Very informative story examining the 2018 F150 Diesel Engine Possibilities.

Examining the 2018 Ford F150 Diesel Engine Possibilities - Torque News

Here is a quote

 

So I take it you work for Torque News and are trying to get traffic for the site since about every thread you have started links to there?
Torque News is two months behind on this story. Multiple sources posted this news after the auto show in January.

 

This is an interesting story. If you look at my other activities you will see that I have participated in other discussions in this forum too as a forum member. Thank you.

 

This is just my opinion, but unless you are expecting to make it an extremely high mileage truck that tows ALOT, why even opt for a Diesel when you can get the gen 2 3.5l turbo gasser?
The price offset of fuel, maintenance for the oil burner, and limited (when compared to gas) pump locations seem to outweigh any of the reasons for leaving the twin turbo anyway.
Am I missing something?
I know some may just have a matter of preference which would be good enough for most.....

.....And choices in general are a good thing. I just don't understand the niche here.

Remember not so long ago when you had two choices in the higher end.... 4.6 vs 5.4.??? Something like over 90% were the 5.4.

 

I'll give it another 5 months til the real info comes out.

Here's some food for thought. I watched TFL's Colorado V6 vs the Canyon I4 Duramax towing mpg test side by side. Towing about 5000lbs, the Duramax got 12.7mpg while doing 70mph in a headwind and kept at around 1700rpm. The V6 got 8.7mpg towing the same trailer. Now by there count if you just towed, it would only take about 40,000-45,000 miles for the upcharge of the diesel to pay for itself, long as gas and diesel are the same price at the pump. Not towing and they say about 80,000 miles to recoup costs. Now the kicker with the Duramax Colorado/Canyon is you have to buy it in the higher trim packages, so you can't walk out with a base model. It's about $4,000 more for the diesel over the gas, which considering it isn't too bad. The EcoDiesel is $4,500 over the base 3.6.

The way I see it, the diesel F150 if it gets pretty good mileage and they don't charge $8,000 over the 3.5L EcoBoost, I could see it paying for itself by 100,000-130,000 miles if just as a weekend towing rig. I see Ford doing what Ram does with the diesel, and offering it in the lower trim (XL, XLT) packages to hit more of the market, rather than limit it to Lariat, KR, and Platinum. Though Ford makes most of their profits off the higher trims.

 

I tend to agree - a few years ago, I decided I'd hang onto my 2006 F150 until there is a truck that gets 25mpg on the highway (in 4x4 trim). Then the Ram EcoDiesel came out........meh.


I was even excited about the thoughts of diesels, especially since owning an '04 F250. But lately, the gas turbos are really picking up the slack and running strong. Every mfg offers a turbo gas anymore it seems. They've come a very long way.


Somehow, as much as I'm a fan of diesels, I'm really disappointed in their expense....I could get past the reliability concern to an extent, but the up front cost is downright sinful. The price of diesel fuel in my area is ALWAYS at least $0.60 / gallon more expensive. Back in 2004, it was the opposite.


While the motorhead side of me is anxious to see what Ford does with this new engine, I'm really curious to see how expensive it is as well as what kind of MPG rating it gets.


Just looking at the new Range Rover Sport....I know, not apples to apples...but the diesel is a $2000 option. 2 grand. Not $9000....

 

VW was the same way with the TDI, barely $2000 above the base gas model. It's only $8,000+ in heavy and super duty trucks.

 

^^^

Yeah but, the base model Rangey is $65,000 so there's plenty of fluff already to absorb the engine cost. I have a family on my route who owns a Rangey and a Disco, both gassers and they are reporting horrendous MPG's from both. The diesel in the Rangey makes perfect sense as it will pay for itself very quickly as opposed to the F-150.

 

We had a 2013 RRS, it was the NA 5.0.....we averaged about 16 MPG with it. The thing with the Range Rovers is they're heavier than you think and the full time AWD doesn't help either. It was peppy though...

 

I believe Ford say in one of the press releases you needed to drive 20k per year to pay for it. Since the 6.7 is a $9k option I expect the 3.0 to come in at 4-5k
Even though I drive SD diesels I would not consider the 3.0 as it will be aimed for the fuel economy crowd not the max tow crowd.
I can also say from many trips going to Colorado that towing the same load (about 7k lbs) my F150's get around 8.5 mpg and the SD PSD's around 10.5 mpg. Call it 20%
A 1800 mile trip takes 211.7 gallons of gas vs 171.4 gals of diesel. I run premium pump gas when towing so even if it is .30 higher
211.7 gals @ $2.79 = $590.64 vs
171.4 gals @ 2.49 = $426.78 for diesel

I saved $164 in fuel saving on one trip. Not exactly a financial savvy reason to want a diesel. This means I saved 9 cents per mile when towing.

Having said this -If Ford had of went with the 4.4 Baby PSD and put it as the heavy towing vehicle at around 550 ft lbs of torque I would consider it as I do tow heavy.

 

Consider that at the time, the 2004 F150 came out and the 6.0 had issues, I don't think it would have done well. Even though the Lion and 6.0 had nothing in common, the bad taste in peoples mouths at the time probably would have soured sales. Also diesel was nearing $5 a few years later.

I'm on the fence myself of what engine to go with. My girlfriend's Mountaineer gets about 16 in city and 18-21 highway depending on wind direction and strength. So anything that gets mid 20s city and 30mpg highway is saving us money.

 

I've been almost exclusively a PSD driver since 1999. I've had all of the PSD's, and multiples of each, as I always drove high mileage.
While I bleed diesel fuel and fart soot stains on my underwear, I couldn't really enjoy the last smokers due to dependability concerns. In millions of miles, I never had an issue, but my last 6.7L was deleted because I was planning to drive it into the ground. Then I got the bug for an F150 King Ranch, and traded off. While I love this F150, I can't get used to riding low, and now that I only have 500# of payload left for a travel trailer with a family of four, I'm going to have to switch back to a Super Duty again.
I see the diesel in an F150 being nothing more than Fords shot at perfecting what Ram couldn't do, and pull better fuel economy while providing a better tow platform. With the top trim Super Duties supposedly flying off the lots, Ford won't open themselves to creating an F150 diesel tow machine that dips into the lower tier of the Super Duty. It'd be foolish. You can already get a 2,300# payload F150 supercrew with the Heavy Duty Payload Package, and packaging that with a 3.0L diesel would be a problem, except Ford won't offer it all, payload and high level trim, in one packaged F150.
They are, IMO however, being dumb as a fox. Ford has already forecasted the expected slow-down in the truck market next year, and when $70,000 Super Duties are no longer flying off the lots, the substantially less priced diesel F150 may recoup some of the sales they could expect to lose.

 

I had an Ecodiesel and I have a 2.7L Ecoboost now. The 2.7 has more towing power although it does need to downshift a little more when pulling a travel trailer. The Ecodiesel definitely wins on towing efficiency but I don't tow enough to save much on fuel. The normal, unloaded driving showed about the same difference in fuel economy as towing at 2-3 mpg. Diesel has been running 10-15% more expensive here for quite a while except at truck stops the difference is more like 20-30%.

Throttle response on the 2.7 is so much better than the ecodiesel that I would not go back. If Ford finds a way to fix that on their diesel they may be ok. I think a 3.0L diesel is too small for this size vehicle although the F150 is quite a bit lighter than the Ram so it may not be too bad. 4-4.5L would be better for most 1/2 ton trucks.

 

Shouldn't a diesel get more torque cube for cube? I would expect a 3L diesel to have better torque than a 2.7L gasser, but what would I know?

 

The 2.7 has 85 more hp than the diesel and the turbos spool up faster since it is gas.