Ford says no to Diesel F-150

[Scooby074]

Check this out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoWfWjzFK4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Cool. There was a guy here who did that, he stuck a perkins out of a tractor in a f-250. Was a cool rig. No idea how he did on mileage, but I imagine it was decent.

 

[Red Horse]

That's it! Who wants to listen to the gasser scream it's guts out?

A true statement for sure. As always the 64 dollar question-"what can you afford"? It DOES "pencil out". With today's numbers, if its strictly dollars and cents, gas makes more sense for the low mileage/infrequent tow operator.

Now to those who bring up the subject of the new T-6 "world" Ranger, The Ford propaganda is.."an F-150 gets the same mileage as the old Ranger". True statement. But what would that "old Ranger" get for mpg if you replaced its outdated 4.0 V-6 with a new 3.5 or 3.7 V-6?

Bottom line, Ford will not do anything that risks lost 150 sales. And as a Ford stockholder, I guess I can't argue with that.

But that is another story.

 

[94BULLITT]

Big difference in gearing also. If the diesel had the 4.30....

big difference in the price of the engine too.

Hill tests like these don't really tell me much about how a truck performs day to day. When was the last time anyone had to tow a trailer all out up a hill and then done? I want a truck that is comfortable towing and keeps me relaxed, a diesel will do that. A gas engine running near redline up almost every hill (plenty around here) will have you exhausted after a couple hours. Maybe in the Midwest where it's flat a gas hd truck is fine.

You won't be running the diesel hard to do the same job?

back in '93 I had a Jetta with the old 1.9 Turbo Diesel that would get into the 50 mpg range all day, every day! Given all the latest and greatest high tech we've thrown at it (hybrids for example) we still havent come up with something as simple that gets that kind of mileage.

That is what disgusts me some much about gas mileage. Look how for a the diesel engine has come since the 90's. The hybrids even how low rolling resistance tires on them. Gas mileage from the 60's has improved very little until the past few years. My mom had a 1980 or 81 Thunderbird with a 302. It would get 26-27 MPG on the interstate. I think the 3.8 was rated at 29 or 30 MPG. The new V6 mustang only gets 31MPG. A diesel in a compact or 1/2 ton truck could get good mileage but we won't see it for years.

I told this story once on here and was called a liar but I'll tell it again.:laughing: There was a guy that lives/d in my area. He was working on a 2.3 in a Pinto for Ford. He had it getting 90 some miles to the gallon in the late 70's or early 80's. I think Ford crushed the car.

A true statement for sure. As always the 64 dollar question-"what can you afford"? It DOES "pencil out". With today's numbers, if its strictly dollars and cents, gas makes more sense for the low mileage/infrequent tow operator.

Now to those who bring up the subject of the new T-6 "world" Ranger, The Ford propaganda is.."an F-150 gets the same mileage as the old Ranger". True statement. But what would that "old Ranger" get for mpg if you replaced its outdated 4.0 V-6 with a new 3.5 or 3.7 V-6?

Bottom line, Ford will not do anything that risks lost 150 sales. And as a Ford stockholder, I guess I can't argue with that.

But that is another story.

I don't think it is just Ford that is holding out on us, they all are. Gas mileage from the 60's has improved very little until the past few years. A diesel in a compact or 1/2 ton truck could get good mileage but we won't see it for years.

 

[TomSeller]

: There was a guy that lives/d in my area. He was working on a 2.3 in a Pinto for Ford. He had it getting 90 some miles to the gallon in the late 70's or early 80's. I think Ford crushed the car.
.

More likely the oil companies.

 

[Fordman1981]

Here is a diesel vs gas towing 15,300lbs

Same trailer, Same load, Same day

2011 F-350 6.2 4.30 gears 4x4

YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCV-eiMNFs

See next post.

Thanks for making my point 4.30 gears vs 3.55 gears. Look at the 6.2 video and listen to the engine it doesn't sound like its making decent power till above 4,000 rpm. The 6.2 screams the whole time. If you want an engine that has to red line to pull every hill that's up to you I like being able to pull every hill every mountain I come to with ease.

The attached picture is from VA or WVA I don't remember which but I pulled that load with ease running with traffic. I wouldn't want to do that same trip with the 6.2 no way. If the 6.2 didn't have a work camper on it and had a gooseneck hook up I'd show you how different they are. But u guess it wouldn't be fair my 6.2 has 3.73 gears the same as the truck in the picture and give that weak 6.2 gas motor the same gears would just make it look like a pinto pulling the load.

Sorry I don't mean to seam like I'm attacking you I'm not. I'm just tired of hearing ford fans say the 6.2 is a beast and its close to a diesel. It's not. I used to be a ford fan but the list me when they went to modular motors. They haven't built anything but high revving trucks since. Still love the classic fords. I have a 71 f350 a 75 f100 4x4 and a 69 mach 1.

 

[Renze]

I would love to see a Nissan patrol diesel sold over here too!! They are sweet !!

Maybe the newer 3.0 four cylinders are, but the 2.8 sixes werent that good... the swirl chambers cracked loose in the heads and they lost compression after 300.000km..

This Ford is nice though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06vc6GebDWk

 

[Midniteoyl]

No thanks!

I got a ford pickup with a gas guzzler. 18 US mpg mixed, but mostly hwy. Im getting tired of dumping fuel in it. Last fill up was $118.00.

That ranger with the 3.2l diesel (200hp 347ftlb), automatic and 4x4 is getting 12l/100km city and 8.6l/100km hwy. Thats 19.6 US Mpg city and 27.4 US Mpg hwy. using the euro factory numbers.

If you step down to a smaller engine, the 2.2l (125hp 243ftlb edition) gets 8.3l/100 and 7.2l/100 hwy. 28 US mpg and 32.7us mpg respectively. The 2.2 is also available in a 150hp, 277 ftlb version that gets about 1l worse city but 0.2l better highway. Id STRONGLY consider the HO 2.2l.

Point was.. high HP gas sells..

 

[Scooby074]

That is what disgusts me some much about gas mileage. Look how for a the diesel engine has come since the 90's. The hybrids even how low rolling resistance tires on them. Gas mileage from the 60's has improved very little until the past few years. My mom had a 1980 or 81 Thunderbird with a 302. It would get 26-27 MPG on the interstate. I think the 3.8 was rated at 29 or 30 MPG. The new V6 mustang only gets 31MPG. A diesel in a compact or 1/2 ton truck could get good mileage but we won't see it for years.

I told this story once on here and was called a liar but I'll tell it again.:laughing: There was a guy that lives/d in my area. He was working on a 2.3 in a Pinto for Ford. He had it getting 90 some miles to the gallon in the late 70's or early 80's. I think Ford crushed the car.

More likely the oil companies.

Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat and agree with Tom.

I do think there is a bit of a conspiracy to keep mileage low.. there is also some complacency on the part of the manufacturers to keep using the older and cheaper technology (engines / trans . less aerodynamic bodies) that have long been paid off.

Remember, we had the EV1 from GM. That by accounts from all the owners was a great car, yet GM crushed them. Why? Was there some external pressure? Hmm...

 

[Fordman1981]

Thanks for making my point 4.30 gears vs 3.55 gears. Look at the 6.2 video and listen to the engine it doesn't sound like its making decent power till above 4,000 rpm. The 6.2 screams the whole time. If you want an engine that has to red line to pull every hill that's up to you I like being able to pull every hill every mountain I come to with ease.

The attached picture is from VA or WVA I don't remember which but I pulled that load with ease running with traffic. I wouldn't want to do that same trip with the 6.2 no way. If the 6.2 didn't have a work camper on it and had a gooseneck hook up I'd show you how different they are. But u guess it wouldn't be fair my 6.2 has 3.73 gears the same as the truck in the picture and give that weak 6.2 gas motor the same gears would just make it look like a pinto pulling the load.

Sorry I don't mean to seam like I'm attacking you I'm not. I'm just tired of hearing ford fans say the 6.2 is a beast and its close to a diesel. It's not. I used to be a ford fan but the list me when they went to modular motors. They haven't built anything but high revving trucks since. Still love the classic fords. I have a 71 f350 a 75 f100 4x4 and a 69 mach 1.

Also another point what do you think the towing and overall empty gas mileage is in that 6.2 with 4.30 gears compared to the towing fuel mileage and empty mileage if the diesel with 3.55s. You can keep drinking the ford gas burner coolaid. I won't. I have two 3/4 ton trucks in my fleet that are very similar. One is the 2011 F250 6.2 extended cab 2wd with work camper. The other is a 2012 ram 2500 quad cab 4x4 same work camper. The F250 averages combined hand calculated 13.2 mpg the Ram 2500 averages combined hand calculated 16.8. Now here's the fun part hook a trailer to them same trailer included 12' dual axel and the Ram drops to 13.8 or 14.2 the F250 drops to 8.7 to 9.6 and if you even look at a hill the F250 drops one if not two or three gears the Ram will pull most hills in 6th if it is a big hill It will drop to 5th but nothing like the screaming gas burner.

 

[Scooby074]

Point was.. high HP gas sells..

Well its definitely "sexier".. and perhaps its a bit of compensation for those lacking a bit of HP in their pants but its about time we got passed that. There are a fair and growing number that have, and they would die to have a legitimate compact truck with high mileage, like the rest of the world seems to get.