F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
18fordf150_10_hr.jpg

Ford Motor Company has used the 2017 Detroit Auto Show to introduce the facelifted 2018 Ford F150 pickup truck and while the new look is a nice change, the big news is that the 2018 F150 will feature a 3.0L PowerStroke diesel engine – confirming the popular rumors of a diesel-powered half ton Ford. Reprinted with TorqueNews.com with permission.




It has been speculated for at least a year now that the Ford F150 would eventually get a small diesel engine and more recently, spy shots showing test trucks driving around Metro Detroit led us to believe that the F150 would be getting a facelift in the immediate future.

Well, the future is now, as Ford Motor Company has announced that the 2018 Ford F150 will get a new front end, new taillights and a new diesel engine which just might make the F150 the most fuel-friendly half ton truck in America.


The New Face of the 2018 F150
First up, the biggest surprise with the 2018 Ford F150 is the refreshed face. The current F150 was introduced for the 2015 model year, so after only three model years, the Motor Company has given their bestselling half ton truck a pretty significant exterior refresh.


The key change is the grille design of the 2018 F150, which features a bold two-bar design which spans the grille opening and reaches into the headlight housings. The headlights themselves are new as well, with a similar basic design to that found on the current F150, but the new LED headlights are larger, giving the front end a much wider feel. It should also be noted that on at least one 2018 F150 trimline (presumably the base model), the grille is left open, without the bars, but the headlight design is similar.


Continuing that widening feel is a redesigned front bumper that looks a great deal like the current F150, but revised fog light bezels give the bumper a wider look. Overall, the changes to the front of the 2018 F150 go a long way in making it look bigger and more like the current Super Duty pickups – and that isn’t a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
F150 will have five power train choices. Diesel recommended for those who drive more than 20K, which means they're preparing PowerStroke wannebes' for sticker shock.

It's also on another thread, but the diesel will not be the only new engine for 2018; though the diesel is the biggest news. The base engine will become a 3.3 V6 NA engine, down from 3.5 with the same power and torque peaks via adding DI/PFI combo fuel delivery. And get this, all four gas engines will get that combo DI and PFI fuel delivery that was designed for the 2017 3.5 liter, and all but the base engine will be mated to the new 10 speed. This means that all power trains get updated or new for MY 2018 except for the the 3.5 EB, which will be only one year old when the 2018s arrive. The 2.7 EB and 5.0 V8 are promised higher performance and efficiency; the 2.7 will get new turbos (I think I read that) and promised better reliability/durability via adding PFI to the fuel delivery mix; and the V8 gets direct injection. Rumors that there would be a 4.8 to replace the 5.0 were either unfounded or they changed their minds, or it's out in the future, because it stays 5.0L.

Except for the base engine, which was announced to have equal output as the current engine, no other details or specs were given though the diesel will most certainly be the already emission-certified 3.0 V6 now sold in a Land Rover for the U.S. that was originally designed by Ford and Peugeot. The numbers in that vehicle are at or about 251/444 peak hp/torque, and I wouldn't expect too big of a change lest new certifications would be required. No mpg info was given or even speculated by Ford folks on any power train for MY 2018, but I'd expect that the 3.5L EB will stay the same since the power train will be carried over from 2017. I'd expect the other gas engines to eek up slightly, but we must keep in mind, Ford is going to be improving on their lead in the mpg race, so eeking up is still up. The Powerstroke could come in as high as 25-26 combined rating city/hwy, but we'll have to see.

Some had speculated, wrongly, that the F150 might have gotten the 3.2 I5 PowerStroke diesel that's in the Transit Van and Wagon 3/4-ton and up, but I knew better. That engine is not suitable for the direction Ford's trying to go with F150. Although it is stone reliable, it's heavy with a cast iron block, not efficient enough to match Ram's Ecodiesel, and it's sort of an old design comparatively in this competitive segment with only 185/350 peak numbers. Besides, it's certified for only 8600 GVWR and up. Tightening up the exhaust would likely lower performance further in a half ton. Some say, it'll be the engine in the upcoming Ranger, because it's in the global Ranger, but I'd be surprised. I think we'll see either this same 3.0 V6 or a more modern, less expensive four cylinder (think baby Duramax that's in the Coloado/Canyon; it's a 2.8 I4) with at least the same performance as that I5. Now that solenoid injectors are once again a design option for emission compliance, that opens the door for slightly less expensive diesels going forward, since piezo is no longer needed, though you wouldn't know it by the price of those diesel compacts over at GM. However, until there is a major breakthrough in diesel exhaust treatment or the EPA softens their strangle on NOx limits, diesels will stay terribly complex, unreliable, expensive to buy and maintain, and not attainable by the average driver; F150 included.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
In light of the new dieselgate scandal expansion, i.e. Fiat Chrysler (FCA) has now been accused by the EPA and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) of sneeking in software to allow nitrogen oxide tailpipe emissions above the EPA limit to be emitted in certain circumstances; I now wonder if diesel power train options will soon be dead in North America for everything under the 8600 GVWR. If it turns out that the EPA and the CARB are not just witch hunting, and that FCA had intent to deceive and purposely pollute; then I wonder if Ford and Chrysler and GM will back out of their diesel power train programs for 1/2-ton and below, because this time it's the big-selling Ram 1500 Ecodiesel and the Jeep Cherokee Ecodiesel with the 3.0 V6 built by VMI, which is co-owned by Fiat and GM that has been implicated in the scandal. Although sales of diesel passenger cars have plummeted in the face of round one (VW dieselgate), diesel-powered pickup trucks were still doing well, but I wonder since this new fiasco will be surrounded around pickups if this will be the stake in the heart for clean diesels. And only one week after Ford's big announcement.

Of course this all goes to the bigger question that it seems no one ever asks...Why does our EPA and our CARB demand equal limits for diesels and gassers with respect to nitrogen oxides exhaust when it is obvious that nitrogen oxides in and of itself is not a harmful gas nor does it produce smog by itself? And it was obvious from the beginning of this so-called "fuel neutral" policy by the EPA that getting NOx down to those very low levels from a lean-burning combustion system like a diesel power train was going to be very expensive and very difficult. NOx is a by-product of lean combustion, and if you turn lean into rich, then you've taken away one of the biggest advantages of a diesel, which is why we currently have these SCR systems. SCR allows NOx to be created from combustion, but then ammonia kills it before it leaves the tailpipe via diesel exhaust fluid. Moreover as stated above, NOx has to mix with other man-made compounds in the air to produce smog; chiefly volatile organic compounds, which mostly comes from spark-ignition tail pipes, from manufacturing processes, and from consumer product vapors. Especially when one takes in to account that a well-designed clean diesel engine with a particulate filter can have an emission profile lower than what is possible for equal powered gas engines with a 3-way catalyst system with respect to much more harmful pollutants than NOx, then this demand seems unreasonable. For example, one can idle a clean diesel in a closed area and not get carbon monoxide poisoning, because CO is so low in a clean diesel, whereas to do this in a gas car would be certain death, yet diesel power train technologies do not get credit for these areas in which they can be more favorable. My personal opinion is that our regulatory agencies were from the beginning of this so-called fuel neutral policy, trying to make it impossible for diesel-powered vehicles to be available in our market in the future, as they had to have known how far diesel technologies had evolved with respect to power and refinement while maintaining their efficiency advantage.

It could be that if there is another motive by the EPA and the CARB against diesels for political reasons beyond protecting the public health and that this accusation against FCA is just a parting shot before new leadership. Probably not; I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, however, I am a skeptic and think of the what ifs. But if it turns out that FCA is not cheating, and this is not a cover up and just a mistake, or that this software does not in fact emit higher levels of NOx as accused, then they may be able to prove their case. But even if the latter is true, they will not get help from the tree hugging community or the media to push towards the truth, because those groups are biased against diesels, and the truth doesn't matter in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,404 Posts
It looks good to me. It's too bad the diesel will be underpowered like the Dodge is.
it will be ok for towing up to 5k, and getting groceries.

Thats all i use my truck for at this point though so as long as its not 10,000,000 dollars I would consider one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
But why do you need an expensive, dinky small toy diesel when you have a 3.5 EcoBoost available?

The Eco outperforms the diesel imposters 7 days a week.

Don't give me the fuel mileage crap either, towing MPG will be the same. If you want 35MPG then buy a Fiesta.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
But why do you need an expensive, dinky small toy diesel when you have a 3.5 EcoBoost available?

The Eco outperforms the diesel imposters 7 days a week.

Don't give me the fuel mileage crap either, towing MPG will be the same. If you want 35MPG then buy a Fiesta.
Sorry, but the above post deserves a rant that follows...

I respectively disagree and I don't understand that kind of thinking. I agree 100% about the price dilemma, but disagree about "towing mpg" (diesel will have far better real world mpg; especially towing); and venimently disagree with the "toy" argument. The Fiesta does not have a 5.5-8 foot bed. The Fiesta is also available with an Ecoboost engine.

Not sure how a mid-sized diesel engine at or about the same displacement and the exact same cylinder arrangement, with the same type of components to give it extra boost as we have in an Ecoboost makes it more "toy like" than an equally toy like Ecoboost. Is peak horsepower alone a measure of toughness and or real versus toy? Not in my mind. In fact, that sort of statement is similar to what one would expect from a muscle head against Ecoboost, so making such a statement coming from one of them (you know, the turbo haters) makes sense; but from one of us, it does not. I'm not saying there are no arguments against diesel versus Ecoboost (there are plenty); most to do with original cost, maintenance cost, and reliability worries regarding exhaust treatment system. I'm just suggesting though that the "toy" argument seems weak referring to a 3.0 liter V6 diesel from anyone that owns a 2.7 liter or 3.5 liter V6 DI/Turbo gas engine installed in a full-size pickup. That's the same argument normally used against Ecoboost technologies, but now being made by an Ecoboost enthusiast turned around on enthusiasts of a different combustion method. It makes no sense unless horsepower and 1/4-mile times is the be all, end all for 1/2-ton pickups.

We're mostly Ecoboost fans. As Ecoboost fans, for the most part, we like and appreciate and actually prefer a downsized, turbo charged, direct injection, internal combustion engine to other choices on the market; therefore most of us have chosen and like this type of engine. We appreciate and respect and like the concept of downsizing displacement and adding turbo charging and direct injection that provides very flat torque; good horsepower and decent mpg. If engineers use this same concept, with roughly the same displacement in a diesel, we end up with even more peak torque; ableit only slightly; torque that comes on even lower, but that trails off at higher RPM unlike our Ecoboost. In other words, unlike the Ecoboost, a similarly sized and cylinder-dispaced diesel, will not have power and torque move in the same sort of linear fashion. Also, and even more significantly, we could assume that a 3.0 V6 Ecoboost, if it existed, at Ford's current technology level using dual-fuel injection, could come in at or about 340 horsepower (in between the current 3.5 and the 2.7); a similarly-sized diesel with only one turbo, built for reliability and durability, comes in at much lower peak horsepower. We can expect maybe 250-255 with the upcoming diesel and probably 440-445 peak ft pound torque at or about 2000-2800 RPM. This means; no matter what the official tow rating is, it will not be able to accelerate up the same grade hill as either Ecoboost, with the same load; simply because it won't have the same horsepower; but that doesn't make it a toy. It will be able to handle grades in higher gears and will chug along in a more easy going manner than either Ecoboost, and for some consumers, that's a positive attribute or power train character. So it will have good points and bad points compared to EB on performance, depending on different consumers preferences, but a 250 hp / 440 ft-lb torque V6 diesel will certainly be within the realm of what most would expect and need from a 1/2-ton pickup. If it is well engineered, it will be a great engine, as there have been many great diesel engines throughout history that have been hard workers; not all of them large and heavy. I had a 1997 V8 F150 that had 235 horsepower and 290 ft-lb torque @ 3700 RPM. We thought that was good performance back then. I couldn't do better than 15 mpg. But nowadays, we're going to self impose some sort of horsepower low point over 300. I don't agree. Twenty years after my 235/290/15 mpg F150, Ford will offer a 2018 diesel with less cylinders and less displacement, with much more performance and much better mpg than we had back then by far, so it is by no means a toy by any measure considering the duty level. We can also compare it to the base engine. There will be a 3.3 NA V6. It'll have at or about 280 hp and 260 peak ft pound torque at or about 4000 RPM. If there is any toy, that would be the toy.

Manufacturers have done their marketing research. Although there will always be haters of any engine technology concept, there are far more wannabe 1/2-ton pickup owners that would be interested in a 3.0-3.5 liter six cylinder, sub-$40K starting price diesel at or about 250 horsepower, 440 peak ft-lb torque, and 30 highway mpg to do medium level work commensurate with a 1/2-ton pickup; than those who would be interested in a sub-$55K 4.4-5.0 V8 diesel at over 300 horsepower / 550 peak ft-lb torque, and 24 mpg highway. There is also the problem of logistics. The 1/2-ton truck with a mid-size V8 diesel would have to be kept under 8600 GVWR (Nissan couldn't or wouldn't do it or try it); and it'd have to be built to handle all that extra torque; stronger frame and drive line maybe.

In 2005-2006, all manufacturers were planning for V8 diesel in 1/2-tons. The recession hit and they all backed out. GM was first to drop theirs with their planned 4.5 V8 Duramax. Ford was going to use a 4.4 V8 PowerStroke that's currently built in Mexico and imported to Europe and Asia. Ram/Dodge was going to use the 5.0 V8 Cummins that's now in the Nissan Titan XD. Toyota was looking to Hino, and Nissan was looking to Renault (partner) for an engine. This would have been a disaster had it come to fruition, because it was not realized at that time how hard it was going to be to meet "fuel neutral" emissions compliance with respect to NOx, they were over confident about engineering to complaince, and the prices for these heavy-diesel monster 1/2-tons would have ended up being astronomical by the time they finally came to market. It was planned for 2010, but never happened thank God.

But there is now starting to be a market for a mid-performing diesel in a half-ton and compact segments if the cost can be brought down. Even at a $38K starting price versus a base truck price at or about $26,000, Ram was selling 8300 Ecodiesel units per month for many months. They were selling them at capacity. This would not have been the case if they had instead opted for a very heavy, Cummins-powered 5.0 that was originally in their marketing plans prior to 2008. I think it would have been rejected. Not everyone who thinks of a dream pickup thinks of 7 second 0-60 times as a "must have" for a pickup as evidenced by Ram's pre-banned Ecodiesel sales and not everyone that's in the market for a 1/2-ton needs 3/4-ton duty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
The new grill design makes the truck look tiny in pictures.
My 17 is a tad over two weeks new to the family with a March 8th assembly line roll date. Not one week later I caught news of the 18 facelift and initially thought "dang, gimmie a few months to enjoy before seeing the new fancy pants.

Saw it.

Clicked onward not bothered one bit.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,004 Posts
My 17 is a tad over two weeks new to the family with a March 8th assembly line roll date. Not one week later I caught news of the 18 facelift and initially thought "dang, gimmie a few months to enjoy before seeing the new fancy pants.

Saw it.

Clicked onward not bothered one bit.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Ya you won't be missing anything, the 15-17 front ends look 1,000 better then the new 18's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,404 Posts
Sorry, but the above post deserves a rant that follows...

I respectively disagree and I don't understand that kind of thinking. I agree 100% about the price dilemma, but disagree about "towing mpg" (diesel will have far better real world mpg; especially towing); and venimently disagree with the "toy" argument. The Fiesta does not have a 5.5-8 foot bed. The Fiesta is also available with an Ecoboost engine.

Not sure how a mid-sized diesel engine at or about the same displacement and the exact same cylinder arrangement, with the same type of components to give it extra boost as we have in an Ecoboost makes it more "toy like" than an equally toy like Ecoboost. Is peak horsepower alone a measure of toughness and or real versus toy? Not in my mind. In fact, that sort of statement is similar to what one would expect from a muscle head against Ecoboost, so making such a statement coming from one of them (you know, the turbo haters) makes sense; but from one of us, it does not. I'm not saying there are no arguments against diesel versus Ecoboost (there are plenty); most to do with original cost, maintenance cost, and reliability worries regarding exhaust treatment system. I'm just suggesting though that the "toy" argument seems weak referring to a 3.0 liter V6 diesel from anyone that owns a 2.7 liter or 3.5 liter V6 DI/Turbo gas engine installed in a full-size pickup. That's the same argument normally used against Ecoboost technologies, but now being made by an Ecoboost enthusiast turned around on enthusiasts of a different combustion method. It makes no sense unless horsepower and 1/4-mile times is the be all, end all for 1/2-ton pickups.

We're mostly Ecoboost fans. As Ecoboost fans, for the most part, we like and appreciate and actually prefer a downsized, turbo charged, direct injection, internal combustion engine to other choices on the market; therefore most of us have chosen and like this type of engine. We appreciate and respect and like the concept of downsizing displacement and adding turbo charging and direct injection that provides very flat torque; good horsepower and decent mpg. If engineers use this same concept, with roughly the same displacement in a diesel, we end up with even more peak torque; ableit only slightly; torque that comes on even lower, but that trails off at higher RPM unlike our Ecoboost. In other words, unlike the Ecoboost, a similarly sized and cylinder-dispaced diesel, will not have power and torque move in the same sort of linear fashion. Also, and even more significantly, we could assume that a 3.0 V6 Ecoboost, if it existed, at Ford's current technology level using dual-fuel injection, could come in at or about 340 horsepower (in between the current 3.5 and the 2.7); a similarly-sized diesel with only one turbo, built for reliability and durability, comes in at much lower peak horsepower. We can expect maybe 250-255 with the upcoming diesel and probably 440-445 peak ft pound torque at or about 2000-2800 RPM. This means; no matter what the official tow rating is, it will not be able to accelerate up the same grade hill as either Ecoboost, with the same load; simply because it won't have the same horsepower; but that doesn't make it a toy. It will be able to handle grades in higher gears and will chug along in a more easy going manner than either Ecoboost, and for some consumers, that's a positive attribute or power train character. So it will have good points and bad points compared to EB on performance, depending on different consumers preferences, but a 250 hp / 440 ft-lb torque V6 diesel will certainly be within the realm of what most would expect and need from a 1/2-ton pickup. If it is well engineered, it will be a great engine, as there have been many great diesel engines throughout history that have been hard workers; not all of them large and heavy. I had a 1997 V8 F150 that had 235 horsepower and 290 ft-lb torque @ 3700 RPM. We thought that was good performance back then. I couldn't do better than 15 mpg. But nowadays, we're going to self impose some sort of horsepower low point over 300. I don't agree. Twenty years after my 235/290/15 mpg F150, Ford will offer a 2018 diesel with less cylinders and less displacement, with much more performance and much better mpg than we had back then by far, so it is by no means a toy by any measure considering the duty level. We can also compare it to the base engine. There will be a 3.3 NA V6. It'll have at or about 280 hp and 260 peak ft pound torque at or about 4000 RPM. If there is any toy, that would be the toy.

Manufacturers have done their marketing research. Although there will always be haters of any engine technology concept, there are far more wannabe 1/2-ton pickup owners that would be interested in a 3.0-3.5 liter six cylinder, sub-$40K starting price diesel at or about 250 horsepower, 440 peak ft-lb torque, and 30 highway mpg to do medium level work commensurate with a 1/2-ton pickup; than those who would be interested in a sub-$55K 4.4-5.0 V8 diesel at over 300 horsepower / 550 peak ft-lb torque, and 24 mpg highway. There is also the problem of logistics. The 1/2-ton truck with a mid-size V8 diesel would have to be kept under 8600 GVWR (Nissan couldn't or wouldn't do it or try it); and it'd have to be built to handle all that extra torque; stronger frame and drive line maybe.

In 2005-2006, all manufacturers were planning for V8 diesel in 1/2-tons. The recession hit and they all backed out. GM was first to drop theirs with their planned 4.5 V8 Duramax. Ford was going to use a 4.4 V8 PowerStroke that's currently built in Mexico and imported to Europe and Asia. Ram/Dodge was going to use the 5.0 V8 Cummins that's now in the Nissan Titan XD. Toyota was looking to Hino, and Nissan was looking to Renault (partner) for an engine. This would have been a disaster had it come to fruition, because it was not realized at that time how hard it was going to be to meet "fuel neutral" emissions compliance with respect to NOx, they were over confident about engineering to complaince, and the prices for these heavy-diesel monster 1/2-tons would have ended up being astronomical by the time they finally came to market. It was planned for 2010, but never happened thank God.

But there is now starting to be a market for a mid-performing diesel in a half-ton and compact segments if the cost can be brought down. Even at a $38K starting price versus a base truck price at or about $26,000, Ram was selling 8300 Ecodiesel units per month for many months. They were selling them at capacity. This would not have been the case if they had instead opted for a very heavy, Cummins-powered 5.0 that was originally in their marketing plans prior to 2008. I think it would have been rejected. Not everyone who thinks of a dream pickup thinks of 7 second 0-60 times as a "must have" for a pickup as evidenced by Ram's pre-banned Ecodiesel sales and not everyone that's in the market for a 1/2-ton needs 3/4-ton duty.
The only thing I can pull out of your comments is better MPG's, which is 100% true. But right now diesel is $2.79 while 87 is $2.59 here in Utah. That alone chips away 8% off the diesel advantage and the rest is really just a drop in the bucket. Lets say you buy an absolute lowest trim ecodiesel ram and get 20% off msrp, thats a tradesman RCLB 2x4, for ~$25,750. A 2.7 EB RCLB XL 2x4 works out to ~$21500 with the same 20% discount. Thats $451 a month for a loan with the ram and $377 a month for the Ford(2%@ 60 months.) That alone would cover the MPG difference for up to 600,000 miles a year using the EPA combined mileage for both(22mpg ford/24 ram). No thats not a typo. The ram would have to average 28 mpg to even break even in a semi-realistic mileage(50k a year). That means it needs to average 32% higher whether its towing or just cruising around to break even in 50k miles a year. Hardly a good case study for diesels. We know the 2.7 is a more capable motor power-wise and it barely takes a hit in MPG's to the Ram. We know from dyno charts that the 2.7 is very close to the 1st gen 3.5 EB in both torque and HP, and there is a dyno out there showing it beating up on a 355hp/383 tq 5.3L GM across the entire rpm range. Next year the 2.7 will have the 10 speed and that gap will only shrink for the Ecodiesel.

If going up a hill slower is important than just dont go as deep into the throttle and any motor can go up a hill slower. Hell, thats what they did with 2017 3.5 Ecoboost on the Ike Gaunlet at TFL truck. They cruised up that hill with a 9000 lb trailer at like 3200 rpms/part throttle and at any point could have accelerated above 65, but didnt. You dont have to use the full potential of any motor, people just choose too.

I think there is a market for the diesel but I think its much smaller than you suggest. The ram ecodiesel only makes up ~10% of the already small ram 1500 sales. if commercial work and towing is your primary concern then you most certainly can get the ecodiesel in a regular cab tradesman 1500 if you want. It may not be on a dealer lot but you can order one. The thing is 95% of the ecodiesel rams I see driving around(and I see multiple a day along with colorado diesels) are Laramie crew cabs(or Z71 Colorado Crews), so the people who are looking for a workhorse either cannot find them and dont care enough to order one or are content with the other motor options. Once you start looking at Lariat and Laramie trims its not even a debate. At that point the diesel is a luxury and talking mpgs is stupid cause you are already paying 45-50k for a truck.

Ford needs to beat the EcoDiesel in the MPG's by a good margin to make it a good option. If they can do that and give us a decent amount more power(255-260) then maybe it would make sense. I think they will beat the ram with the 10 speed and aluminum but I dont know by how much.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
About this Discussion
17 Replies
12 Participants
mass-hole
F150 Ecoboost Forum
F150Ecoboost.net is the best Ford F150 Ecoboost Forum with discussions on 2011+ F150 Ecoboost Trucks. Discuss performance mods, towing questions, wheels, tires, lift kits, and much more!
Full Forum Listing
Top