I am talking about mountains...not hills. I think Chrysler might have the better approach, interesting quote from Ralph Gilles (design chief at Chrysler) in the 5th paragraph:

PickupTrucks.com: First Drive - 2009 Dodge Ram 1500

I guess Ford wants to keep going after those "diminishing returns." Instead of competing with Toyota, Ford should've had a good advertising campaign showing the deficiencies in Toyo design and explained why it's better to get the SD (explain how the SD will last longer because of its heavy duty design; full floating axle design, etc.).

 

When is the release date?

 

Unless they increase the payload, 11k lbs is just marketing.

With a 20% tongue weight, payload would have to be 2200 lbs.

With a 15% tongue weight, payload would have to be 1650 lbs, NOT counting the driver and passengers.

Current generation doesn't match those specs. The 09 model won't either. Adding in 6x 150 lbs passengers, + 1650 lbs, thats 2450 lbs for a SCab or CC model

You're firmly in 3/4 ton territory there. The only model that comes close to that is the current SCab payload package (or HD package).

I'd love to see the payload package in the crew cab with a diesel option. My guess is that could sell like hot cakes.

 

Me too. It's coming...

My guess is that you will have to get the HD payload package to get the diesel when it is released.

 

You won't give up will you? In God we trust all others bring DATA....not your unfounded guess....

 

i dont think it would be close to 25,it sucks that my older trucks get better mpgs than my dads 01 5.4...

 

Seriously, guys like this crack me up...25 mpg...and capable of towing 8k...

My wife's '08 CR-V has a modern 2.4L 4 cylinder engine with a pavement scorching 166 HP, 5 speed auto transmission, and a curb weight of 3532 lbs...and is rated for 20 city, 26 highway MPG....and is rated to tow a whopping 2,000 lbs....

How in the world is a TRUCK going to tow 4 TIMES AS MUCH and get nearly the same MPG?

 

I think its possible if they program the computer properly?

 

well im sure they can do better than what they get now

 

I'm sure that if they COULD they WOULD, becuase that's what's KILLING them right now!!!

 

I agree with what you said. IMO...the payload is just as important to towing. That is what is the biggest downside to the 1/2 ton market. The Tundra folks are constantly talking about the "small'ish" amount in payload. Now that does not mean they are not carrying 2000-2600 lbs, but the '08 Tundra is just not rated for it.

If the '09 FORD can increase the payload from 1600'ish lbs...to more like 2000'ish lbs...than that is a keeper! Change the tires from Load Range C...to the "D".

Just my .02 here...


biz

 

Design is always a compromise, between efficiency, power, reliability and cost.

Your wife's CR-V had a different take on the compromise between those 4 things, than a truck.

Also, we aren't talking about getting 25 mpg towing 8k. If an engine used only a fraction, say half, of its power cruising down the interstate (which is quite likely), a 340 hp 420 tq rated engine could conceivably get 25 mpg highway, not much different than your wife's CR-V, with its 166 hp.

We would hope for 25 mpg. Somewhere around 22 mpg is more likely, however.

 

Why? It's a 1/2 ton. If they would continue to increase drivetrain tech w/o increasing weight, we would probably see a fuel economy increase. Also ride quality should be kept in mind on a 1/2 ton.

If you need 2,000lbs of payload or 11,000lbs of towing, buy a 3/4 or 1 ton.

Mike

 

It's not a guess.

Use Your brain. We're talking a whopping 5-6 MPG increase over the current truck. With todays technology, it should be easy to do?

 

Ah, but wait a minute now...

Powerdude, you have some good thoughts there, but remember...in the example I used in my last post...my wife's honda cruises on the highway at about 2100 RPM at 70...figuring roughly 140 lb-ft of peak torque, it's only producing 55 HP...((140*2100)/5252)....whereas my F150 will cruise at 1800 RPMs at 300 lb-ft...102 HP...to hold the same speed...

Now, this is using the assumption that the engine is pulling as hard as it can in o/d, which isn't the case...but it also is ignoring the inefficiencies of the modern I/C engine...With current technology, a gas engine only "uses" 30% of the energy in gasoline. It loses 2/3rds of it's energy through heat loss through the cooling system and the exhaust. The ONLY way to get significant increases in MPG without sacrificing capability would be to somehow reinvent the gasolie i/c engine to get more usable power out of the gas we burn.

Oh, sure, you can have increases with different driveline tweaks...for example a manual transmission would see a significant increase in MPGs...why you ask? Because an autobox loses a tremendous amount of energy due to heat, the same way an engine does. That's why we need a transmission cooler. Every BTU of energy bled off by that tranny cooler is energy that SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED to push your truck down the road. But it isn't, because people like their slushboxes, and are willing to pay for it. A manual transmission does NOT use a transmission cooler, because you are not transferring 300+ HP through a fluid barrier(torque converter), and the only time you are loosing any significant energy due to heat is when the clutch is partially engaged. If the clutch aint' slipping, there's no energy loss.

Now don't get me wrong, there are ways to make an engine more efficient...smaller displacement forced induction comes to mind as a great way to lose some of the other parasitic losses incurred in a large V8 engine, such as pumping losses and internal friction losses within the engine...and THAT'S significant...but NOT enough to see a miraculous increase in engine efficiency. 'twill NEVER happen with an i/c engine, assuming no technological breakthrough.



Now that I've put everyone to sleep with my boring rant...FLAME ON!!!