6.2 or 4.4 . Gas vs. diesel. price vs. fuel cost/maintance cost. All things to consider in Fords decision to market one or both motors. When you buy one you will have the same decision to make. If Ford makes the 4.4 cost a high priced option than the 6.2 maybe the better choice.

 

First off I want to say I love diesel engines. I have a 6.4 now. The issue with these new engines is the emissions. For example I had a 7.3 with a chip I could get 20mpg's all day. Now with this 6.4 stock 14.5 is about the best I can do. I have a friend that bought a 6.4 the day after me, took his DPF and CAT off and is running a tune that tell the computer that it is all gone and he get 18-20mpgs all day. It's just that the new emissions are choking the motors up. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
The issue with a diesel F-150 is the cost. The price for a fully loaded F-150 isn't much less than an F-250. Diesel engines are an expensive upgrade especially if they have to upgrade the transmission for it. My thoughts are that it would be a neat option, but if I was going to buy a new truck and the salesman shows me a diesel F-150 that's (guessing) $50,000.00 and then I see an F-250 for $55,000.00 I would probably go with the 250. My reason would be that for not much more money I can have more power and a heavier duty truck. The only real factor I could see would be if the F-150 was to get much better mpg's than the 250, which could be due to the smaller engine and the lighter weight of the truck. But it still would come down to what it could tow. Which could be low depending on how much heavier the diesel is over the gas, remember the more weight you add to the truck the less you can tow or haul. (Legally anyway)<o></o>
One more thought, I'm in SC and here if you gross is 10,000lbs or higher you pay property taxes based on the weight rather that value of the vehicle, so I promise you the taxes here would be higher on the F-150. For example my wife has a 2007 Expedition fully loaded limited edition, her yearly taxes were just paid and it was $375.00. My truck taxes were paid about 3 months ago, it a 2008 F-250 loaded also, taxes were $220.00 just because it's figured by gross weight just like big trucks.<o></o>
<o></o>
Sorry this was so long bored at work<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" oreferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><vath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></vath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 20.4pt; HEIGHT: 18.6pt; VISIBILITY: visible; mso-wrap-style: square" id=Picture_x0020_1 alt="0" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Mark\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_image001.gif" o:title="0"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o></o>

 

The problem with the 6.2, is that not many models/configurations are available with that engine. In reality, the 4.4 diesel would compete more with the EB 3.5. I doubt it would get enough power/economy increase over the EcoBoost to make it a viable option. Also, with Ford pushing the EB, that would take away EB sales, which is why Ford doesn't want to offer the 4.4 anymore.

 

All it will take is high enough fuel prices.... to have a high mileage F150 diesel. It was amazing that in 73 and 78 when we had the first two fuel scares, and you had all the naysayers that said high mileage could not be done with trucks... you could buy a 79 F150 rated at 29 on the hyway. GM had there twin 1/2's at 30 rated hiway that were readily availble.

Faced with not being able to sell trucks, it was amazing what the manufactures produced. After stating repeatedly that it just could not happen, no way, no how, that the earth was going to stop turning.... Cats and dogs were going to sleep together! Never happened and the manufactures came out high mpg trucks in the half ton range....

To repeat the lesson learned - If fuel gets high enough - you will see a f150 high fuel mileage diesel.....

David

 

David you will see flying pigs also!.Ford is to STUPID!they wont put a diesel in a 150 or ranger .

 

"I'm in SC and here if you gross is 10,000lbs or higher you pay property taxes based on the weight rather that value of the vehicle, so I promise you the taxes here would be higher on the F-150. For example my wife has a 2007 Expedition fully loaded limited edition, her yearly taxes were just paid and it was $375.00. My truck taxes were paid about 3 months ago, it a 2008 F-250 loaded also, taxes were $220.00 just because it's figured by gross weight just like big trucks"

I had to make a comment here. In other countries, there would have been mass riots, demanding the leader of the country to step down and stop oppressing the people with endless taxes. Side note, I live in Louisiana, and if you buy your vehicle outside of state, and then bring it into LA, and register it, you have to pay sales tax AGAIN on it. I can see all using bicycles, and being taxed per rotation of the tires in the future.

 

My uncles both had Ford dealerships during the period of the late 70's & early 80's. I never remember seeing EPA mileage on an F150 of 29mpg. Did see optimistic ratings on the old Courier pickup though.

 

It was not just Ford that had the high numbers on a few half tons, GM had 30mpg on there "special" half ton economy leader.

Dodge had there economy leader as well, I rememmber quite clearly reading a drive test article at the time, it was geared so high that you could drive down the freeway in 2nd gear (4spd manual) Probably not much good for hauling big loads, but very useful for how many it seems use there trucks (as cars, not trucks!).

One thing to rememeber though, that was with the 55 mph speed limit - the trucks would rated lower for todays speeds.

Couriers were rated up to 37 mpg (with the smaller 2.0L) - and driven conservatily unloaded that was doable, I bought a new Courier off the lot in 1979, my first new vehicle!

David

 

Here's a Ford commercial touting MPG figures for 1979 Ford trucks:

YouTube - 1979 Ford Pickup Trucks commercial

 

Great video!

Here is the link to the EPA 1978 charts - it only shows 28 mpg freeway, I have found, like the video shows, the city ratings on the 1979 and 1980s, but the freeway #'s have been dropped off the paticular charts that I have.

I will keep looking! but - 28 mpg freeway is not too shabby! BUT not the 29 mpg that I remember for 1979

David

www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/78guide.txt

 

And they say trucks form the 70's were Gas guzzlers

Hell the newer ones are worse yet!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think the diesel option is certainly in the back of their mind... And it will remain there until they're ready to use it. However as someone mentioned previously their ticket to success in the "MPG" division is currently their ECOBOOST. I still don't see any reason why they couldn't also be engineering a diesel as well, heck I'd throw a 4BT in my 86 if I could, but us modern people apparently have a hatred for DB levels:P So simply sticking a clanky diesel in a 1/2 ton truck might be a flop, its going to require much R&D.

 

My first new truck was a 78 F150 302 4speed od manual that would get 18 mpg highway. It was a 2wd and no ac. I owned an 86 Ranger longbed 2.3L 5 speed 2wd that could get 24 mpg highway and an 86 Ranger 2.9L longbed 5 speed 4wd that would consistently get 26 mpg highway. The best my 06 can do on the highway is 17 mpg. It's a 5.4L EC 4wd. My old 95 EC 4wd 351 AOD would do almost as well on fuel, but it was pretty gutless towing. At least my 06 can do the speed limit relative easily while towing.

 

it would be a good idea but why? if you would figure up the cost, why not spend and extra 10-15k and get something heavier that can do more work? the other downside is all the emissions nonsense. hello there is a reason why engine emit stuff it has to get that junk out so it can breathe.