When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Its not just heavy loads that diesels are good for, efficiency is another. I only tow 7000 and yes a 7.3 would do just fine, but I prefer the extra 130 miles per tank of extra range the diesel gives me, 13 mpg vs 9 mpg makes quite a difference when you travel thousands of miles towing.
After all your waxing poetic about the environment and smog you got yourself a 6.7 PSD to tow 7k?
After all your waxing poetic about the environment and smog you got yourself a 6.7 PSD to tow 7k?
LOL okay.
The 6.7 actually has a slightly better environmental rating than the 7.3, just compare the window stickers. And yes I have a 6.7 to tow 7K, it is more efficient that the 7.3 and better than my old F150 with the 3.5 EB, I burn less fuel with the 6.7 than the others so it has a smaller environmental impact. In case you didn't know 13 mpg is better than 9 mpg.
If all that matters is range, you can get a bigger (gasoline) tank. Between the initial extra ($10k) cost of the diesel engine, higher price of fuel and DEF it will take over a quarter million miles* to make up the difference.
Current national average of fuel costs as of 1/26/26:
Gasoline is 2.853 = $0.317/mile @ 9 MPG
Diesel is 3.624 = .$0.279/mile @ 13 MPG
No idea what the cost of DEF is, or how long it last, let's just leave it totally out of the equation.
Not to mention that the same truck with a diesel will have a substantially lower GVWR because of the heavier engine.
*Granted, some will do so. But even at 50,000 miles per year that's 5 years. AND if you financed any part of the purchase, you will also have paid more interest because of that $10k premium in price. At a modest 5% interest over 5 years, that extra $10k will cost you an extra $1300 or so in interest, which will take another 35,000 miles to catch up, or close to 300,000 total.
Bottom line, you have to drive a LOT of miles to make a diesel strictly cost effective. You really can only justify a diesel if you need the towing capacity. OTOH, you don't HAVE to justify anything to me. It's your money.
There are two things that you have wrong. One, I never pay the average retail price that you use, I have the OR discount that typicially is only $0.30 - $0.40 a gallon over the cost of regular gas. Two, I paid cash so finance costs are zero. I will also probably keep this truck for well over 200,000 miles or ten years.
The 6.7 actually has a slightly better environmental rating than the 7.3, just compare the window stickers. And yes I have a 6.7 to tow 7K, it is more efficient that the 7.3 and better than my old F150 with the 3.5 EB, I burn less fuel with the 6.7 than the others so it has a smaller environmental impact. In case you didn't know 13 mpg is better than 9 mpg.
Ah yes. Never mind the much heavier motor that is much more resource intensive to build, further to transported from Mexico built by non union labor at a fraction of US and Canadian workers' pay, an emissions system that use non-renewable material to construct, and uses DEF that has to be separately manufactured, packaged and transported to a store of your convenience.
You care about the environment so much yet you bought an 8k lb truck to tow a 7k trailer just for recreation. LOL. What an steward of environment you are, if only the unwashed masses can be as eco-conscious as you are demonstrating.
Last edited by twobelugas; Feb 16, 2026 at 06:27 PM.
Ah yes. Never mind the much heavier motor that is much more resource intensive to build, further to transported from Mexico built by non union labor at a fraction of US and Canadian workers' pay, an emissions system that use non-renewable material to construct, and uses DEF that has to be separately manufactured, packaged and transported to a store of your convenience.
You care about the environment so much yet you bought an 8k lb truck to tow a 7k trailer just for recreation. LOL. What an steward of environment you are, if only the unwashed masses can be as eco-conscious as you are demonstrating.
If he really believed what he spouted, he'd be using a Cybertruck...
If he really believed what he spouted, he'd be using a Cybertruck...
He won't, he can't hide behind a "I bought this before Elon went crazy" sticker with a Cybertruck.
Besides, internet eco-warriors love their "well earned" life style first and foremost. What else is he gonna do, do a hike and tent camping trip in a 20 year old 4Runner or something like a poor? I bet he has a sweet surrounding sound system in his travel trailer to watch LOTR marathons imagining himself as the Ranger of the Dunedain out wandering in the wilderness but never lost atop his environmentally friendly diesel powered steed. LOL.
Last edited by twobelugas; Feb 16, 2026 at 07:34 PM.
The 6.7 actually has a slightly better environmental rating than the 7.3, just compare the window stickers. And yes I have a 6.7 to tow 7K, it is more efficient that the 7.3 and better than my old F150 with the 3.5 EB, I burn less fuel with the 6.7 than the others so it has a smaller environmental impact. In case you didn't know 13 mpg is better than 9 mpg.
Ahhh yes, let's trust the environmental rating on the window sticker, like 95%+ of truck buyers give a FF about environmental ratings
You want something good for the environment...? Here's my 1966 F100, STILL on the road 60 years later! And yes it gets driven all over wherever I want to go, all these ding dongs screaming climate problems while they promote EV's that are absolutely horrendous to manufacture and then dispose of, not to mention when they catch fire, and the electricity to charge them, suuuure.... saving the environment LMAO
[img alt="Mr Shrek, environmental impact in the negative due to still being on the road for 60 years!
Thats saving the planet way more than the EV driving nutsos!"]https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.ford-trucks.com-vbulletin/1090x791/shrek_hybrid1_3f0007801799326ef6005b0361905b11b9aa 779e.jpeg[/img] Mr Shrek, environmental impact in the negative due to still being on the road for 60 years! That's saving the planet way more than the EV driving nutso's! Mr Shrek, environmental impact in the negative due to still being on the road for 60 years! Thats saving the planet way more than the EV driving nutsos!
Last edited by Pickupmanx2; Feb 16, 2026 at 07:36 PM.
Ahhh yes, let's trust the environmental rating on the window sticker, like 95%+ of truck buyers give a FF about environmental ratings
You want something good for the environment...? Here's my 1966 F100, STILL on the road 60 years later! And yes it gets driven all over wherever I want to go
Now you've done it. You want him to come down to your poverty level? Pssh. He's Strider, son of Arathorn, the rightful heir to the high kings of Arnor and Gondor, Fosterling of Lord Elrond of Rivendell. He can't been seen in public looking like a Dunlending with their rusty wagons and uncouth ways. He knows how to read labels affixed to wagons by the smiths.
Last edited by twobelugas; Feb 16, 2026 at 07:41 PM.
If he really believed what he spouted, he'd be using a Cybertruck...
Really? It is the ugliest thing there is, not to mention it is only capable of towing what 100 miles downhill?
I look at efficiency and I am not an eco warrior like you seem to think, I like the clean outdoors. I guess that none of you has seen anyone with asthma or other respiratory problems struggle to breathe, or you think it is funny to see someone struggle to breathe. I have seen a lot of folks get sick, including family members, and have to be hospitalized because their respiratory problems were triggered by air pollution so clean air is important.
Since you mentioned user names @twobelugas is this a reference to the whale and how big it is?
Don't forget, CARB is not federal, yet their rules and regulations are given serious consideration as they are one of the largest US markets plus the fact that some other states just adopt that CARB puts out.
As for removing emissions equipment....ROFLMFAO. See how far that gets you. In my state, it would not matter if the second coming happened and Jesus himself declared that DEF and DPF were optional and no grandfathering exists on a national level, the DMV would still expect to see my truck with that equipment. The only thing more outlandishly unlikely to happen would be for the bears in the chicken coops to dip your tank, have it come out red, and just wave you on.
No, it is not. I remember smog in the 70's and we have a lot more vehicles than we did then. Just imagine all the pollution from those modified vehicles. If you don't think it is that bad then just sit several feet away from a running revved up a couple of times stock diesel and then repeat that with a deleted diesel for 15 minutes each and tell me that everything is just fine they are the same.
yes& yes. I can easily remember my eyes watering all day long driving in the smog and pollution pits of the USA back in the 70s. No thanks- I don’t want to go back to that. I find that most of the people that are against any kind of pollution controls are young enough that they’ve never experienced the smog and pollution that we grew up with. I don’t want my grandchildren to live that way.
yes& yes. I can easily remember my eyes watering all day long driving in the smog and pollution pits of the USA back in the 70s. No thanks- I don’t want to go back to that. I find that most of the people that are against any kind of pollution controls are young enough that they’ve never experienced the smog and pollution that we grew up with. I don’t want my grandchildren to live that way.
In these pollution pits you speak of, what percentage of vehicles are DPF equipped diesel vehicles?
I am not sure if you lived back then, but the air quality in places like LA, Chicago, New York, etc was just absolutely horrible.
I remember when people talked about removing catalytic converters like you are talking about removing DPF. "Just cut it off, it doesn't add anything." Yet anyone who has followed a car from the early 1970s (or even a mail truck) can tell you that there is a significant difference in the quality of the air between that pre-catalytic converter vehicle, and a modern pollution controlled car.
I know some people love to "Roll Coal", but that is the exact thing that a DPF is supposed to prevent. I remember driving a 1981 Buick LeSabre (with the GM 350 diesel) and how much soot that thing would put out...and it didn't even have power (110 hp, 210 ft-lbs of torque) available to it...
Now imagine just how much would come from the Semi, medium duty, and "heavy/super Duty" trucks out there if they didn't have DPF.
I used to have problems breathing when a truck would roll by and that exhaust would come out. Now that doesn't happen.
Please, don't let history repeat itself. DPF and DEF have significantly improved the exhaust of diesel vehicles.
If you want to see an honest example of how bad pollution could be in the 1970s, go look at the opening of Blues Brothers. It's an ariel shot of Joliet at that time. Between the refineries, the power plants, and the traffic, you can almost chew the air. I will be the first to admit that the film has not aged well in all respects, but that opening shot is not an exaggeration. Thing is, controlling pollution needs everything to contribute. It's not just a "only do refineries, only do power plants" It requires the transportation industry as well.
LMAO
