The only advantage to a small diesel right now over the 3.5L EB is towing MPG's, possibly. The baby cummins that Dodge is planning to add to the 1/2 ton Ram line-up is less powerful and provides no better MPG's than the EB.

Will it last longer? Who knows. Will cost more to operate? You bet.

 

Well said Tim!

i'd rep ya but im in rep jail.

so i'll do it here for everyone to see, instead.

 

I see nothing wrong with a small turbodiesel engine. Heck, I saw a Mercedes-Benz S200 CDI (yes, the biggest S-Class with the 2.0 4-cylinder turbo diesel) at the Geneva Auto Show last year. It had around 140 horsepower with a high level of torque which I don't recall. Gas mileage was in the impressive 40's.

Let's not forget we were happy back in 1980 with the awesome Ford 5.7 V8 churning out the same amount of power and slightly less torque. The difference was 10 mpg vs 40 mpg.

 

Thank you sir for the thought.

I never said that there was anything wrong with the diesel I simply said that the baby cummins has no real advantage over the ecoboost. If Ford actually comes to market with a baby powerstroke it will be one of the dumbest things they ever did.

The 6.2L and the EB are more than capable of handling any load that the F-150 chassis can manage and more. What more could the diesel do with a light duty truck?

 

I can't imagine that Ford will put a diesel in the F-150...way too expensive. The take rate combined with development costs would undoubtedly make it a no go.

 

If we were content with 140 horsepower back in 1980, what's wrong with a lower-powered turbodiesel? A 2.0 TDI produces the same amount of power as a 351 V8 from 1980 - at literally four times the efficiency.

Powerstroke is not impressive nor is the Cummins. They focused too much on the power to accommodate power-hungry Americans.

If Mercedes can put in a 2.0 TDI in a 4,200 pound sedan, what's stopping Ford from putting in a 2.0 TDI in a 4,200 pound F-150? I'll admit it does not seem Mercedes is going ahead with the production of the S200 CDI. Maybe I'm in the minority for wanting a much lower-powered truck that yields excellent gas mileage.

I bet more than 95% of the owners have not even put in half the maximum payload capacity.

 

I think you will get your wish, but it won't run on diesel; it will run on gasoline instead.

i forsee a 2.0L ecoboost in the half-ton future. as soon as the masses get used to the idea of a turbo-gas engine, the will expand the platform.

i don't think anyone would be apposed to a small diesel, so long as the cost of operation was the same or less. the older diesels worked because they were the same or cheaper to operate, and the longeviety of the engine was unsurpassed.

we have that now, only they run on gas instead of diesel.

face facts, boys ... the ecoboost IS your small diesel. And best of all, it's not diesel.

 

I am thinking in the way of alternate fuel and renewable
Resources.
Running a vehicle on bio based fuel is a must and
Surely it will happen in the future.
We all have to think about the future, burning petroleum
Is not the answer.
Have you noticed the price of ALL petroleum based
Products lately?
VW and Mercedes have products that may be a step
In the right direction.

Most people do not use their trucks to their maximum
Potential, but most people do prefer better MPGs from
What ever it is that they drive.

A high performance diesel platform IS needed and I hope
Ford makes the step in that direction in the future.

 

But the 351 puts out over 300 ft/lb of torque and it was extremely reliable. I think diesel engines have their place in American cars such as small and mid sized sedans. VW seems to have great success with theirs but at one hell of an upcharge from the base gasoline offering. Will it pay for itself over 5 years? Or rather, what's the expected break even point?

The same holds true for buying a $25,000 Fusion Hybrid or a $20,000 Fusion. 5K buys a lot of fuel in a car that small.

 

I'm confused .....

If you've spent any time on this forum at all you likely know how i feel about biofuels (if not search my name and it wont take long to figure it out) but i'm not sure what you're trying to get at by using them in the same breath as diesel. maybe you're talking about bio-diesel?

HP diesels may still have a market, i'm not sure, but from what i can see, the current spark ignition technology is waxing the floor with current diesel technology. At this point in time, turbo-gas engines are doing everything turbo-diesel engines can do ... only better.

 

Because the lightest F-150s are much heavier than that. 140-180HP is no longer acceptable in a full sized. You're talking a 0-60 time that would be in the high teens, possibly even approaching 20 seconds.

You put a trailer or any kind of load behind it, and it would be downright dangerous trying to merge - or go up a hill. A 3L - 4L V6/V8 Diesel would be far more suited to a modern full sized.

 

people have been clamoring for a diesel in the half ton market for a long time (myself included) but times are changing.

ford had their 4.5L powerstroke which made about 200hp and 440lb-ft. not too shabby, but it couldn't meet emissions.

so they did the next best thing and did it with gas. the EB is has a ton more HP with just a shade less torque. on fuel price alone, the diesel would have to bring 15% better fuel economy to the table to *break even*. realistically, by the time you figure in the additional expense of oilchanges and you are in the 20% range to just break even.

that's what Tim was trying to say before, the EB is doing everything a little diesel would do for us, only at a lower overall cost of operation.

there are those of us who would put up with a diesel so long as the cost of opearation was low enough.

 

A 1980 Ford F-150 was much heavier back then.. probably 5,500 pounds.. and had only 136 hp with the 351. If Benz can put a 140-hp 2.0 TDI in an S-Class, why can't Ford put one in the F150... don't forget TDI's have high torque, probably the same as a 351 from the 1980's.

An European Ford Focus 2.0 TDCi has 163 hp. "No longer acceptable" only because we're power hungry.

My old man had a F250 with 351, yes, definitely over 15 seconds from 0 to 60 but we're not racing our F150's here. If Ford would put a 2.0 TDCi (Turbo Diesel) in an F150, I would be first in line. I guess it would get around 30 to 35 mpg.

 

Sorry, but the older trucks were far lighter.

A 1980 F-150 can be expected to way around 4200 pounds depending on configuration.The lightest F-150 today weighs around 4700 pounds, with most of them well over 5000.

Traffic is faster today, trailers are bigger and loads are heavier. A 2.0L diesel would just not suffice trying to merge a full sized with a load into 75 MPH traffic. Or even be able to pull any kind of load up a hill at a reasonable speed.

If you want that kind of fuel economy and don't care about hauling anything, then you should probably just get a car, or a compact pickup.

 

I thought newer F150's would be far lighter due to thinner sheet metal and other improvements. When I close the door on my 2012 F-150, the doors shake, leading me to believe the sheet metal is thin. My old man's F-250 from the 1980's didn't do that.

I was just thinking.. if we could live with 140 hp 351 CID V8 from the 1980s which has the same power compared to today's 2.0 litre TDI... although the TDI has slightly less torque... and with the mistaken belief today's F-150s were much lighter, I thought that would work.

Ah, my bad.