58 MPG by 2032

[Grumpycat]

And yeah it's definitely faster to pull the cab off if you need to do turbos, injector replacement, etc. Guys with experience can get the whole cab pulled in a couple hours, I've heard.

Back then I was told the book time was 3 hours off, 4 hours on with the correct jig. And based on what I have seen SuperDuty mechanics get a lot of practice.

 

[Grumpycat]

It would be pretty moronic to take an F-150 gasser to tow heavy with like 12,000lbs day in and day out, or buy a truck based on one “drag race”.

Yes it would because no F-150 is rated to tow 12,000 pounds.

The HDPP option put a heavier frame, rear axle, springs, Load Range E tires, 7 bolt wheels, essentially making an F-250 in F-150 skin. Rides like an F-250 too. Yuck.

 

[deezler]

Same price?
I’m thinking a 2008 F-250 diesel sells for about 25-35K now.

Depends on the circles you hang out in. Of almost all the guys I know, most tow way more than me. Maybe your a big timer among your buddies at 11,000lbs

I really am! haha. My suburban buddies can barely mount a bike rack in a tow hitch.

And yeah I paid 35,000 for my 2019 f150 with 52k miles on it last year. Hard to find any older diesels with lower miles like that, but when you do, they cost that much or more around here.

 

[deezler]

I’d have a doubt. A 2008 F-250 had a 6.4L 360HP twin turbo diesel with 650 ft lbs of torque. Depending on the route of the race, I’d say it there’d be considerable doubt. Especially if there’s a hill.

I guess I’d take the fuel economy, powertrain longevity and comfort while towing versus winning a drag race with the 150, which would put a lot of stress and premature wear on it.

It would be pretty moronic to take an F-150 gasser to tow heavy with like 12,000lbs day in and day out, or buy a truck based on one “drag race”.

BTW: I said a 15K trailer.

Uphill would add an additional variable for sure. But the secret weapon I wasn't elaborating on was the transmissions. The new 10 speed shifts really fast and has a ratio for all conditions. I wouldn't want to tow 12,000 lbs through it every day though!

 

[deezler]

Yes it would because no F-150 is rated to tow 12,000 pounds.

The HDPP option put a heavier frame, rear axle, springs, Load Range E tires, 7 bolt wheels, essentially making an F-250 in F-150 skin. Rides like an F-250 too. Yuck.

You are way off. Through last year the F150 (3.5L ecoboost wih max tow) was rated to over 14,000 lbs conventional towing. No high-payload package required to get to that number, either, just max tow. And the same 6-bolt wheel pattern, no 7 bolt weirdness.

For 2024 Ford (wisely?) dropped it back down a bit to 13,500 lbs max towing. A lot of weight to pull with a 5200 lb truck, no doubt.

 

[Paystar]

Just a thought since I saw the title of this thread again. We could EASILY have 58 MPG diesel vehicles right now if the government didn't hamper manufacturers with problematic emissions systems.

 

[Grumpycat]

Just a thought since I saw the title of this thread again. We could EASILY have 58 MPG diesel vehicles right now if the government didn't hamper manufacturers with problematic emissions systems.

Did you see what Mexico City was like in recent decades? That is what happens with non-smogged diesels.

As recent as 1989 Mexico was trying to buy retrofit DPF systems and force drivers to install. Was hiring American companies to design the systems.

I will agree it is nonsense to stifle agricultural diesels the same as urban. Carbon is still in the emissions with DPF, only in smaller pieces. Carbon harmlessly falls to the ground eventually, is good for plants, bad for lungs and buildings.

 

[WinterDeere]

Just a thought since I saw the title of this thread again. We could EASILY have 58 MPG diesel vehicles right now if the government didn't hamper manufacturers with problematic emissions systems.

Cut off your nose, to spite your face? The 58 mpg goal is aimed at hitting a net emissions target. Ditching the emissions equipment would require moving that coal way beyond 58 mpg, to achieve the same net emissions.

 

[Paystar]

Don't want to cut off my nose, then I wouldn't be able to smell all my wonderful diesel fuel and diesel exhaust fumes.

 

[Paystar]

Like I said before, every time I start my old diesels and they fill the barn with smoke that burns my eyes, it brings me tears of joy. LOL

 

[WinterDeere]

Not criticizing, I totally get it. I love old muscle cars and racing fuel. But I do understand why reducing the emissions of daily commuters is a worthwhile goal. I'd like if that could not impede the fun of enthusiasts, who make up a small part of the emissions-generating public.

 

[deezler]

Like I said before, every time I start my old diesels and they fill the barn with smoke that burns my eyes, it brings me tears of joy. LOL

Quickly watering eyes is usually a sign that you body is trying to flush some toxins or contaminants, lol. Personally I am glad my tractor has a DPF so I can keep my garage cleaner.

My '03 diesel VW Jetta could touch 58 mpg on the highway if you kept the speeds reasonable... miss that car.

 

[WinterDeere]

Personally I am glad my tractor has a DPF so I can keep my garage cleaner.

Yeah, I do like that my 3033r has DPF. My old 855 used to just about choke me out of the shed if I left it running while hooking up or moving implements. The 3033r smells like roses, by comparison.

 

[Torvy]

I will agree it is nonsense to stifle agricultural diesels the same as urban. Carbon is still in the emissions with DPF, only in smaller pieces. Carbon harmlessly falls to the ground eventually, is good for plants, bad for lungs and buildings.

^This!

Between the much smaller number, fewer hours of operation and widely dispersed vehicles, it made no sense to make rural tractors meet emmison standards as if they were in the city.

 

[Paystar]

Quickly watering eyes is usually a sign that you body is trying to flush some toxins or contaminants, lol. Personally I am glad my tractor has a DPF so I can keep my garage cleaner.

My '03 diesel VW Jetta could touch 58 mpg on the highway if you kept the speeds reasonable... miss that car.

My body is already full of toxins after 40 years of running trucks and spraying the dump boxes with diesel fuel in the wind every day loading asphalt.

And tearing strips of real asbestos my dad brought home to his welding shop from the steel mill, and lining the doors of the all the wood stoves he produced when I was 8 years old.
According to all the attorney commercials I see on American TV I should be dead by now, LOL Either that or I should have sued my father, LOL

 

[Grumpycat]

Quickly watering eyes is usually a sign that you body is trying to flush some toxins or contaminants, lol. Personally I am glad my tractor has a DPF so I can keep my garage cleaner.

The carbon is still there, just small enough not to form soot.

 

[WinterDeere]

The carbon is still there, just small enough not to form soot.

"The" carbon? That implies a DPF does reduce carbon emissions at all, but we know they do.

"DPFs verified by EPA and CARB are typically effective at reducing emissions of PM by 85 to 90 percent or more. EPA’s Verified Technology List also shows that certain DPFs reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and CO by 70 to 90 percent."

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/420f10029.pdf

 

[Grumpycat]

"The" carbon? That implies a DPF does reduce carbon emissions at all, but we know they do.

"DPFs verified by EPA and CARB are typically effective at reducing emissions of PM by 85 to 90 percent or more. EPA’s Verified Technology List also shows that certain DPFs reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and CO by 70 to 90 percent."

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/420f10029.pdf

PM or particulate matter is defined as being larger than a certain size. The DPF only re-combusts the big chunks of C2 into smaller chunks. And some becomes CO2 but there isn't any oxygen added to the regeneration process but that in the fuel.

Think man. Carbon. A nuclear reaction is required to convert carbon to anything else. Carbon goes in, carbon must go out.

 

[WinterDeere]

PM or particulate matter is defined as being larger than a certain size. The DPF only re-combusts the big chunks of C2 into smaller chunks. And some becomes CO2 but there isn't any oxygen added to the regeneration process but that in the fuel.

Think man. Carbon. A nuclear reaction is required to convert carbon to anything else. Carbon goes in, carbon must go out.

Okay, but you're playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, if we pretend carbon dioxide generated during the reburn is the same as carbon of other forms going into the DPF, then we can say that ultimately the carbon all passes out. This is true.

But it is not the same, with regard to impact on the operator or the environment. The carbon is not just being broken into smaller particles, but going through a chemical change with the aid of heat. More succinctly and using the example I posted earlier, the amount of carbon put into the air I'm breathing while hooking up implements in my shed is not the same, because I don't let the thing sit and regen while I'm in the shed with it.

This isn't far from the folks that pretend EV's aren't any better for greenhouse gas generation than ICE's, "because they both ultimately use fossil fuels". Half-truths aren't full truths!

 

[Grumpycat]

Okay, but you're playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, if we pretend carbon dioxide generated during the reburn is the same as carbon of other forms going into the DPF, then we can say that ultimately the carbon all passes out. This is true.

But it is not the same, with regard to impact on the operator or the environment. The carbon is not just being broken into smaller particles, but going through a chemical change with the aid of heat. More succinctly and using the example I posted earlier, the amount of carbon put into the air I'm breathing while hooking up implements in my shed is not the same, because I don't let the thing sit and regen while I'm in the shed with it.

This isn't far from the folks that pretend EV's aren't any better for greenhouse gas generation than ICE's, "because they both ultimately use fossil fuels". Half-truths aren't full truths!

No, the large carbon flakes are harmful to your lungs while the smaller carbon "ash" (according to the PDF you cited) is not as harmful and according to the EPA is no longer a particulate.

To make CO2 there has to be 2 oxygens for every carbon. Where are you getting that? Is not in the fuel during regeneration because if the fuel had that much oxygen if sparked it would burn without air. You know, just like lithium batteries? Without stopping until it was fully combusted.

The DPF is a particulate filter. It catches big particulates and only lets pass when burned to smaller particulates. Ideally you get the DPF up to temperature working the engine hard and it keeps itself burned clean. If the DPF could always operate like this the net cost would only be the loss of HP from the diesel engine due to restriction in the exhaust. But when pressure across the DPF increases indicting it is getting stopped up, a regeneration cycle is started by adding raw fuel to the exhaust.