2011 Superduty Review

[RobertN]

They could have, but then they would not be dicing it up with GM/Dodge in the HP wars. Same with Dodge or GM; they could pull some better mileage, but would most likely give up some HP.

Bump the HP down 100hp or so, and make a high fuel mileage option. Or, maybe even a "smallblock" diesel option with 30+MPG, but less power.

The MPG is pretty good but my neighbors 2007 Dmax will get 21ish if he drives it right. I would have hoped Ford could have done a little better. I wonder if it will improve much after some break in time.

 

[sld]

So it makes less HP at the same rpms and less torque even at much higher rpms. This is comparing a brand new design that has been in R&D for over 3 years vs an engine that has been mostly unchanged sans the addition of MDS since it's 2003 introduction. There is nothing impressive about this new Ford engine and it with not fill the gap between the V8 5.4l and diesel that it needs to. What Ford should do is continue to offer the V10. This engine is a good replacement for the aging 5.4l cannot replace the V10.:

I knew I would see DMACE all over this and as much as I hate to admit it, he is rig..., righ..... right!:laughing:

But, keep in mind, this is the first year it is offered. Ford has a habit of offering tweaks over the next few years to make it better. This is very easy with the overhead cam design. The 99 V10 was 275 hp and 410 tq. By 2005, these numbers were 362 and 457.

I know, coulda woulda shoulda but the fact remains these overhead cammers are easy to tweak and get some good numbers (going to 3 valves per cylinder for example). It seems the old technology push rod Hemi is maxed out although I give them credit for the VVT.

 

[Dmace]

I actually agree with 92.34% of your statement. The last paragraph is the only area I have a issue. The 8.1L GM, the V-10 Dodge, and The Ford V-10 were a good match for a certain sectors such a snow plowers, landscapers, occasional user, farmers, ect.
Chris

Thanks Chris, over 92% is pretty good for me. :laughing:
I understand the need for a big block V8 gas but I just don't see any of these people having an absolute need for that slightly higher payload and tow capacity and a need for a gas engine in that truck vs diesel. If you really want that gas engine, get the 3/4 ton. I am sure there are a few out there that have to have a gas 1-ton but obviously not enough of them to keep sales of that combo high.

I knew I would see DMACE all over this and as much as I hate to admit it, he is rig..., righ..... right!:laughing:

I know that was tough to say but don't you feel better now? :laughing:
Also, you are right that there is the chance that this engine has bigger HP potential but judging by Ford's previous V8 gas engines, I am not expecting much. Lastly, keep in mind that many of those different HP numbers were just changes in the SAE standards of measure and not actual power differences in engines. The Ford 5.4l 2V made 260HP and 350lb.ft from 1997-2004 the 2004-2008 3V 5.4l made 300HP and 365lb.ft., hardly as much an increase as the V10. The HEMI started out in 2003 at 345HP and 375LB.FT. for record.

 

[JB4310]

I was gonna try and stay out of this one, but I can't believe you guys are talking about gas engines.

Who cares about a new Super Duty with a gas engine???

This offering is all about Fords attempt at diesel redemption. They are doing this to try and keep those very faithful Ford HD truck buyers happy. Which IMO is a step in the right direction, That new diesel power-plant is the only thing to get excited about. Only time will tell if it's worthy of the great faith many have shown in Ford or just another in a long line of mediocre V-8's.

I had F series trucks for the first 15 years of my contracting business, and Ram for the last 15 years. In 06 when I was shopping for a new class 3 truck I started with Ford, I felt at the time that it was my only choice as GM seemed small to me and Dodge didn't offer a chassis cab. only problem was I read so much Internet chatter about the short comings of the Ford diesel power plants that I felt like I was taking a big chance with such an important investment for me, being a one truck contractor.

Just by chance I found out Dodge was coming out with a new Chassis cab for 07, with a 6.7L and a to die for tranny. Well that was a marriage made in heaven for me as I was still driving a 95 Cummins powered Ram. and had developed quite an affinity for the Cummins as probably most who ever owned one would tell you.
I'm totally satisfied with this truck, but I would still look at a Ford again if they get it right with their 6.7. They are a handsome looking truck, that's for sure.

JB.

 

[mjncad]

I am sure there are a few out there that have to have a gas 1-ton but obviously not enough of them to keep sales of that combo high.

The local phone company (Qwest) has a large number of V-10 equipped F-350 & F-450 trucks in its Denver fleet. My guess is they chose the V-10 over the diesel because they knew they would wear the truck out faster than the engine; so they probably reasoned that in spite of burning more fuel (gas vs. diesel), it was still cheaper to go gas. Just my SWAG.

Thats why the V-10 was such a winner. It had near diesel torque and power for only $600 upgrade price over the 5.4L versus $6500 for the diesel. It made a lot of sense for landscapers, snow plowers, farmers, occasional users, ect.

Crhis

Exactly Chris! When I ordered my '99 F-250, a V-10 was a $350 option, while the diesel was $3,500. I could have afforded a diesel; but for my usage, I couldn't justify it. At Colorado's altitude, there is no replacement for displacement, and a V-10 sure beats an anemic V-8.



When I first opened the hood on my F-250 and saw how far back the engine sat, I often wondered if Ford had a Triton V-12 on the drawing boards before gas prices and other circumstances beyond Ford's control squashed any flicker of that idea seeing the light. Of course with the engine sitting further back, it balances the truck's weight better, which was probably the real reason for the set back.

 

[sld]

I was gonna try and stay out of this one, but I can't believe you guys are talking about gas engines.

Who cares about a new Super Duty with a gas engine???

Well, I care. I don't really need a 3/4 ton. My boat is not that heavy, I only haul firewood once or twice a year and my tractor is not that big. I chose the Superduty for several reasons though.

The crew cab is bigger than a 1/2 ton for my family of 5, I like the solid front axle, it handles the occasional heavy loads, it looks good, would be safe in an accident, and rides reasonably well.

I like diesel engines but not in this application for my uses. The V10 gas with the 4:30 rear end is actually fun to drive and I don't put enough miles (10k) per year to really care about mpg.

To top it off, both times I bought the Superduty, 1999 and 2007, it was cheaper than a 1/2 ton that was equipped the same way. Why spend more for less capability?

 

[JB4310]

Well, I care. I don't really need a 3/4 ton. My boat is not that heavy, I only haul firewood once or twice a year and my tractor is not that big. I chose the Superduty for several reasons though.

The crew cab is bigger than a 1/2 ton for my family of 5, I like the solid front axle, it handles the occasional heavy loads, it looks good, would be safe in an accident, and rides reasonably well.

I like diesel engines but not in this application for my uses. The V10 gas with the 4:30 rear end is actually fun to drive and I don't put enough miles (10k) per year to really care about mpg.

To top it off, both times I bought the Superduty, 1999 and 2007, it was cheaper than a 1/2 ton that was equipped the same way. Why spend more for less capability?

Well maybe I'm caught up in Ford's own marketing message, every ad and commercial show the trucks in some extreme maxed out HD construction use. The message I get is Ford is marketing these trucks to potential Diesel engine option buyers, since I think you need the diesel to hit those max ratings.

I agree if a SD costs the same as a 150, that's a better deal.

JB.

 

[sld]

Well maybe I'm caught up in Ford's own marketing message, every ad and commercial show the trucks in some extreme maxed out HD construction use. The message I get is Ford is marketing these trucks to potential Diesel engine option buyers, since I think you need the diesel to hit those max ratings.

I agree if a SD costs the same as a 150, that's a better deal.

JB.

You are right about the ads. That is exactly what fuels the horsepower wars. This is a hard to understand subject. I will choose the biggest (gas) engine with the lowest rear end just to have the best performance. I will honestly say I don't need it, but that is what I will get.

So how does this insanity stop? 1000 hp and 1000 lb ft? I am just as guilty as anyone but when looking from the outside in I can see that it's crazy.

 

[Corm]

I just started working for 2 different RV dealers as a driver. Both of them run v10 F350 dualies. I've asked both dealers why V10's, and not Diesels? They both said they did run diesels (all Fords), but had problems with them. They went to V10s, and haven't had any problems. Today I drove an 07 F350 with 110K miles on it. Ran like a charm, and got about 10 mpg pulling a 28 foot travel trailer.

My own personal truck is on 09 V10 F350 SRW 410 manual shift (5th wheel hauler). Very happy with it. For me and my application, I'm real glad I didn't spend the extra $$ for the diesel.

Corm