Ford finally releases specs for F-150 3.0L diesel

[ShinerBock]

Power - 250 hp at 3,250 RPM and 440 lb-ft at 1,750 RPM

Max Towing - 11,400 lbs


Still underpowered to me(your towing preferences may be different) for the size of truck it is going in and an 11k tow rating, but I am sure there will be a market for it like the Ecodiesel. By the towing specs, it seems to be offered in the HD F150 which is something Ram needs for the Ecodiesel and its dismal payload.


TFL Truck: FORD RELEASES POWER, TORQUE, TOWING SPECS FOR 3.0L POWERSTROKE DIESEL

[ksss]

Walkdog wrote:

ksss wrote:
I think they found the sweet spot on the hp/Tq spec. It is enough to keep 1/2 ton towing people happy and should return at or near or just over 30 mpg empty. The mpg is huge in this market, this is really where Nissan/Cummins dropped the ball. You cant deliver sub HD power but achieve the same mpg as the HD set for near same money. Nobody is buying that combo. Bring the power down so you can keep the chassis and powertrain lighter but still capable and deliver killer mpg. Hopefully they stay out of the sub 1500 pound payload area and all will be good.

I think Nissan was looking at the towing experience. A heavier truck equals a way better driving experience.

I don't disagree that a heavier truck helps with the towing experience. However......

So I am interested in a Cummins/Nissan if: I am willing endure 15-16 mpg (no better than anyones HD truck), low payload capacity, and about 60% of the power of an HD truck. The price difference is not far from an HD diesel. Although they drop their shorts at year end when they are trying to get them off the lot, at least here. Are these issues worth buying a 1500 that just weighs more? I kinda doubt it, the Nissan XD sales numbers support the idea that they missed the mark with this pickup.

The lesson to be learned here is dont over spec the half ton. Ram and FORD in my mind found a great compromise on power and capacity. GM sounds to be in the same ball park as the other two with a 3.0 inline diesel. You cant be all things to all people. It was discussed at length here when the specs came out on the Nissan. I think we got it right. It is playing out as predicted. Great warranty however, will say they got that right.

[Walkdog]

ksss wrote:
I think they found the sweet spot on the hp/Tq spec. It is enough to keep 1/2 ton towing people happy and should return at or near or just over 30 mpg empty. The mpg is huge in this market, this is really where Nissan/Cummins dropped the ball. You cant deliver sub HD power but achieve the same mpg as the HD set for near same money. Nobody is buying that combo. Bring the power down so you can keep the chassis and powertrain lighter but still capable and deliver killer mpg. Hopefully they stay out of the sub 1500 pound payload area and all will be good.

I think Nissan was looking at the towing experience. A heavier truck equals a way better driving experience.

[Walkdog]

mhamershock wrote:
Interesting. I have a 2018 HDPP F150 with the 3.5 EB. Not sure why'd I'd choose the diesel over gas given the same chassis. I'd expect a higher payload with the gas motor. The gas motor makes plenty at 375/470 and tows my 8500 lb trailer very well.

Higher up front and maintenance costs but better fuel mileage might not be enough to sway me. Might be a better choice in the non-HDPP truck. Now if it had been a 5.0 liter and delivered 350/600 I'd be all over it. Unless Ford did what Nissan did and made the Titan with a **** payload. I want to see 2300+ payload worst case.

M

I own the Nissan and just cannot understand why the specs are as is. This truck pulls anything I put behind it with no problem. Work stuff so far, as of yet to buy a TT, but looking at getting one within next year. Probably the Kodiak 291RESL

[Walkdog]

ScottG wrote:
That should be a great combination with the 10 speed auto.
Too bad it has to come with the emissions junk that dogs all late model diesels.

I thought light weight trucks tow worse. More sway and white knuckle driving. I imagine this truck if it gets the rated mileage of 30 like they are trying to say will be more of a everyday driver than a tow rig

[Adam_R]

One thing that has always pushed me toward diesels is that I prefer the powerband, torque and lack of drama (high rpms) when it come to working an engine hard. For nearly all gas engines, they have a peaky torque curve and you have to get up in the rpm band when working them hard. The Ecoboost is the one engine I've driven that has very "diesel like" driveability which is another reason it would be hard to justify the diesel option over the Ecoboost option for me.

[ShinerBock]

Double post.

[ShinerBock]

VernDiesel wrote:
That’s good work ShinerBock. Two thoughts. The average small diesel purchaser should be a person that puts on a lot more than the 16,550 miles per year average. And don’t most of us buy our DEF at truck stops at say an average of about 2.79 a gallon? Neither invalidates your good work or premise but seems noteworthy none the less.

I agree with you that the average diesel purchaser(like me) puts more miles on their vehicles than average. However, I am talking about half ton truck owners only. For most they would not see much of a cost savings to justify the negatives.

As I said before, these small diesels should not be confused with the HD truck diesels that generally have more power, more capability, and better towing performance than the gas version. The main benefit to these small diesels is fuel savings which in turn is costs savings. There is just not enough savings there for the average half ton truck owner to justify what they have to give up. If these small diesels were more powerful or had more capacity than their gas equivalent(like the HD truck diesels) then I can see justifying the the minimal savings or even no savings at all if that were the case.

For example, I would gladly pay more for my HD diesel over the gase version since it offers more benefits than just fuel economy savings. However, I would not pay more for my 328d since the only benefit versus the gas engine is fuel economy savings. If that fuel economy cost benefit were taken away from my 328d or was very minimal, then I would have gotten the gas engine 328i due to its added power and performance. I only drive the diesel version because it has a cost benefit for how much I drive and I am willing to sacrifice power and performance for that cost benefit.

Manufacturers are mainly producing these small diesels now to meet the more stringent upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy(CAFE) fuel mileage numbers, nothing more. They need to increase the mileage of their fleet or pay penalties so what better cost effective way to do it in such a short time period than with small diesel engines.


And I also get my DEF from the pumps, but based on the threads here and other forums, most diesel owners seem to get the jugs.

[spoon059]

I have never been a part of another forum that argues speculation so often or so bitterly. This is ridiculous.

Everyone said Ram was stupid for making the Ecodiesel, but people bought them and now Ford is introducing one and GM is working on one. Clearly Ford and GM feel that there is enough of a market to make them.

When we consider average miles driven per year, it means that some people are below and some people are above. There are plenty of people that want a pickup truck, but don't need to haul much, and want better fuel economy. A small, efficient diesel engine is perfect for them. Lets not forget that there are some people who actually don't tow RV's with all of their vehicles...

Then we need to consider the people that buy what they want and don't really care about the cost. I personally buy more basic vehicles for myself. I don't need bells and whistles and gadgets and comfort items. That makes my trucks cheaper and lighter. Two of my really good friends and fellow campers like the upgrades. They spend more money for their trucks on things that don't really increase trade in value and certainly don't help with fuel economy. There are going to be some people that simply like the idea of a smaller diesel pickup truck and buy one that don't care about the cost/benefit analysis... they just want a diesel pickup.

Regardless... it is all speculation at this point. Unless you are a Ford shareholder IT DOESN'T MATTER.

23 pages of bickering...

[hone_eagle]

Heck RVing is financialy stupid ..... very stupid, but we all do it,applying a sharp pencil to the TV is blinding you to that reality.

[Ductape]

That's some really good work on the financial analysis. I came to the conclusion years ago that diesel pickups were not financially desirable for most drivers.

Of course most truck buyers are spending a lot for desirable "wants" vs. needs, and a particular engine can be just that. Heck, I might buy one to pull as a toad, just because I'd only deal with one fuel. Put a fuel tank in the truck bed with a pump for added range either truck or moho. Hmmm...

[ShinerBock]

Allamakee1 wrote:


Good thing your not giving your opinion on what someone might consider enough of a savings to value. It is well known by now with you figures, you don’t believe the average person cares about savings if they can do what? Squeal their tires from a stop sign..... good thing I’m not 16 anymore I guess. This isn’t even the right location to argue the ideology of the masses due to the majority of people on this forum that need specific things out of their vehicles ie. towing capabilities.

Funny how your cherry picking your data and how you represent it. According to the US Energy administration, April, when I went back to, through October shows diesel has been cheaper than midgrain gasoline. November through December has diesel higher. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with comparing them the same price. You are fortunate that at the time of this discussion, diesel is more expensive.

I didn’t leave out the 5.0 either, I included it in the less powerful engine category when comparing it to the 3.5 EB, as it’s less powerful.

You are still appealing to extremes. Just because someone prefers more power in their truck doesn't mean they are squealing their tires from a stop light. Using this to argue a point that most people don't need or want more power is just a weak argument. It also sounds like "sour grapes syndrome" by you saying that if others want more power than you do, then they must be using it to act like a 16 year olds. People generally use sour grapes syndrome to put down things they cannot or do not have to make them feel better about not having it.

As I said before, if people did not care about the power of their truck then the more costlier and less fuel efficient engine choices would not outsell the more fuel efficient choices. The Ram Ecodiesel and 3.6L would outsell the 5.7L, the GM 4.3L would outsell the 5.3L or 6.2L, the Toyota 4.6L would outsell the 5.7L, and the Ford 3.5L/5.0L would outsell the 2.7L/3.3L. However, this is not the case. Why? Because fuel is cheap enough for most people and they are comfortable with the added costs for the added performance.

Also, you can use summer fuel prices if you want. Pick out a month you want me to use and I will use that average in my calculations. It still won't make a big enough difference for someone to switch. As I said before, not many truck owners will give up that much power, capability, and performance for less the $50 a month. Heck, it might even be more then that.

BTW, I can keep this up for a loooonnnggggg time.

[Allamakee1]

Again to summarize, I never said or never believed this truck was made for everyone, but I do believe it has a place in the marketplace. Funny thing though Nissan, ford, Chevy, and Ram seem to agree with me.

[VernDiesel]

That’s good work ShinerBock. Two thoughts. The average small diesel purchaser should be a person that puts on a lot more than the 16,550 miles per year average. And don’t most of us buy our DEF at truck stops at say an average of about 2.79 a gallon? Neither invalidates your good work or premise but seems noteworthy none the less.

[ShinerBock]

Groover wrote:
ShinerBock, you pretty well summed it up but I don't see any mention of the diesel costing around $4,000 more to start with. It seems like that would work out to about $50/month on the pretty common 7 year loan. I just did rough calculations in my head, please forgive me for not being exact.

I didn't add that in because you mainly get the cost of the diesel option(or an option for the matter) back on resale and because interest rates can vary. Many still offer a 0% financing as well. But yeah, it is added costs to it depending on the interest rate.

[Allamakee1]

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:

I didn’t cherry pick anything, I used the data you provided. You were the one who all the sudden argued with the data you provided. More people are putting pens to paper and making the efficient decisions, amazing that 4 individual auto makers are now making 1/2 ton diesels. I’m getting tired of arguing with you but I’ll respond if you continue to question my honesty and integrity. I explained my situation and my personal opinion, you are the one projecting your opinion on what the masses would prefer even though you don’t know their individual situation.

Yes, you did. You cherry picked the fuel prices with the diesel and gas being the same price in your calculations even though it is much higher in most places and then you cherry picked the percentages of engines sold leaving out the 5.0L to make it look like more people preferred the economy engine.

Yes, you explained your situation and personal opinion just as I have explained mine which is that most would probably not be willing to give up that much power and capability for such little monetary gain. If the gain was greater(ie increase in fuel prices) then I can see it, but not if it remains less than $50 a month in savings.

So essentially, if you drive the average 16,550 per year most American male drives a year(LINK) and the gasoline prices in your area is the $2.50(current US average) and diesel was $2.99(current US average)(LINK). Then you to the average fuel mileage of the current 3.5L Ecoboost on fuelly which is 16.2 mpg(LINK) and then took the average for the Ecodiesel which is 22.4 mpg(LINK). That would give the average person a savings of $344.88 a year or just $28.74 a month on fuel alone.

Then add in the maintenance costs for both with the oil being about $120 for the Ecodiesel and $45 for an Ecoboost owner then that drops the savings down to $269.88 a year or $22.49 a month. Then you add in the DEF which is generally at a rate of 2% of 1 gallon of diesel consumed. An average fuel economy of 22.4 over 15,000 miles is 670 gallons which brings you to 13.4 gallons of DEF used. At Walmart's current price of $11.97 for a 2.5 gallon jug, that comes out to $64.16 cents for 13.4 gallons. This drops your savings down to $205.72 a year or just $17.14 a month. The $30 fuel filter will drop the savings to $175.72 a year($14.64 a month), but that is at a longer than 16.5k mile interval.

These calculations are based on the average person with the links provided for the data and not some small percentage of people like you and I who drive a lot more per year. I can guarantee you that if you go ask an Ecoboost owner or any other V8 truck owner that you can save them less than $18 a month if they switch to a truck engine with over 130 less horsepower, less capability, and less performance. I will bet you $1000 that a vast majority will go tell you to pound sand and they will keep their truck.

Good thing your not giving your opinion on what someone might consider enough of a savings to value. It is well known by now with you figures, you don’t believe the average person cares about savings if they can do what? Squeal their tires from a stop sign..... good thing I’m not 16 anymore I guess. This isn’t even the right location to argue the ideology of the masses due to the majority of people on this forum that need specific things out of their vehicles ie. towing capabilities.

Funny how your cherry picking your data and how you represent it. According to the US Energy administration, April, when I went back to, through October shows diesel has been cheaper than midgrain gasoline. November through December has diesel higher. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with comparing them the same price. You are fortunate that at the time of this discussion, diesel is more expensive.

I didn’t leave out the 5.0 either, I included it in the less powerful engine category when comparing it to the 3.5 EB, as it’s less powerful.