Why no Ecoboost in the F250?

[4570Man]

Mainly because it's a closer comparison.

A new diesel 3/4 ton is easily twice the truck towing compared to an old 3/4 ton diesel.

A new gas 1/2 ton is twice what an old gas 1/2 ton was.

New gas 1/2 ton on par with old diesel 3/4 ton capability wise.

New diesel pickup pulls what used to require a semi.....

If old counts as a square body Chevy with a 6.2 diesel than that’s mostly true. If old counts as a 2000s model 2500 with a Duramax then you’re delusional to think a 1500 is even close. Maybe on paper they’re similar but the 3/4 ton is a much more capable truck.

 

[WilliamBos]

Because there’s no replacement for displacement. Sure little engines can make a lot of power but not for long term.

I agree, its bad enough they yuppied up the 1500/150 trucks with ifs and small turbo engines, dont ruin the HD trucks, Leave the Solid front axles and big V8's alone.

the Ecoboosts are a light duty engine, were never designed for heavy truck use.


One thing to add, the 6.4 Hemi may be replaced by the new Cummins 6.7 gas engine. can't wait.

Cummins 6.7-liter gas engine part of new fuel agnostic strategy

Fuel agnostic Cummins engines reduce carbon

www.hardworkingtrucks.com

 

[deserteagle71]

dont ruin the HD trucks, Leave the Solid front axles and big V8's alone.

Well, since GM hasn't put a solid front axle under their 2500 and 3500 series in 30+ years, I take it you don't consider them "HD" trucks??

 

[WilliamBos]

Well, since GM hasn't put a solid front axle under their 2500 and 3500 series in 30+ years, I take it you don't consider them "HD" trucks??

They are fine for on highway pulling, but not for any off highway work or snow removal. I'd go Ram 2500 Hemi, or F250 7.3.

 

[K5lwq]

What I find comical is most 3/4 and 1 ton trucks I see around here are not loaded and not pulling a trailer. They are dressed up with accessories and look like they have never done real work. For those guys having a Ecoboost option would be fine. Most people on this forum don’t really work their trucks that hard. Pulling a trailer 3 or 4 times a year is probably pretty average for most.

We ran F150’s on the farm with 300 in-line 6’s and worked the snot out of them. Pulled something almost daily across farm roads and fields. They would dart something crazy after we beat the crap out of the front ends but held up fairly well.

 

[MossRoad]

...

New diesel pickup pulls what used to require a semi.....

I'm reminded of this countless times on our excursions. Seeing pickups pulling trailers with 2 automobiles and a 3rd pickup on the trailer sailing down the highway at 75mph.

Just last night we saw multiple pickups towing trailers with 3 Amazon Prime vans on the trailers.

 

[Farmer495]

How about the GN ratings
What are the GCWR’s? What are the axle ratings?

Sometimes automatics have higher tow ratings than manuals. A 2000 F-250 is a 23 year old truck! For all we know, your 250 may not have optional tow packages and your F-150 might have them.
I’d bet you your 250 will last a lot longer if you tow heavy with both long term.

Agree with pretty much all you say, but you still may be a little bit off on the bold part

A new gas 1/2 ton with optional most powerful gas engine and other HD options, might be on par power wise, with an old diesel 3/4 ton, but it won’t last as long towing & hauling day in/out. The longevity isn’t there.
Also the older 3/4 ton will probably have a GCWR of 20-22,000lbs (for example my 07 GMC Duramax was 22,500lbs) so I don’t think a new 1/2 ton, even with optional most powerful gas engine and HD options would be legally at the same specs as a 15 year old 3/4 ton diesel, either.

Diesel trucks are intended for towing heavy. No gas truck has been able to replace that. Newer gas trucks have come a long way, but so have newer diesel trucks.
My Ram 5500 has a GCWR of 43,000lbs. No gas truck is even close to that.

F150 is 11,200 GN & BP, F250 was 12,900 GN & 10,000 BP

F250 was 20,000 gcwr and was outfitted for maximum towing, manuals were still king towing when it was new. The 2001 7.3 was rated more power when manual (275) (auto 250) but 2K auto and manual were 235.

F150 is max tow, only F150 with a higher tow rating was the CC 5'6" AT 11,300LB.

F250 did have higher payload in the box for sure.

I did compare every spec when I "downgraded", I figured the 1/2 ton gas would just be adequate, first trip and being able to accelerate up hills that I could just hold speed on with the diesel told me otherwise.

No question the F250 was a heavier truck, frame way heavier, axles way heavier. If I was towing a 12K gooseneck I'd be wanting the F250. If all I did was tow, I''d want the F250. I only tow about half the miles I drive and I don't tow at my limit.

You are correct on 5500 and 43,0000 versus gas job. You can't drive that weight with regular driver's license either. Semi territory unlike diesel pickup 20 years ago.

 

[Farmer495]

If old counts as a square body Chevy with a 6.2 diesel than that’s mostly true. If old counts as a 2000s model 2500 with a Duramax then you’re delusional to think a 1500 is even close. Maybe on paper they’re similar but the 3/4 ton is a much more capable truck.

The two trucks I had, specs posted elsewhere on this thread, are close. I could find a F150 same year as mine that is half the tow rating as well.

I won't disagree overall 250 is heavier and more capable.

 

[Renze]

Honestly an engine I would like to see in development would be something ~4.5L i-6 pushrod gasoline with sequential turbos, variable cam timing, and both direct and port injection. No crazy boost, just enough for 350-400 HP across a really wide powerband with excellent response and low end torque.

Why pushrod with variable cam timing, and sequential turbos without crazy boost, and no complex variable compression ratio ?

I mean, if you want an efficient low speed engine, pushrods will do fine. But why add variable valve timing (that enables a work truck engine characteristic at low rpm, and racing engine characteristic at high rpm) to such engine ? Or add a 2nd turbo, which you only need to spool up the first turbo when its very oversized in order to secure high rpm peak horsepower ?

 

[Renze]

Pass on an engine because it's turbocharged? Quick go tell every truck driver you see on the road that they're driving a ticking time bomb! Those pesky turbos are gonna all fail quick and blow the motors apart.

People dont trust them because they expect they are designed the same way as the Oldsmobile 88 Diesel: Olds took a gasser, put different heads and pistons in it to double the compression ratio, even though the number and size of headbolts remained the same.

I suppose people assume Ecoboosts are designed the same way: As atmospheric engine designs with a turbo slapped on and thats it. I assume not, because they werent developed in a rush under an ongoing oil crisis, but i can understand why people want to see before they believe...

I mean, Fendt had a 6.1 liter twin turbo Deutz engine in their 280hp 828 model, and they introduced its successor, the 728, with 300hp from a 7.5 liter Agco (Sisu, Valmet) engine governed at max 1700rpm... the 6.1 Deutz was often toast within 5000hrs of severe duty... So they now went back to an engine with 20% more displacement, but 20% lower top rpm, and a single, fixed geometry turbo...

So even in heavy duty engines, they seem to be getting back from the whole downsizing thing, they now try to gain efficiency by running it at a lower rpm (though still at 40hp per liter)