Can you say, factory sleeper truck!

[ShinerBock]

2019 F150 Limited's will have the same 450 hp/510 lb-ft 3.5L Ecoboost engine from the Raptor. That is a heck of a lot of power and torque in a non-sports packaged truck that weighs around 5k. I bet it would be fun to drive.

2019 Ford F-150 Gets the Raptor Engine and Dual Exhaust For Most Power in the Class (News)

[Airstreamer67]

No, I don't think he's driving a Unicorn.

I've got a '96 Ford diesel with an automatic tranny and 3.55 axle ratio. I can depend on the following MPGs under the following scenarios:

14 MPG at 60 MPH towing my 27-foot travel trailer

23 MPG at 60 MPH solo

21 MPG at 70 MPH solo

These are dependable fuel consumption numbers for this truck on flat ground without significant wind influence.

Of course, these are not lifetime averages like are shown in the Fuelly statistics referred to in ShinerBock's stated addresses. Those Fuelly data are from trucks being operated under the full range of everyday usage: stop-and-go traffic, suburban commuting, highway trips, etc. Such statistics do give an idea of what a consumer can expect from a truck's full operating range. I haven't looked it up, but I bet the Dodge and Chevy diesels yield similar Fuelly results for any given model year as well; i.e. within one or two MPGs or so.

[ShinerBock]

Out of 156 people and over 1.7 million miles tracked, the hand calculated average fuel economy for a ninth generation F250/350 is no where near 21 mpg.

Ford F-250 MPG-7.3L V8 DIESEL

Ford F-350 MPG - 7.3L V8 DIESEL

Unicorn?

[SidecarFlip]

Threebigfords wrote:
Ralph, I'm honored. It's my truck. I might let you tool it around when we meet up. If you are short, you might have a hard time getting in, sits pretty high. The OBS 350 sat up to begin with and I took it up an additional 6". Now that I'm older I wish I hadn't but too late to worry about that. My wife needs a step stool to get in...lol

She averages 21 mpg with the camper in the bed and no DEF or emissions junk either. Great truck, glad I bought it in 1997




LOL!! this kinda **** cracks me up. Let see, 6" lift, probably 35" tires, with a camper....and yup 21 MPG out of a 97 CCLB 4x4.

Who are you trying to kid here? Don't you realize most of the people on these forums have owned a truck like yours at some point and have moved on?

I had a 97 extra cab 4x4 F250 long bed. It was a great truck for it's time. But 21 MPG with a camper...and a lift....and bigger tires? Do you grow weed on that farm of yours??

I also had a 2003 F350 CCLB 7.3 4x4 which was leaps and bounds better than the 97....it was lifted, on 35"'s and got no where near 21 mpg when hauling a camper....or empty for that matter!

Actually I run razor tires and inflate them to 80 psi. Not into fat tires. 21 highway at 60-65, I've calculated it many times.

Whatever blows your dress up I guess.:R

[Lessmore]

rjstractor wrote:
I'm not a full time truck guy with intimate knowledge of the business, but I would think that there would be a balance between more horsepower for better productivity (speed on hills) versus fuel economy. When I used to drive dump truck, being the new part time guy I was always stuck in an older, lower powered truck. Talking to some of the old guys who drove the newer, more powerful ones, they would say that they really wouldn't get any more work done, just burn more fuel and wear out drive tires faster.

I'm not a full time truck driver either. I drove the grain trucks at the farm...we had four...newer Ford F700, newer Chev C 60, 25 year + old International, 30 year old + Fargo (Canadian Dodge) and different commercial trucks...some low powered strippers, some deluxe cabs with big engines... for about 4-5 years while paying my way thru school.

When you indicated and I quote...you have nailed the situation...exactly:

"....being the new part time guy I was always stuck in an older, lower p owered truck. Talking to some of the old guys who drove the newer, more powerful ones, they would say that they really wouldn't get any more work done, just burn more fuel and wear out drive tires faster."

Essentially that is the significant difference, I also found between new, more powerful trucks and the older, less powerful trucks. The newer, more powerful trucks were usually easier to drive...more comfort options, more power...but as long as they had similar GVW...they didn't do more cargo hauling, farm work, towing much different.

[Threebigfords]

Ralph, I'm honored. It's my truck. I might let you tool it around when we meet up. If you are short, you might have a hard time getting in, sits pretty high. The OBS 350 sat up to begin with and I took it up an additional 6". Now that I'm older I wish I hadn't but too late to worry about that. My wife needs a step stool to get in...lol

She averages 21 mpg with the camper in the bed and no DEF or emissions junk either. Great truck, glad I bought it in 1997




LOL!! this kinda **** cracks me up. Let see, 6" lift, probably 35" tires, with a camper....and yup 21 MPG out of a 97 CCLB 4x4.

Who are you trying to kid here? Don't you realize most of the people on these forums have owned a truck like yours at some point and have moved on?

I had a 97 extra cab 4x4 F250 long bed. It was a great truck for it's time. But 21 MPG with a camper...and a lift....and bigger tires? Do you grow weed on that farm of yours??

I also had a 2003 F350 CCLB 7.3 4x4 which was leaps and bounds better than the 97....it was lifted, on 35"'s and got no where near 21 mpg when hauling a camper....or empty for that matter!

[RobertRyan]

rjstractor wrote:
I'm not a full time truck guy with intimate knowledge of the business, but I would think that there would be a balance between more horsepower for better productivity (speed on hills) versus fuel economy. When I used to drive dump truck, being the new part time guy I was always stuck in an older, lower powered truck. Talking to some of the old guys who drove the newer, more powerful ones, they would say that they really wouldn't get any more work done, just burn more fuel and wear out drive tires faster.

No,speaking to owner drivers who drive the newer European Trucks. They can almost have their cake and eat it too. Better fuel economy and ride as well as the power are positives. Getting parts in the more remote parts and initial cost are negatives.

[rjstractor]

I'm not a full time truck guy with intimate knowledge of the business, but I would think that there would be a balance between more horsepower for better productivity (speed on hills) versus fuel economy. When I used to drive dump truck, being the new part time guy I was always stuck in an older, lower powered truck. Talking to some of the old guys who drove the newer, more powerful ones, they would say that they really wouldn't get any more work done, just burn more fuel and wear out drive tires faster.

[RobertRyan]

ShinerBock wrote:
Cummins had a 650 hp ISX, but the EPA quickly killed that with the 2010 emissions. Many of our engines can easily make that much hp, but it can't do it and be emissions legal with our NOx regulations.

Cummins has 2000hp engines ( Railcar engines)to move iron ore too terminals. These trucks are not road legal or run on paved roads. They are pulling 500tons, with some slave engines on the trailers

[ShinerBock]

Cummins had a 650 hp ISX, but the EPA quickly killed that with the 2010 emissions. Many of our engines can easily make that much hp, but it can't do it and be emissions legal with our NOx regulations.

[RobertRyan]

rjstractor wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

noteven wrote:
Kenworth T680 600hp/2050 torques is my idea of a sleeper truck.

You seem to have less horsepower for your Semi's in NA

That's correct, we don't have 200 ton road trains. Heaviest legal unpermitted load in the US is 105,500 lbs. 600hp/2050 torque is more than enough. They run a little heavier in Canada (around 135,000 lbs IIRC), maybe their trucks typically have a little more power, I'm not sure.

Neither do the Europeans, they have 640-750hp engines. They sell those in Africa Australia and Europe.
We just got the MAN 640hp engine. Strangely Roger Penske does the distribution. MAN is now owned by VW Corporation. He also sells the conventional Western Star owned by Mercedes Benz
650hp engines are used for B Triples, Roadtrains 700hp+ They have HGV's in Europe 640-650hp cover them

[rjstractor]

RobertRyan wrote:

noteven wrote:
Kenworth T680 600hp/2050 torques is my idea of a sleeper truck.

You seem to have less horsepower for your Semi's in NA

That's correct, we don't have 200 ton road trains. Heaviest legal unpermitted load in the US is 105,500 lbs. 600hp/2050 torque is more than enough. They run a little heavier in Canada (around 135,000 lbs IIRC), maybe their trucks typically have a little more power, I'm not sure.

[ShinerBock]

RobertRyan wrote:

noteven wrote:
Kenworth T680 600hp/2050 torques is my idea of a sleeper truck.

You seem to have less horsepower for your Semi's in NA

Because of out emissions regulations and how we measure them by gram per horsepower per hour.

[ShinerBock]

SidecarFlip wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:


I know, people like to fiddle with this and that. Myself, I prefer not to. My Garrett T40B has been spinning merrily along since 1997.

Truck does what I need it to do and is reliable. All I need.

I thought you modified your engine to produce more power than stock?

When I bought it, I did, sort of. Added a Banks Trans Command to the E4OD and a K&N Intake. Everything inside is stock and untouched until last month when I took off a valve cover to do the injector harness.

It has Riff-Raff Automotive Intake Boots, the OEM's cracked. I have a Banks chip but I never installed it. In the glove box.

Hmmm curious, at one point in time you posted power numbers above 300 hp for your truck which is a heck of a lot over the stock numbers of 235 hp. The only way to get that much horsepower out of a truck is through some pretty extensive modifications and/or tuner.

[RobertRyan]

noteven wrote:
Kenworth T680 600hp/2050 torques is my idea of a sleeper truck.

You seem to have less horsepower for your Semi's in NA