have bought a 1/2 ton.

 

It's amazing when you look back and the last model year 7.3 was 275hp from the factory after starting out at 210HP.

Gassers are doing the same thing across the board.. Hard to believe a 4 cyl. Mustang today has more power than the old pushrod V8 5.0s did (stock vs. stock).

 

I've even emailed tuner companies asking if they would write tuning that reduced power and made appropriate transmission changes, all focused on economy. If I could turn a dial and only use half power with a transmission that would support 200hp strategy, it would be awesome.

I love the power levels we have but most of the time I'd be perfectly happy rolling along with less.

The throttle pedal is a good counter point to what I'm saying though. I'm not an expert in fuel injection theory so I don't know the answer to the question "100% throttle at 1200rpm burns more or less fuel than 50% throttle at 2200rpm?"

 

I think you really want to ask "100 % power at 1200 rpm vs 50 % power at 1200 rpm (assuming that because of the different tune they both produce the same hp/tq at that position)".

 

I think that's probably what he meant...
Given that normaly aspirated diesels (well most by design) move the same amount of air at a given RPM, then the only outliers are boost, fuel and gearing..
So to answer that question, I would have to say that it would be burning more fuel at 100% throttle at 1200 RPM.
This is why the balance of fuel / air and shifting strategies are so important to both power and economy..
It's darned hard, if not close to impossible to achieve peak power and economy at the same time with the same tune..

 

I'm still in shock that the 2.7 V6 ecoboost has more power than my 5.8 V8.

 

The replacement for displacement, is a turbo with direct injection.

And of course the high performance V8 variants now make over 500hp and in some cases 700hp from the factory...

 

445HP and 900+ ft lbs in a pickup to move what like 20K?..i mean, really??
and will this engine make this power reliably and continuously? I don't think so..

I wonder how I've survived driving my 6.7 with it's 400HP/800ft lbs, or my 94 GMC box truck with it's paltry 185HP/520ft lbs CAT 3116 pulling 27K+ lbs..or my 86 6.9L IDI with it's 170HP/315ft lbs...

Aren't we reaching the point of ridiculousness here?

 

They seem to make 440 and 860 reliably, don't see why this one would be any different. I would agree it is unnecessary if they were blowing up every 30000km but that doesn't seem to be the case. Still can't believe anyone would complain about more power. Must not have grown up watching home improvement like i did.

 

I didn't like driving my low horsepower trucks and cars... I love driving my current truck... If my current truck was like your 86 or 94, I wouldn't own it, which is why they make them with more power than that. I got rid of my 1984 58hp Honda Civic as soon as I could because it was waaaay to slow, but it was all I could afford at the time.

 

I want that new power because I will be pulling my 11K bumper pull trailer over 11,000' elevation passes. That last thing I want is to be passed by a Subaru station wagon.

 

I am interested in driving a new '17 just to see if there is a seat of the pants feel more than my '15. I agree that my current truck has plenty of power and definitely more than I need but I am the kind of person that never gets tired of more power and I will never say it has too much.

My brother in law is a stupid insane GM lover as in everything else sucks other than GM. Sometimes its hard to talk to him and I just ignore him. I've owned all GM trucks prior to my 2012 SD gasser and now my '15 6.7 so naturally he thinks the new Duramx reins supreme since it has 5 more hp lol!

I just wonder why Ford didnt bump the hp from the previous year?