What about when a trailer is hooked?

Some of these newer camper trailers are like 10,000 - 16,000 lbs !!!

 

Are you saying you think that the european diesels will run at WOT for a million miles?

 

And again we are not comparing Detroit diesels mounted in semitruck making 100,000+ miles year after year, but we are comparing light duty engines used in pickups, SUV and vans.
You don't need much HP for pulling heavy trailer at low speed. My 21 HP tractor will pull 20,000lb easy. It is the speed that makes the engine working at the top of the output.
So bottom line those 400lb European diesels run at the top of their output for million miles easy, when even the best PowerStrokes are usually rated for 400,000 miles, excluding single examples that run much higher.
The reliability and long life might not be big issue for average owner making 10,000 miles annually, but why the 20 years old Sprinter engine can make 20-25 mpg pushing big box, while the best new Superdutys can't touch 20 in pickup?

 

Wow..

SD's can make 20 mpg.

The sprinter is not 4x4, doesnt have barely any towing capacity, anyone i talked to said they wouldn't tow anything with it.
The sprinter is basically a diesel minivan with heavy suspension.

Also, remember fuel here is a lot crappier than over there, theres a lot of people who have been disappointed with their sprinter vans in NA.

I'm confident ford could make a 20-25 mpg diesel van, but as it turns out it seems that people would rather have a giant truck with lots of room and towing ability as well as offroad ability.

 

Isn't it nice to live with your head in the clouds?

Before you go any farther with this nonsense, do some homework. Compare the % of original price used Sprinters sell for and used Superdutys sell for.

 

I don't see the point?

You're saying the sprinter gets 20-25 mpg.....

It weighs less....
Less almost non existent towing capacity...

I don't see what the point is, I'm not surprised at all of the sprinter mileage, the super duty is a far more capable vehicle. And for the weight ratings, towing ability, and power, I think the mileage is very respectable.

 

Shave a super duty 12" skinnier, put 10" rims on it, and a 150 - 190 hp diesel and youd probably see 25 mpg, but still not be able to tow much cause the engine would overheat or wear out super fast running at near WOT all the time.

 

Isn't the first generation of 7.3 PS rated at 190HP?
Diesel engines are cold-blooded, so the main problem with them is running too cold, while it is only last 20 years when they become so powerful that you don't have to drive them at WOT all the time.
I used to drive 44HP VW diesel pickup for few years. It had only 2 options for power -WOT or idle. There was no use of keeping the gas pedal between. Yet even the engine that originated as converted gasoline engine last for long time. Check what kind of value those model that still lasted can gain today?
Looks to me that owners appreciate 40 mpg from the truck more today than 30 years ago. When you compare the fuel prices, it is quite understand. 5 years ago talking about Smarts was bringing big laugh on US forums. Today I see lot of Fiat 500 on our roads. All it took was tripling the fuel prices in this period.

 

No it does not. Its a PFI engine...but so is the 3.7, 5.0, and 6.2. Direct injection offers 3-6% at best better fuel economy without taking into account the power it takes to pressurize the high pressure fuel pumps. Additionally, PFI does not have the intake valve coking that you get from the PCV / EGR in a gasoline engine. Ford's 3.5 shows some awful fouling of the intake valve seen here (BGFuelTest.com The Fast and The Fuel Test). More research show that Toyota's direct injection offered in the Lexus line is by far the most advanced because it is a hybrid system of PFI and Direct. I would be very interested to see how the ecoboost engines will perform when these valves get more and more dirty over time.


Toyota has had this for years as well as Honda. The 5.7 is a dual VVTi engine on both the intake and exhaust cams. Ford is late to the game and the 6.2 is old tech. The 5.0 is a nice engine, but you need DOHC in order to have independent intake and exhaust timing.

You are right there....but how many speeds were in the F-150 in 07.....seems like plenty of people said that was enough. As for me, I think the Corolla sucks as a small car. I would buy a Hyundai Elantra.

As a previous owner of a Tundra 5.7 Crewmax....I will tell you it does not. I will do 18-19 empty. It will also outpull the Ford offerings and will provide better fuel economy while pulling a loaded trailer than the Ecoboost. It is well known that the Ecoboost provides poor at best fuel economy while being used as a truck (not grocery truck). Even Pickuptrucks.com showed the extra soot generation of the ecoboost which shows that the engineers are running this truck with a lower AFR in order to manage cylinder temperatures and provide enough enthalpy (heat flux) for boost production. Mileage comparing the 6.2 and the Toyota 5.7 shows the 5.7 is by far the better engine for TOWING fuel economy. A quick gander over in the F-150 forum shows many owners unhappy with their fuel economy of the ecoboost. I WAS on Ford's bandwagon, but now when I sit and think about the data in front of my face...a 5.0 would probably be a better engine in that truck for consistent fuel economy.

Plenty of Isuzu and Hino trucks running around here in Ohio that pull 33k no problem. I don't see the argument here. Yes, Toyota doesn't make a heavy duty....but honestly that would be a poor decision on their part. They should make a diesel Tacoma and then they'd own the small truck segment forever.

6k I think.

Now that I'm done addressing those questions, lest talk about mean effective pressure. I honestly do not know what the iMPEP (indicated mean effective pressure) Ford has in the cylinder while going through the combustion event. I can calculate BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) which is just a measuring stick used to show what pressure if uniformly distributed on the top of the piston from TDC to BDC would produce the rated power of the engine.

Since we make 800 ft lbs of torque vs 650 in the 6.4, the BMEP of the 6.7 would be higher.

BMEP (psi) = 150.8 x TORQUE (lb-ft) / DISPLACEMENT (ci)

That does nothing to say that the indicated peak IMEP is higher due to the pilot injection. My guess is peak pressures are higher in the 6.7 due to increased combustion efficiency and volumetric efficiency. Additionally the pilot injection allows for a more complete burn of the fuel since it has the ability to mix better. Lastly, Piezo injectors allow for much smaller fuel droplet sizes which increase totals surface area of the fuel allowing for quicker ignition timing resulting in less carbon emissions (soot).


I can get into this debate all day, but I don't have the combustion analyzer data that Ford's engineers have to know definitively whether pilot injection increases or decreases cylinder pressures. Since we are making more power with the 6.7, our pressures are higher, but this could be due to a myriad of things and not just pilot injection.

We do know from Ford's <acronym title="Page Ranking"><acronym title="Page Ranking">PR</acronym></acronym> video that a 6.7 will idle w/o pilot injection (their noise advertisement).

Quiet New Ford 6.7-liter Power Stroke Turbocharged Diesel Engine - YouTube

 

too short a message

 

Didn't know that their Dual VVT-i was a true independent setup, but looks like you're exactly right about that. I guess I'm eating some crow on this one, and it's not even well-prepared crow because my wife's Sienna has Dual VVT-i and I never made the connection...

I wasn't talking about five years ago, as I was specifically talking about the comment on how what the imports were doing 20 years ago will be in Ford's future. I mean, a freaking 1995 Ford Contour has a DOHC aluminum block V6 which seems impossible by the statement Snowseeker made.

I agree, but then again how often do half ton trucks have trailers behind them. Hell, how many Super Duty trucks have trailers behind them all the time? For most of us unloaded operation represents the vast majority of our fuel usage, and therefore I wouldn't ignore the EPA ratings. Completely agree with you about towing efficiency though, and the 6.2L is certainly built on some older tech. From what Mike Harrison said before release they were trying to use proven technology that they knew would stand up for years for their heavy duty gasser.

I again agree with you, but my comment was more directed towards those who insist that imports do everything better. I have a tough time with that line of thinking and was trying to point out a gaping hole in that logic.

Awesome post though, thanks for the info!

 

Hey Tom, I found older brother of your car

 

I believe you're thinking of the Mazda6...right?

 

Obviously being naturalized US citizen I do have different perspective how this country evolve, but when the US of A changed from the country who let the technical minds to work here and make technical revolution to a country of copycats?

 

Thats some pretty bold commenting !!!

Do you have any idea how many products are MFG'd in china that might be shady in the patent infringement department ? lol

Anyways those motors in those little cabover trucks are not high power units.

A super duty could drag race them with trailers, loaded, and definately win.