Ford finally releases specs for F-150 3.0L diesel

"As Ford prepares to launch the refreshed 2018 F-150 with a thoroughly updated engine lineup, Blue Oval product planners expect 2017’s engine selection to continue. That means the 5.0-liter V8, while mildly upgraded for 2018, will be found under the hood of only one in four 2018 F-150s.

The transition has been a rapid one. Twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6s were surprisingly effective when, in early 2011, 35 percent of F-150 buyers made the leap from conventional naturally aspirated powerplants. Three years later, when Ford was planning to expand the F-150’s EcoBoost lineup with a less costly 2.7-liter variant, Ford expected 56 percent of F-150 buyers to choose one of the turbocharged units.

Heading into 2018, Ford’s truck marketing manager Todd Eckert tells Automotive News that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will be the most popular F-150 engine followed by the 3.5-liter EcoBoost. Together, they’ll claim 65 percent of all F-150 sales, leaving 10 percent for the new entry-level 3.3-liter, and roughly 25 percent for the five-point-oh."

Ford F-150’s V8 Market Share Shrinks to Just a Quarter


I am trying to post the you tube and other links to what you requested earlier, but it keeps giving me a "An invalid topic ID or forum ID was passed in." error.

ShinerBock wrote:

This has all been about opinion. You keep talking about time and how fuel economy/saving money is more important to you which is your opinion. It is my opinion that my time is more important and I would gladly spend the money for more performance especially when it is such a small insignificant amount to me. I have a feeling that most Americans agree with me since more trucks are sold with the more powerful/less fuel efficient engines than the less powerful/more fuel efficient engines bay a large margin. Why? Because the added cost is worth it to them and any savings they would get is not worth the sacrifice to performance.

This is why these small diesels have ever and will never outsell the more powerful engines options while the cost difference remains so insignificant. Getting 30 mpg in a truck is cool and all, but when you go on a test drive on something that has over 130 less horsepower than you normally drive and put pen to paper to see that it is less that a $50 savings each month then you start to start to see why these trucks don't sell as much as their more powerful and less fuel efficient counterparts. There might be some like you and I in rare scenarios that drive over 80 miles to work and will have greater return, but we are not close to being the norm.

Hey we are in agreement, it all comes down to each individuals situation, opinions, and values of importance. Everyone has a unique situation and should do their own research and number crunching when making a decision.

There is one part that I don't agree with though and that is where you state "more trucks are sold with the more powerful/less fuel efficient engines". I believe cost factors in more than you think in regards to the average buyer, whether that be initial cost or cost of ownership. For example, in my observations, I see more non-EB F150s (5.0 I assume) than trucks with the EB engine. Though, I will admit walking around campgrounds, most F150s I see there have the EB engine. Also, I know several people(friends and family) with new/newer chevys and GMCs and only one out of over 10+ trucks has the 6.2 engine. Nobody wants a less powerful vehicle, it just doesn't make sense to have that excess ability when it is not needed and you end up wasting money (which I don't know anyone that prefers that). (Exaggerated example) Why doesn't anyone that tows anything have a 1 ton duelly with the biggest diesel? I believe that is because it is not cost effective for their situation.

-These are just my observations. I was not able to find the data on individual truck sales with a quick search.

Lynnmor wrote:

danrclem wrote:
I can understand the need for a diesel in the heavy trucks over the gas when you have a lot of weight to tow. When the higher displacement gas engines come out that window will be made smaller though.

I can't understand the need for a diesel in the F-150 when the EB will outperform it. That's just my opinion and if yours differs that's OK with me.

Trucking companies would use an engine that would run on skunk pee if it would save them a nickle. Diesel gives better fuel efficiency, that is why they exist. 1/2 ton trucks are being forced by government CAFE standards to increase mileage and that is why they are now produced.

I agree with this. This is why we are seeing diesels in 1/2 ton trucks.

Allamakee1 wrote:


Like I said, I have no idea what the Ford 3.0 will do within it's specs, but I do know and everyone else has seen on TFL what the 3.0 has done within its own specs in extreme conditions. If that minute is more valuable to you than whatever money you might save through the ownership of a truck, that is your choice and I for one am happy we have so many choices. This subject just keeps going back to opinion again on what one person thinks vs what someone else might value more.

This has all been about opinion. You keep talking about time and how fuel economy/saving money is more important to you which is your opinion. It is my opinion that my time is more important and I would gladly spend the money for more performance especially when it is such a small insignificant amount to me. I have a feeling that most Americans agree with me since more trucks are sold with the more powerful/less fuel efficient engines than the less powerful/more fuel efficient engines bay a large margin. Why? Because the added cost is worth it to them and any savings they would get is not worth the sacrifice to performance.

This is why these small diesels have ever and will never outsell the more powerful engines options while the cost difference remains so insignificant. Getting 30 mpg in a truck is cool and all, but when you go on a test drive on something that has over 130 less horsepower than you normally drive and put pen to paper to see that it is less that a $50 savings each month then you start to start to see why these trucks don't sell as much as their more powerful and less fuel efficient counterparts. There might be some like you and I in rare scenarios that drive over 80 miles to work and will have greater return, but we are not close to being the norm.

ShinerBock wrote:

No, I wasn't even referring to the Ike that was towing 7.8k lb load with minimal wind resistance and was referring to reviews from Fourwheeler.com and a few other sites along with people posting trailer tow videos on youtube. I am also going buy what I have seen from the passenger seat towing a 6.5k travel trailer (that was within its ratings) 160 miles to Rockport barely being able to hold 65 mph and backing down to 45 mph on most hills.

As far as the Ike goes, my time is more valuable than money. I can make money, but I can't make time. Not only that, but it would aggravate me going that slow towing that little of a load. As I stated before, a lot of my towing is on two lane hill country roads that generally have semi's on them. Having enough passing power or not could mean the difference of me loosing my s#&t because I am stuck behind a semi doing 45 mph for tens of miles or me leisurely towing because I am able to pass them at will. Some may not mind sacrificing their time for more fuel economy, I am not.

Please show me all of these youtube videos/articles, because I didn't find many that complained about the Ram when I was researching. I can show you a lot where people are pleasantly surprised with the towing experience with the ED.

As far as experiences, I have personally towed that weight with a travel trailer and have not had those problems you claim. Hills are relative, so I cannot say I've done that exact situation, but TFL did in one of the most extreme circumstances.

In my personal situation it takes me hours to even get to anything but a two lane highway. I will admit, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, you need to take into account the distance it will take to pass a semi being how long they are and how long you are when towing, but it has never prevented me from doing it if I want to pass them. Will an EB get around it faster? Is that the question? Yes, it will for anyone who doesn't already know that. Is that extra minute going up the Ike gauntlet or finding a safe situation to pass a semi enough for me to fork out an additional $1,700+ a year? No, but your situation, time, and temperament seems to be different than mine, maybe I'm the rarity.

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:
Is the 3.0 diesel engine a powerhouse for towing? No. Will it get the job done within it's specs, even in extreme situations? Yes.

I have to disagree with you there based what I have seen with my own eyes. I don't think this Ford diesel will be able to tow 11k in extreme conditions within a limit that is acceptable to most.

Like I said, I have no idea what the Ford 3.0 will do within it's specs, but I do know and everyone else has seen on TFL what the 3.0 has done within its own specs in extreme conditions. If that minute is more valuable to you than whatever money you might save through the ownership of a truck, that is your choice and I for one am happy we have so many choices. This subject just keeps going back to opinion again on what one person thinks vs what someone else might value more.

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:

I think some people are getting off topic. Let's not turn this into an EB holy-er than thou thread. This is about a 3.0 diesel truck and it's place.

Just like Ecodiesel owners turned it into an ED holy-er than thou thread when this thread is specifically about a Ford diesel? The very same thing that Dodgeboy also does in Ecoboost threads?

I'm not doing that, sorry if that is what you took away. I am comparing situations with my experiences with the only 3.0 diesel available currently, which happens to be one that I own.

danrclem wrote:
I can understand the need for a diesel in the heavy trucks over the gas when you have a lot of weight to tow. When the higher displacement gas engines come out that window will be made smaller though.

I can't understand the need for a diesel in the F-150 when the EB will outperform it. That's just my opinion and if yours differs that's OK with me.

Trucking companies would use an engine that would run on skunk pee if it would save them a nickle. Diesel gives better fuel efficiency, that is why they exist. 1/2 ton trucks are being forced by government CAFE standards to increase mileage and that is why they are now produced.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
ShinerBock my comment about Ford copying Ram was do to the fact the Ford came out and said they will not put a diesel in their f150. I was even told that at the NAAS in 2014 by a Ford rep. Then after Ram could not supply enough Ecodiesel trucks the first two years of production Ford decided it would jump on the band wagon. As to GM they dropped the 1500 diesel trucks what in the early 90'? So Ram didn't copy them.

It was early 2000's when Ford shelved the diesel I was referring to earlier in favor of the more popular Ecoboost. Smart move since it outsells it by a huge margin.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
I can tow my 6800# boat at any speed I want and at 70 mph I'm still making over 13 mpg doing it. Now yes this is a boat not an RV and if I slow down to 60 mph I make over 17 mpg. You can't make that mileage in an EB towing

Didn't you tune your truck? Why? Wasn't the stock power level good enough? And I don't care about mileage when towing as long as it is a number I am comfortable with and I don't have to stop ever 100 miles when I tow. I can make more money, but I can't make more time.

Allamakee1 wrote:

I think some people are getting off topic. Let's not turn this into an EB holy-er than thou thread. This is about a 3.0 diesel truck and it's place.

Just like Ecodiesel owners turned it into an ED holy-er than thou thread when this thread is specifically about a Ford diesel? The very same thing that Dodgeboy also does in Ecoboost threads?

Allamakee1 wrote:
As far as the Ecodiesel and the TFL Ike gauntlet you are referring to, yes it was slower up the hill than the EB. I don't think that's news to anyone. Did it maintain 60? Nope. Did it maintain 50? Yep. They stated "comfortable experience and no drama, the run could have done better if he didn't rely on the trucks computer". The trip up one of the most extreme towing circumstances took about one extra minute vs the EB. There are 1,440 minutes in a day, 525,600 minutes in a year, I can sacrifice one if I intend to vacation that way someday. BTW, what I personally care about, it also got nearly twice the fuel mileage on that stretch as the 3.5 EB.

No, I wasn't even referring to the Ike that was towing 7.8k lb load with minimal wind resistance and was referring to reviews from Fourwheeler.com and a few other sites along with people posting trailer tow videos on youtube. I am also going buy what I have seen from the passenger seat towing a 6.5k travel trailer (that was within its ratings) 160 miles to Rockport barely being able to hold 65 mph and backing down to 45 mph on most hills.

As far as the Ike goes, my time is more valuable than money. I can make money, but I can't make time. Not only that, but it would aggravate me going that slow towing that little of a load. As I stated before, a lot of my towing is on two lane hill country roads that generally have semi's on them. Having enough passing power or not could mean the difference of me loosing my s#&t because I am stuck behind a semi doing 45 mph for tens of miles or me leisurely towing because I am able to pass them at will. Some may not mind sacrificing their time for more fuel economy, I am not.

Allamakee1 wrote:
Is the 3.0 diesel engine a powerhouse for towing? No. Will it get the job done within it's specs, even in extreme situations? Yes.

I have to disagree with you there based what I have seen with my own eyes. I don't think this Ford diesel will be able to tow 11k in extreme conditions within a limit that is acceptable to most.