Repair-It

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-1 ... F61B82BECF

Engaging horsepower rant.

The good news is, it gets up to 30 mpg highway depending on configuration. Hopefully the GM I6 diesel will match or exceed that.

But here's the thing with 1/2 ton diesels: there is a reason we haven't really seen them before. They don't really make any sense.

Despite the torque, they really aren't great at towing because it turns out you need horsepower to move weight, especially at highway speeds.

And even the fuel economy isn't enough to make a solid case over the (higher horsepower) turbo V6 offerings (which, by the way, have great drivability, too).

So this engine has 250 hp and 440 lb-ft. Which number defines overall performance? The horsepower, as usual.

The actual towing, though, was less impressive, and it only suffered when we traded up to a 6,500-pound boat and trailer. All that low-end torque is still good for getting off the line with a trailer and keeping pace with city traffic, but the turbo lag is more pronounced leaving a stop, and there’s some jerkiness from the transmission at low speeds. On top of the lag, getting going quickly can also be hindered by some rear wheel slip as the truck struggles for grip in the middle of all that weight. Getting out on the highway, the diesel underwhelms. Above 50 mph, the diesel has very little power in reserve for accelerating or overtaking. If you want to pass a big rig on the highway, you’ll need to take a run at it. Climbing even a small hill at freeway speeds, about the best you can hope for is maintaining your speed with your foot to the floor, and 6,500 pounds is less than two-thirds of the truck’s maximum 11,400-pound tow rating.

440 is a healthy number but that doesn't magically translate into unlimited amounts of power - that's what power is for. Torque is not power. Look at that description. It turns out that a 5,000 lb truck towing 6,500 lbs (only 57% of the tow rating) is going to be slow with only 250 hp. All 440 lb-ft is going to do is make it feel like it has more than 250 hp, when you are going like 0-30 or whatever. But what feels like a huge reserve of power at low speeds turns into a wheeze-fest at higher speeds. That's what continues to annoy me about these light duty diesel engines.

Another problem is trim levels. Ford makes you get Lariat or higher to get the diesel which means you're dropping $46,410 at the absolute minimum and that's probably with 2WD and no other options.

it’s going to take a while to see $4,000 worth of savings at the pump. If you’re the lead-footed type even when towing, you’re going to find the diesel frustrating and an EcoBoost engine more your style, and you’ll just have to eat the extra fuel cost. Power or fuel economy, you choose.

It's not fast (performance) and doesn't really pay for itself (economy), except in a very specific case of needing to tow regularly something that is less than what you'd normally step up to a 3/4 ton for (like ~5,000-6,000 lbs). I guess it makes sense we haven't seen these on the market because I think the OEMs already understood all of this. That is another reason GM didn't release the Duramax 4500 9 years ago. It just didn't really make a case for itself.

I will say the 3/4 ton trucks with their horsepower-race turbo diesels are a different animal. They are heavy but tow really well, and are actually kind of quick.

Ok the Ford engine is a $4,000 upgrade.

It’s also 2 to 4 mpg better in the city and 4 to 6 mpg better on the highway than any other F-150

I'll do a relative comparison using 3 better city, 5 better highway, and combined of 4 better I guess. So I'll use 4 better. 19 to 23.

Assuming $2.79/gal for 87.
Assuming $3.51/gal for diesel.
93 is around $3.18 for reference. You can see the issue already.

Case 1:
15,000 miles/yr empty
3.5 Ecoboost, 87 octane is OK according to FuelEconomy.gov. 19 mpg, for a total annual fuel cost of $2,202.63
Diesel. 23 mpg, for a total annual fuel cost of $2,289.13

Whoops! It can't even pay for itself. And it is WAAAY slower than the 3.5 EB.

Case 2:
15,000 miles/yr, towing 5,500 lbs.
3.5 EB, 87 octane. Let's assume 9 mpg. Total annual fuel cost is $4,650.
Diesel. M/T said the computer reported 13.5 mpg. Total annual fuel cost is $3,900

It would take 5 years and 4 months and 80,000 miles to break even, in a MUCH slower rig. Is that worth it? I say no. Because this assumes 100% towing. At anything less than 100% towing, the payback period just grows from there. You may as well get a 3/4 ton, tow better, and have way better performance, with probably very little fuel economy hit. And by the way, the minimum cost of the 1/2 ton diesel was $46k. Well, that is also the minimum cost of a 3/4 ton diesel (XL trim, so admittedly not as nice as the Lariat+ trims on the 1/2 ton). But I think my point stands.

In my opinion, the ship has sailed on diesel viability. The best chance was probably during the 90s and early 2000s when gasoline engine efficiency wasn't as good and the price delta between regular and diesel was much more favorable. Of course, gas was cheap then so no one cared.

In fairness, my rant pretty much applies to the diesel Colorado/Canyon. And Dodge Ram.

GM, your move. I want to see the fastest truck (empty and towing) and best fuel economy.

I don't understand the repeated articles about the same thing within the same month but I digress...

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-1 ... D6872DFB03

Back in 2014, we set about updating our Truck of the Year competition to better represent what you, the truck buyer, want and expect from your rig. One part of that was collecting market research from multiple sources on buyer priorities and how people actually use their trucks. One of the biggest takeaways: Light-duty truck owners tend to think of their trucks more like big cars than traditional trucks—but they buy more capability than they need, just in case.

Sounds familiar. Why buy a fullsize car? I mean, bro, it can't even off-road. What if I suddenly become a contractor and need to haul drywall??

That’s no test lab trickery. Over the course of our road trip, an XL-trim 4×2 self-reported 27.7 mpg, and a nearly 700-pound-heavier Platinum 4×4 self-reported 23.7 mpg. To be sure, we hooked both trucks up to our EQUA Real MPG equipment. The XL returned 22.9/34.3/27.0 city/highway/combined mpg and the Platinum 20.9/28.6/23.8 mpg city/highway/combined, all handily beating Ford’s estimates.

Those are pretty solid numbers. Wonder if GM is scrambling with theirs, fooling with the calibration to eek some extra digits from their EPA rating. Then again, that is a 2019 truck and it is only May of 2018.

The second issue involves towing at freeway speeds. Around town and getting up to 50 mph, the torquey diesel feels stout with 6,500 pounds on the hitch (less than 60 percent of its 11,400-pound max tow rating). Out on the highway, however, it runs out of breath. Passing with a trailer requires a good, long runup, and going uphill means putting your foot on the floor just to maintain speed. The truck downshifts until the revs come up to 3,000—and that’s where it sits until the road levels out again.

I guess torque can cover for a lack of HP at lower speeds. This checks out. But there's no hiding a deficiency at higher speeds.

Other top priorities of light-duty truck buyers are price and value for the money. You can only get the Power Stroke on the Lariat trim level or higher—putting its base price at $46,410. (Commercial fleet buyers can get the diesel on any trim level as a $5,000 option.) By contrast, a 2.7-liter EcoBoost is a $995 option on any trim level, and it gets up to 26 mpg highway per the EPA. You’ll need to rack up the miles or frequently use the diesel’s added towing capacity to make up the $3,000 difference. And if you’re going to do that much towing, a base-model F-250 can be had with its massive turbodiesel V-8 for just less than $44,000.

Ford knows its customers. For most F-150 drivers, the new Power Stroke is a torquey, comfortable cruiser that’ll go 700 miles between fuel stops with the smallest tank option. It’s a great truck, as long as you don’t come expecting an F-250 diesel in an F-150 package.

XL trim fleet-only test in 2WD.
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/f-1 ... D6872DFB03

You should also know that the diesel engine carries a $2,400 premium over the price of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, the engine that’s closest to the diesel’s towing numbers. That’s not cheap.

That’s a question that might require a bit of math. With national average fuel prices at $2.96/gallon for regular fuel and $3.17/gallon for diesel, it will take 188,000 highway miles (at 30 mpg) to pay back the $2,400 premium an XL fleet buyer will pay for a Power Stroke engine over the cost of a base 2WD 3.5L EcoBoost (at 25 mpg on the highway) with the equivalent towing capacity. However, Ford claims that if you tow a 10,000-pound trailer, that mileage is reduced to 37,600.

You'd really have to be in a very special category of towing frequently, but not so heavy or frequently that a 3/4 ton is a better option. That seems like a small demographic in all reality. To pay $2400 more over a 3.5EB with a long pay back and lower performance....I don't see it.

The lighter 4,982 lb XL 2WD ran 15.6 sec @ 88.9 mph.

The heavier 5,647 lb Platinum 4WD ran 16.1 sec @ 84.3 mph.

Not bad really. These are 93 Caprice 9C1 levels of performance with significantly better fuel economy, and even more passenger space, with a bed. But the 3.5EB and 5.0L are like an easy 10+ mph better trap, which is in the ball park of the difference between my STS and CTS-V (i.e. very noticeable).