my 470 detroit was getting 6.8mpg quarterly average, the 475 cat my friend was running was averaging 5.1, oil changes were roughly the same if we had someone else like speedco do it but mine would be about $20 cheaper (one gallon less oil, and my filters were a little cheaper even buying both on my account at the same place), when I had the overhead ran on mine the cost was $200, it was $450 for the cat and the overhaul costs are as noted above.
And comparing engines well it's like a john deere farm tractor vs a international, I can go buy one a lot cheaper than the other and get exactly the same job done. the small cat motors just aren't any different except that Cat doesn't make them emissions legal.

oh and comparing a 475 to a 430 isn't exactly the same thing either, the 430hp detroit I ran got 5.8mpg same type truck pulling the same trailers.

Basically I haven't seen anything out of cat that would make me ever want one for a on road use vehicle, I have been around them, I have worked on them, I have driven them, and I have done the paper work associated with the costs of doing business with them and nothing in all that shows me it would be a good thing for Ford, oh and if you think the dispute between ford and navistar is bad, Cat will NOT honor any warrenty unless the engine is setup exactly the way they say to do it, and run exactly the way they say so if Ford wanted to put their fuel system on Cat would NOT cover ANY warrenty costs.
Now heavy equipment thats another story, when it comes to dozers, backhoes, etc I would take a cat over any others most times (some minor exceptions to that but not many)

 

Oh yea, Monsterbaby? Well, you can't tell me it doesn't sound good!
"Caterpillar-powered Superduty"
Seriously, though, I think a smaller displacement diesel is okay. Besides, it has nearly the same power output as the 7.3's did.

 

Ummm yes I can, cause well I figured out a long time ago Cat engines are more about image then practibility. Notice for those big Cat engine guys, in the diesel drags you don't see ANY cats being competitive, mostly cummins with some powerstrokes and the duramax's starting to kick butt too. And it's not cause they didn't come from the factory in any pickups cause those guys will swap in anything that works good. And on the big truck circuit it's almost exclusively Cummins that kick tail and win.
Only guy I know that ever swapped in a cat into a Ford drove it for 6 months took the engine out, put in a reman powerstroke back in it's place. The cat motor is sitting behind his garage (no I wouldn't suggest anyone buy it, he didn't bother to cover it been there for 6 yrs) reason he took it out? he went from 15mpg with a 7.3 to 7mpg with the cat and a mutual friend of ours out pulled him going to Colorado that year. (yes the other truck was chipped, it was a dodge and was worked over good but he thought the cat was well the cats meow until that day) said he will never own another cat engine.

Oh I do know another guy that swapped a Cat into a old Chev truck, that used to be his daily driver ran it everywhere, had a turbo charged 454 in it. this guy will build anything and does. decided he needed something cool and loved cats, put one in (I am not real sure which one, I heard it was a 3208 but I honestly never bothered to look that close) since he did that he drove it for about a year, been sitting every since pretty much gets driven about once a month. reason why? can't afford to drive it, cause it was costing more to drive then the turbocharged big block... and that was in the late 90s when diesel was 91cents a gallon

 

3208? NA or turbo? Those things are turds.

 

Cat motors are high speed diesels as heavy as low speed diesels. They have no current motors suitable for a pickup.


Ford HAS had a motor in development for a while (that I heard about), and I heard it was a V8 8.0 Liter twin turbo.

Unfortunately, because of EPA, and the like, the 8.0 twin will probably hit 300hp and hit 4psi boost just idling. (like the 6.4 only more so)

Toyota has a hino 8 Liter I-6 in a demo HD-Tundra, (and you though cummins was tourqey!!!)

 

One more thing, I also heard they were using 16 injectors in the V8 8.0 diesel block.

Unfortunately this comes from a guy who works on the 4.6 in ontario, but he did tell me about dodge's small diesels before I heard anywhere else, so mabye he does know what he's taling about.

No guarantees though...

I have a good motor for the SD - Detroit series 40 !!!

It probably would fit under the hood! (with roadbed modification!)

LOL

 

The 4.4 is NOT a new engine.

It is a motor design they are pulling from the Range Rover (european) design. I drove one in the dessert for 6 months. Can't tell you about fuel mileage because everything was measured in Klicks (kilometers). But it was snappy and pleasant to drive. The one I drove had one turbo and performed decent. From what I have seen the engine we will see will have turbos on both sides of the engine.

 

Ford Australia has a ranger with 2.5 powerstroke. 170HP i think, and 36 MPG.

And thats for the crew cab model ranger.

Wheres our 2.5 powerstroke that gets 36MPG? (for the wife of course!)

 

Check these out:
Ford Australia - Ranger 4X4 XL Super Cab Chassis

Ford Australia - Ranger 4x2 XL Single Cab Pick-Up

Good point... why aren't these engines available here in the U.S? Heck I wouldn't mind one!

 

Here are the specs (mileage, etc.) on both engines.
Anyone want to translate HP\Torque and MPG? Please.

"Leading the way is the 3.0L 16 valve intercooled Direct Injection Turbo-diesel manual. It delivers 115kW of power at 3,200rpm and whopping 380Nm of torque at only 1,800rpm, while fuel economy comes in at 9.2L/100km<SUP>~</SUP>. The new 2.5L diesel engine gives even better fuel economy at just 8.3L/100km<SUP>~</SUP>, yet you'll still have 330Nm of torque at 1,800 rpm."

 

Not sure exactly, i may have been off on the HP ratings, but i'm sure the mileage i read about was better than that. (worn in?)

 

Here's the specs"
The 2.5L Engine gets 28.7 mpg
The 3.0L Engine gets 26 mpg

Wouldn't these engines be great in the Ford Explorer and the Expedition?

 

Nope. With diesel at $4 per gallon and the added cost of that oil burner in an Explorer or Expedition I don't see it being worth it.

 

here gas is $1.22 a liter, and diesel is $1.24 a liter.

At that price, anyone who can get 20-35% better mpg would want the 2.5 or 3.0 powerstroke in a ranger or explorer. Just think of all the money wasted on the "escape hybrid" ha, what a crock of sht.

 

Where do you live parkland? There is a 70 cent difference around here.