You're forgetting that house current is 120V vs the 12V you have supplied from your batteries. This means that the total amperage supplied by your batteries can be reduced by a factor of 10.

Current 6.7's has 1500CCA available - but of course the starter and glow plugs don't draw all of that. Even so, 150A would "equal" the supply from the stock batteries. Many homes have a 200A service.

In reality, the compression of a 6.7L is not that high - 16:1. I'm guessing the starter motor on a cold day might draw 500A. Still, you'd need a circuit in your house rated for that kind of draw.

On the other hand, the owner's manual states the fuse for the starter motor is rated for 40A.

 

Our main truck terminal, as well as many service trucks, used to have a "Goodall Startall" which was a gasoline driven generator for starting trucks with low or dead batteries. Ours was medium size and produced around 1000 amps at 24 volts. The most difficult part was the transfer of the current into the batteries. It would often blow the terminal right off the top of the batteries, thus destroying them. Sometimes the batteries would be partially or completely frozen and then the battery would self destruct sending shards of battery case and acid in all directions. Large amperage needs to be respected. As for a 120 volt starter the amperage would be significantly reduced and would probably be a viable solution if the vehicle had consistent difficulty in starting. But, the newest Powerstrokes are better than ever at low temperature cranking and starting. Ford has a whole test and engineering unit assigned to overcoming the cold weather difficulties as witnessed by one of the promotional videos available elsewhere on the interweb. Keep in mind a wholly separate starting system would add substantial weight and compete for valuable space under the hood. I would vote to enjoy the increased engineering of the existing systems and the only change I would see beneficial is the ability to bring temporary power into the system. I have found it extremely difficult to jump start a 7.3, especially with only one vehicle. Even with two vehicles connected the weakest link is the clamps of the jumper cables which due to the teeth needed to grip the battery terminal only allow some of the current to pass. Allowing an extended time connected to the running donor vehicle and allowing the truck batteries to charge has been the only way I have been able to get the truck started when its' own system has failed. And if one of the batteries has developed a dead cell and will not take a charge, forget about it.

 

well the the current super dutys do sit level , unless it has a the optional hd rear springs or camper /towing pkg. And If they have the snow plow prep, then they actually sit higher in the front. I was just wondering if the new sd is the same way. I actually like them leveled. I drive more empty than i do towing, and when i do tow, i can put up with it sagging a little, but i understand that some folks tow everyday and it would be different for them.

 

That was true from 11-14 for the 250's but starting sometime in 2015, many of the 250's started coming with the same 4" spacer block as the SRW 350's in the back giving them the same rake unloaded. I believe the 2017's will all have a 3.5-4" block if the truck is 4wd. Even the DRW's.

 

So, my 2001 7.3 gets around 20-21 mpg, empty, on the highway. Reading about the 2015's and 2016's, a lot of folks are reporting any where from 11 to 16 mpg... What is expected out of the new 2017 with the added hp and torque?

 

No one really knows yet. Numbers expected out sometime in July. Expectations range from just beating out Ram at 925 to making a huge statement at 500/1000. They are all just guesses at this point though...

 

I think Rodney is exactly right on this one...but I am surprised at the revealed gen-2 EcoBoost engine numbers. The horsepower doesn't change and the torque rises 30lb-ft. This engine has pretty extensive changes. I wonder if the "new" 6.7L will see zero horsepower increase (already ahead of everyone at 440) and maybe a bump to 900 or 915 lb-ft.

My lifetime fuel economy on my 2016 6.7L (10k miles on it) is 16.0 mpg. A lot of that is unloaded commuting, but some of it is towing and city.

The 6.7L will easily achieve 20mpg or better on the highway just commuting. But a tank average with a regen and some towing or hauling will be substantially less.

Ford may try to improve mpg on this engine update to help with CAFE standards rather than go for the knockout power punch.

 

Didnt know that. So i guess someone could could swap the new 250 4x4 rear blocks with 2x4 blocks and it should bring it back down to level.

 

Troverman....I have to dis-agree on this one. The 6.7 has NEVER easily achieved 20mpg or better on the highway. Maybe in RARE cases...but overall the 6.7 barely gets 18 on a "mellow" highway drive...and that is doing probably 55-60....anywhere over 60 and the 6.7 will NEVER see 20 mpg...at least it hasn't for mine or the 10 friends of mine who all have 250s and 350s. I see people throw out that elusive "20" with these trucks...but it's rare....not easily achieved. That being said, lets cross our fingers and see what the future brings with the 2017 and beyond...but I'm not going to jump in the air just yet. You said your lifetime average is 16...now that's right in the ballpark of what this truck delivers.

 

Absolutely.

 

Karl....this has been discussed before...and although I cannot 100% confirm that 250 started coming with 4 inch blocks in 15/16.....I just don't think it's true. Every 15/16 F250 that I have seen in person and pictures all over the net DO NOT show the higher rake in the back like the 350 has with the bigger blocks. This last time you could visibly and EASILY tell a 250 had the bigger blocks was in 1999 and half of 2000. Since then, I have never seen a stock Ford F250 4x4 with anything but the 2" blocks in the back. If you can, show us in the literature somewhere or a picture that could confirm this statement. I just don't see it. I could be wrong...but I've got a pretty good eye when it comes to these trucks. Both 2015's....top is F250....bottom F350. Notice the difference in the rear??

 

yes, the 15/16 250s still look like they sit level to me too, judging by dealer pics on the net.

 

You can believe it or not. Doesn't matter much to me. Tons of guys have bought new 250's with 4" blocks. It was discussed ad nauseum in the 6.7 section a couple years back complete with owner experiences and pictures. Some surmised it was the camper package that added the 4" blocks to a 250. Others said it was the plow pkg. Some said either/or. Some said they had neither but had 4" so IDK. All I do know is I don't believe these folks were lying about how their trucks were built.

The pics you posted both look just like my truck which is a 350 with 4" blocks depending on the angle of the picture. Perhaps you eye isn't as finely tuned as you think...

 

I guess I'll have to go back and look at the discussion and pics...because I'm just not buying it....Yet....lol. I easily just found 30 or 40 pics of 2015 and 2016 F250s searching Google etc.....and they were ALL 2 inch blocks in the rear. Maybe those guys did a swap or something special at the dealer...but I'm just not seeing ANY 4inch blocks on F250s.

 

Can't someone check the parts book to confirm size of blocks?