2015 F-150 - First Drive Report
- Thread starter Slash
- 348 comments
- 25,343 views
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
The Colorado and Canyon are already available at your local dealers. I've seen a few of the Colorados, haven't seen a Canyon yet. Although they are derived from the global design, the American version is completely different than what the SE Asian market gets. I believe in final guise, the only thing that'll be shared is that 2.8L diesel.
- 6,425
- KCCO
I've done many diesel research papers and chemistry projects with it and there really needs to be something done here in the US to make people more savvy for diesels. But it also depends on how people drive. Most people whom I interviewed for sources said they can't get over a thirty to fifty cent increase in costs of gas. But then after showing them how taxes, fuel mileage and other factors they actually said they would rethink about diesels (even in cars too).
Most of the people I asked though don't use their trucks for grocery getters either. Heavy hauling of wood, docking materials, and other heavy loads for trips upwards of 100 miles one way.
You couldn't persuade me to ever get a gasoline truck though. Nothing beats the sound of them and the torque they put out.
The UK is going to (thinking about but will probably happen [guarantee Clarkson will make an episode about it]) prohibit diesels going into London.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
remember the Episode with the Peel P50 how he explained how he has to pay congestion charges with that 50cc engined car but the Lexus RX Hybrid aviods it on the account it's got a tiny electric engine connected to it's thirsty V6.
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
In other words it's all about form not Function.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
Yeah, I'd rather have my truck sound like a muscle car than a garbage truck, but that's just me...
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Having looked at it, it goes by Gross vehicle weight.
I don't see how a V8 Petrol engine can hit standards a 4 or 6 cylinder Turbo diesel of smaller capacity and significant MPG advantage can't also meet.
Why does it matter?
The engine I quoted above is actually in your Ford Transit sold in US.
Yeah most would, but those that actually do work with their trucks would differ(especially those that are not ignorant about the effectiveness of torque).
Last edited by a moderator:
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
The problem lies in the fact the EPA has basically setup a regulation that means all Diesels are horrible and destroying the planet, and that process is contradicting it's purpose(EPA) in the first place.
The Diesels themselves are already better for the environment, but they have double dipped the emission regulation for them simply because the fuel contains more sulfur, completely forgetting the fact they are over 20% more fuel efficient and in the process putting out less C02 gases, then the equilivent Petrol/Gasoline engine.
They should just sync Diesel Regulation to Euro 6 as they have no idea how a Diesel engine works and the benefits for the environment by getting people off the Petrol/Gasoline engines into the more efficient Diesels.
- 40,895
It's great that a V6 diesel can theoretically be 20% more fuel efficient than a big V8 with high gears, but why would I buy one on the basis of that when the actual engine tacks a few grand on the base price and the fuel itself is typically 70¢+ a gallon more and isn't available at every gas station?
Last edited:
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
The weight doesn't have much to do with steady-state fuel mileage. Aerodynamics are much more important, especially on the highway. What will benefit from lighter weight is fuel mileage during practical driving because less fuel will be required to accelerate 700 fewer pounds which means the Ecoboost engines could get bigger-than-advertised improvements in the city. The 4-cylinder especially will benefit from using much less fuel while idling at stop lights etc.
Still needs a diesel though.
- 40,895
Except it would.
The reason the diesel options are so expensive is because it is much cheaper for the company to put in a normally aspirated V8 or V6 than it is to put in an ultramodern 50-state legal turbodiesel that they have to ship across the ocean first and then further modify to meet emissions standards using American-spec diesel fuel. Even the EcoBoost V6s, which are already more expensive than the normal V8 models without much of any fuel economy gain, have nothing on how much a Duratorq F-150 would cost. And diesel fuel, as I found on the way to the grocery store today, is 60¢ more on average than mid grade, with only 2/3 of the stations even having it. Maintenance will probably be higher too.
So when do the savings start?
The Duratorq wouldn't have any added towing ability. The engine Dodge sells you might be slightly better than the Hemi (lower rated towing capability notwithstanding), but the VM Motori V6 is a lot more powerful than the Transit engine is even though the Coyote isn't much less powerful than the Hemi.
Ford should worry about the EcoBoost engines getting the advertised numbers first.
Last edited:
- 11,917
- Marin County
I also, always, disagree with the statement that "torque is all that matters" in any sort of utilitarian context. Torque is simply a measurement of work. Power is how quickly you can get that work done. That's why cars with lots of power are fast, irrespective of their torque and companies like Catapillar Industrial and Detroit Diesel and JCB all rate their engines according to POWER, not torque. The only reason high-torque (in relation to power) engines are popular is because they operate at lower RPM and are therefore more durable. With the right gearing, a gas/petrol engine is just as effective at pulling things for the same power output because the only thing that actually matters is torque at the wheels, which is equally determined by gearing and not simply engine torque. A engine that makes 1lbs/ft of torque and 500hp can do the exact same amount of work in 1 hour as an engine that makes 500lbs/ft of torque and 500hp. You would just have to spin engine 1 to some ungodly RPM (in this case 2.6 million RPM) to match the 500lbs/ft engine.
In a practical context, diesels are probably better at towing because, as I said, they operate at lower RPMs and are therefore less stressed and more durable. So I'm not really arguing with the ultimate consequences of your claim, just the specificities of it.
In a practical context, diesels are probably better at towing because, as I said, they operate at lower RPMs and are therefore less stressed and more durable. So I'm not really arguing with the ultimate consequences of your claim, just the specificities of it.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Correct that the weight loss should benefit city mpg more. Though on the highway, weight still plays a factor. 700lbs weight loss, plus improved aerodynamics and a new small displacement 2.7 V6, I guess I expected higher than 26mpg. Although there really isn't anything to compare the 2.7EB to.
The other engines that were available in the 2014 model (5.0 V8 & 3.5 EB) only show a 1-2 mpg improvement in both city and highway. There again, expected more.
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
I'm actually quite astonished it has taken this long for gasoline trucks to get their fuel efficiency this high. My 23 year old dually with a 5.9L Cummins Turbo Diesel gets 25mpg at 65mph on the highway and that thing is basically a brick going down the road. Plus, the EcoBoost in the current F-150 isn't get very close to the advertised mileage numbers in the real world so it will be interesting to see if this new engine will.
Similar threads
