Ford finally releases specs for F-150 3.0L diesel

ShinerBock wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

There is a reason Ford copied Ram and put a 3.0 diesel in their f-150, it's because they are great little engines and Ford's 3.0 should make it to the Ward's top ten list when it comes to market.

I knew this Ford copied **** was going to come up sooner or later. So did Ram copy GM since they were the first many years ago. Ford was actually going to put a diesel many years ago. I remember going through many slides about a decade and a half ago over the diesel they were working on for the F150. They decided to shelve it and go a different route(the Ecoboost) due to low market of most Americans wanting performance if they are comfortable with the fuel mileage. Seeing how popular the Ecoboost is and how many they sold, I would say they went the right direction. Now that the F150 is lighter and they have a 10 speed, then the diesel might not seem like so much of a hit in the pants in power.

That is the thing about these little diesel engines that some people don't get. Getting 23-25 mpg combined is fine and all, but when you start putting pen to paper then you start to see it is really isn't as spectacular for all the things you have to give up like performance and capability.

Take the 3.5L Ecoboost versus your Ecodiesel. Using the Fuelly.com real world average mpg of 16 mpg for the Ecoboost and 22 mpg for the Ecodiesel and regular octane where I live being $2.10 and diesel being $2.50. Doing the math on driving 15,000 miles per year it comes out to an annual fuel savings of about $265 or $22 a month in favor of the Ecodiesel. Factor in the much higher fuel/oil filter change cost of about $150 in the Ecodiesel every 10k($225.00 in 15k) and $45 every 10k($67.50 in 15k) for the Ecoboost then that $265 annual savings drops to $107.50 annually or just $8.96 monthly. I am not going to even factor in DEF since it is already low enough.

This is not that much money for the additional 135 hp/50 lb-ft that the Ecoboost currently has over the Ecodiesel along with the much greater performance and capability specs. Most people would be comfortable with the added costs of the Ecoboost with today's fuel prices. These little diesels are not like their HD truck brethren which generally have better performance, better capability, better fuel economy, and lower total cost(for the Cummins at least) than their gas counterparts. The only thing these little diesels offer over their gas counterparts is better fuel economy, but when you put pen to paper then you begin to see that it is not much of a benefit for what you are loosing. For some it maybe, but for most it won't. Hence the reason why Ford went with the Ecoboost over the diesel.

Very good explanation about how the little diesels in half tons are a very different animal compared to the bigger diesels in heavier trucks.

I agree, it's sure is something how things have changed over the years. we are living in good times with all the good optiins out there.

there all good these days and we are fortunate that's the case. it all comes down to personal preference rather than what's good or what's not.

admittedly, I was not a fan of a forced induction, small gas engine in a truck, but I'm starting to come around based on all the positive posts by by happy EB owners that post here.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

There is a reason Ford copied Ram and put a 3.0 diesel in their f-150, it's because they are great little engines and Ford's 3.0 should make it to the Ward's top ten list when it comes to market.

I knew this Ford copied **** was going to come up sooner or later. So did Ram copy GM since they were the first many years ago. Ford was actually going to put a diesel many years ago. I remember going through many slides about a decade and a half ago over the diesel they were working on for the F150. They decided to shelve it and go a different route(the Ecoboost) due to low market of most Americans wanting performance if they are comfortable with the fuel mileage. Seeing how popular the Ecoboost is and how many they sold, I would say they went the right direction. Now that the F150 is lighter and they have a 10 speed, then the diesel might not seem like so much of a hit in the pants in power.

That is the thing about these little diesel engines that some people don't get. Getting 23-25 mpg combined is fine and all, but when you start putting pen to paper then you start to see it is really isn't as spectacular for all the things you have to give up like performance and capability.

Take the 3.5L Ecoboost versus your Ecodiesel. Using the Fuelly.com real world average mpg of 16 mpg for the Ecoboost and 22 mpg for the Ecodiesel and regular octane where I live being $2.10 and diesel being $2.50. Doing the math on driving 15,000 miles per year it comes out to an annual fuel savings of about $265 or $22 a month in favor of the Ecodiesel. Factor in the much higher fuel/oil filter change cost of about $150 in the Ecodiesel every 10k($225.00 in 15k) and $45 every 10k($67.50 in 15k) for the Ecoboost then that $265 annual savings drops to $107.50 annually or just $8.96 monthly. I am not going to even factor in DEF since it is already low enough.

This is not that much money for the additional 135 hp/50 lb-ft that the Ecoboost currently has over the Ecodiesel along with the much greater performance and capability specs. Most people would be comfortable with the added costs of the Ecoboost with today's fuel prices. These little diesels are not like their HD truck brethren which generally have better performance, better capability, better fuel economy, and lower total cost(for the Cummins at least) than their gas counterparts. The only thing these little diesels offer over their gas counterparts is better fuel economy, but when you put pen to paper then you begin to see that it is not much of a benefit for what you are loosing. For some it maybe, but for most it won't. Hence the reason why Ford went with the Ecoboost over the diesel.

I think that it is a shame that we need to put foreign engines in our trucks to meet the United States CAFE specs. CAFE

tragusa3 wrote:
When you slow down and look at the big picture, as others have said, we are comparing a 3.0 and 3.5 liter engine to the baddest tow rigs of 10-15 years ago. Amazing!

I agree with you except more like 15-20 years ago. 10 years ago the baddest tow rigs were pushing 100 more hp than the 3.0 diesel. 150 or so lbft of torque over the 3.5.

Really that's beside the point anyway because we are talking about a 150/1500 series truck. The 3.0 diesel will be a great power plant for these trucks. Where the diesel shines especially with a lot of gear choices is that it don't need a lot of peak hp to get the job done. In reality the gas motors don't need that much hp either. The high hp numbers are just a selling tool for the manufacturers to use. How often does the average 150/1500 actually get into a situation that it needs 400hp? I'm going to say slim to none. I mean there are still class 8 trucks toting 80K down the interstate with less than 400hp. I know I'm towing around 21,000+- with 385 hp 6 speed and have zero issues running with traffic ever so I would think a lighter truck with half of the load I pull will do great with 250 hp 10 speed. The manufactures just have a lot of people brain washed on hp.

This little diesel will do great for a lot of people, towing and empty. Maybe Ford won't have to pipe a diesel sound through the stereo speakers like they did on the V6. HAHAHA!!!:B

These forums have been interesting from the perspective of a 3.5 EcoBoost owner. In the early years most were scared of them and quoted no replacement for displacement, EgoBoost, fanboy and other ways of poking fun at the little engine. That progressed to some acknowledging its potency but not its reliability. Many were saying why oh why don't they just give us a small diesel. And here we are 7 years later with that diesel and posts asking why Ford wants to compete with themselves by introducing it. Others saying they prefer the EcoBoost in comparison.

Personally, the diesel interests me greatly. I use the torque but not very often do I use the horsepower. I could give up horsepower for mileage and it wouldn't change my driving habits.

When you slow down and look at the big picture, as others have said, we are comparing a 3.0 and 3.5 liter engine to the baddest tow rigs of 10-15 years ago. Amazing!

ib516 wrote:

jerem0621 wrote:
I don't see much practical advantage over the base Ecoboost. Not much MPG gain, much more potential headache.

Much like the EcoDiesel vs Pentastar. Drive them back to back, the Pentastar is faster and can tow nearly the same amount of weight. Just a few MPG difference on the highway. Never mind the high premium to go with the Babystroke or the EcoDiesel.

These new gas V6 trucks are bargains. Great economy and decent power.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

x2

Well as an owner of a EcoD and having driven many a 3.5 Ram V-6 I can tell you first hand the EcoD wins hands down in every segment!

With any diesel off the line power can not be touched by a gasser. As far as towing goes, the little EcoD will run circles around the Pentastar both in towing comfort and fuel economy.

The only place a NA V-6 gas engine should be is in a car not a pickup! Now when FCA finally gets around to adding turbos to the Pentastar then we will have something. But that's not going to happen until the Big Italian Weenie retires and takes his millions with him.

FishOnOne wrote:
If I were to buy a F150 I would most certainly go with a 3.5 Eco Boost. With 125hp less and 30ft/lbs more torque and a little better fuel economy I don't think they'll sell a lot of them compared to the Eco Boost.

If I wanted a diesel I would go with a F250/350 6.7 Power Stroke.

This new diesel uses a timing belt to drive over head cams compared to the Eco diesel and the 5.0 cummins that uses timing chains.

Have to disagree with you here Troy. The Ecoboost can not hit it's reported EPA mileage unless you are willing to drive it like a 90 year old grandma. Ford is saying they are looking at 30 MPG out of their little diesel and I bet they will make it. Well in certain models with an Eco final gear ratio. With their new 10 speed and a 3.31 gear they should be able to hit the 30 mpg. There is no way a 3.5 Ecoboost can come anywhere near that in the real world.

There is a reason Ford copied Ram and put a 3.0 diesel in their f-150, it's because they are great little engines and Ford's 3.0 should make it to the Ward's top ten list when it comes to market.

If I make it to the Detroit Auto Show this year I see if they have one on display and get some pics of it.

Don

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:


In regard to your earlier post about putting this engine in the Expedition EL (which I would love to see) I am curious why you might support/be interested in that when you have clearly stated you don’t like it in a truck.

I didn't say I didn't like it in in a truck. I said it is a bit under powered for me in the truck it is going in and the 11k tow rating. A lower tow rating like the numbers I stated earlier in this thread or maybe like the tow rating the Expedition EL currently has then I can see, but not over 11k with that little of power.

It gets 8.200lb here for the Ecoboost. Diesel should be lower.

By the numbers gleaned from a few different articles and postings.

3.0 Diesel extra $4k
MPG per Land Rover with same engine, curb weight of 5k - 26mpg
Torque 420
HP 250
Additional weight +250 or so (reported at 150 heavier than 3.5L which is 100 heavier than 2.7)

2.7 Ecoboost
Highway MPG 24 with 4x4 (about 8% less per EPA numbers)
Torque 375 (about 10% less)
HP 325 (about 30% more)

Both have the benefits of forced induction.

Good luck all,
Stu