Forum Discussion
- For $68K I would much rather get an F350 Powerstroke. Of course the Lie-O-Meter was off nearly 4 MPG just like in the rest of the trucks, the higher the MPG reading the larger the gap between reported and actual, just like their Fusion Hybrids.
Of course they are driving the heaviest optioned truck with Max Tow and 3.55 gearing 4x4, which weighs in at nearly 5500 pounds empty. My 16 F150 SB weighs 6000 pounds with a topper on it and full tank, and the 3.5 gets around 18. My old 14 RWD was 5980 pounds with a topper and got 20 with a high tank, all hand calculated, at 24MPG, so why would I ever want a $4000 more expensive engine with far less power and torque? Just makes No sense at all. It also hauled butt up I-70 to the IKE just like they do in their tests with a 6300 pound travel trailer hooked to it. Loved that truck, miss it greatly, hate the one I was forced to replace it with after it got totaled.
Yeah, NOT impressed. - And all that for a mire $67,000.00 for an F150 4x4
You cold buy a lot of gas for the cost difference between a gas & diesel. And it'll take you to at least 100,000 miles to break even. FishOnOne wrote:
Perhaps your right... Perhaps you didn't know this engine cam from Land Rover so it's not entirely new. Perhaps your 60 total posts in which 48 of them were bashing this truck and Shiner had to put you in your place. Refreshing... 48 post to prove it. :W
Hope you enjoyed the video. It's entertaining never the less.
I did enjoy the video and I also knew about the engine in the Land Rover, I was just hoping Ford engineers would have would have gotten better results out tweaking this engine with the 10 speed transmission.
Please show me where in those 48 posts I ever “bashed” this truck. I was defending this truck prior to these results the entire time, in particular non HD diesels in ½ ton trucks. Please go back and re-read the thread you are referring to and work on your reading comprehension.
Please direct me to where “Shiner put me in my place” as well, I seemed to have missed that. BTW, I was under the assumption you and “Shiner” were the same person…..
One last thing, is it some great accomplishment to have a certain number of posts? I haven’t been a member here all that long and I am more interested in informative value added information rather than quantity.patriotgrunt wrote:
Remember that the eco-diesel test was conducted before the emissions scandal and was with lighter, more fuel efficient truck. I suspect that a more apples to apples comparison is needed but we'll have to awhile before the updated eco-diesel is available.
I think you are correct that it was a pre scandal test. However the updated trucks weight the same. It is just an ECM flash/update to comply with the EPA. I would like to see them repeat the test with a 2017 as those trucks are out and have that ECM update. FCA reports no loss of power or efficiency, but it would be nice to see real world data to back that up.Fordlover wrote:
I'm not sure the truck they were driving was set up for max MPG. Looks like it's max tow package with the long bed and tow mirrors, along with the FX4 package which would typically mean shortest gearing available.
Perhaps the Ecodiesel was set up the same way?
Your right, I don’t think the ecodiesel was any special package, but it was a 4x4 I believe. I think they said 3.55 gears for the Ford and I would assume they used 3.55 for the ecodiesel as well, because that would be the more commonly available ratio.- Remember that the eco-diesel test was conducted before the emissions scandal and was with lighter, more fuel efficient truck. I suspect that a more apples to apples comparison is needed but we'll have to awhile before the updated eco-diesel is available.
Allamakee1 wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
LOL... Says the Ecodiesel King or perhaps Queen. I'm not sure which one! :B
Yeah an objective honest opinion instead of an ignorant fanboy. Refreshing isn’t it? The Ecodiesel king would probably be Vern though who actually tows more in a year than I’m sure you or I do in a lifetime. My statement was in regards to this new engine not being able to compete efficiency wise with a 4-5 year old now ecodiesel.
Perhaps your right... Perhaps you didn't know this engine cam from Land Rover so it's not entirely new. Perhaps your 60 total posts in which 48 of them were bashing this truck and Shiner had to put you in your place. Refreshing... 48 post to prove it. :W
Hope you enjoyed the video. It's entertaining never the less.Allamakee1 wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
LOL... Says the Ecodiesel King or perhaps Queen. I'm not sure which one! :B
Yeah an objective honest opinion instead of an ignorant fanboy. Refreshing isn’t it? The Ecodiesel king would probably be Vern though who actually tows more in a year than I’m sure you or I do in a lifetime. My statement was in regards to this new engine not being able to compete efficiency wise with a 4-5 year old now ecodiesel.
I'm not sure the truck they were driving was set up for max MPG. Looks like it's max tow package with the long bed and tow mirrors, along with the FX4 package which would typically mean shortest gearing available.
Perhaps the Ecodiesel was set up the same way?FishOnOne wrote:
LOL... Says the Ecodiesel King or perhaps Queen. I'm not sure which one! :B
Yeah an objective honest opinion instead of an ignorant fanboy. Refreshing isn’t it? The Ecodiesel king would probably be Vern though who actually tows more in a year than I’m sure you or I do in a lifetime. My statement was in regards to this new engine not being able to compete efficiency wise with a 4-5 year old now ecodiesel.- At least the Ford did not go into limp mode like the last time.
