F-150 Diesel

[Watt maker]

Only available in the Lariat trim. Have to spend an awful lot to save a little (if any) on fuel. Doesn't make any cents. So that would be a no.

Small displacement diesels made sense when they were pre-emissions and were damn near bomb proof. Sadly we never really got any, but the rest of the World did. Like most things today they have become overly complicated and expensive. I am sure they will still sell as long as the truck bubble keeps on growing. Any guess when the economy is going to crash again, I am guessing 2-3 years.

$68,000 for that test truck in the TFL video, that went into limp mode going downhill, Yeah no thanks...

A plea to the truck manufactures. Can we please go back to simple trucks that an owner could fix themselves, that you can beat on, and didn't cost as much as a small house. *sigh* those days are never to return.

The F150 diesel is available in lower trims but only for fleet sales. Just find a fleet sales manager that would be willing to sell you one. I don't think it would be that hard to find one that would do that for you.

I'm with you on the thought of $68k that goes into "limp mode". Yeah, no thanks here as well. I became familiar with the term limp mode many years ago when I bought a mercury mystique. Terrible little car. I swore off ford for a while after that car but I came back around in 2012 when I bought a f150 ecoboost. Not too far into the ownership of that truck, damn limp mode struck again. I think it just comes standard on those fords. By the time that truck hit 40k miles, it had become really unreliable so I traded that one in.

With all the EPA crap on the newer gen diesels, I just don't want one anymore. Dang near everyone that has a newer gen diesel at work has had problems with it. Some delete and some just put up with taking it to the service dept. all the time. No thanks. Been there, done that.

 

[Clutch]

With all the EPA crap on the newer gen diesels, I just don't want one anymore. Dang near everyone that has a newer gen diesel at work has had problems with it. Some delete and some just put up with taking it to the service dept. all the time. No thanks. Been there, done that.

There was a time I was hot for diesels, but that time has passed. Waaaay too fussy for me to put up with.

 

[Dalko43]

'fussy' is a relevant term. Compared to the old mechanical 12v Cummins' and GM v8's put in the HMMWV's, yes the newer diesels are more fussy (fuel quality, emissions requirements, injection systems, ect.).

But then again, I really don't want to sit behind a loud, smelly and bone-shaking 12v or GM V8 for a 10 hour drive into northern Ontario. And so long as you learn to do the proper pre-checks and maintenance, these newer diesels can turn out to be fairly reliable and trouble-free. I can live with that tradeoff, but I'm also someone who likes to learn about these engines and have a hand in their upkeep.

If you're someone who just wants a vehicle that will start and drive with minimal care and attention, I suppose a gasoline has some advantages. But this new crop of turbo's and different injection/ignition strategies seem to come with their own can of worms.

It's interesting to note too that many of these newer gasoline engines, while they can run on regular 87 octane, have OEM recommendations for 89 octane or higher for optimal performance and efficiency: GM's 3.6l v6 in the Colorado requires top-tier 87 octane fuel (some owners run 89 octane just to be safe); the 5.7l and 6.4l Hemi's recommend 89 octane; the 3.5l ecoboost recommends premium for optimal towing/hauling performance.

It just seems to me that all modern engines are becoming more 'fussy' compared to their predecessors.

 

[Huffy]

As an owner of both a Super Duty diesel and a new F-150 5.0, I don't get this truck. If you just want a diesel and don't really need a HD truck it's fine. If you do need HD or a diesel get a super duty or other large diesel. The F-150 is a great truck, nice to drive, fast, rides like a Caddy, tows up to 5K# great but, it's not HD and it will not tow, brake or carry load like a 2500 or 3500 class vehicle. Obviously people want them as evidenced by the Dodge Eco Diesel but, there is no real reason to own one beyond simply wanting a diesel. BTW, I don't really need my Super Duty Diesel any more but, sure do like it!

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I have the 2.7 ad I get 26-26.5mpg if I set the cruise at 70. The extra 4k would for the desiel would take a while to pay off even if it got the 30mpg they claim.

 

[Regcabguy]

Too much stuff. I ordered the last of the 5.9 Cummins two months before the cutoff.
A shop I use "lightens" up newer Cummins and to see all the emissions equipment it's staggering.
Then you have to buy a tuner to fool the ECM.
When it's all done though,they fly.
That being said though Ford will do their best to make it all work. Write up in mag was great.

 

[Clutch]

'fussy' is a relevant term. Compared to the old mechanical 12v Cummins' and GM v8's put in the HMMWV's, yes the newer diesels are more fussy (fuel quality, emissions requirements, injection systems, ect.).

But then again, I really don't want to sit behind a loud, smelly and bone-shaking 12v or GM V8 for a 10 hour drive into northern Ontario. And so long as you learn to do the proper pre-checks and maintenance, these newer diesels can turn out to be fairly reliable and trouble-free. I can live with that tradeoff, but I'm also someone who likes to learn about these engines and have a hand in their upkeep.

If you're someone who just wants a vehicle that will start and drive with minimal care and attention, I suppose a gasoline has some advantages. But this new crop of turbo's and different injection/ignition strategies seem to come with their own can of worms.

It's interesting to note too that many of these newer gasoline engines, while they can run on regular 87 octane, have OEM recommendations for 89 octane or higher for optimal performance and efficiency: GM's 3.6l v6 in the Colorado requires top-tier 87 octane fuel (some owners run 89 octane just to be safe); the 5.7l and 6.4l Hemi's recommend 89 octane; the 3.5l ecoboost recommends premium for optimal towing/hauling performance.

It just seems to me that all modern engines are becoming more 'fussy' compared to their predecessors.

Fussy as in the emissions system needs attending to, and wouldn't want to own one out of warranty. The repair cost is well...I don't want to have to work that hard to pay for it.

I'll stay with non-turbo gassers. Basically have to change the oil and that is about it. Yeah you have to change the spark plugs every 100K...and catalytic converters are chump change compared to replacing DEF systems. The new engines have come a long way from the old stuff, can run them up to 100-200K without hardly touching them. So not that fussy at all. We have discussed this before...believe the modern diesel engine itself is great...it is the expensive emissions equipment that is tacked on it, that worries me. A $70K brand new truck going into limp mode, while going downhill? Not good. That thing should be perfect for that kind of change.

Don't think pushing a different button at the gas pump for octane rating is all that fussy for a gas engine, and really... you don't have to do that. Just only for maximum performance. I only run Top Tier 91 in all my engines no matter the size, from the chainsaw, mower...etc...to all my vehicles. About the only way to get non-ethanol fuel here. So octane rating isn't much of a concern for me. I did find one station that has 88 Non-E...but it is way out of the way for me.


These machines are supposed to be tools to make our lives easier...the lower the fuss the better. Kinda sick of them in general...trying to get to the point in life where I only need a bicycle for general running around. And only use a vehicle for traveling.

This is my new favorite "truck"...can use it to run get groceries, the hardware store, coffee, milkshakes, burritos.... Haven't quite tested the MPB's yet (miles per burrito) but I'll let you know!

 

[Dalko43]

I have the 2.7 ad I get 26-26.5mpg if I set the cruise at 70. The extra 4k would for the desiel would take a while to pay off even if it got the 30mpg they claim.

My experience is that the turbo gasoline engines do fairly well in easy, unloaded driving. When you put them to work or encounter real-world conditions, their efficiency doesn't hold up as well compared to diesels. With that said, I'm glad to see Ford offering turbo gasolines, in addition to turbo diesels and naturally aspirated v8's. I'm always in favor of giving more options to the consumer.

Too much stuff. I ordered the last of the 5.9 Cummins two months before the cutoff.
A shop I use "lightens" up newer Cummins and to see all the emissions equipment it's staggering.
Then you have to buy a tuner to fool the ECM.
When it's all done though,they fly.
That being said though Ford will do their best to make it all work. Write up in mag was great.

I'm not a fan of the yahoo's who do smoke shows and tune their trucks for huge power just so they can cruise and make loud noises on main street. But I do understand there is a large contingent which deletes their emissions purely for the reliability and efficiency aspect. I empathize with their reasoning even if I don't agree with their methods.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on how you look at it), I think the days of aftermarket 'deletes' are quickly coming to an end. It's already a violation of federal regulations to do that. The big aftermarket shops had their d$%ks slapped by the EPA for offering delete solutions, and while the smaller tuner shops have picked up the slack, I think its only a matter of time before they get targeted too. I know that in some states you can flagrantly violate those emissions rules and not get in trouble; in other states and many parts of Canada, you'll get fined or worse.

For someone who truly wants to explore all parts of North America with their truck, I think a delete assumes too much risk. I also question how much of an efficiency advantage it truly brings. With the older, pre-SCR trucks, I think there were real gains to be had. With the newer SCR-trucks, I'm not sure there is a significant efficiency gain. Some of the mpg figures I've seen reported from deleted trucks seem only marginally better, if not the same, as what emissions-compliant trucks are getting. Don't know...I'm hoping that in 5-10 years' time, all this talk of deletes and emissions issues will be a thing of the past. When emissions and cleaner fuels were mandated for gassers back in the 60's and 70's, a lot of people were having the same conversation. But now hardly anyone feels the need to strip out gasoline emissions systems because their efficiency and reliability has improved considerably from what it was previously.

 

[Dalko43]

Fussy as in the emissions system needs attending to, and wouldn't want to own one out of warranty. The repair cost is well...I don't want to have to work that hard to pay for it.

I'll stay with non-turbo gassers. Basically have to change the oil and that is about it. Yeah you have to change the spark plugs every 100K...and catalytic converters are chump change compared to replacing DEF systems.

Don't think pushing a different button at the gas pump for octane rating is all that fussy for a gas engine, and really... you don't have to do that. Just only for maximum performance. I only run Top Tier 91 in all my engines no matter the size, from the chainsaw, mower...etc...to all my vehicles. About the only way to get non-ethanol fuel here. So octane rating isn't much of a concern for me. I did find one station that has 88 Non-E...but it is way out of the way for me.

Yep, you have a point. My 4.0l v6 in the 4runner, as mediocre as it is in terms of efficiency and acceleration, certainly is a very easy engine to maintain and run. Even though I criticize it, I still admire it for its ability to take crappy ethanol 87 octane, get an oil change every 7k-10k miles and just run.

I do think there is only so much more efficiency that can be wrung out of those bare bones naturally aspirated gassers though. I think turbo gasolines, hybrids, and diesels will see greater implementation in the future because they offer the potential for better efficiency and horsepower delivery. The octane rating is increasingly becoming an issue for modern gassers and I consider it to be somewhat of a hindrance. Yes, most of those engines I listed can run on 87 octane, but there are a lot of owner reports stating that efficiency and overall performance suffers when you don't follow the OEM recommendations on octane. And if you adhere to those recommendations, the fuel cost advantage shifts increasingly toward diesels (89 octane is priced very close to diesel in most areas and 91 octane or higher is often more expensive).

I don't mind handling my vehicle's upkeep, so dealing with things like DEF or troubleshooting the DPF and EGR aren't a big deal to me. And honestly, a lot of those issues are resolved with simple software updates. But I will concede that gassers have the advantage of being somewhat more simple to run and maintain. And when friends of mine ask for car-buying advice, I always tell them that. I don't see a wrong answer on that issue...it all comes down to driver preference.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I'll stay with non-turbo gassers. Basically have to change the oil and that is about it. Yeah you have to change the spark plugs every 100K...and catalytic converters are chump change compared to replacing DEF systems.

Don't think pushing a different button at the gas pump for octane rating is all that fussy for a gas engine, and really... you don't have to do that. Just only for maximum performance. I only run Top Tier 91 in all my engines no matter the size, from the chainsaw, mower...etc...to all my vehicles. About the only way to get non-ethanol fuel here. So octane rating isn't much of a concern for me. I did find one station that has 88 Non-E...but it is way out of the way for me.

It does seem modern diesels are, as you say, probably no worse than turbo gasoline engines for maintenance and repair.

As far as technology goes, I think we want to believe all the complexity is bad. That ship sailed a long time ago and I think you can argue things got better, at least until recently perhaps. The mess of emissions junk on a 1985 carb engine is maddening and even the early EFI wasn't that simple. My 1GR has a lot fewer vacuum hoses with valves and band-aid systems to fix issues under corner cases and special circumstances than that 22R-E even. Plus the engine management is more intelligent so pulling codes actually helps. The 1GR was designed from the ground up to do the job with the restrictions in place.

And it's quite a bit less particular about gasoline. I had that '91 long enough for the gasoline here to go from pure to only a winter blend to a year-round 10% ethanol. It ran noticeably better on 100% gasoline or mid and high grade from Shell while my 1GR doesn't really care if I use 85 or 91 even if it's not top tier. Mileage changes a little but it doesn't detonate or run rough like poorer gas would cause my 22R-E to do. Not to mention how the ethanol ate the soft fuel lines and seals and gummed stuff up. Ugh.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on how you look at it), I think the days of aftermarket 'deletes' are quickly coming to an end. It's already a violation of federal regulations to do that.

It's always been a Federal crime to modify your emissions systems and that's been a cat-and-mouse game since catalytic converters and air injection started showing up in the mid 1970s. With CARB in California it's difficult to modify your engine in any way.

While we don't have exactly the same situation here in Colorado in the I-25 metroplexubranhell we have to do biennial emissions tests that have a visual inspection, so you can't toss your emissions stuff. Especially if you ever want to sell your vehicle. They changed the grandfathering laws and now even a 1976 FJ40 upon new owner registration will have to be in place and functioning like it did in '76. You used to be able to register 25+ with a new collectible status and not have to do emissions tests, but no more. Now you can really only keep collectible status if you had it when they changed the law. New collectible plates require annual mileage (4,500 miles max) restrictions and you still have to pass emissions tests on 5 year renewals. The did keep the exemption for 1975 and older, though.

But at least we don't have to have special badges and stickers under the hood when you put on headers or whatever. So I dunno how quick "quickly" will be. There are still a lot of people who do not live in places with emissions tests so hard to imagine modifications won't continue.

 

[Dalko43]

And it's quite a bit less particular about gasoline. I had that '91 long enough for the gasoline here to go from pure to only a winter blend to a year-round 10% ethanol. It ran noticeably better on 100% gasoline or mid and high grade from Shell while my 1GR doesn't really care if I use 85 or 91 even if it's not top tier. Mileage changes a little but it doesn't detonate or run rough like poorer gas would cause my 22R-E to do.

Toyota's newer naturally aspirated truck engines are well known for being very flexible when it comes to fuel. The newer turbo gasolines (Ford ecoboost), the Ram Hemi's and, oddly enough, even the 3.6l v6 in the Colorado, all seem to be a bit more picky about fuel. Like I said earlier, most of them can run on 87 octane, but the OEM's recommend mid-grade or higher, especially for towing and high-load driving. GM recommends 87 octane for the 3.6l v6, but its supposed to be 'top-tier' gasoline which is only provided by specific vendors. I don't know if that will be the trend 10 years from now, but I that's what I've observed as of late.

While we don't have exactly the same situation here in Colorado in the I-25 metroplexubranhell we have to do biennial emissions tests that have a visual inspection, so you can't toss your emissions stuff. Especially if you ever want to sell your vehicle. They changed the grandfathering laws and now even a 1976 FJ40 upon new owner registration will have to be in place and functioning like it did in '76. You used to be able to register 25+ with a new collectible status and not have to do emissions tests, but no more. Now you can really only keep collectible status if you had it when they changed the law. New collectible plates require annual mileage (4,500 miles max) restrictions and you still have to pass emissions tests on 5 year renewals. The did keep the exemption for 1975 and older, though.

But at least we don't have to have special badges and stickers under the hood when you put on headers or whatever. So I dunno how quick "quickly" will be. There are still a lot of people who do not live in places with emissions tests so hard to imagine modifications won't continue.

I think how "quickly" is predicated on the executive branch of government. The legislature set the regulations on emissions, but they gave broad authority to the executive branch (which includes the EPA) to monitor, enforce and even enact supporting rules. A while back, the Federal government used its financial influence to force states to adopt drinking age and speed limits. It wouldn't be so far-fetched to see it do the same for emissions testing and enforcement.

Edit: and even if nation-wide emissions testing is still a long ways off, delete tuning still presents challenges to the overlander. For example, I wouldn't want to get in trouble with Canadian police while driving a deleted truck through Ontario...I've heard multiple reports of Canadian owners getting pulled over and fined. Some of those provinces have little tolerance for rule-breakers, less so if they're visiting Americans.

 

[Clutch]

Yep, you have a point. My 4.0l v6 in the 4runner, as mediocre as it is in terms of efficiency and acceleration, certainly is a very easy engine to maintain and run. Even though I criticize it, I still admire it for its ability to take crappy ethanol 87 octane, get an oil change every 7k-10k miles and just run.

I do think there is only so much more efficiency that can be wrung out of those bare bones naturally aspirated gassers though. I think turbo gasolines, hybrids, and diesels will see greater implementation in the future because they offer the potential for better efficiency and horsepower delivery. The octane rating is increasingly becoming an issue for modern gassers and I consider it to be somewhat of a hindrance. Yes, most of those engines I listed can run on 87 octane, but there are a lot of owner reports stating that efficiency and overall performance suffers when you don't follow the OEM recommendations on octane. And if you adhere to those recommendations, the fuel cost advantage shifts increasingly toward diesels (89 octane is priced very close to diesel in most areas and 91 octane or higher is often more expensive).

I don't mind handling my vehicle's upkeep, so dealing with things like DEF or troubleshooting the DPF and EGR aren't a big deal to me. And honestly, a lot of those issues are resolved with simple software updates. But I will concede that gassers have the advantage of being somewhat more simple to run and maintain. And when friends of mine ask for car-buying advice, I always tell them that. I don't see a wrong answer on that issue...it all comes down to driver preference.

It does seem modern diesels are, as you say, probably no worse than turbo gasoline engines for maintenance and repair.

As far as technology goes, I think we want to believe all the complexity is bad. That ship sailed a long time ago and I think you can argue things got better, at least until recently perhaps. The mess of emissions junk on a 1985 carb engine is maddening and even the early EFI wasn't that simple. My 1GR has a lot fewer vacuum hoses with valves and band-aid systems to fix issues under corner cases and special circumstances than that 22R-E even. Plus the engine management is more intelligent so pulling codes actually helps. The 1GR was designed from the ground up to do the job with the restrictions in place.

Not all complexity is bad, but think we are going a wee to far with it....my '99 seems about right mix of old and new. Think you were saying [Dave] the Tacomas were about "right" up to 2008...then after that...too much computer stuff, yeah?

And it's quite a bit less particular about gasoline. I had that '91 long enough for the gasoline here to go from pure to only a winter blend to a year-round 10% ethanol. It ran noticeably better on 100% gasoline or mid and high grade from Shell while my 1GR doesn't really care if I use 85 or 91 even if it's not top tier. Mileage changes a little but it doesn't detonate or run rough like poorer gas would cause my 22R-E to do. Not to mention how the ethanol ate the soft fuel lines and seals and gummed stuff up. Ugh.

Probably best to quote both of you guys...two birds one stone...

My '99 3.4 is noticeably effected by lower octane, even though it is somewhat modern. Get quite a bit of detonation out of it....maybe I am not patient enough to let the computer learn the lower grade fuel. In the past only run a tank through it, then right back to 91. My dirt bike requires 91 or higher...and so does my newish mower and gas trimmer. So everything gets 91. Which is kinda nice when I have left over fuel at the end of the season...just dump in in the truck. Though my trimmer has been fussy, think the carburetor needs rebuilt...but they don't let you do that anymore, have to buy a whole new carb now-a-days...or worse...a whole new trimmer. This engineered obsolescence is annoying. Whatever happened to simply fixing things? I dunno...have been looking at battery powered lawn equipment lately. No gas...and low noise sure would be nice.


Fairly OCD about maintenance...still in that old skool idea of changing the oil every 3000 miles, Hell I used to do it every 2500...maybe why my engine has lasted 370K miles? (and still going) I don't really mind the maintenance since I keep my vehicles for long time...it is the out of warranty repairs that frightens me with the new diesels. That and I don't really see any clear advantages with them over gas. Slightly better mileage...but at what cost?

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think how "quickly" is predicated on the executive branch of government. The legislature set the regulations on emissions, but they gave broad authority to the executive branch (which includes the EPA) to monitor, enforce and even enact supporting rules. A while back, the Federal government used its financial influence to force states to adopt drinking age and speed limits. It wouldn't be so far-fetched to see it do the same for emissions testing and enforcement.

I wouldn't count on it. There's a constant murmur of eliminating emissions testing here. It only occurs fully in 7 counties and 2 others partially out of 64 in the state. If they push too hard to make it any worse I can see getting rid of the testing gaining momentum. It's $25, takes time waiting in line for 99.99% of people just to pass. To people who don't pay attention it's a pain to deal with, to gear heads it's a pain if you want to stay legal. How is making it tough on a few hot rods and 4wd collectors really helping anything? There are a handful of people who ruin it for everyone (Coal Rollers) and they aren't caught in the emissions testing net because they can just register their trucks in Wyoming or in a rural county, so emissions testing was recognized as practically infective by the legislature. They passed a law making it an vehicle equipment infraction. It's viewed as a cash grab for a private company (Air Care Colorado) and a backdoor way to get old iron off the road, just forcing you to buy a new car.

 

[Dalko43]

I wouldn't count on it. There's a constant murmur of eliminating emissions testing here. It only occurs fully in 7 counties and 2 others partially out of 64 in the state. If they push too hard to make it any worse I can see getting rid of the testing gaining momentum. It's $25, takes time waiting in line for 99.99% of people just to pass. To people who don't pay attention it's a pain to deal with, to gear heads it's a pain if you want to stay legal. How is making it tough on a few hot rods and 4wd collectors really helping anything? There are a handful of people who ruin it for everyone (Coal Rollers) and they aren't caught in the emissions testing net because they can just register their trucks in Wyoming or in a rural county, so emissions testing was recognized as practically infective by the legislature. They passed a law making it an vehicle equipment infraction. It's viewed as a cash grab for a private company (Air Care Colorado) and a backdoor way to get old iron off the road, just forcing you to buy a new car.

When I was talking about the legislature and executive branch, I was referring to the Federal government. The Federal government forced the states' hands on drinking age limits and speed limits by threatening to withhold funding....it could just as easily do the same for emissions testing.

More and more states and parts of Canada have increased the regulations and penalties associated with diesel emissions...a few states might be bucking that trend, but they're an exception to the norm.

This issue is already settled by Federal law, for both Canada and the US. It's just a matter of the individual states and provinces enforcing that law, which I think will happen sooner or later.

 

[DaveInDenver]

When I was talking about the legislature and executive branch, I was referring to the Federal government. The Federal government forced the states' hands on drinking age limits and speed limits by threatening to withhold funding....it could just as easily do the same for emissions testing.

More and more states and parts of Canada have increased the regulations and penalties associated with diesel emissions...a few states might be bucking that trend, but they're an exception to the norm.

This issue is already settled by Federal law, for both Canada and the US. It's just a matter of the individual states and provinces enforcing that law, which I think will happen sooner or later.

There's not really much they can do to force anything legally. The threats about reefer madness didn't stop the state from telling the DEA and FDA to shove it over marijuana and that was far more overt than some pencil pushers withholding Interstate money. They said anyone selling or possessing pot would be subject to Federal prosecution regardless of state law and that never happened. OTOH the state is raking tax money hand over fist (and since shops couldn't use Federally-backed banks, they were literally walking into the capitol with duffel bags of cash to pay their taxes) and that is far more powerful to politicians than any thinly veiled threats from the Justice Dept. The emperor really has no clothes and his nekkedness is becoming more clear all the time.