Ford says no to Diesel F-150

[Midniteoyl]

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.

I agree.. fun to have the HP for play, but for day to day, I'd rather have the grunt..

 

[Lt CHEG]

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...

I don't think that it has anything to do with the car companies or the oil companies. There is no conspiracy to keep fuel economy low. It has everything to do with the EPA and emissions. All of the emissions complications that the new diesel engines are dealing with gasoline engines had to deal with 20 years ago. The much maligned EGR systems on modern diesels have been on gas engines for 20 years. It's only recently that emissions standards have been applied to Diesel engines and look at the effect that it has had on fuel economy. Is there any reason to believe that more stringent emissions standards haven't had a deleterious effect on gas engines too? Add to that the fact that more stringent safety standards have probably increased the weight of cars by 15% or maybe more. We are finally starting to make strides in fuel economy again but it might be best to look at the total package of engine performance. Fuel economy is only slightly better than it was 25 years ago, but vehicles emit only a few percent of the pollutants that they did 25 years ago and crash survivability has probably tripled. Ultimately our government prioritized environmental impact and safety over economy and that is why we have cars that are safer and less polluting but cost more to operate.

 

[WilliamBos]

The EPA has outluved their usefulness, and need to be dissolved!!

 

[Lt CHEG]

The EPA has outluved their usefulness, and need to be dissolved!!

While I wouldn't go that far I do believe that the EPA needs to be scaled back significantly. The first thing that should be done is to pass legislation that the EPA can only enforce laws enacted by Congress. By that I mean that emissions standards and things of that nature should be enacted by Congress not the EPA. Anything with implications as vast as things like vehicle emission requirements, effluent discharge limits from manufacturing facilities, etc should be determined by Congress whose very elected nature ensures accountability to the voters for the decisions they make.

 

[WilliamBos]

While I wouldn't go that far I do believe that the EPA needs to be scaled back significantly. The first thing that should be done is to pass legislation that the EPA can only enforce laws enacted by Congress. By that I mean that emissions standards and things of that nature should be enacted by Congress not the EPA. Anything with implications as vast as things like vehicle emission requirements, effluent discharge limits from manufacturing facilities, etc should be determined by Congress whose very elected nature ensures accountability to the voters for the decisions they make.

Politicians have no idea what they are doing, and need to keep their noses out of things like this.

 

[Lt CHEG]

Politicians have no idea what they are doing, and need to keep their noses out of things like this.

That's the idea! It better be darn important for the government to stick their nose into it. Something should be significant enough that true professionals that know about these things are compelled to get Congress to act based upon science, not special interests.

 

[94BULLITT]

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...

I agree with you and Tom.

Earlier you were talking about a Jetta diesel. I just saw this one a few hours ago.

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.

I don't feel like you are attacking me. This is a discussion forum and we are having a discussion. :thumbsup:

I wish they would put 4.10 and 4.30's in the 6.2 trucks. I think 3.73 is to high for a gas motor with that big of a tire. Everyone talks about torque of a diesel. The 6.7 PSD has 800ftlb and a 3.55 rear. That would be 2840lbft in 1:1 in the trans. The 6.2 has 405lbft and a 3.55. That would be 1437lbft in 1:1 in the trans. It think it is amazing the 6.2 did that well. Those guys also had a 6.7PSD with 3.73's and it performed about like the one 3.55's.

I just get tired of everyone acting like a diesel will pull a 15,000 pound load up a 15% grade in over drive with the converter locked. The days of the low revving gas trucks are gone like a 460 or FE. All the new trucks like RPMs. I am kinda kicking the idea around of getting a diesel for my next truck. I just think sometimes people give them too much credit.

I don't think that it has anything to do with the car companies or the oil companies. There is no conspiracy to keep fuel economy low. It has everything to do with the EPA and emissions. All of the emissions complications that the new diesel engines are dealing with gasoline engines had to deal with 20 years ago. The much maligned EGR systems on modern diesels have been on gas engines for 20 years. It's only recently that emissions standards have been applied to Diesel engines and look at the effect that it has had on fuel economy. Is there any reason to believe that more stringent emissions standards haven't had a deleterious effect on gas engines too? Add to that the fact that more stringent safety standards have probably increased the weight of cars by 15% or maybe more. We are finally starting to make strides in fuel economy again but it might be best to look at the total package of engine performance. Fuel economy is only slightly better than it was 25 years ago, but vehicles emit only a few percent of the pollutants that they did 25 years ago and crash survivability has probably tripled. Ultimately our government prioritized environmental impact and safety over economy and that is why we have cars that are safer and less polluting but cost more to operate.

You don't think the oil companies could be behind the stricter emissions so our vehicles will not be as fuel efficient as they could?

 

[Scooby074]

The EPA has outluved their usefulness, and need to be dissolved!!

Thats a bit too far for me I dont want to go back to rivers of fire or Love Canal.

But one thing Id like to see is aligning of regulations between NA and Europe. That would save the auto co.'s a TON of money and enable "world" cars to be sold here with out much additional cost.

Yes I know it will never happen. The various politicians and environmental agencies will never give up their personal fiefdoms to cooperate, but it would be nice

 

[jejeosborne]

I just get tired of everyone acting like a diesel will pull a 15,000 pound load up a 15% grade in over drive with the converter locked. The days of the low revving gas trucks are gone like a 460 or FE. All the new trucks like RPMs. I am kinda kicking the idea around of getting a diesel for my next truck. I just think sometimes people give them too much credit.

This is the reason I choose the ecoboost in my last truck purchase. I was torn between it and the ram hemi and that was the deciding factor. Much quieter and lower rpms while towing. Can actually carry on a conversation in the cab plinking along at 2000 rpms. Don't get me wrong, the hemi is a good engine but it likes to rev like the rest of them.

 

[Kaliburz]

Time will only tell what Ford will do w/ the 1/2 ton.

GM, is putting a diesel in the 2014 Cruze. 2014 Chevy Cruze: Compact Car - Fuel-Efficient Car | Chevrolet But it's only said to get 46 MPG. Now didn't the old VW 1.6L's get about 40-45MPG back in the 1980s? Yes, it'll be faster, have A/C and be clean...but still....

The manufacturers are getting tight on what rear axle ratio is available w/ what transmission and engine combo. An article I saw, the F450 has like a 4.xx ratio while the F350 has a 3.73 (I think). And you can't custom order a 1 ton w/ the deeper ratio. (I have not kept up w/ current combo's for towing). It's too bad the old US Gear "underdrive" is not available any more. Mount that behind a trans and you can lower your ratio from a 3.55 to something closer to the 4.xx area. I would love to use one on my 1 ton E350 w/ 7.3L PS (has a 3.55). Flip the switch, deep under and you can start a heavy load w/out burning the transmission or strain. When not needed, leave it in 1:1 and it stays the same....

With the prices of "new" trucks (be it gas or diesel), I'm sorry to say I'll sticking to the used truck market or keeping what I have. It may be slow, it may be old, but it's paid for.