Exactly that was the point i was trying to make..

 

12-13 for that load would pretty good. Most people I know with 6.7's are struggling to get 16 or 17 mpg just driving around. But delete the EGR and DPF and turn off the DEF and that's a WHOLE different story. Emissions are sinful on diesels, period. But I don't want to open this discussion again.

Also, for a 6.7 to be optioned as fully as your truck, Prime, it'd be closer to $20k extra. Unless you NEED one, a diesel isn't a financially viable option anymore

 

Oh yes, I agree with you. I'm not saying that it is better financially to buy a diesel, just saying the fuel economy is higher. In $ per mile, there probably isn't much difference looking at purely fuel costs, and it appears that's the point that Coy was making. With that, I will agree.

But I sure love towing with my diesel!

 

Diesels ARE more badass. But hey, they're both twin turbo'd! That means they're the same, right?

 

^ actually the diesels (6.4 & 6.7) have never been twin turbo'd. It's a sequential turbo. The EB's are true twins.

 

Turbocharged, twin sequential turbochargers, intercooled. 6.4l diesel specs
http://www.internationalpowerstroke.com/64psd.html

But yes I agree, dropping the emissions crap is the only way to get the mileage back on the new diesels. But dropping emissions means you void your warranty unless you have a great dealer. You can easily spend a couple grand dropping the emissions... again adding to the overhead cost.

 

Not starting a pissing match, but sequential means one smaller turbo feeding a larger next inline. The term twin turbo charger in the PS isn't quite true. Does it have two turbo's, yes. Are they twins, NO. A true twin turbo has a turbo charger off each bank of cylinder heads.

 

You are correct.

On the 6.7, there are two turbos on the same axis.

 

Just depends what you consider twins I suppose.

 

Identical, not fraternal, and one feeding each bank. That's is a twin in the turbo realm. Otherwise, it is just dual turbos. The terms get used interchangeably quite a bit, but technically, they are not the same.

 

You do realize the current 3.5l ecoboost engine is derived from the Volvo T6 motor technology right? Ford owned Volvo and looks like they got some of the platforms/safety as well as powertrain from them. Either way, the 3.5l EB has alot of history behind it and is proven technology. Although Ford did introduce direct injection to the EB motor and also cranked up the power output, I suspect it won't make any difference on long term reliability with the EB in the f150s. This is one of the reasons I went with the EB motor as I've owned several of the t6 vehicles and they are rock solid.

 

I don't think that is quite true. Ford did get a lot of platform and safety tech (the current Explorer/Flex/Taurus are based on Volvo platforms). But, the 3.5EB to my understanding is not based on a Volvo engine. The EB technology (GEN 1) is actually outsourced from Bosch. Ford is bringing more of it in-house, but the original version was Bosch's.

The 3.5L engine is Ford's design, and they worked closely with Bosch to add EB to it.

 

If I remember my engines correctly the volvo t6 motor was designed the same way if I'm not mistaken. Bosch is a big part of it especially when it comes to the fuel system... the biggest difference is the volvo motor is an inline 6 where as the EB 3.5l is a v6. Nonetheless what I was leading up to was the usage of twin turbos on a 6 cylinder motor. I don't fault Ford for it, and in alot of aspects the quality and safety went up dramatically for Ford. My dad currently owns a 2008 5.7l Tundra and he is drooling over my truck.

 

Agreed. Didn't want to get technical, and the entire comment was riddled in sarcasm

 

Definitely!

Can you blame him? I am too!