2018 F150 Diesel - Ike Gauntlet 8700lbs

[nyryan2001]

I think everyone wants 3.5 Eco performance but with diesel MPGs

[Brett B]

9 hours ago, RyanB said:

I don't know how much impact the transmission has.  

Two years ago when the Titan first came out, I saw one pulling a 7000ish pound RV up the passes on I70 going the same direction we were going.  I was in my '12 RAM pulling my 13,000 pound 5th wheel so I had nearly double the weight, and significantly more wind resistance.  He passed me going down every hill, and I easily passed him going up every hill.  We ended up at the same campground and the owner told me how disappointed he was in the performance as he was giving it all the truck had.

Personally, I think that truck is just in no-man's land.  310 HP was a powerful engine 15 years ago.  It isn't now.  So, in the 1500 market, they are competing with trucks that have at least 20% more HP.  Even if you had the best transmission ever, you can't compete with a vehicle that has  60 - 80 + HP more than this truck.

And while the engine isn't big enough to really compete with others in its class (not even mentioning going into the 2500 class), it is too big to get MPG to compete with the 3.0 EcoDiesel/PowerStroke or upcoming Duramax.  

It's MPG is actually pretty embarrassing as it can't even best the current bigger diesels.  About the only engine it has an MPG advantage on is the Tundra, which might be known for a lot of things, but economy isn't one of them.

I might be wrong, but I think RAM was very smart to pass on this engine, as was Toyota, as they were slated to add it years ago.

 

Good info, thanks. It's funny you got to do a real-world side by side and then actually talk to the guy afterwards.

I agree that 310HP is weak but I expected that 555ft-lbs of torque would give significant low end pulling ability if the transmission was mapped properly to take advantage of it. I've driven several of the OEM Toyota diesels that are available to the overseas market and they have always performed much better than the low HP number would have you believe due to their torque output. I wish they would bring some of those options over here.

I'm not too worried about better gas mileage (I do tow with a Tundra after all), I just want the low end torque pulling ability that a good diesel offers in the most reliable package I can find. I don't really need a 3/4-ton, so Tundra + Cummins + Allison seemed like it would fit the bill on paper at least. But Toyota is clearly not interested in investing R&D dollars to expand engine options for the Tundra platform otherwise they would have brought something to market by now.  

 

[bamabonners]

9 hours ago, granddaddy55 said:

No you didn’t , it was a 2.4l 4 cylinder, if they would have put my 2.7 in the eco mustang I might have been able to talk my wife into it , she drove that dog and got into it immediately and came back to dealer immediately and said no thx

she is the proud owner of sn 18 GT premium vert, no pp, but we have a spare tire!

Ohhhhh I assumed 4 cylinders and thought 2.7 eco.  For driving in traffic around Houston, it did fine.  Never got to really have any fun with it.     Yep, v8 is the only way I’d buy one.  

[bamaboy]

4 hours ago, nyryan2001 said:

I think everyone wants 3.5 Eco performance but with diesel MPGs

Exclude me from "everyone"

[Sixball]

32 minutes ago, Brett B said:

 

Good info, thanks. It's funny you got to do a real-world side by side and then actually talk to the guy afterwards.

I agree that 310HP is weak but I expected that 555ft-lbs of torque would give significant low end pulling ability if the transmission was mapped properly to take advantage of it. I've driven several of the OEM Toyota diesels that are available to the overseas market and they have always performed much better than the low HP number would have you believe due to their torque output. I wish they would bring some of those options over here.

I'm not too worried about better gas mileage (I do tow with a Tundra after all), I just want the low end torque pulling ability that a good diesel offers in the most reliable package I can find. I don't really need a 3/4-ton, so Tundra + Cummins + Allison seemed like it would fit the bill on paper at least. But Toyota is clearly not interested in investing R&D dollars to expand engine options for the Tundra platform otherwise they would have brought something to market by now.  

 

With this statement all I would say is go down to the Ford dealer and take the Eco F-150 for a run. Its not going to get big fuel economy numbers towing but pulls like a diesel at a much better price runs on regular fuel not as big maintenance cost.  I have not looked in some time now but back in my big hauling days I would have had to run approximately 250,000 to 300,000 miles to get my money out of a diesel rig. So I have always just got a gas burner for what I needed. Its much better today but I did not want a diesel in the garage ether being attached to the house. But I also think the light diesels will be good for flatlanders and not Hi altitude. Dealing with the Hi passes is A requirement of its own.   

[RyanB]

5 hours ago, Brett B said:

 

Good info, thanks. It's funny you got to do a real-world side by side and then actually talk to the guy afterwards.

I agree that 310HP is weak but I expected that 555ft-lbs of torque would give significant low end pulling ability if the transmission was mapped properly to take advantage of it. I've driven several of the OEM Toyota diesels that are available to the overseas market and they have always performed much better than the low HP number would have you believe due to their torque output. I wish they would bring some of those options over here.

I'm not too worried about better gas mileage (I do tow with a Tundra after all), I just want the low end torque pulling ability that a good diesel offers in the most reliable package I can find. I don't really need a 3/4-ton, so Tundra + Cummins + Allison seemed like it would fit the bill on paper at least. But Toyota is clearly not interested in investing R&D dollars to expand engine options for the Tundra platform otherwise they would have brought something to market by now.  

 

I think in reality you will find HP is much more important than torque. My buddy has a Colorado with the little Duramax as a work truck. He loves it as he gets very good MPG overall. But I spoke with him two weeks back as he was in his way to TX pulling a 14’ V nose enclosed trailer that should have been less than 5000 pounds total weight. 

With a 45 mph headwind he was WOT and barely holding 65 MPH. 369 ft/lb of torque didn’t cut it when he only had 181 HP. 

 

HP matters. 

5 hours ago, Sixball said:

With this statement all I would say is go down to the Ford dealer and take the Eco F-150 for a run. Its not going to get big fuel economy numbers towing but pulls like a diesel at a much better price runs on regular fuel not as big maintenance cost.  I have not looked in some time now but back in my big hauling days I would have had to run approximately 250,000 to 300,000 miles to get my money out of a diesel rig. So I have always just got a gas burner for what I needed. Its much better today but I did not want a diesel in the garage ether being attached to the house. But I also think the light diesels will be good for flatlanders and not Hi altitude. Dealing with the Hi passes is A requirement of its own.   

For the record, Ford recommends premium when towing with an EcoBoost. 

And I’ve seen a number of EcoDiesel owners out pen to paper and the break even point of fuel costs for the upgrade is closer to 70,000 miles on the 1500s.  Which I still think is BS. How long does it take you to “get your money” out of that leather upgrade you paid for?

Very few people buy a vehicle on logic. Most buy on emotion. And it feels good to see upper 20’s in mpg on the highway. You won’t see that with gas. 

I think the smaller diesels can still be a winner. You just have to have the right expectations. You can have towing power or good mpg. Not both. 

[Sixball]

I have not used premium in my Eco yet. We did run a tank of premium in my brothers towing this winter and could not see or feel a change.  So last time i did the breakdown on gaser over diesel  all diesels were big diesels.  No Eco's out back then.  "Very few people buy a vehicle on logic"  I agree!

[granddaddy55]

I’m pulling to Norris on 87 octane with my 2.7 when I go. Gonna put the cruise control on and let it hunt  fir 600 miles

i drive slow so real eager to compute the gallons used mpg method for the two fill ups and when I arrive so we should have some accurate  numbers to post from 65 on cruise control from 3 fillups

 

[That Guy]

16 hours ago, granddaddy55 said:

I’m pulling to Norris on 87 octane with my 2.7 when I go. Gonna put the cruise control on and let it hunt  fir 600 miles

i drive slow so real eager to compute the gallons used mpg method for the two fill ups and when I arrive so we should have some accurate  numbers to post from 65 on cruise control from 3 fillups

 

I always used 87 when towing to Norris as well. I used cruise the first couple times but stopped once I got into the mountains as it likes to downshift often so it can race up the hills and I wasn’t a fan of that and felt it got worse mpg, so on most hills I’d pedal it myself, but I was running 75mph most times. It pulled great, never short on power, a definite improvement from my 14 w/ the 5.0. 

[granddaddy55]

Won’t it be in 5th anyway even peddling it, I know your saying it will go to 4th to keep up but I guess it’s the traffic that stops it from finding its groove in 5th

ill probably abandon the idea too once I get close, but it’s only 1200 ft elevation 

[That Guy]

7 hours ago, granddaddy55 said:

Won’t it be in 5th anyway even peddling it, I know your saying it will go to 4th to keep up but I guess it’s the traffic that stops it from finding its groove in 5th

ill probably abandon the idea too once I get close, but it’s only 1200 ft elevation 

Depending on speed it’ll sit in 6th and chug away at full boost = very thirsty or can drop down to 3rd and pull like a freight train to the peak and then shift up a few gears for the initial decline then down shift to 5th or 4th depending on if you have tow haul on and your speed/grade. I found by locking out 6th and normal driving it’d stay in 5th at like 2200rpms 95% of the time.