Agree with you 100%. I never understood the point of having all the emissions systems and then lower the fuel economy by like 80%. You're just burning more hydrocarbons in the end - just as bad or worse for the environment.

Look at the early mileage champion - Chevy 6.5 diesel from the mid 90's. Gets 25 mpg without a problem. Then look at our new 6.4L, even on the hwy you're averaging no more than 17 mpg.

 

I understand the difficulty in meetng emission standards, and I recongnize that the EGR for example when set up properly can actually have a minimal effect (if any) on fuel economy, but the DPF is just a bandaid solution IMO (what will replace the filters when standards max out their limits?). I also understand the different standards between diesel and gas engines, as well as light compared to heavy vehicles. My 6.9L diesel has no emission controls on it because of the how the rules were back in the late 80s. The chevy 6.5 might be capable of 25 MPG, but my dad's 1993 K3500 has never seen numbers like that, though it is geared low. My tall geared 6.9 has seen 20+ on ocasion though (@70 MPH).

What burns me about emission controls is that there is little consideration of what the long term effect may be for the higher Co2 emissions or higher fuel consumption. I think we can do better, and if this is in fact the limit if the piston engine, than maybe its time to move on to a better engine. I'll never buy a truck that has a DPF on it thats for sure.

 

I guess I can't vote. There's no option for definately, no auto what so ever.

 

The filters will not "max out there limits" they essentially remove all particulate (soot) from the exhaust. While you are right in saying that there may be some "band-aide" solutions in US07 emissions, the DPF is not one of them. If you will not consider one that you will not be owning a new diesel truck. I understand your frustration, as it bothers me too, but it is a fact of life that we will be living with the DPF, just as the catalytic converter. What about a DPF are you against? What basis do you have to say we can do better?

I left my job i mentioned before partly because i think there is not enough emphasis placed on alternatives to the traditional engines we are used to. I think in the engineering community it is generally agreed upon that we are reaching the limit of the piston engine as we know it. Its really not so bad when you consider the design has been essentially unchanged since its invention.

However i think the effect of the emissions systems on fuel economy is minimal. I think it will continually improve just as it did in the 70s with gasoline engines. If using the diesel trucks as a truck, the loss of fuel economy in a regen is really not a huge issue. It becomes more so when the truck is used as a commuter and grocery getter. I do not think CO2 is a HUGE issue.

 

We are probably at the tipping point like what happened to gassers in the 70s, and diesels will probably get a little worse before they get better in terms of MPG. What I meant about maxing out the system was referring to reaching the limit of the emissions technology, so the question is what will replace the DPF when it can't keep up with emissions regulations anymore? And what toll will that take on MPGs?

I tend to be very cynical about environmental policy and motor vehicle regulations, and haven't seen much in the way of good ideas toward that end. But I guess thats just my opinion, and as a diesel nut, I don't like seeing "my team" (diesels) get whipped.

The way I look at it, if an old high mileage diesel like mine can get better MPGs than the latest greatest diesel monsters being sold out there, than something is wrong with this picture, hence I say we can do better than what we are being sold.

Most of my engine/powertrain modding is geared toward better MPG and not power. I still have a long list of potential mods to get a better burn, but until I have time to build them, I can't claim that they would make a big difference. Water, or hydrogen injection to name a couple.

 

Alright. at first your posts came off as a bit "trollish" but i stand corrected

The DPF is part of the big emissions picture i suppose. In 2010 there will be Urea injection along with the DPF.

I agree, the diesel MPG has gotten worse and in time it should start to improve again.

I understand why you feel as you do. I guess it would make sense that with "progress" you would see a better and better product, that may mean MPG or power. With the new diesels you really get neither and suffer with worse MPG. I can see why you are cynical about gov't regulations, they seldom are about what they initially seem to be. usually money plays a huge part.

I think you are the right track with water injection. It seems like there really hasn't been much focus on that. I don't know why that is, it has proven to beneficial.

 

I heard of urea injection before, and joking aside, I thought it was nixed because it would place an unrealistic onus on the motorists to maintain an emission control fluid in addition to all the other drive train fluids. Not to mention it being one more thing you would have to buy in addition to fuel that gets more expencive all the time. Enforcement could also be a problem.

Water injection is not very politically correct for areas that have water shortages, but on the BC coast, that is not a problem, so its not a solution for everywhere. But there does seem to be precious little recent research on the an idea that predates WW2, and was used extencively during the war by all sides. Hydrogen injection via on board electrolysis is a disputed idea, and most consider the idea a violation of the laws of physics. I made a small electrolizer and plant to test it and see for myself what it does.

If it wasn't for this thread: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...002-7-3-a.html


I would have never bothered (only spent $25 on the thing anyway).

 

"I heard of urea injection before, and joking aside, I thought it was nixed because it would place an unrealistic onus on the motorists to maintain an emission control fluid in addition to all the other drive train fluids. Not to mention it being one more thing you would have to buy in addition to fuel that gets more expencive all the time. Enforcement could also be a problem."

Well it hasn't been nixed unfortunatly. Every one of your points is a valid one. Unforunatly not much else to say about that. There have been "solutions" to those problems you mentioned but I don't think they are what everyone wants.

I've done some work in hydrofuel cells and alternative energy in general. I am not sure that hydrogen is the best solution, but I can't blame you for trying and doing your own research. I don't have time to read that entire thread, but it seems like an interesting idea and certainly worth a try. Play it smart, and you have nothing to lose and potentially lots to gain.

Good luck!!

 

The poll should have been yes/no IMHO.

I have had lots of trucks with manuals and would buy one again but I don't need a 3/4 ton or larger truck. If Ford won't allow me to buy one I won't buy one bigger just to have it. In my book it doesn't matter which engine it has. I may not be looking for a new truck partly because I can't order it the way I want it anymore. I have a freind that bought a '04 new and he wanted a standard and was pissed he couldn't in a 150. He settled for an auto.

 

I have bought 2 brand new Fords. An 89 Ranger 2.9 5sp and a 2001 F250 V-10 Auto. I really wanted a stick in the 250 but could not find one within 500 mile dealer search.
In my opinion Ford has really blown it by not offering a standard behind v-6 in the smaller rigs such as the Escape or Sport track. That is the only reason I won't be buying a new Escape this year.

What I really wanted more than anything is a SCREW Ranger. What the Sport Track should have been. Not a car built on the Explorer chassy. It would have to have a full frame, 230ftlb engine and Manual transmission.

My wife just left for work in the Ranger. It has been a daily driver for 20 years. ORIGINAL Clutch, The engine, transmission, transfer case, have never been touched. It has been abused off road and hauled loads of firewood it was never rated for.

I am a tried and true Ford man. But I think we will be looking at a Toyota Pickup. They offer the exact 4 door short bed, v-6, 4X4, MANUAL tranny that Ford won't build.

It actually makes me sick to my stomach.

If Ford monitors these posts I would really like them to contact me.

 

You might be able to get your Toyota as a little Tacoma but you can't get your Toyota the way you want it with a Tundra.

 

68 351 bronc was talking about Ford Rangers and Explorers in his post so I assume he was also talking about the Toyota Tacoma. In fact you can get the Tacoma exactly like he said. My father has that truck: V6 Manual transmission, 4x4, four door. It even came with an AC/DC inverter and a wall socket in the pickup bed for running tools etc. Also an e-locker rear diff and a clutch bypass switch for the starter so you can drive with the starter motor. Very nice setup straight from the factory.

 

Drive with the starter motor? That is a nice feature, we do that often with our old ferggie tractor. The plug in the bed is a long overdue feature, I am a tradesman, and there are a few times that it would have been nice to have a power supply to run some powertools.

 

Ok so I would never actually buy a new Toyota. But why does Ford build Concept vehicles that never come close to resembling the production vehicles. And I anit buy the emissions kept them from it crap.
Back to the manual transmission question. Yes there are certain vehicles that I would not buy with an auto if its the only trans available.

 

I would buy a f150 with a manual if it was offered with a V8, I have never had a manual in a truck but have in my previous car and i really miss it.