F150 #1, #2, #3 mpg 2018

[R.I.D.E.]

As long as the automatic is actually a computer controlled manual, dual clutch 6 or more speed, I can live with that, but then I have a truck, it's 36 years old, can carry a ton, and is about as simple and basic as possible and if I drove it more than a few hundred miles a year it would average about 23 mpg. 1981 Toyota originally a 1 ton camper, family owned since new. Second tank of fuel this year, first one paid for by a neighbor for hauling some mulch.

It's still in my brothers name, the DMV can KMA with their jacked up fees and taxes, which if I was to pay them then it would probably break down.

[trollbait]

The bad part about GM is, unlike VW who unfortunately let down their north American diesel fan base who they had served for a few generations, they seem to look at a diesel offering as a chance to make extra margin for themselves and not a chance to bring a value choice at higher mpg for the consumer.

VW did the same exact thing through the '90s and early aughts. They were the only non-luxury diesel car in town, and only offered it in the higher trims. With competition from hybrids, and GM announcing a 2.0 diesel for the previous Cruze, they finally started offering the diesel in a lower, cheaper trims. Then they got caught.

It is annoying that GM is doing the same now, but they are now the only choice for a diesel car if you don't want to pay BMW prices. It's basic supply and demand. Then on top of that, diesels sell less than hybrids, even when trucks are counted, so manufacturers see needing a higher margin to justify putting the diesel on a dealer lot. There is also our stricter emission regs to consider. The technology is still relatively new for diesels, and so that adds to the cost.

The 1.6 has gotten a lot of good press, and the American market emission requirements were a consideration during its development. It is even available in the Cruze hatchback now. I'd love to try one out on my commute. But the hurdle for many is the higher price of diesel. My cost per mile estimate is about the same between the gas and diesel Cruze models; the diesel may cost $50 more a year to fuel, and then there is the small price of DEF. Most won't even bother to do that much math, even though there are calculators right on Fueleconomy.gov, and just recall the price posted on the station sign.

Diesels make more sense for trucks, but we still have limited choices when it comes to the non-large engines and trucks dictating pricing. I'm hoping we'll start seeing some price reductions, and shifting diesels to lower trims, once there is competition going on between Ford and GM.

Side note to UK vs US tow ratings. In the case of actual cars, the UK rating would be cut in half to get a rating for the car in the US. It might not be as reduced for a truck, but it will drop.

[Draigflag]

I drove my dad's car (see below) the other day, not driven a diesel since I sold mine last year. It reminded me how great they actually are, refined, smooth, lots of power and torque but best of all, amazing economy. His car has the famous 2.0 TDI VW unit with 170 bhp, economy looks unchanged after the emissions fix. Despite the extra ride height, the boxy shape and the fact that it's 4x4, I still managed to average 56.4 MPG the other day, and that was driving relatively quick, probably would have averaged 60+ MPG using hypermiling techniques. Show me an SUV with a gasoline engine that can achieve those figures.

Despite all the negative press, scandals and other anti-diesel hatred propaganda recently, I'd still chose a diesel for most applications, unless I was in the market for a sports car or city car. Even then, some of the sporty saloons are usually better in diesel guise, Alfa Guilia, BMW'S etc, diesel will always be top of table for most.

[gregsfc]

This is what we currently have that is a similar choice as your dad's vehicle. The Equinox and it's near-clone GMC Terrain are only choices except for super-expensive premium brands. It's a 1.6L 4 cylinder; it's cast iron block construction; it's the less-costly solenoid injectors, which have only recently returned to meet US compliance. So everything points towards GM being able to offer this vehicle with value to consumers, since they've found ways to save costs versus any other diesel choices here. But since they are currently the only one in this arena, they are using their diesel choices as a chance to achieve extra margin.

It has peak horsepower at or about 137 and peak torque at 240 (325nm), which is sort of pushing the low-end expectations over here, but the 39 mpg epa estimate (47uk) could sway many would-be buyers. However, the price premium ruins this opportunity. This vehicle has a starting price at about $23,600 versus the starting diesel price at $30,600, or 30% higher price. These prices do not include destination charge, but are for comparison only. Now they play little pricing tricks and so the base vehicle has far fewer standard features than the cheapest diesel version, but still, if one wants only a basic, small SUV with a diesel at a reasonable price, it is not available in North America.

This same power train is available in the compact sedan Chevy Cruze, available also in a manual transmission. In the Cruze, GM does a little better for the price-conscience consumer, but it's still a tough choice. GM could do better if they truly wanted to support this technology.

They've got a 2.8L 4 in the mid-size Colorado and Canyon pickup. Again, cost savings are far ahead of other manufacturers. Cast iron construction, solenoid injector, Thai built, and yet the premium for it is $14K above the starting price for their truck, or 64% premium for their diesel choice.

Even if we didn't have a media bias and regulatory bias towards hybrids, diesels are still a tough sell to North Americans.

[herektir]

Just FYI I used to deliver new f150s to buyers from the dealership v8 mid v6 turbo and the small v6(2.7l). Moderate hypermiling v8 at best 22 mpg, 3.3 l v6 25-26, 2.7l 29-30. Trips were usually mixed traffic 30 to 50 miles long.

[gregsfc]

Ram's new 2019 1/2-ton is about to arrive. Same two engines; same peak output numbers, so NO work on engines. No official mpg released at this time except that the Hemi V8 without etorque will have the same EPA mpg rating as the outgoing truck with the same power train. Also notable; no regular cabs in the new design. Only three cab/bed combinations available, but the old-designed truck will still be built for an unspecified period of time. Lot's of new automotive technologies on their new trucks, but very little as it pertains to power trains, which is discouraging considering what Ford has done and what GM has announced with respect to their upcoming Sivlerado and Sierra 1500s for this Fall.

For Ram, the base engine, a 3.6L V6 NA Penstar will be mated to, supposedly, a reworked 8-speed transmission and a starter-generator system Ram calls etorque that is standard with the base engine. The optional power trains are: the same 5.7 V8 Hemi with, supposedly tweaked, cylinder deactivation, but not the latest and greatest cylinder deactivation called dynamic skip fire, which GM will employ this Fall. The Hemi V8 will be available as an option also with the etorque, starter-generator system. The diesel, called Ecodiesel, is still banned, but Ram promises it to be back by calendar year 2019. By that time, both Ford and GM will have diesel half-ton choices that will have been available for months.

As for GM, they have already announced two gas engines with dynamic skip fire that they are calling dynamic fuel management and a 10 speed transmission for at least the 6.2L V8. They have also announced and all-new-design-and-built-in-America, inline 6 diesel; a 3.0 liter, but no specs announced at this time. GM is promising a total of six power trains for their new, upcoming truck, but only three announced so far, but just counting the three, they're already showing that they're going further than Ram on the power train front than what Ram has done, which is basically nothing except starter-generator technology.

Ford has announced that the starting price for their diesel, which is very close to going on sale to be at or about $46K, which is approximately $18K more than the F150 starting price; available in only super cab and crew cab configurations, and Lariat trim and up.

[trollbait]

The Etorque is a 48-volt mild hybrid system. it is very similar to GM's old BAS hybrid on the Malibu, except those had 36 volt batteries. In addition to the fuel savings from start/stop and regenerative braking ability, it will add a little bit of torque at launches.

It being standard on the base V6 is of historical note because it is the first vehicle available with a 48 volt system in America. Many manufacturers will be starting to put these systems onto their cars. They won't improve fuel economy as much as a full hybrid, but the lower cost means they can become standard equipment. So fleet wide savings could be greater.

The time will come when a non-hybrid car will be the exception.

In addition to the mild hybrid system, the 2wd Rams will have their rear differential heated and cooled by the engine coolant. Heating at start up will improve fuel economy, and the cooling will be an aid to service life while towing.

In their recent announcements on future development, Ford confirmed a full hybrid F150 for 2020. Along with a hybrid Mustang plus other hybrid and plug in models. Plus a return of the Ranger, likely the global model, and the Bronco name was dropped in the release.

[Draigflag]

I like mild hybrids, they give more instantaneous torque in the lower revs V's a turbo, and the motor takes strain off then engine reducing wear and improving reliability. The batteries are so much smaller too, that they are cheap and easy to replace, compared to a full hybrid, where replacing the battery usually cancels out a decade or so worth of savings anyway.