Ford Truck Enthusiasts, The Internet's Leading Ford Trucks Resource, F150
 

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Diesel > 4.4L Ford Diesel
New! Use your Facebook, Google, AIM & Yahoo accounts to securely log into this site, click logo to login  

4.4L Ford Diesel Discuss the much rumored 4.4L Ford diesel engine






Is F-150 Still King?
 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2007, 06:16 PM
monsterbaby's Avatar
monsterbaby monsterbaby is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: iowa
Posts: 13,228
monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation
my 470 detroit was getting 6.8mpg quarterly average, the 475 cat my friend was running was averaging 5.1, oil changes were roughly the same if we had someone else like speedco do it but mine would be about $20 cheaper (one gallon less oil, and my filters were a little cheaper even buying both on my account at the same place), when I had the overhead ran on mine the cost was $200, it was $450 for the cat and the overhaul costs are as noted above.
And comparing engines well it's like a john deere farm tractor vs a international, I can go buy one a lot cheaper than the other and get exactly the same job done. the small cat motors just aren't any different except that Cat doesn't make them emissions legal.

oh and comparing a 475 to a 430 isn't exactly the same thing either, the 430hp detroit I ran got 5.8mpg same type truck pulling the same trailers.

Basically I haven't seen anything out of cat that would make me ever want one for a on road use vehicle, I have been around them, I have worked on them, I have driven them, and I have done the paper work associated with the costs of doing business with them and nothing in all that shows me it would be a good thing for Ford, oh and if you think the dispute between ford and navistar is bad, Cat will NOT honor any warrenty unless the engine is setup exactly the way they say to do it, and run exactly the way they say so if Ford wanted to put their fuel system on Cat would NOT cover ANY warrenty costs.
Now heavy equipment thats another story, when it comes to dozers, backhoes, etc I would take a cat over any others most times (some minor exceptions to that but not many)
__________________
Rob

Dying's not so bad

It's living that will kill you off

Last edited by monsterbaby; 04-08-2007 at 06:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:38 PM
BigJake86's Avatar
BigJake86 BigJake86 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: foot hills
Posts: 240
BigJake86 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Oh yea, Monsterbaby? Well, you can't tell me it doesn't sound good!
"Caterpillar-powered Superduty"
Seriously, though, I think a smaller displacement diesel is okay. Besides, it has nearly the same power output as the 7.3's did.
__________________
2001 Excursion Limited 4x4 7.3 DP Tuner & F5 24MPG
1993 F-350 2wd Dually 7.3
1989 F-600 6.6 5+2
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:51 PM
monsterbaby's Avatar
monsterbaby monsterbaby is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: iowa
Posts: 13,228
monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation monsterbaby has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJake86 View Post
Oh yea, Monsterbaby? Well, you can't tell me it doesn't sound good!
"Caterpillar-powered Superduty" .

Ummm yes I can, cause well I figured out a long time ago Cat engines are more about image then practibility. Notice for those big Cat engine guys, in the diesel drags you don't see ANY cats being competitive, mostly cummins with some powerstrokes and the duramax's starting to kick butt too. And it's not cause they didn't come from the factory in any pickups cause those guys will swap in anything that works good. And on the big truck circuit it's almost exclusively Cummins that kick tail and win.
Only guy I know that ever swapped in a cat into a Ford drove it for 6 months took the engine out, put in a reman powerstroke back in it's place. The cat motor is sitting behind his garage (no I wouldn't suggest anyone buy it, he didn't bother to cover it been there for 6 yrs) reason he took it out? he went from 15mpg with a 7.3 to 7mpg with the cat and a mutual friend of ours out pulled him going to Colorado that year. (yes the other truck was chipped, it was a dodge and was worked over good but he thought the cat was well the cats meow until that day) said he will never own another cat engine.

Oh I do know another guy that swapped a Cat into a old Chev truck, that used to be his daily driver ran it everywhere, had a turbo charged 454 in it. this guy will build anything and does. decided he needed something cool and loved cats, put one in (I am not real sure which one, I heard it was a 3208 but I honestly never bothered to look that close) since he did that he drove it for about a year, been sitting every since pretty much gets driven about once a month. reason why? can't afford to drive it, cause it was costing more to drive then the turbocharged big block... and that was in the late 90s when diesel was 91cents a gallon
__________________
Rob

Dying's not so bad

It's living that will kill you off
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2008, 08:18 PM
MisterCMK's Avatar
MisterCMK MisterCMK is offline
Post Fiend
1994 Ford Mustang
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,264
MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold
3208? NA or turbo? Those things are turds.
__________________
Chris
1994 Mustang GT
1992 Explorer XLT
2000 Expedition EB
http://mistercmk.com/images/sig.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcbofade
I have no brain
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:56 PM
parkland's Avatar
parkland parkland is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,485
parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Cat motors are high speed diesels as heavy as low speed diesels. They have no current motors suitable for a pickup.


Ford HAS had a motor in development for a while (that I heard about), and I heard it was a V8 8.0 Liter twin turbo.

Unfortunately, because of EPA, and the like, the 8.0 twin will probably hit 300hp and hit 4psi boost just idling. (like the 6.4 only more so)

Toyota has a hino 8 Liter I-6 in a demo HD-Tundra, (and you though cummins was tourqey!!!)
__________________
2002 7.3 PSD 4x4 Nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:00 PM
parkland's Avatar
parkland parkland is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,485
parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
One more thing, I also heard they were using 16 injectors in the V8 8.0 diesel block.

Unfortunately this comes from a guy who works on the 4.6 in ontario, but he did tell me about dodge's small diesels before I heard anywhere else, so mabye he does know what he's taling about.

No guarantees though...

I have a good motor for the SD - Detroit series 40 !!!

It probably would fit under the hood! (with roadbed modification!)

LOL
__________________
2002 7.3 PSD 4x4 Nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 03:11 AM
mnmwhit's Avatar
mnmwhit mnmwhit is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Pole Alaska
Posts: 815
mnmwhit is starting off with a positive reputation.
The 4.4 is NOT a new engine.

It is a motor design they are pulling from the Range Rover (european) design. I drove one in the dessert for 6 months. Can't tell you about fuel mileage because everything was measured in Klicks (kilometers). But it was snappy and pleasant to drive. The one I drove had one turbo and performed decent. From what I have seen the engine we will see will have turbos on both sides of the engine.
__________________
06 F-350, North Pole, Alaska
Brush Guard w/4 moose lites
Mobil-1 Turbo diesel truck oil
fuel filters every 10,000 miles
AstroStart auto start
98 gal Transfer flow tank
Rhino liner on the rockers
Wabasto-Blue heat
MBRP turbo back duels w/ no CAT
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 10:59 AM
parkland's Avatar
parkland parkland is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,485
parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Ford Australia has a ranger with 2.5 powerstroke. 170HP i think, and 36 MPG.

And thats for the crew cab model ranger.

Wheres our 2.5 powerstroke that gets 36MPG? (for the wife of course!)
__________________
2002 7.3 PSD 4x4 Nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:06 PM
jmaskew's Avatar
jmaskew jmaskew is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 1,237
jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parkland View Post
Ford Australia has a ranger with 2.5 powerstroke. 170HP i think, and 36 MPG.

And thats for the crew cab model ranger.

Wheres our 2.5 powerstroke that gets 36MPG? (for the wife of course!)
Check these out:
Ford Australia - Ranger 4X4 XL Super Cab Chassis

Ford Australia - Ranger 4x2 XL Single Cab Pick-Up

Good point... why aren't these engines available here in the U.S? Heck I wouldn't mind one!
__________________

^Camping at ZION NP, Utah^
Jonathan
2004 F250 PSD SB King Ranch 4x4:Build Date: 01/23/2004
Dieselsite Coolant Bypass Filter, High Idle Mod
Fumoto Oil Drain Valve, Harpoon Mod, Zoodad
Isspro 40 PSI Boost, Water Temp, Oil Temp and Trans Temp
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:16 PM
jmaskew's Avatar
jmaskew jmaskew is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 1,237
jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parkland View Post
Ford Australia has a ranger with 2.5 powerstroke. 170HP i think, and 36 MPG.

And thats for the crew cab model ranger.

Wheres our 2.5 powerstroke that gets 36MPG? (for the wife of course!)
Here are the specs (mileage, etc.) on both engines.
Anyone want to translate HP\Torque and MPG? Please.

"Leading the way is the 3.0L 16 valve intercooled Direct Injection Turbo-diesel manual. It delivers 115kW of power at 3,200rpm and whopping 380Nm of torque at only 1,800rpm, while fuel economy comes in at 9.2L/100km~. The new 2.5L diesel engine gives even better fuel economy at just 8.3L/100km~, yet you'll still have 330Nm of torque at 1,800 rpm."
__________________

^Camping at ZION NP, Utah^
Jonathan
2004 F250 PSD SB King Ranch 4x4:Build Date: 01/23/2004
Dieselsite Coolant Bypass Filter, High Idle Mod
Fumoto Oil Drain Valve, Harpoon Mod, Zoodad
Isspro 40 PSI Boost, Water Temp, Oil Temp and Trans Temp
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 01:20 PM
parkland's Avatar
parkland parkland is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,485
parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Not sure exactly, i may have been off on the HP ratings, but i'm sure the mileage i read about was better than that. (worn in?)
__________________
2002 7.3 PSD 4x4 Nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 02:48 PM
jmaskew's Avatar
jmaskew jmaskew is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 1,237
jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. jmaskew is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Here's the specs"
The 2.5L Engine gets 28.7 mpg
The 3.0L Engine gets 26 mpg

Wouldn't these engines be great in the Ford Explorer and the Expedition?
__________________

^Camping at ZION NP, Utah^
Jonathan
2004 F250 PSD SB King Ranch 4x4:Build Date: 01/23/2004
Dieselsite Coolant Bypass Filter, High Idle Mod
Fumoto Oil Drain Valve, Harpoon Mod, Zoodad
Isspro 40 PSI Boost, Water Temp, Oil Temp and Trans Temp
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 02:59 PM
MisterCMK's Avatar
MisterCMK MisterCMK is offline
Post Fiend
1994 Ford Mustang
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,264
MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmaskew View Post
Here's the specs"
The 2.5L Engine gets 28.7 mpg
The 3.0L Engine gets 26 mpg

Wouldn't these engines be great in the Ford Explorer and the Expedition?
Nope. With diesel at $4 per gallon and the added cost of that oil burner in an Explorer or Expedition I don't see it being worth it.
__________________
Chris
1994 Mustang GT
1992 Explorer XLT
2000 Expedition EB
http://mistercmk.com/images/sig.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcbofade
I have no brain
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 03:10 PM
parkland's Avatar
parkland parkland is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,485
parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE. parkland is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
here gas is $1.22 a liter, and diesel is $1.24 a liter.

At that price, anyone who can get 20-35% better mpg would want the 2.5 or 3.0 powerstroke in a ranger or explorer. Just think of all the money wasted on the "escape hybrid" ha, what a crock of sht.
__________________
2002 7.3 PSD 4x4 Nothing out of the ordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2008, 08:14 PM
MisterCMK's Avatar
MisterCMK MisterCMK is offline
Post Fiend
1994 Ford Mustang
My Garage
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,264
MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold MisterCMK is a splendid one to behold
Where do you live parkland? There is a 70 cent difference around here.
__________________
Chris
1994 Mustang GT
1992 Explorer XLT
2000 Expedition EB
http://mistercmk.com/images/sig.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcbofade
I have no brain
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.

Guidelines - Contact Us - Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Archive - Top

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 1997-2008 Internet Brands, Inc.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.