Diesel F-150 rumor/confirm?

[fordmantpw]

Talked to a guy the other day who tows a lot and runs a plow and has the 6.7 in a F350 crewcab. He gets 9.5 mpg... that's his average. My V10 gets 8.5 in a service body truck that weighs 11,500 pounds with a box that creates a lot of drag. Point being I don't think the mileage of the 6.7 is that impressive.

 

 

 

I have direct comparisons of the 6.4 to 6.7. My father had a 6.7L and a nearly identical sized fifth wheel to the one I tow behind my 6.4L. On the same day, traveling about the same speed on the same route, he averaged 12-13 while I was getting 10-11. Empty, it's the same, with him netting a solid 20-21 compared to my 16-17. Point is, the fuel economy of diesels are coming back up after a few down years due to emissions crap.

 

Total weight of each rig was around 16k +/-, with lots of drag from the fifth wheel. I will take that mileage over the 8.5 you get with your little old 11.5k lbs.

 

With that said, if I were buying again, I'm not sure I would go diesel. I LOVE the way it tows, but I just don't tow enough to justify it. If there was an EB gasser, I know which way I would go...

[LSFan00]

Agree on all Mathew, but for the fact that my memories of Mercedes are not motor related per se, just every little electronic/brake/mechanical piece in the drive train including steering rack that seemed to need replacement prematurely. Glad they are better now, but I won't give them any more money in this lifetime.

 

It remains incredible to compare HP/ratings/power:weights in half ton trucks vs. 10, 20, 30 years ago. Same thing goes for muscle cars really. Ford does seem to have deliberately slow-played the diesel pickup/car game here and I don't think at all it was done out of some sense of ignorance/spite. Timing is everything....

[matthewq4b]

 

Got any data to support that statement because I don't believe it. If you would have said 3/4 ton, I might accept that.

 

 

 

 

40 plus years of being in the construction industry gives me all the data I need. For example when I was doing houses 25 years ago for large home builder most all the contractors used dedicated service vehicles event the small independents. Usally a 3/4 ton van or step van.

 

The house I'm currently just finishing the build (my own project for resale) 3 contractors had something besides a 1/2 ton with an enclosed contractor trailer. The Excavation guys had Diesel 3/4 and one tons. The plumbing out fit which was a larger local contractor has a fleet of 3/4 ton vans. The cribbers also had 1 ton trucks. Everyone else, the framers , roofers, Sparkie, Insulator, drywaller, Finish carpenter, Siding installer, Painter, and interior systems tech, and tile layer all have 1/2 tons pulling enclosed contractor trailers.

 

25 years ago when I was manging housing build for a larger home builder basically all these same guys were using dedicated 3/4ton or larger vans and step vans.

Remember today's 1/2 tons are as capable as 3/4 tons were 25 years ago. Want some data just do an internet search and see how many manufactures there are of 7k # contractor trailers there are out there today. The options avalible are mind boggling, built I gen sets security systems, tool chests and shelving, led lighting, tie down spots for tools and equip, custom graphics, most of these units sit on top of 2 3500LBS axels . The sheer number of manufactures offering these units is proof enough on how the segment is changing.

 

Also the industry it's self has changed 95% of the material used on site is delivered to site, gone are the days of the contractor showing up with a truck load of material and then installing it. Now it is delivered by the supplier unloaded on site and installed by the respective trade. The only real exception to this rule are electricians and plumbers.

 

That is a very speculative statement. Petroleum companies have been dragging their feet to add capacity. In doing so, they are creating somewaht of a shortage and are enjoying the higher profit margins. Why would they make capital investment that would reduce profit, especially if the just announced mandate on improved HD truck fuel economy ?

 

 

 

That is a very narrow far a field way of looking at things.

Most petroleum producers are not Refiners. Refiners like any other manufacture reduce costs with increased through put, this is especially true of refiners. there costs are pretty much fixed in terms of operation costs. If they are running at 50% capacity or 100% their operating costs stay relatively flat. And refiners get really squeezed in term of profit margins for them volume is everything. For them Higher profit margins are higher through put.

 

USLD refining tech has improved greatly and cost have come down significantly Most refinery's now producing ULSD are at the point of having to refit the ULSD portion of their plants. Case in point with in a 30KM radius we have 3 of Canada's largest refiners here. ALL are expanding production primarily of Diesel capacity. Shell, Suncor and Esso between the 3 of them over a 5 years span will have spent over 3 billion dollars expanding production capacity and updating USLD production facilities.. It may seem that lower production and higher prices equals more profit , but that is counter intuitive to the reality of things.

 

Data on increase LD diesel fuel economy improvements please.

 

 

 

You cant be serious , don't believe me, YOU prove me wrong, find one light duty diesel vehicle that has not shown an increase in fuel economy over the last generation of power plant. I can help out you here, THERE IS NOT ONE.

 

But to make it easy we will do a vehicle that had diesels in for several years now as a base line.

 

The E class Diesel Mercedes all 2wd cars (non 4matic)

. ,

2005, 3.2L I6 , 201 HP, 369Ftlbs torque, 23mpg City, 28mpg Combined, 33mpg Hyway. no DPF no exhaust after treatment, cat only, ULSD capable ,

 

2009, 3.0L,V6 , 221 HP, 400Ftlbs Torque, 23mpg City, 26mpg Combined, 32mpg Hyway, Modified for DPF and exhaust after treatment, ULSD Motor.

 

2014, 2.1L 4cyl, 204 HP, 369Ftlbs Torque, 28mpg City, 34mpg Combined, 45mpg Hyway. Current 2014 diesel emissions built for DPF and exhaust after treatment, ULSD motor.

 

And for comparison the entry level gasser equivalent E class (non 4matic)

 

2014, 3.5L Di Gasoline V6, 302HP, 273Ftlbs Torque, 21mpg city, 24mpg combined, 30mpg hyway. (premium fuel). Mercedes does not recommend the use of regular fuel and it will reduce power and fuel efficacy and potentially cause engine damage.

 

( All Fuel economy figures courtesy of the U.S Dept of Energy).

 

 

 

The 2014 E class is sporting a new Emissions designed Diesel that is 2 cylinders short and a over 1 liter displacement smaller than the old 3.2 I6 and is making more hp and the same torque.

 

So what more proof do ya need basically the same hp and torque as the old non emission 3.2 I6 but in a smaller package with more than 33% better fuel mileage on the hyway.

 

Sounds like an improvement to me and not just a small one either but a substantial one.

 

And this is just the first generation of purpose built emissions diesels, previously we had motors that were modified to meet the emissions not built for them. Think what the next generation is going to bring.

 

Diesels are making huge leaps forward now that most of the emissions is tech is sorted out. I know most have not looked closely at the latest diesels but do not underestimate them. It is just now in 2014 that we are seeing true purpose built diesels for the current emissions hit the market.

 

Really we only have a decade of development in to higher tech diesels , where as the gassers have a more than 2 decades development behind them.

 

 

I do not believe that any manufacturer is actively pursuing anything more than B20.

 

 

That is where you are wrong all manufactures that offer diesels in mainline models have developed engines that run on 100 Bio. In fact most any diesel on the market can run on 100 Bio. But currently their are no real standards for Bio Diesel, and quality can vary greatly from excellent to crap you would not use to light a camp fire. That is why NO manufacture recommends more than B20.

Diesels will burn nearly any liquid that is combustible. Heck more than one cratered it's self after failed turbo seals have caused them to run away and seize up after burning all the oil in the crank case. Running on 100 Bio is a non issue.

 

 

A lot of the views you have expressed were valid and true 10 years ago but this is not 2004, and we are miles past the oil burners of 2004.

 

Matthew

Edited February 21, 2014 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

Agree on all Mathew, but for the fact that my memories of Mercedes are not motor related per se, just every little electronic/brake/mechanical piece in the drive train including steering rack that seemed to need replacement prematurely. Glad they are better now, but I won't give them any more money in this lifetime.

 

It remains incredible to compare HP/ratings/power:weights in half ton trucks vs. 10, 20, 30 years ago. Same thing goes for muscle cars really. Ford does seem to have deliberately slow-played the diesel pickup/car game here and I don't think at all it was done out of some sense of ignorance/spite. Timing is everything....

 

 

Oh I wont disagree with you there the Mercedes of the early 2000's were horrific in terms of elec bugaboo's and the first racks they offered well they were the first so non more need be said lol.

 

The Chrysler merger was not good for either manufacture, Mercedes quality took a hit and they really did not grasp or understand the market segment Chrysler appealed to, they tried to germanise Chyco and hoped that more tech would fix the short commings of the products. They just ended up making vehicles that were complicated and crap instead of just being crap.

 

Mercedes I think gave up with delusions of big sales numbers and has gone back to offering high quality luxury vehicles, and not just pushing as many luxury vehicles as they could, they seem to have got the formula right as their sales and market segment are increasing and quality is increasing.

Edited February 21, 2014 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

All academic beyond 2018, apparently Sergio thinks Diesel emission limits could be too hard by then....

 

 

Our calculations that have benefited the pros and cons given were CAFE and the objectives in 2025.

The benefit of diesel is going to probably run its course by around 2018 unless we find some way of

bringing down the emission implications, the emissions associated with diesel beyond what is currently

available.

And the question is at what cost does that reduction come about? And if it gets to be prohibitively expensive then

it may be that 2018 may be shown as being the sunset year for a wider application of diesel than we’ve got today.

Original is at Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne at the Detroit Auto Show: 2014 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RoxpyXJwZ8IJ:www.allpar.com/history/auto-shows/Detroit/sergio-2014.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a#ixzz2twVVdAKO

 

[matthewq4b]

 

All academic beyond 2018, apparently Sergio thinks Diesel emission limits could be too hard by then....

 

 

 

 

 

The similar things were quoted in 1996 2004 and in 2009. And every time solutions were found.

 

We are getting to the point that same thing's are going to affect Gasoline engines and especially Gasoline Di.

 

There are technologies currently available that are not being used due to costs and packaing issues. SCR after treatment is nothing new and has been used in and by various industries for decades already.

 

There are currently other options available that are more effective that have just not yet been down sized and that is just a matter of engineering not invention.

 

And the next sentence from Sergio Marchoinne

"Our guys continue to work pretty diligently at trying to find ways to improve the emission profile of diesels. Give us some time"

 

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne at the Detroit Auto Show: 2014

 

 

And that is all it is going to take , some time.

 

Matthew

Edited February 21, 2014 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

 

 

The similar things were quoted in 1996 2004 and in 2009. And every time solutions were found.

 

We are getting to the point that same thing's are going to affect Gasoline engines and especially Gasoline Di.

 

There are technologies currently available that are not being used due to costs and packaing issues. SCR after treatment is nothing new and has been used in and by various industries for decades already.

 

There are currently other options available that are more effective that have just not yet been down sized and that is just a matter of engineering not invention.

 

And the next sentence from Sergio Marchoinne

 

And that is all it is going to take , some time.

 

Matthew

No Matthew, the point is that gasoline engines can already meet the low limits that will be imposed on diesels in the future,

the problem is whether auto companies see merit in continuing with diesel in non-fleet markets where a return is more dubious.

 

It's also why Ford is circumventing the problem with next gen Ecoboost and combustion studies aimed at delivering diesel like

economy in a gasoline engine with greater ease of compliance and a much broader market to disperse those costs.

Edited February 21, 2014 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

No Matthew, the point is that gasoline engines can already meet the low limits that will be imposed on diesels in the future,

the problem is whether auto companies see merit in continuing with diesel in non-fleet markets where a return is more dubious.

 

It's also why Ford is circumventing the problem with next gen Ecoboost and combustion studies aimed at delivering diesel like

economy in a gasoline engine with greater ease of compliance and a much broader market to disperse those costs.

 

 

JD for once we get an auto exec being honest, they can not predict the future. We have seen too many times promises made that can not be fulfilled. This is an honest assessment. For once we are not being white washed.

 

And current Gasoline Di engines do not meet the particulate emissions imposed on Diesels. It is only a matter of time before the gun sights are aimed at that. What happens when gasoline DI engines are required to meet the same particulate emissions?

Will it mean the addition of particulate traps with tech borrowed form diesels ? this will also impact fuel economy and have a corresponding reduction in fuel efficiency. And when CO2 emissions gets targeted (only a matter of time) . What happens when those regulations are handed down to the gassers?

 

Current diesels already emit way less C02 than comparable gasoline engines and this is with zero effort in CO2 reduction.The tech is available now for diesels to match and even beat gassers in emissions but it is not cost effective or overly efficient. As the emmsions playing field gets leveled out and the level of development between Diesels and Gassers evens out and we get down to the very end of the spectrum for emissions in the ICE we are going to see more and more emissions tech crossover between Diesels and Gasoline engines. But the fact that a compression ignition ICE is an inherently more efficient possess with corresponding lower CO2 emissions is not going to change.

 

The whole emissions picture is not as clear cut as one would think.

 

Diesel will always have a an advantage in combustion efficiency that is just physics and that is not even mentioning a more energy dense fuel. Remember we are just now in 2014 seeing the very first generation of diesels specifically designed to meet stringent emissions. The very fist gasoline engines modified to do it were done in the early 70's with combustion chamber designs, with diesels it was in the mid 90's. The first gassers designed ground up with stringent emissions in mind were done 25 years ago, with diesels they are just hitting the market now. So making any hard predictions one way another this early in the development process is a bit foolish. But the common sense approach is they will be able to meet the requirements, the question no one can answer today is, will it be cost effective. 10 years ago every one was saying DPF,s and SCR exhaust after treatment was too costly and it would be the end of light duty application diesels, and yes it certainly impacted avalibility , but here we are today and they are still on the road and in increasing numbers, and in one or 2 instances they are even the entry level engines. Those predictions of the death of light duty diesels were a bit premature. No one can predict what tech is going to become available and at what cost.

 

. Diesel will never replace gasoline in lighter duty applications but there will always be light duty applications where it has advantages over gasoline. And we have only just begun to scratch the surface of what combustion ignition engines are fully capable of.

 

So to sound the abandon ship alarm now is way way premature.

 

Matthew

Edited February 21, 2014 by matthewq4b

[LSFan00]

It is funny the knock on diesel has been that the emissions and turbo etc mean it costs too much to buy and maintain. Oh, ignore what we are doing to gas turbo engines though.

[jpd80]

It is funny the knock on diesel has been that the emissions and turbo etc mean it costs too much to buy and maintain. Oh, ignore what we are doing to gas turbo engines though.

The difference is that you can use the gasoline versions as either GDIT or as NA DI and as a Atkins cycle hybrid powerplant.

Moving existing gasoline technology and manufacturing processes forward is less costly for US manufacturers than using heavier

engine components required in diesels.

 

Also, Matthew touched on particulate emissions, something that gasoline DI engines are staring to produce - the difference is that gasoline

particulates are still much lower in number thand diesel and not of the hazardous fine and ultra fine particle type caused by high efficiency burn.

That's the reason why the US EPA have not been aggressive on particulate emissions with gasoline engines..

 

And then we get to the real nettle, Europe substituted one emission (NOX) with diesel to gain an immediate lowering of CO2 emissions over gasoline,

what is at issue now is reducing that NOX byproduct, something Euro 6 still does not effectively address compared to US EPA regs. It's that bad that

Euro manufactures asked for a two year delay in Euro 6 so that could work out a cost effective way to continue with a diesel strategy -

even Europe is starting to see the advantages with GDIT as immediate alternative to the continuing problems with tightening diesel emissions.

 

There is also some suggestions that European manufacturers have been "gaming" Euro fuel economy /emission tests and haven't achieved

the gains they claim in lowering CO2 as evidenced by Diesel Euro vehicles being retested and evaluated under US EPA regulations.

 

Diesels are efficient and a lot of people wiill like the meaty power but they come with issues that government legislators are homing in on

and that's the issue for auto and truck makers, are these coming regulations going to make diesel that costly that it becomes

something only fleet buyers can justify - none of us know how hard that barrier will be to over come or whether it makes

other alternatives like GDIT and greater use of electrification more cost effective...

Edited February 21, 2014 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

It is funny the knock on diesel has been that the emissions and turbo etc mean it costs too much to buy and maintain. Oh, ignore what we are doing to gas turbo engines though.

 

Emissions equipment is much more complex on a diesel than a gasser.

How much does an oil change on a gasser cost compared to a diesel?

What about fuel filter changes?

What happens when the DPF on a diesel is shot after 125k miles?

 

The turbo adds essentially nothing to the maintenance of a vehicle. Compare the cost of an EB 3.5 vs that of the 3.2L in the Transit, and I think you will see the difference in upfront costs. Then compare the maintenance costs over 100k miles. Do some research...

[RichardJensen]

 

And current Gasoline Di engines do not meet the particulate emissions imposed on Diesels.

 

I can't speak to Canadian regs, but I can tell you for a fact that US regs are the same regardless of fuel.

[jpd80]

 

I can't speak to Canadian regs, but I can tell you for a fact that US regs are the same regardless of fuel.

And that is where diesel has major cost issues while existing gasoline engines don't

 

The easiest, most logical courses are efficient gasoline engines or electrification.

Edited February 21, 2014 by jpd80

[chucky2]

 

I can't speak to Canadian regs, but I can tell you for a fact that US regs are the same regardless of fuel.

Come now, no need to tell half the story. The new regs are purpose crafted to allow for dirty DI gas engines to spew forth lots of nasty particulates unabated. So, Yes, the regs are the same...intentionally crafted so DI gas doesn't need a GPF stuck up its tailpipe (hmmm...I wonder what that would do for gas mileage and DI gas vs. diesel comparisons). Same indeed...

[RichardJensen]

So you're saying that the regulations were *deliberately* crafted to disadvantage diesel engines?

 

Really? Do you have even a *shred* of evidence of this?

[fordmantpw]

 

...fact that US regs are the same regardless of fuel.

 

 

The new regs are purpose crafted to allow for dirty DI gas engines to spew forth lots of nasty particulates unabated. So, Yes, the regs are the same..

 

Hmmm, the regs are the same, but it was purposely crafted to favor gas engines. How does that make sense?

[RichardJensen]

His theory is that the EPA has avoided regulating fine grain PM because that would impose additional costs on gas engines.

 

Because, as we all know, the EPA, like the NHTSA, has never required manufacturers to add costly equipment to new vehicles.

[fordmantpw]

His theory is that the EPA has avoided regulating fine grain PM because that would impose additional costs on gas engines.

 

Because, as we all know, the EPA, like the NHTSA, has never required manufacturers to add costly equipment to new vehicles.

 

I gathered that may be what he was going for after I posted my response. This is the EPA...they like to make it difficult for EVERYONE!

[jpd80]

The Europeans estimate that a particle filter for GDIT engines would cost around 50 Euro...($75).

Unlike diesels, GDIT exhaust particulates are mostly created during cold start and reduce significantly

once the converter lights off...I think this is why there's no real regulation on GDIT particles but if the

rules were strictly enforced, a particle filter is not a huge stretch.

 

LINK

 

The testing performed by TUV showed that all the tested vehicles met Euro 6 C test that comes into force in 2014.

None of the tested vehicles met the more stringent 2017, Euro 6c limits on any test cycle. These limits are equivalent

to the limits already applied to diesel cars. The results for the Renault car were significantly higher than for the other

carmakers , particularly on the new WLTC and US 06 tests. In contrast, once a GPF was fitted to each of the cars,

the mass of particles emitted declined by a factor of 3 to 4 and number of particles by a factor of over 1 000.

 

Whilst future developments in GDI engines may lower particle emissions from GDI engines, there is no prospect of

lowering emissions to the extent achieved with the GPF, a solution costing as little as €50.These results are consistent

with a number of other published studies.

These highlight that GDI engines have high emissions, particularly during the “cold start” conditions at the start of the test

and when the engines are used in combination with a turbocharger, which slows down how quickly the catalyst reaches a

working temperature. Vehicle manufacturers are clearly aware of the issue, but, to date have declined to fit a GPF to address

the problem despite the overwhelming benefits and low cost. Vehicles are the most important cause of the urban air pollution

crisis in Europe. The shift to GDI engines for petrol cars offers important fuel economy and CO benefits but runs the risk of

worsening particle pollution, the most important cause of deaths and ill-health.

A GPF is a cheap, simple and effective solution hat carmakers should fit to cars with GDI engines.

 

Edited February 22, 2014 by jpd80

[chucky2]

 

 

 

Hmmm, the regs are the same, but it was purposely crafted to favor gas engines. How does that make sense?

The regs are the same in that both diesel and gas must meet the same emissions limits for any given cert. These same limits, or, lack of limits, were put in place because DI gasoline has been shown, now that we actually have technology to show particulate emissions (and sizes) at a far more granular level than before, to puke out a lot more fine particulate - the kind that can really get in your lungs and bloodstream - than traditional non-DI gasoline or even diesel. Knowing this, before they wrote the regs, and thus, having been able to write the regs to either require DI gasoline to either meet reasonable (lets say reasonable is no worse than diesel) limits or not be certified, would have been the proper way of going about things...especially in light of their hard-on for writing regs that penalized light duty diesel whether it was warranted or not.

 

Instead what they did, knowingly and purposely, was give DI gasoline a huge pass. Now think about this, very carefully: If a group who has in the past gone batshit on regs to the extent that they've needlessly doomed the entirety of the US public in not being able to have the choice to buy vehicles that get them far better mpg than their gasoline counterparts, all under the auspices of "we need to save you emissions that we think are bad for you", even if the science was not settled on that, then turns around and completely abandons that logic, in the face of actual scientific data, what could someone conclude from that purposeful decision? Some would say, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! (because it fits our agenda/bias/FUD)...me I'd rather question how decisions like that are made, not just swallow the status quo like a good lemming...

[chucky2]

His theory is that the EPA has avoided regulating fine grain PM because that would impose additional costs on gas engines.

 

Because, as we all know, the EPA, like the NHTSA, has never required manufacturers to add costly equipment to new vehicles.

Not just cost, but in same cases an inability...or an inability at a price point and mileage hit on a nearterm timeframe (something any manufacturer could not accept). Because we all know, CARB is very open and never ever makes dubious decisions. Righto...

[RichardJensen]

because

 

Nothing you wrote justifies that word.

[jpd80]

Not just cost, but in same cases an inability...or an inability at a price point and mileage hit on a nearterm timeframe (something any manufacturer could not accept). Because we all know, CARB is very open and never ever makes dubious decisions. Righto...

Like giving German Automakers a free pass on fuel economy/emissions because they are a special case....

[Edstock]

far better mpg than their gasoline counterparts

 

Chucky, you wanna believe what you wanna believe. Truth is, diesel doesn't offer "far better mpg than their gasoline counterparts" — which is why Honda and Toyota and Nissan don't have a car diesel in the US market, and we're still waiting on Subaru's diesel, for over 3 years now. You can blame the government, "particulates" regulations, whomever, whatever, but as it stands today, passenger car diesels offer no real solution for the "average" consumer, who hasn't become a diesel slappy.

[jpd80]

While I wouldn't go that far, I'd say that the most important part of the market is still the 90% of buyers who choose gasoline half ton,

it's much better for Ford to bring those buyers along for the ride by improving gasoline fuel economy across the board

than to simply concentrate on a diesel engine option as a quick and easy fix, the gasoline market is massive.

 

I'm not anti-diesel, I just see Ford having a greater need to satisfy with its massive gasoline half ton buyer base,

do that first and the profits l may be there to look at other options like a diesel after that.

Edited February 23, 2014 by jpd80