You're going to be waiting for a very long time then. Ford scrapped the F150 diesel in favor of the twin turbo ECO boosted V6.

Why did they scrap the F150 diesel? For the same reason I bought a V10 F250; who would pay an extra $6000-7000 for a diesel engine that is slower and only gets marginally better mpg on more expensive fuel than the $2000 (or somewhere around that price) EcoBoost engine? In both cases the chassis is the limiting factor, the F150 can only tow 11,300 lbs in it's best form just like the the F250 with a PSD can't tow anymore than an F250 with a V10. The major difference between the F150 EcoBoost and the F250 V10 (besides the obvious capacity differences of a SD versus an F150) though is that the EcoBoost will get better mpg and have more low end torque because of the turbos.

I just couldn't see paying the extra $7000 Ford wanted for the PSD when the V10 could do everything I needed just fine.

 

I believe 3 homes were burned down from the CC ordeal, none of which caused any fatalities.

You seem to grabbing pebbles and trying to through them as boulders. I mean the biggest fault you can find with the V10 is the spitting plug issue? Really? That's the best you can do to justify that the V10 is an unreliable engine?

Have you actually looked at the number of problems the PSD's have? Some one posted the number of TSB for a PSD and V10's a while ago, wish I could find that link again...

Sorry, I'm still laughing over the Fiat being more reliable comments... (BTW you do know Fiat owns/makes Dodge Ram's right?)

 

It does the first two, and the last one is not that bad.

 

Show me the numbers.... I don't believe that, The turbos may move the torque peak lower in the rpm range, but is still not equal to or greater than the v10....

 

The EcoBoost engines produce a flat torque curve from approx 1500-5200rpms. While it may be a but less than the V10 is at peak, it will have more torque "under the curve". Seriously, the turbocharger is the sole reason a PSD has the amount of torque that it does. A quick look back in history to the N/A diesels that preceded the PSD will show you how weak they were. A turbocharged V10 would make gobs more torque and HP than the same engine does N/A, and the torque would peak much lower than the N/A V10 does, and then carry that peak much farther up the RPM range than a comparable displacement turbocharged diesel does. That's just what turbochargers do.
JL

 

Can't say, Ford hasn't released the numbers.

However Ford has said these two statements:

"This new EcoBoost delivers 90 percent peak torque at 2,000 rpm and continues across a wide rpm band, making it ideally suited for trailer towing and other truck applications."


But as JL mentioned, the towing ability of this engine will be great, better than the V10. Although the V10's capacity maybe greater, the EcoBoost will tow it's loads "easier" as PSD owners say.

 

Numbers in a taurus sho for the ecoboost engine is 365 @ 5550 rpm and 350Ft/lbs @ 1500 - 5200 RPM. They may get to 400 hp in a truck, but not 400ft/lbs, IMO.....

 

Why? There's no reason not to with a RWD trans that'll hold up to the power/torque. That's one of the main limiting factors on the SHO/AWD cars that already use the EcoBoost engines. With a bit of tuning, they're seeing approx 400HP/400ft-lbs at the wheels, but the trans can't take it for very long from what I've seen. The RWD trans used in the F150 can handle that easily.
JL

 

SHO peaks at 3500 RPM and V10 peaks at 3200 RPM.

You seriously don't think they can get more torque out of that engine? Gas engines can make far more torque when turbo's are added. Check any turbo gas engine, you'll see more torque than hp. The EcoBoost in the SHO is the exception because it is shackled and prevented from producing is full power potential by the chassis, that's paraphrasing of what Ford said, not my opinion.

Just a couple examples, my Saab 2.0T=221 lbft at 2500 RPM and 210 hp at 5200 RPM
A more extreme example, Benz SL600=590 lbtf at 1800 RPM and 493hp at 5000 RPM, chipable to 750 lbft at 1800-3500 RPM and 640 hp at 5000 RPM

There are many more examples, just look around at what turbos do. You can easily shift the power downward with the correct sized turbos and create tons of torque, just like in a PSD. (BTW Ford did say they are changing the turbos for the F150 application).

Additionally, you admit that the turbos will push teh power lower in the RPM's. It is easy to get equal hp and torque out of an engine (i.e. the 5.0 Mustang with 400hp and 400 lbft). So if you put an turbo on it, should there not be more torque since you pushed the power down to the lower end of the RPM range?

 

It's 359,000 today... ford moon bat problems - Google Search

 

I heard only PSD's have problems with their moon bats!

 

why are you gassers talking about torque? Hell i thought horsepower is all that mattered when towing. Or at least thats what the posts a couple pages back said. I also love how ya ll talk about the gas's ability to rev high but then down the diesel for having a turbo. If the v 10 came with a turbo i STILL would not own another one. Too many problems out of my 1st and last one.

 

Torque is how an engine produces power at low RPM's, hp at higher RPM's, 5252 RPM specifically.

What matters is power to the tires. The turbos will help the gas engine produce more of it's power at lower RPM's giving the engine a larger power band than in NA form.

Who downed the diesel for having a turbo? It simply has a turbo, it is a significant advantage to the PSD.

That's fine if you don't want a V10, I could careless. I think what most people here agree on is that there are circumstances where a PSD makes since and instances where a V10 makes since. It completely depends on what you want to do with the truck.

For instance, it made no since what so ever for me to buy a PSD. When I had my truck I drove 4 miles a day back and forth to work. Such low mileage is not very good for diesels as they need to get warmed up to operate properly, and I would only get it warmed up maybe once week. This kind of use usually results in things failing in diesels. Additionally, I rarely towed with it, less than 1,000 miles year and towing was the only reason I had it.

Given that scenario, mpg doesn't matter, the truck was rarely used as a truck, and it was low altitude (i.e. less than 5000 feet most of the time); there was very little reason for me to spend an extra $7000 for an engine that I would rarely utilize.

Now if I towed all the time or drove 20 miles one way or lived at 10,000 feet, I could have justified a PSD's costs. But I don't, so I didn't buy the PSD.

 

I was just about to post the exact same thing. I thought only horsepower mattered.

 

Still only one place with 100% hit.
It is you.