Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew EcoBoost

[PJungnitsch]

Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous the extremes "pick up" companies go to not to employ what is simply the best and right solution for a truck whose mandate is better fuel economy and greater torque. A turbo 6 cylinder in absolutely the wrong approach. Turbos provide marginal fuel economy at best when under load...

Most trucks, even work trucks, don't have a load most of the time, so I think it is a good compromise (as long as Ford has the reliability under control).

I think a diesel would be a great engine to have too and all the makes had light duty diesels under development. But all have shelved them for now, the reason given was always the cost of the new emissions controls.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous the extremes "pick up" companies go to not to employ what is simply the best and right solution for a truck whose mandate is better fuel economy and greater torque. A turbo 6 cylinder in absolutely the wrong approach. Turbos provide marginal fuel economy at best when under load and offer a decrease in reliability.

The simple answer that U.S. small truck manufacturers avoid time after time is a smaller displacement diesel. A 3.0 liter diesel would be ideal. Higher torque at lower RPM than Ford's V8 5.0L engine, better fuel economy and high mileage reliability. Enough said. The U.S. even has the so called "chicken tax" which makes the importation of foreign trucks to high for U.S. shores. Unfortunately Canada is seen to small of a market to justify.

Rob

All of the domestics and Toyota were well on their way of developing diesels for their light duty pickups a few years ago. They all cancelled or postponed their introduction. The business case was difficult to make, they weren't much cheaper to produce than the big diesels in the 2500 series trucks. Basically they figured an $8k engine option was a tough sell especially with diesel prices in the States typically at or higher than regular gasoline.

Ford's not so sure any longer that drivers of its non Super-Duty trucks want or need a smaller diesel engine option. So, for now, Ford's 4.4-liter diesel V8 has been shelved.

Though not in the full-size truck segment for nearly as long, Toyota's Tundra has seen sales declines much steeper than the pickups from Ford, and the Japanese automaker has also put its diesel V8 on hold. General Motors is still on track to launch its 4.5-liter oil-burner, as is Chrysler with a Cummins-built 5.0-liter turbodiesel V8 (both have since postponed indefinitely). These relatively small diesels are expected to average about 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline brethren while offering a power improvement of 10-15%. Ford believes it can offer similar performance benefits with its EcoBoost series of engines, one of which is slated for the F-Series trucks in 2010, for a smaller surcharge.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/16/fords-light-duty-4-4l-v8-diesel-doa/

I did some further checking. The 4.4L diesel Ford is in production in Chihuahua Mexico alongside the 6.7L Scorpion diesel. The 4.4L is used in the Range Rover in Europe and much of the rest of the world.

[redman]

Many of these diesels are already available in offshore product lines. With DPF and common rail diesels which meet and exceed many emissions laws here, it leads me to wonder if there isn't some collusion between manufactures, oil companies and even gov't. Every liter no sold means less profit for oil companies and less taxes for governments.

I'm no longer buying the ill argument of emissions or production costs. Diesel versions with smaller displacements then there gas counterparts are sold with a mild increase to offset mild production/material costs in Europe successfully.
Somehow diesel options here are marketed as an outrages 8-10K premium. It does the job of making these engines non viable for the average user and feeding the pick-up manufacturers statements of low percentage of diesels actually get sold in order to justify development and productions costs.
Another "trick" the manufacturers do here(Can/U.S.) is to oversize there diesels for the application. This overkill not only makes for reduced fuel economy but the added weight makes for added expense that gets passed on to the consumer.
It's an idiotic formula specific to (Can/U.S.) markets. It shocks me that anyone believes the B.S. put forth by manufactures and media.

Rob

[Gwido]

Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous the extremes "pick up" companies go to not to employ what is simply the best and right solution for a truck whose mandate is better fuel economy and greater torque. A turbo 6 cylinder in absolutely the wrong approach. Turbos provide marginal fuel economy at best when under load and offer a decrease in reliability.

The simple answer that U.S. small truck manufacturers avoid time after time is a smaller displacement diesel. A 3.0 liter diesel would be ideal. Higher torque at lower RPM than Ford's V8 5.0L engine, better fuel economy and high mileage reliability. Enough said.

You know that diesel engines have turbos too, right? Modern ones also have high pressure injectors just like this EcoBoost. I expect this gas engine to be as reliable as an equivalent diesel.
I agree a small displacement diesel would be even better for fuel economy, but I see this 3.5 as a compromise between the current V8 and your hypothetical diesel. Not as fuel efficient as the diesel would be, but less expensive to buy. Definitely a step in the right direction, IMHO.
That said, I would love that manufacturers offer us more diesels so at least we can have the choice!

[Gardiner Westbound]

Diesel popularity in Europe in entirely tax driven. They tax the bejesus out of gasoline, diesel not so much.

[redman]

Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous the extremes "pick up" companies go to not to employ what is simply the best and right solution for a truck whose mandate is better fuel economy and greater torque. A turbo 6 cylinder in absolutely the wrong approach. Turbos provide marginal fuel economy at best when under load and offer a decrease in reliability.

The simple answer that U.S. small truck manufacturers avoid time after time is a smaller displacement diesel. A 3.0 liter diesel would be ideal. Higher torque at lower RPM than Ford's V8 5.0L engine, better fuel economy and high mileage reliability. Enough said.

You know that diesel engines have turbos too, right? Modern ones also have high pressure injectors just like this EcoBoost. I expect this gas engine to be as reliable as an equivalent diesel.
I agree a small displacement diesel would be even better for fuel economy, but I see this 3.5 as a compromise between the current V8 and your hypothetical diesel. Not as fuel efficient as the diesel would be, but less expensive to buy. Definitely a step in the right direction, IMHO.
That said, I would love that manufacturers offer us more diesels so at least we can have the choice!

The differences between gasoline and diesel turbos is significant.
Diesel Turbo boost in PSI 5-8. Diesel RPM <50,000.Diesel burns at low temperatures and exhaust temps are typically in the range of 500-800ºF Vs Gasoline Turbo setup boost 10-15 PSI Gas turbo RPM up to 125,000 RPM. Gasoline exhaust gases are HOT, in the range of 1000-1400ºF when under load.
The different stresses above lead to massive differences in both maintenance and reliability when comparing Diesel vs Gasoline turbos.

[ktm525]

Diesel popularity in Europe in entirely tax driven. They tax the bejesus out of gasoline, diesel not so much.

Yes finally someone sees the light! Diesels are slowing decling in popularity in Europe.

If I see another bozo in a lifted truck "rolling coal" I am going to snap. Ban the diesel!

[Vanstar]

My experience of diesels is with my business. I have found that diesel is worth it in vehicles over 5 tons and not worth it in vehicles under. This is, however, from a strictly financial point of view. The real problem diesels have now is the cost of cleaning up their emissions vs the efficiency gains of gasoline engines in recent years.

The real problem these "trucks" have us their enormous size. If the car makers really wanted to reduce fuel consumption, it would make more sense to reduce 500 kg off the curb weight of these behemoths than to develop and expensive diesel engine option, that most probably never achieve pay back in the time the typical owner had the vehicle. We see the same dilemma in the diesel versions that the makers have out now, the $7000 or so extra for the diesel will never be recovered in fuel savings.

I would wager that the next generation of the F-150 will be slimmed down quite a bit. On another note, my organisation has been using Ford trucks for our light duty stuff for many years and they are a good product. We will probably buy one or two next year and we will go for the base V-6, which will have more than enough power for the duties these trucks will perform. But I use these vehicles as trucks, not a huge car. The load capacity, bed length and running costs are the most important factors for me.

[kenm]

To me, the 3.7- 6A/T power-train sounds like a sweet package that's not getting much attention. 302 hp / 278 lbs.ft. and 5500 to 6000 lb. towing capacity. If necessary, the axle ratio can be optioned to 3.73 rather than 3.55. If you're not doing heavy towing, this would be a decent truck.

I still have fond memories from way back, of my '67 Ford F100 with a 240 I6 and "3-on-the-tree". It was simple, economical, and as reliable as a deadbolt. It was fun to tool around in a "relaxed manner". Those old straight sixes didn't have a lot of peak horsepower, but they had reasonably good low and mid-range torque.

[Vanstar]

To me, the 3.7- 6A/T power-train sounds like a sweet package that's not getting much attention. 302 hp / 278 lbs.ft. and 5500 to 6000 lb. towing capacity. If necessary, the axle ratio can be optioned to 3.73 rather than 3.55. If you're not doing heavy towing, this would be a decent truck.

I still have fond memories from way back, of my '67 Ford F100 with a 240 I6 and "3-on-the-tree". It was simple, economical, and as reliable as a deadbolt. It was fun to tool around in a "relaxed manner". Those old straight sixes didn't have a lot of peak horsepower, but they had reasonably good low and mid-range torque.

In my opinion, the 3.7 V-6 with the 6 speed auto would suffice for 90% of all people who feel they need a truck. I can't think of how often in my life I have actually needed to tow 6,000 lbs. The trailer I have for my landscaping operation (which includes ride on mower, weedeater, etc) is less than 4,000 lbs loaded. Never had a issue towing it with a 4.6 V-8 and 4 speed auto. I might add the two trucks I have with this combo have been practically bullet-proof.

As soon as I can get a nice 3.7 with 8 foot box off lease, I will snap it up. Should not take more than a year.

[Spec5]

My experience of diesels is with my business. I have found that diesel is worth it in vehicles over 5 tons and not worth it in vehicles under. This is, however, from a strictly financial point of view. The real problem diesels have now is the cost of cleaning up their emissions vs the efficiency gains of gasoline engines in recent years.

The real problem these "trucks" have us their enormous size. If the car makers really wanted to reduce fuel consumption, it would make more sense to reduce 500 kg off the curb weight of these behemoths than to develop and expensive diesel engine option, that most probably never achieve pay back in the time the typical owner had the vehicle. We see the same dilemma in the diesel versions that the makers have out now, the $7000 or so extra for the diesel will never be recovered in fuel savings.

I would wager that the next generation of the F-150 will be slimmed down quite a bit. On another note, my organisation has been using Ford trucks for our light duty stuff for many years and they are a good product. We will probably buy one or two next year and we will go for the base V-6, which will have more than enough power for the duties these trucks will perform. But I use these vehicles as trucks, not a huge car. The load capacity, bed length and running costs are the most important factors for me.

I agree 100% with your commends on vehicles needing to lose weight - and I too am willing to bet that this will be where manfs turn to try and increase fuel mileage - there's a few who have already taken up this cause. I think the new Camry is something like 50kg lighter than the outgoing one but I recall reading in C/D that quite a few manfs have identified weight as the next place where they'll be spending money. Will be interesting as people keep demanding more and more crap in their vehicles - not to mention exploding bags to protect everything from your head to your scrotum, idiot sensors that tell you when you're leaving your lane, etc.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Many of these diesels are already available in offshore product lines. With DPF and common rail diesels which meet and exceed many emissions laws here, it leads me to wonder if there isn't some collusion between manufactures, oil companies and even gov't. Every liter no sold means less profit for oil companies and less taxes for governments.

I'm no longer buying the ill argument of emissions or production costs. Diesel versions with smaller displacements then there gas counterparts are sold with a mild increase to offset mild production/material costs in Europe successfully.
Somehow diesel options here are marketed as an outrages 8-10K premium. It does the job of making these engines non viable for the average user and feeding the pick-up manufacturers statements of low percentage of diesels actually get sold in order to justify development and productions costs.
Another "trick" the manufacturers do here(Can/U.S.) is to oversize there diesels for the application. This overkill not only makes for reduced fuel economy but the added weight makes for added expense that gets passed on to the consumer.
It's an idiotic formula specific to (Can/U.S.) markets. It shocks me that anyone believes the B.S. put forth by manufactures and media.

Rob

I know VW, and I suspect the rest, amortize the costs of their diesel engines over their entire fleet ie, gasoline engines are sold at a slightly higher price than they could to offset the extra production costs of their diesel engines.

At one point, one of the VW execs let it slip that VW actually lost money on every diesel they sold in NA, but they continued to sell them for marketing purposes than anything else.

Modern common rail diesels use fuel pressures up to 26000psi, about 10x higher than in a direct gasoline injected engine. The components used are high strength, high precision and very expensive. The high compression pressures require much stronger engine castings, etc. Emissions controls are more expensive too, with selective catalytic reduction systems (urea injection), particle traps and exhaust gas recirculation. Diesels are always much more expensive to produce than a similarly powerful gasoline engine.

Gardiner Westbound has it right too, the tax structure in Europe greatly favours diesel over gasoline.

[Spec5]

Thought I read in the latest C/D that the SkyActive system from Mazda is starting to approach compression levels of the diesels? I believe its 14:1? Whatever it was they said it was the highest for a gasoline internal combustion engine.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Thought I read in the latest C/D that the SkyActive system from Mazda is starting to approach compression levels of the diesels? I believe its 14:1? Whatever it was they said it was the highest for a gasoline internal combustion engine.

Older diesels were in the 15:1 compression ratio area. New automotive ones are in the 20+:1 area.

[Vanstar]

Many of these diesels are already available in offshore product lines. With DPF and common rail diesels which meet and exceed many emissions laws here, it leads me to wonder if there isn't some collusion between manufactures, oil companies and even gov't. Every liter no sold means less profit for oil companies and less taxes for governments.

I'm no longer buying the ill argument of emissions or production costs. Diesel versions with smaller displacements then there gas counterparts are sold with a mild increase to offset mild production/material costs in Europe successfully.
Somehow diesel options here are marketed as an outrages 8-10K premium. It does the job of making these engines non viable for the average user and feeding the pick-up manufacturers statements of low percentage of diesels actually get sold in order to justify development and productions costs.
Another "trick" the manufacturers do here(Can/U.S.) is to oversize there diesels for the application. This overkill not only makes for reduced fuel economy but the added weight makes for added expense that gets passed on to the consumer.
It's an idiotic formula specific to (Can/U.S.) markets. It shocks me that anyone believes the B.S. put forth by manufactures and media.

Rob

I know VW, and I suspect the rest, amortize the costs of their diesel engines over their entire fleet ie, gasoline engines are sold at a slightly higher price than they could to offset the extra production costs of their diesel engines.

At one point, one of the VW execs let it slip that VW actually lost money on every diesel they sold in NA, but they continued to sell them for marketing purposes than anything else.

Modern common rail diesels use fuel pressures up to 26000psi, about 10x higher than in a direct gasoline injected engine. The components used are high strength, high precision and very expensive. The high compression pressures require much stronger engine castings, etc. Emissions controls are more expensive too, with selective catalytic reduction systems (urea injection), particle traps and exhaust gas recirculation. Diesels are always much more expensive to produce than a similarly powerful gasoline engine.

Gardiner Westbound has it right too, the tax structure in Europe greatly favours diesel over gasoline.

My experiment with diesel engines in light duty applications has led me to use gasoline engines in all such vehicles. The extra cost and maintenance, not to mention down time, do not make the diesel worth it. However, in the eyes of the manufacturer, the extra profit from the diesel certainly makes it worth while. Otherwise they would not be selling them. Note that they are sold only in heavier versions of their pick-ups. The cost of emission certification in a "half ton" would not be worth it.

[67 Piston Slap]

Just wait.... just wait for the stuck variable vanes... the carbon buildup on the intakes and the high-pressure lines and pumps issues after a few seasons. Not to mention the Microsoft MyFordTouch ordeal from hell.

You gotta be nuts to be an early adopter on this one.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Baah.  Turbocharged motors have been fairly commonplace for decades now.  Why you got to be hatin' just 'cause it's a Ford?

Whenever a GTI thread comes up, people never mention the fact that it's got a turbo engine therefore it's automatically crap (they mentiont the electronics, but that's besides the point).  Why is Ford any different?

[dirtyjeffer]

what i wonder is why we don't have a Ranger, 2 door and 4 door, 2WD and 4WD with a 2.0L diesel engine...it would be the perfect vehicle for many people and would help reduce fuel consumption...i've been saying it for years, all on deaf ears.

[Vanstar]

what i wonder is why we don't have a Ranger, 2 door and 4 door, 2WD and 4WD with a 2.0L diesel engine...it would be the perfect vehicle for many people and would help reduce fuel consumption...i've been saying it for years, all on deaf ears.

This exact vehicle is very common in places like Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Have a look here at the Philippine version:

http://www.ford.com.ph/servlet/Satellite?c=DFYPage&cid=1137383108386&pagename=FPH%2Fcontroller&site=FPH

[dirtyjeffer]

This exact vehicle is very common in places like Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Have a look here at the Philippine version:

http://www.ford.com.ph/servlet/Satellite?c=DFYPage&cid=1137383108386&pagename=FPH%2Fcontroller&site=FPH

that is exactly what we need here...the top model works out to be $31k with 4 doors, 4x4 and a 3.0L diesel (lower models and trims available)...instead we get big behemoth F150's etc.