the way i see it with the eco boost is ford was cutting back and trying to make a smaller more affordable motor that gets "better" fuel economy under a load. all gas burning trucks get terrible fuel economy. The eco boost would be excellent for a mustang, p/i crown victoria, or some other vehicle that is made to go fast, but yet get decent fuel economy. If ford would have actually put a diesel in a half ton id be chomping at the bit for that beast! in all honesty we all need to ask why Diesel costs more that gasoline. diesel requires less refining, where as gasoline requires more than diesel. its probably because of all the epa regulations an all that crap. but hp/weight ratio on a 1/2 ton vehicle with a diesel would be enough and then some to move the thing around. honestly the eco boost is a good motor, but i wouldnt pull a car trailer across the country and back, but a small diesel, yea.

 

Wow, talk about resurecting a thread from the dead.




If you did a little bit or research all the info on that is out there. The old HSD was cheaper to refine, but the new ULSD requires significantly more refining than gas. Almost all the sulfur has to be removed from the fuel and lubricity addatives have to be added back to the mix to take the place of the sulfur. All this adds alot more refining and materials cost. The other side is look at how many soccer moms are driving around in 3/4 and 1 ton diesel trucks but never tow anything. There are so many people driving diesel vehicles now the demand is simply that much higher.

What I find funny is how everyone talks down on all the new emissions equipment like its the antichrist. I don't agree with everything the EPA is doing, but I can tell you that the emissions changes to newer diesels is impressive. I work on development of some of these systems in the offroad industry. 5 of our 2011 service trucks also run on urea (6.7L Cummins), and after 25k I can walk back to the tail pipe and wipe my finger inside it and it will come out clean (0 soot). Its funny when I start up an old IH 1620 combine in the shop vs a brand new Tier 4 engine is how quickly the old 1620 will smoke you out of the building.

 

Diesels don't get anywhere near the fuel mileage they used to, thanks to ULSD and emission controls.

 

You are right in the aspect. Even with a little 4.4l. Doesnt make sense until diesel comes down. Right now its 80 cents higher. So even if you got 28mpg which in a truck application I think with a DPF is about all you would see per mile you really wouldnt be doing yourself a favor. On a 36 gallon tank you would go 1008 miles HWY vs 756 in the EB. EB would cost you 122 a tank vs 147 a tank in a diesel(thats using current 3.39 for gas and 4.09 for diesel). You would rougly pay 15 cents a mile on the diesel and 16 cents for the gasser. Then you factor in double the maint and the 5-7 grand premium you pay for the diesel it wouldnt make sense. I would think a diesel of that caliper would ring in around 300-350hp with 500-550 torque. So sure you got a diesel but still on half ton frame which wouldnt do you any good. Until diesel become equal too or less than gas it doesnt makes sense.

I beleive there was some diesels iin 1/2 GM trucks in the early 90's, those didnt really take off, granted those old diesels were junk but still.

 

Total junk. They were converted 350 Olds gas motors and it wouldn't get out of its own way, much less stay together. That was long before the 90's.

 

yeah Ive seena few around here they look like late 80's early 90's trucks

 

To give you an idea of how bad the Olds 350 diesel was, it was first used in the 1978 1/2 ton Chevy/GMC trucks - it was 125 hp. The 250 gas inline 6 was 155 hp. This was replaced in 1982 with the 6.2 Detroit Diesel which was also crap - and it was 130 to 143 hp. This was replaced by a 6.5 in 1992 with 180 to 215 hp, most had a turbo. 1999 was the last year for a diesel in the 1/2 ton trucks.

 

Without a turbo a diesel engine is junk IMVHO

 

I was not impressed with 1600 degree EGTs on my 6.4L with the DPF regeneration cycles. Not as concerned with fuel mileage as motor longevity, so that is the main reason I ditched it and went with a tuner.

Nothing wrong with a 6.2 or 6.5. No comparison to the olds 350.

Adrianspeeder

 

The F150 econoboost gets the same exact MPG as the v8 when towing 7500 lbs. See ConsumerReports test.... (10 mpg)

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...-v6-vs-v8.html

 

I'd beleive it, but towing mpg is arbitray in my mind. I dont do it all the time and when I do tow i want the best performance. I tow 9500lbs with my eb and gets 9.5ish. Towed it with a F250 and it got 10.5, so like i said towing is arbitrary.