Looking at those numbers truly makes diesel a lame option. 22mpg over 18mpg is not worth it if the diesel is a few grand more, fuel is more, oil changes are 3x more, repairs are more, and if urea needs to be bought (which is almost a scam in the it is not even used in milage calculations. Nice that it is an option for those that like them for towiing though.

 

The 3.5EB has both more HP and TQ than does your 5.4. The F150 can be ordered in a configuration that gives a 12,000# towing capacity.
The 3.0 Diesel is an unknown quantity right now. The new EPA diesels are pretty strong and fuel efficient - BUT - you pay a handsome price to buy in to it to begin with - THEN you pay doggoned near double for an extended warranty (at least this is true for the current 6.7 diesel)..
I would not want to be a JOB1 customer of this new diesel...

 

Yes it will require DEF/Urea as do majority of new diesels. Fuel mileage wise will be around 23 city and 30-32 highway. It'll have at least a $3000 tag over the 3.5L EcoBoost. My reasoning for saying the mpg there is based off what the Range Rover gets with it (28 mpg city) and add an extra few mpg because the truck is lighter than the Rovers and the EcoDiesel RAM that has been known to get about 30-32mpg highway.

I'd rather be smelling like diesel than gasoline of mixed gas. Only thing I hate about non filtered diesels is the fumes almost make me throw up. I'm glad it's finally an option after the rumors from 2004 about one that never happened.

My guess is the new Ranger will get the 3.2 I5 diesel, though a detuned 3.0 might be a better option. Would be nice for a diesel Bronco as well. Speculation is the Bronco will be a rebadged Ford Everest from over seas. Which is almost like a rebadged Ford Edge or Explorer. I'm hoping it'll be a Wrangler killer and have great off road capabilities.

 

As had been said in this thread, we have no specs from Ford about the 3.0 V6 diesel going in the MY18 F150. We don't even know for sure what diesel it will be, other than 3.0L V6. No performance figures, No fuel economy numbers, No cost amounts, No powertrain warranty information. And your estimates of diesel oil change costs and repairs, are premature also.

 

Ford F-150 to Receive 3.0L Lion V-6 Diesel

I think this link provides about the best and latest info that can be expected right now. I like the comparo of the two 3.0L engines from Ford and from Ram.

One thing is for sure, the lion engine isn't a concept motor to fill a gap, it's been around for a good long while.

 

A Super Duty sounds like overkill, and I agree with Randy. Your current truck makes 300 HP and 365 ft-lbs of torque, which pales in comparison to the 365 HP/420 ft-lbs that the 3.5L EcoBoost makes. The transmission difference is every bit as meaningful; the 6-speed auto behind the '09-present trucks does a much better job keeping the engine where it needs to be.

All available engines in the current-gen F150 will feel much stronger than your current truck with that trailer. I'd recommend either EcoBoost engine for your trailer, but if you can wait the new diesel should also do a great job. It's hard to overstate the powertrain difference beween the 5.4L/4R70 combination you have now and what's available in newer trucks.

 

The ten-speed tranny in the new 2017 should also give a big advantage to the EB engines towing capability over the old four-speed trannies in the non EB trucks..

 

I'm just glad they have a respectfully deep 5:1 first gear.

 

Close.... 4.70
I just snatched this from a YouTube video on the 2018

 

Still not terrible. Thought in the videos from TFL and Mr. Truck they said it was 5:1, oh well wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong.

 

EPA just caught Fiat Chrysler pulling the same stunt with the Ecodiesel that VW was doing.

I would expect the Ecodiesel MPG numbers to crash once their PCMs are updated.

Josh

 

I think it's a bit soon to jump to conclusions on that.

 

Just shows how bad the EPA is getting or even stupid CARB. I mean Caterpillar was caught with parts and software to cheat emissions back in the late 90s early 2000s, but they didn't go on the verge of bankruptcy over it. I do find it funny on how stupid shareholders are and that even Cummins stock dropped, even though the 6.7L wasn't even part of this whole thing. With this kind of thing, I'd be more inclined to buy more stock just because, screw the EPA.

If this diesel F150 will get 30 mpg without trying hard, I may look into it further because a few times a year, we take a trip out to Nebraska and it turns out to be about 500 miles one way. I'd be able to do a there and back on a single tank of diesel and be pretty confident I'd make it home without issue. Otherwise, depending on what the 10 speed does with the 2.7EB I may go that route. I was mostly waiting on the 10 speed to be available on more options, before I pull the trigger, glad I'm waiting.

 

You beat me to it Josh. I saw this on the news last night and naturally it captured my interest.

 

This doesn't look like the same kind of thing that Volkswagen is being hammered for. Which is stoopid, but another topic altogether. FCA CEO Sergio Marchonne called it a "difference of opinion" on the application of the law, which means this is a debatable issue rather than wholesale deception that VW practiced.

We will see, it's far too early to make any kind of informed opinion on this IMHO. Modern diesels with urea aftertreatment are capable of outstanding fuel economy, and there are plenty of examples of that even excluding the Ram.