F-150 3.0 diesel Pictures

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

3 Litre Lion engine was designed by Peugeot, but developed and produced by Ford UK for Ford and PSA. Platform sharing like this is common in Europe.

It was designed by Jaguar and Land Rover(both Ford companies at the time) in collaboration with Peugeot. Not just by Peugeot.

Yes the design is the "Lion" reference to Peugeot. They designed the intial engine, Ford UK and then Jaguar( owned by Ford at the time but not part of Ford as such) did the development. Peugeot is developing the engine maybe for their Pickup, it was last used by them in the last Paris to Dakar race.

Nope, it was designed with collaboration of all three. Anyone who worked for Jaguar and Land Rover at that time were Ford Motor Company employees so......

Lion is the Peugeot moniker and the design of the engine belongs with them.

I see nothing has changed here in many years. A diesel in a 1/2 ton truck is a good idea, good torque for towing along with better fuel economy. Hopefully GM and Ford get on board with program since choice is good for us consumers.

RobertRyan wrote:

Both the Cummins and the IVECO 5.9 engines were the product of the short lived partnership between Fiat and Cummins.Fiat actually produced the blocks for Cummins, before the total separation of both companies.

Wait...what? First you say the Iveco 6.7L is "basically the same" as the Cummins 6.7L, and now you are back tracking to talking about the the 5.9L and post an article only relating to how Iveco used the Cummins 5.9L as the starting point for their 5.9L. BTW, why didn't you post all of that article you posted? Just a few more paragraphs and it backed up what I stated.

Here is where you intentionally stopped.....

The final result of the EEA work was the ISBe automotive engine built by Cummins in Darlington and the Italian IVECO NEF engine. Very similar engines, however IVECO use Bosch Hardware/software, Cummins used Bosch ECU with Cummins software and slightly different common rail set up.

Shortly after launch of NEF engine IVECO Aifo took the automotive engine and marinised it.

After just a year tensions between Cummins and IVECO began to smoulder when the Italians failed to pay agreed licence fees.

The Cummins QSB marine engine is based on a US designed engine which came out of the EEA work but based on the ISB (new generation) engine sold to Dodge for the Ram truck, 300,000 units per annum. This engine has the timing gear where Americans like it, back on the front!

At the time of the ISBe launch Ricardo in the UK did a research progam an unspecified customer, I suspect the MOD and in 2003 they had developed a twin turbo ISBe 5.9 reliably producing 500 Hp much of this work was banked for the eventual use in the QSB marine engine.

My biased view of the IVECO NEF.....

Marinisation of a truck engine is a nightmare. Take a look at the raw water pump, Remove the charge cooler in order to change the impeller, simply nuts! This pump is also proprietry, not Jabso, Johnson or Sherwood, try to obtaining price for new pump. Electronics are more than a bit clunky, very poor noise supression algorithim.

Biggest beef, Mickey Mouse 25C test fuel spec dodgy sheet power, when will they ever learn.

When the split came Cummins knew how to obtain more displacement out of the ISB/QSB without weakening major components. Then patented the redesign

IVECO 6.7, 5.9 102mm bore block bored out to 104mm, crank pin offset ground to reduce diameter but increase stroke by 10mm to 132mm.

Cummins 6.7, new block allowing 107mm bore plus service oversize, crank retaining original bearing areas with clever change to balance weights allowing 124 mm stroke without kissing the camshaft.

IVECO NEF motors are around 20% less expensive than equivalent Cummins, but they out sell IVECO by a significant margin............

Basically the Iveco 6.7L uses different internals, has a different bore/stroke ratio, different compression ratio, and a bored out version of the old 5.9L block taking away strength. The Cummins 6.7L is a new block from the 5.9L so they didn't have to weaken the structure of the block to give it a larger displacement.

Also, Fiat did not build any blocks going into our trucks in the US. I don't know(or care) how they did it in the EU, but over here Cummins made all of their blocks.

RobertRyan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

3 Litre Lion engine was designed by Peugeot, but developed and produced by Ford UK for Ford and PSA. Platform sharing like this is common in Europe.

It was designed by Jaguar and Land Rover(both Ford companies at the time) in collaboration with Peugeot. Not just by Peugeot.

Yes the design is the "Lion" reference to Peugeot. They designed the intial engine, Ford UK and then Jaguar( owned by Ford at the time but not part of Ford as such) did the development. Peugeot is developing the engine maybe for their Pickup, it was last used by them in the last Paris to Dakar race.

Nope, it was designed with collaboration of all three. Anyone who worked for Jaguar and Land Rover at that time were Ford Motor Company employees so......

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

Where are you getting the Ecodiesel @ 27mpg? "And as we found, its EPA ratings of 24 mpg combined (21 mpg city, 29 mpg highway) actually underrate its fuel efficiency at highway speeds. The heart of this truck is what gives it the EcoDiesel badge: parent company Fiat Chrysler's 3.0-liter turbodiesel V-6 engine, which you can add to just about any Ram trim level.Apr 27, 2016"

That is what the rating is for the 4WD Ram Ecodiesel since I was comparing it to a 4WD Colorado. The 2WD Ram Ecodiesel is rated at 28 mpg and the 2WD Colorado is rated at 31 mpg. If you actually want to get technical, the onlt Ecodiesel that is rated at 29 mpg highway is the HFE version which is only 2WD, can only be had in a base Trademan quad cab configuration, and only comes in a 3.55 gear ratio bringing its towing capabilities down considerably. Ram's very own website states this. The regular non-HFE Ecodiesel 2WD is rated at 28 mpg while the 4WD is rated at 27 mpg. The 2WD Colorado is rated at 31 mpg and the 4WD is rated at 29 mpg.

Again, the Colorado gets better fuel mileage. I don't know why it would be so hard to understand that a lighter and smaller trucks with a slightly smaller diesel would get better fuel economy that a bigger vehicle.

2WD Colorado 22/25/31

2WD HFE Ram 1500 21/24/29

Regular 2WD Ram 1500 20/23/28


------------------------------------------------------------------

4WD Colorado 20/23/29

4WD Ram 1500 19/22/27

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
I'm now pulling down 32/33 on the highway do to the tune on my truck. You do know the GM only has a six speed and the Ram has a 8 speed RRRIIIGGGTTT :R Also if the GM weights less it would all be relative as both engines are most likely working as hard given the size & weight of each truck.

And I am pretty sure that if you do the same kind of modification to the Colorado then it would also increase its fuel mileage.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
OK we get it YOU don't like small displacement diesel engines so WTF are you on a post talking about them? As for pricing I would hope a smaller truck cost less! I priced out a Canyon SLT as close as I could get it to my truck and it was $4K less but without all of the Laramie's options. The GM only has 5/60,000 powertrain coverage the Ram has 5/100,000 can't find any exact numbers for the curb weight of the GM diesel but I bet it is within 1000# of the Ram.

It is not that I don't like small displacement diesels, I just think they belong in a smaller midsized truck and not a full size. A full size should have a larger diesel with greater power output. Maybe a 4.0L with about 300 hp and 500 lb-ft.

Also, you invited us to speak here since you called us out with your "For the guys that where slamming Ram for going with the VM 3.0 in house diesel", "Ford is going with a 3.0 diesel made by Range Rover owned by Tata Motors. "(which is false) and "Let the spinning begin boys lol". Now you keep rebutting me trying to tell me that a heavier larger truck with a bigger engine gets better fuel economy that a smaller and calling out the numbers I am posting as false so I am responding to those rebuttals with facts.

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:


Yes the IVECO is as reliable as the Cummins, but suffers non recognition in the US market, being basically the same engine. Most in the US will see the " Made by Fiat" label and steer clear of it.

The Iveco 6.7L is not "basically the same" engine as the Cummins 6.7L. The Cummins has a larger bore and shorter stroke (107mm x 124 mm) than the Iveco 6.7L (104mm x 132mm). This alone will make the characteristics of each engine different with the max engine speed being lower in the Iveco(less horsepower). They also have different pistons, rods, and many other internal parts. Their compression ratios are different too with the Cummins having a 17.3:1 and the Iveco having a 17.5:1 compression ratio.

Both the Cummins and the IVECO 5.9 engines were the product of the short lived partnership between Fiat and Cummins.Fiat actually produced the blocks for Cummins, before the total separation of both companies.

With very little time left IVECO turned to Cummins.

In the meantime Cummins had their own problems, having made a huge mid life investment in the turning the successful B and C mid range engines into a four valve electronic engine range. The four valve the 'Emerald' program resulted in the in the front gear drive Bosch VP 44 quasi electronic ISB engine. A shed load more cost without very much gain.

IVECO by chance were gifted a little gem. Ford wanted out of their loss making tractor business and sold Ford New Holland to Fiat. Ford had some super guys designing high pressure pumps who had come up with a very simple a clever fuel lubricated common rail fuel injection pump. Fiat dumped this new pump onto their sister company Marrelli.

Marelli KNEW that Bosch were in deep trouble with their oil lubricated CP2 common rail fuel pump, too late, too expensive and unreliable. When offered the original Ford concept pump they bit the hand off the italians. Part of the agreement was that Fiat had control of who the new pump could be sold to.

The EEA brought together engineers from Cummins UK and US, IVECO and Ford New Holland. Using the ISB engine as design base around the new common rail pump the team working from rented offices in High Wycombe worked at speed. 102/120 bore stroke cam location, 4 valve cylinder head was retained, everything else was torn up.

New engine had the timing gears moved from from the front to the back, cooling capability upgraded, lube oil system changed to J jet piston cooling nozzles.

Fiat carried out a lighting strike on Case tractor who were building the B Series in Germany and scooped up the bang up to date production line and machine tools.

The final result of the EEA work was the ISBe automotive engine built by Cummins in Darlington and the Italian IVECO NEF engine. Very similar engines, however IVECO use Bosch Hardware/software, Cummins used Bosch ECU with Cummins software and slightly different common rail set up.
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?306183-iveco-nef-Vs-cummins-qsb&s=03af6302c51dccf48ab78dc591c2828f#rCdeDeT0Hmph10X9.99

ShinerBock wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

3 Litre Lion engine was designed by Peugeot, but developed and produced by Ford UK for Ford and PSA. Platform sharing like this is common in Europe.

It was designed by Jaguar and Land Rover(both Ford companies at the time) in collaboration with Peugeot. Not just by Peugeot.

Yes the design is the "Lion" reference to Peugeot. They designed the intial engine, Ford UK and then Jaguar( owned by Ford at the time but not part of Ford as such) did the development. Peugeot is developing the engine maybe for their Pickup, it was last used by them in the last Paris to Dakar race.

ShinerBock wrote:

Diesels generally get higher fuel mileage than the EPA numbers. You got higher than the EPA 27 mpg at 29 mpg and their in not doubt that the Colorado would get better than its EPA 29 mph. In fact, most reviewers are getting low 30s on the highway in the Colorado. So it beats the Ecodiesel in fuel mileage from what I have seen. Are you seriously trying to say a larger heavier truck with a larger diesel engine gets better fuel economy than a smaller lighter truck with a slightly small diesel?

Where are you getting the Ecodiesel @ 27mpg? "And as we found, its EPA ratings of 24 mpg combined (21 mpg city, 29 mpg highway) actually underrate its fuel efficiency at highway speeds. The heart of this truck is what gives it the EcoDiesel badge: parent company Fiat Chrysler's 3.0-liter turbodiesel V-6 engine, which you can add to just about any Ram trim level.Apr 27, 2016"

I'm now pulling down 32/33 on the highway do to the tune on my truck. You do know the GM only has a six speed and the Ram has a 8 speed RRRIIIGGGTTT :R Also if the GM weights less it would all be relative as both engines are most likely working as hard given the size & weight of each truck.

OK we get it YOU don't like small displacement diesel engines so WTF are you on a post talking about them? As for pricing I would hope a smaller truck cost less! I priced out a Canyon SLT as close as I could get it to my truck and it was $4K less but without all of the Laramie's options. The GM only has 5/60,000 powertrain coverage the Ram has 5/100,000 can't find any exact numbers for the curb weight of the GM diesel but I bet it is within 1000# of the Ram.

rjstractor wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The Colorado diesel isn't "virtually the same price".

Wow, you just can't stand to be wrong.... In my first post, I used the phrase "real world pricing". I've done a lot of shopping in the last few months, and both of the trucks are in consideration. And, in real world pricing, until recently there were many Ecodiesels available in Tradesman trim for well under $35K. The Colorado diesel is relatively new, and not available in a Tradesman-comparable trim and therefore one cannot be had for under $40K. I know what the MSRPs are, but again I was referring to REAL WORLD PRICING!

And you should have posted everything I said instead of just the first part. I stated "The Colorado diesel isn't "virtually the same price". The Colorado diesel is about $8,000-$9,000 cheaper for a trim level with simalar content."

Notice the "trim level with simalar content" in my statement. Does a Tradesman compare and have simalar content as a Colorado LT. No, a Tradesman is just a bare bones truck. In order for you to get the same content as what is in a Colorado LT then you would have to step up to a Ram Big Horn (aka Lone Star in Texas). In that case, the Ram is $8,000- $9,0000 more.

You also must not be looking too hard because Diamond Chevrolet around up by your neck of the woods has a new Colorado LT diesel 4x4 for under 40k on their website.

ShinerBock wrote:
The Colorado diesel isn't "virtually the same price".

Wow, you just can't stand to be wrong.... In my first post, I used the phrase "real world pricing". I've done a lot of shopping in the last few months, and both of the trucks are in consideration. And, in real world pricing, until recently there were many Ecodiesels available in Tradesman trim for well under $35K. The Colorado diesel is relatively new, and not available in a Tradesman-comparable trim and therefore one cannot be had for under $40K. I know what the MSRPs are, but again I was referring to REAL WORLD PRICING!