I will be in the market for a new F150 supercrew in the next year. I currently have a 2010 5.4.

For my usage I would love a 5/8 ton truck. 90% of the time 1/2 ton is great.

I was about ready to jump on a 3.5L with a max trailer tow package to get the close to 12k rating.

But I would really like to see the specs on the diesel to see how it turns out.

For comparison, I looked at the ram 1/2 ton specs last night and was surprised to see their diesel had a lower tow rating then the hemi counterpart.

I think for me the fuel economy will be a wash, but would be interested if the toque/tow rating numbers were better than the gasser.

 

I doubt it would be any higher. The current 3.5L has plenty of oomf to tow heavier, the 150 is limited more by its chassis and the simple fact that it is a smaller and lighter truck. Any heavier towing and I feel like the weight of the trailer gets to be too much for the chassis to safely stay planted. Think of it as too big and heavy of a tail on a very happy dog. The dog should wag the tail, not the tail should wag the dog.

 

I would guess the new diesel will fall between the 2.7 and the 5.0/3.5 towing options.

Josh

 

The torque will likely be greater, the horsepower is a question mark (and a rather irrelevant one-torque is what really counts) and towing and payload probably equal. Between EPA swatting down new automotive diesels like flys, and Ford supposedly coming out with a new light diesel for about the last 12 years, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Itll be worst for sure. For a light truck youre hard pressed to imagine a better combo than an F150 with 3.5 eb. Low peak torque and lots of power. Waiting form the great grill is more valid than hopes the diesel will give you a performance advantage.

 

Why do I feel that many will buy these small diesels with the "it's a diesel!" attitude, then complain when they over work it. Others will tune them to crazy levels. They will all cuss Ford when something breaks.

According to Ford, the 3.0 used in Land Rover/Range Rover was engineered for the F150. Perhaps Land Rover was beta testing them. Even though Ford sold Land Rover to Tata, there still seems to be quite a bit of sharing going on as the Discovery Sport and Evoque use the 2.0 EcoBoost.

 

My bet is it'll be very close, if not the same, as the 3.5/5.0 Bur with much better mpg- and this is why, in my opinion, they're doing it.

 

Okay, the rating might be the same (though I doubt that) but the power won't be there. I've driven a loaded down ecodiesel Ram and it was a dog of a dog. There just isn't enough displacement there and unlike on the SD model, it's competing with either 2 extra litres or a twin turbo and an extra 1/2 litre.

 

It will likely get much better fuel mileage towing the same loads compared to the other Ford Engines. It should be in the low teens compared to the 8 mpg the ecoboost sees while towing.

 

Probably exactly the same as what the 3.5 ecoboost owners are saying.

 

Actually, horsepower will absolutely be relevant and will be most important in determining if the new Ford diesel is a dog or not.

Torque only measures "available" force at a given moment in time.

Horsepower is what actually measures the amount of work being done.

Towing a trailer uphill is work being done - ie horsepower.

That's why it's important to pay attention to things like this:

Now look at the Ram Ecodiesel specs:

Horsepower: 240 hp @ 3,600 rpm
Torque: 420 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm

And compare that to say the little itty bitty Ford 2.7L Ecoboost:

Horsepower: 325 hp @ 5,750 rpm
Torque: 375 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm

So the Ecodiesel has more torque, and it peaks 1,000 RPM sooner than the Ecoboost. On the flip side, the Ecoboost sports more horsepower, but at much higher RPM.

The question is.... which one pulls a trailer faster?

The winner is the 2.7L Ecoboost. Ultimately it's horsepower that wins, not torque. Here's side-by-side acceleration times between the Ford and Ram both towing 7,000 lbs each:

TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH IN SECONDS
Ford Ram
0-30 5.0 5.2
0-40 7.5 9.0
0-50 11.5 14.5
0-60 16.2 23.9

Ford Ram
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 9.4 21.2

Ford Ram
QUARTER MILE 20.7 sec @ 68.0 mph 22.2 sec @ 58.7 mph

It's a staggering difference, and quite frankly torque means nothing if it's not effectively turned into horsepower. A very narrow torque band, even with high peak torque, doesn't translate well into a useable power band and meaningful horsepower.

Now some folks might say the Ford weighs in less, and that would be correct. But even if you added more weight to the Ford to bring them to even, the Ecoboost would still drastically out-pull the Ecodiesel.

This is why we have to wait and see what Ford's final numbers will be for their new light-duty diesel. If it's anything close to the Ecodiesel, then you aren't going to get towing performance that compares to the current gas engines. You'll be buying one of these for the fuel economy instead.

 

++++ Excellent description. HP is much more important on smaller C.U. engines than Torque.

 

Only up to the diesel's maximum towing ability. The 3.5L will easily out tow the little oil burner and it will burn more fuel. The diesel won't come near a 12K trailer IMHO.

 

I know it makes fun YouTube videos, but speed doesn't equate to capability. An EcoBoost can pull 8,000 lbs quicker than a Semi could. But is that a good measure as to which one is "better for towing?" The Semi won't know it's back there. I think the diesel won't be as quick, but it will feel more effortless when you're driving normally. The EcoBoost will no doubt win every drag race, just as a Ferrari would if you hitched a trailer up to that. I'm using extreme examples to help illustrate the point, so I don't need a lecture about how I'm comparing apples to oranges.

 

Something to point out.....

Look at my last post at the passing comparison. The Ford Ecoboost gas engine with a trailer accelerated from 45-65 in only 9 seconds, while it took the Ram Ecodiesel 21 seconds to accomplish the same feat.

In that simple test, which truck feels more effortless pulling a trailer in that situation? Answer: The gas engine Ecoboost.

Diesels are quick when they have the horsepower to pull. The Ram Ecodiesel doesn't have the horsepower. In fact, it has a very narrow power band. If you ever look at a dyno of an Ecodiesel, the torque curve is a sharp peak, dropping off rapidly at both ends. This is why it's a dog.

Hook the same trailer up to a 6.7L Powerstroke, a Duramax, or a Cummins and watch them destroy the Ecoboost in the same tests. It's because those diesels have the horsepower to compete, and they make that horsepower with a much broader and flatter torque curve.

Diesels are typically preferred for towing because of their efficiency.... but ONLY when they have a broad power band. They usually get better fuel economy when working hard, and run at lower RPM's. Peak torque on diesels is typically higher than a comparable gas engine, and occurs at much lower RPM's. This gives you more available horsepower at lower RPM's too, which is why many diesels usually pull a heavy trailer from a stop much quicker.

However, when you have a comparable gas engine that has a better power band than an anemic and weak diesel (such as in the comparison between the Ford Ecoboost and the Ram Ecodiesel), then the gas engine wins in every category EXCEPT efficiency. This makes the gas engine exceptionally capable of towing compared to such a dog of a diesel, especially if efficiency is in the ball park, which by all accounts of most owners it is.

In short, not all diesel engines are winners. Breaks my heart to say it, because I'm such a fan of diesel engines. But I have to give props where they are due, and Ecoboost motors are most certainly capable of making for great towing trucks. Direct injection turbocharging has changed the game when it comes to gas vs diesel comparison.

I only hope that Ford puts out a light duty diesel that is both capable at towing and efficient at the same time.