We Test-Drive a Bi-Fuel 2014 Ford F-150

IMG_9302 II

Traditionally a low-volume fleet-vehicle option, bi-fuel light-duty pickup trucks could be ready to go mainstream. For the moment, Ford is the only truckmaker that offers the option in a half-ton configuration (Chevrolet, GMC and Ram only offer the feature on their heavy-duty pickups), but that could change as more consumers learn about the overall cost savings and extended-range benefits of bi-fuel pickups.

Ford uses several qualified vehicle modifiers to install bi-fuel compressed natural gas systems in its light-duty and heavy-duty pickup trucks; in most cases the installation takes place at the end of the production line at the assembly plant.

We spent a few weeks test-driving a 2014 F-150 SuperCab 4x4 XLT with the 3.7-liter V-6. Altech-Eco installed the 15.7-gallon high-strength natural gas tank in the bed of the truck along with a protective diamond-plate cover (that looks like a standard pickup truck bed-box). The entire system, which has a fairly long list of add-ons and modifications to make the dual-fuel system work, adds about $7,800 to the cost of the specific F-150 ordered.

The Truck

With a truck-only total just a hair over $40,000, our pickup offered a few options, including the XLT Series Convenience Package ($1,310), the CNG engine prep package ($315), the XLT Chrome Package ($1,595), leather center console ($995) and spray-in bedliner ($475). The grand total for our XLT CNG was $48,294, including destination and package discounts totaling $1,250.

One of our favorite features on this pickup was the 36-gallon fuel tank, so our entry-level all-aluminum V-6 (rated at 302 horsepower at 6,500 rpm, and 278 pounds-feet of torque at 4,000 rpm) registered an impressive 700-miles-plus range on the computer's calculated "distance to empty" readout. Unfortunately, that number never includes the added distance the CNG tank will provide — so the actual miles per fuel fill-up is probably closer to 1100 miles. Not bad for a full-size pickup truck.

If you're worried about this heavier truck feeling sluggish (our unit weighed just more than 5,800 pounds, offering a calculated payload of 1,100 pounds), we can say the there is a definite difference in how responsive the throttle is between the two fuel sources, with gas being the much sportier choice. When running on CNG it clearly doesn't feel as powerful; however, it didn't make much difference to us because we found ourselves flipping the switch to CNG only when making relatively long highway trips. That means we pretty much had the engine and powertrain running at a steady state, usually with cruise control on, when we used CNG. In that situation, the CNG fuel was a great asset as we got to observe our gas gauge stay motionless for as long as we were cruising.

The CNG System

The Altech-Eco system is completely invisible to the driver with the exception of a small switch to the left of the steering wheel that allows the driver to choose which fuel to use, the CNG fuel gauge (located where a 12-volt plug normally is) and the small loss of cubic volume in the bed. The emissions difference between the two fuels is significant, with 507 grams of carbon dioxide emitted when running gasoline fuel (EPA rated with a 4 out 10 when compared to its segment), and 317 grams of CO2 when running on CNG (EPA rated an 8 out of 10 compared to its segment). For comparison purposes, the 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500 4.3-liter V-6 emits 449 grams per mile, the 2014 Toyota Tacoma 4.0-liter V-6 emits 468 and the 2014 Honda Ridgeline 3.5-liter V-6 emits 506.

Our fuel fill-up costs varied because of fluctuating station prices, but in the Los Angeles area we averaged about $3.80 a gallon for 87-octane gas and around $2.90 a gallon for CNG (pricing can vary quite a bit though — the least expensive place we found in Southern California was $1.90 a gallon, but it was 40 miles away from our home base). Our grand total for a full fill-up (both tanks empty) was $180 ($135 for gas and $45 for CNG). So if you want to run more than 1,000 miles between fill-ups, this could be the way to go. For most people this could mean stopping at the gas station less than once a month.

When driving around town, there is very little difference between piloting a bi-fuel vehicle and piloting a gas pickup. The only thing we noticed is the bi-fuel pickup felt slightly heavier. Our guess is the Altech-Eco system weighs as much as 300 pounds with the tank full. Although the 3.7-liter V-6 is not horribly strong, it moves the truck (especially when the pickup is empty) with some enthusiasm. However, with CNG fuel running through the same engine, the responsiveness seems to drop as much as 20 percent, almost feeling like you're driving at high altitudes.

Conclusion

Overall, this bi-fuel F-150 offers some impressive advantages over a "normal" F-150. We never missed the lost bed space, we loved having the tremendous fuel range and eventually got used to our local 3,600-per-square-inch CNG filling station. We should note the CNG fill-up procedure does take some getting used to and none of the CNG stations are covered for some reason (maybe that's a California thing). The nozzles are a little bulky and the pump makes disconcerting noises. Some stations do provide a small-screen video tutorial at the CNG pump. Our final piece of advice is to always opt for the backup camera, and if there's a CNG option on the 2015 F-150 (we've been told by Ford that for the 2015 model year, there will be no CNG conversions. We're guessing that will start back up in 2016), a side-view camera over the nozzle opening might not be bad either to help drivers line up the filling-station nozzles, which can be tricky.

Normal fuel-economy runs with a combination of highway and around-town mileage yielded 21.1 mpg on the trip computer (even when running on CNG the computer calculates as if it were running on gasoline) with a range around 750 miles. We're told the system does not include any extra mileage calculations the CNG provides because the sensors and software needed would be cost and production prohibitive at this stage. We hope Ford corrects that with the 2015 models.

We were most impressed with the fact that, as we used the CNG fuel for long-distance highway cruising, we saw "better than gas" fuel economy from the alternative fuel and had us streatching our full-to-empty distances well past the 1,000-mile mark. Unforturnately, the fuel gauge for the system never seems to like to read beyond 3/4-full so for much of the time once we flipped the switch to CNG, neither the gas or CNG gauges moved for hundreds of mile. It was almost like we were driving without any way to know we were using any fuel at all. 

The Altech-Eco CNG system comes with an eight-year, 80,000-mile warranty on major emission components and a three-year, 36,000-mile warranty on general emissions components. Depending on your driving habits and CNG filling station availability (they can be somewhat difficult to find), the benefits to a system like this seem to worth every penny.

To see the Ford F-150 bi-fuel XLT price sheet, click here.

To see the installed Altech-Eco natural gas price sheet, click here.

Cars.com photos by Mark Williams

 

IMG_9293 II

IMG_9309 II

IMG_9298 II

IMG_9290 II

IMG_9312 II

 

Comments

That seems like a very high add on ($7800), how long will it take to recuperate that?

I remember hitch hiking across the Country back in the early 70's when I was picked up by a guy in an new F-150 with a natural gas conversion that even back then was able to drive for over 1K before filling up, I will admit thee was a tank in the bed that took up 1/4 of the space, plus the truck still had its original gas tank underneath, I believe it held around 70 gal total, and all we had to do is find the local camp sites fro the gas tank in the bed, and the truck had the reg gas tank to use to find the next stop. I remember the owner telling me the spark plugs lasted for 50K! and that was back in the day you changed your plugs and point every 6K! or so! and the oil lasted 4 times as long without getting dirty, as long as he was able to fine nat/gas often enough!

Good point woopud. Thought the same thing. One great advantage not mentioned was the mileage between oil changes.
I drive for a major supermarket chain here in the Midwest and they have a long term lease CNG tractor there experimenting with for future consideration. The mechanics are amazed how clean the oil stays. They have surpassed 50,000 miles and still hasn't changed the oil. They have been sending in lab samples every 10,000 miles and have been told the oil is fine.
That's a major cost savings when you consider these things hold several, several gallons of oil.
We have 110 drivers so a big angle to consider also.
Fuel mileage is less however. Our diesel trucks get in the range of 6.5 mpg to 7.7. The CNG so far is ranging 5.8 to 6.2. mpg. Here in the Midwest they are paying the equivalent of $2.30 a gallon for the CNG.
One has to do the math for there specific situation.

What a waste of money with little gain to show and more complexity to deal with. Ford should bite the bullet and install the 3.2 Liter 5 Cylinder TDI motor in the F-150 and let customers choose for themselves. Until then, RAM has them beat with the EcoDiesel with 8 Speed Auto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't mention the reduced power from using CNG.

The added weight of the tank and the gas when that tank is full will really cut into pay load and towing ability bot to mention the reduced power that will cut into payload and towing ability further.

Then you have 1/3 of your bed now useless. Sorry but There are just to many negatives to even consider this. If all you do is drive your pick up and only put a small item in the rear that takes up no room so speak of you might get by with this, but anyone who really uses it as a truck will not be happy with it.

We won't even go into the amount of miles and time it would take to pay for the added $7,800 dollars this system adds to the cost of the truck.

I can buy a lot of gas for $7,800 dollars.

Our local sheriffs department at one time used CNG to power their police cars, the cars were under powered and in the end did not really save any money due to added costs of outfitting the cars for CNG.

They now use normal patrol cars that use regular gas to power them.

I don't see one benefit of this car. That ugly NGV sticker is not even puzzy magnet.

LP and CNG are two different fuels. LP is available at many gas stations and RV parks.

So far there isn't much of an infrastructure for CNG. And sometimes these stations are located at local government offices with restricted hours of operation.

It's a lot money but there should be tax incentives to help out. The loss of bed storage and payload are issues for me.

We had a CNG vehicle in our fleet for a while. It was a Ford Crown Vic with the 4.6L V8. It was gutless and had very poor range - wouldn't even make it through a 12 hr shift on the tanks it came with, we had to add a third. No one wanted to drive it either.

I see the initial purchases being made by fleet owners that can put in their own filling stations and fill all of their vehicles every night. An added benefit of CNG is it burns cleaner than gasoline and much cleaner than diesel. This will make them very popular in large cities. If you have natural gas at your house and put in your own filling station that could be very convenient as well. It will be interesting to see how taxes are levied on these vehicles to keep the roads paid for.

I think its a waste, and you lose 1/3 of the bed.

I don't like the fact it eats up bed capacity either but how many times have you seen a 4-door PU with a 5 1/2 bed and a tool box on them . I never understood that one.
I guess those folks want to tow trailers not haul anything.

How big is that tank, is it the entire size of the diamond plate box or smaller? What I'm wondering is if there is anywhere else it could possibly go, between frame rails or something, or have twin pork chop-style boxes over the wheels (think ram box) and use up that space instead and still have the entire length of your bed plus adequate room for sheet goods.

Either way the price doesn't sound great and losing that much of your bed isn't worth it, except maybe if you get an 8' bed and end up with a 6' afterward. Anything less, especially the 5' is out of the question for me anyway. I would consider a conversion that cost less and used a smaller tank located somewhere other than the bed, unless it was integrated with a tool box somehow, like the L-shape fuel transfer boxes with the tool box on top.

Well, it's one of those colossal wastes of money.

The author is attempting to talk up a p!ss poor idea.

Diesel is looking better.

CNG is not as good a LPG.

Natural gas is low in energy content and should be piped under roads to all home for cooking/heating and to factories/businesses as a cheaper form of energy.

@Southern IL man -hit the nail on the head.

One has to do the math for their specific situation.

It isn't for everyone but it has its place.

I see a lot of small forklifts running CNG.

For those saying this is a waste of money or that it is a bad idea need to broaden their knowledge about who uses CNG. The reason why more and more truck makes are offering for their trucks with ability to run on CNG is mainly for the oilfield and mining companies.

When drilling for oil, CNG pockets naturally surround oil pockets. It is usually just burned off when drilling which is why you see the big flames atop of the arrestors. It is just being wasted because there is not enough infrastructure to pipe it or process it on a big scale. This is basically free energy after you pay for the equipment needed to refine it with is relatively cheap and easy to do compares to petroleum.

Now, these oil companies are learning to use this gas in their production instead of just wasting it by burning it off. Most down here have their whole facilities ran off of CNG via there generators which substantially drops their energy bills. This is why these same companies are looking to run their fleets with this gas as well. My company is currently working with 3M to have the technology to convert class 7 & 8 trucks to run off of CNG. This would have substantial savings for oil and mining companies since the CNG is essentially free and already being wasted.

Landfills are another place where gas is naturally formed and harvested for energy. Most major landfills already use this methane to power their facilities and industrial equipment, but a lot is still being wasted. Having the ability for the truck fleet to run on CNG would cut down the fuel expenditures even more.

Breaking news: 2015 F-450 is now rated using J2807

Class leading: 31,200 lbs towing

It keeps the same rating using J2807 as it did using its own internal tests.

Payload will be based on curb weight and drops only 150 lbs.

Booyah!!!!!!!!!!

@ALL1 - correct. The transport industry is already converting diesel class 8 trucks to CNG and LNG.

I found this interesting article:
http://theenergycollective.com/simonsylvesterchaudhuri/250096/new-debate-emerges-lng-or-cng-long-haul


"For natural gas, when compressed, its energy density is only about a quarter that of diesel, and when liquefied just 60% of the energy density of diesel."

"LNG contains 2.4 times more energy per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE)."

Evey oil company here runs compressors, generators, and 5 hp brigs or Honda engines on Natural gas. All they do in run a pipe off the back side of the well head with a pancake regulator. They also have what they call drips that collet the moisture that comes out of the natural gas which we call drip gas. Its like jet fuel it burns really hot LOL put a gallon in a old 350 I had and it wouldn't shut off pulled the plug wires and it keep running like a diesel LOL. I've learn to mix with 89 so its like i'm running 98 for free. Mix gallon and a half with a fuel tank of 89 and it will put some pep in you're engines step.

@D

Considering the J2807 standard does not cover trucks as big as the F450 this is just another Ford BS attempt.

http://standards.sae.org/wip/j2807/

Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles will give your business a competitive advantage over your gasoline or diesel burning competitors. Natural gas is a cleaner and a cheaper domestic alternative fuel. Almost all of the conversions to CNG keep the gasoline and diesel fueling systems intact. Allowing your vehicle to switch back to and forth as needed. Visit www.DriveOnNaturalGas.com for more information.

@Big Horn

When will you guys get it? I keep telling you guys that there is no such thing a 150/1500, 250/2500, 350/3500, or even a 450/4500 class. Those are manufacturer model numbers, NOT CLASSES. Classes are based off of GVWR regardless of what the model number of the truck is. This the same a my F150 having more capabilities of gas Ram 2500s at the time I bought my truck. This is also why the Ram 3500 is rated to tow more than the 4500 and even 5500. Those are just model numbers just like a Challenger is a model of a Dodge, nothing more.

The link you posted is an old SAE standard and has been revised since then to include 14,000 GVWR vehicles. This is how the Ram 3500 REGULAR cab DRW (that has a GVWR of 14,000lbs) is rated going by the J2807 to tow its 30,000 lb rating. Both the 2015 Ram 3500 and the 2015 F450 are class three trucks going by the rules that classifies these trucks whether you like it or not.

All you guys want to do is have another BS attempt to discredit anything Ram doesn't do or isn't number one at.

RAM powered by SHARTS!

@brandon d - that must explain the proliferation of brown leather seats.

@ALL1 - the Ram J!had has 2 sources of information that is approved for the huddled masses... Allpar and FCA press releases.

The rest is unholy heresy propagated by the infidels............. or something like that.

Join the J!had and they will throw in a towel and "one use only" padded vest with a Ram head carefully stitched upon it.

Ford needs to quit screwing around with these aftermarket conversions.

F-450 is under 14k GVWR now based on curb weight and J2807 compliant and got its butted whooped in the Eiesenhower Pass and Ram still refuses to give up its class leading title.

2015 Ford F-450 Meets SAE Tow Standard, Ram Refuses To Rescind Top Title

http://tinyurl.com/p36hkw3

It's time for PUTC to call out Ram like they did with Ford.

*Ram got its butt whooped on the Einsenhower Pass.

Time for PUTC to start calling out Ram today......

Ford retains best-in-class heavy duty pickup towing despite F-450′s move to stricter standards

By changing the way it measures the 2015 F-450′s payload and towing ratings, Ford has thrown the latest punch in an ongoing debate with Ram over which brand of heavy-duty pickup has best-in-class towing.

Ford announced today that the newest F-450′s maximum towing rating now adheres to the SAE J2807 towing standard. Ford also announced that it would use base curb weights to determine the truck’s payload ratings moving forward. In the past, Ford has used its own methods for determining both of these ratings.

The automaker was the first to determine maximum payload rating in pickups using minimum curb weight, stripping certain equipment out of its pickups in order to lower their weight and boost ratings, as Automotive News points out.

When it comes to towing ratings, Ram recently adopted the J2807 towing standard across all of its 2015 trucks and GM has announced J2807-compliant ratings for the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500s. Ford announced in February that the 2015 F-150 would be rated according to the standard. Unlike the F-450, Ford’s other Super Duty pickups, the F-250 and F-350, won’t follow the standard until they receive a redesign. However, a Ford spokesperson did tell Automotive News that their “maximum payloads would be restated using base curb weights.”

Using the J2807 standard, the crew-cab 4×4 F-450 was actually able to retain the maximum towing rating of 31,200 pounds that Ford previously touted from internal testing. That figure is 2,200 pounds more than the truck’s closest competitor, the Ram 3500 4×4, and Ford is claiming a best-in-class rating.

However, Ram previously argued that Ford can’t make that claim because technically, the F-450 is a Class 4 pickup, unlike the Class 3 Ram 3500. Despite the fact that the F-450 actually uses an F-350 frame, Class 3 pickups must have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 14,000 pounds and lower. GVWR is the max amount the vehicle can weigh and the F-450′s was higher than 14,000 pounds.

In response, and as part of the migration to the J2807 standard, Ford now uses base curb weights to determine max payload which not only lowered the F-450′s max payload 150 pounds to 5,300, but also put the truck’s GVWR under 14,000 pounds.

So, in the end, migrating to the stricter standards were a win-win for Ford. Not only does it put the F-450 in line with other manufacturers using the J2807 standard—thus making it easier for customer comparisons between brands—it also allows the truck to claim best-in-class towing title among Class 3 trucks.

Moving to the J2807 standard also upped the F-450′s undisputed claim to best-in-class gross combined weight rating (GCWR) from 40,000 pounds to 40,400 pounds. GCWR measures the maximum amount of weight a truck can haul combining the weight of the vehicle and the trailer.

“We leave no doubt with customers that the F-450 pickup truck has best-in-class towing of 31,200 pounds—whether tested using our own internal towing standards or SAE J2807,” Raj Nair, Ford’s vice president for global product development, said in a prepared statement.
- See more at: http://www.equipmentworld.com/ford-retains-claim-to-best-in-class-heavy-duty-pickup-towing-despite-f-450s-move-to-stricter-standards/?utm_content=buffer5ae28&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#sthash.bT8rf2Bs.dpuf

PUTc,

Re to your truck class of one tweet. It's not best in class of one. F-450 uses a F-350 frame and the F-450 is now under 14,000 GVWR......

As you stated previously, if the F-450 was under 14k it would class as a Class 3 and now it does, the truck classes are:

Class 1[edit]

The Class 1 truck gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) ranges from 0–6000 lb

Class 2[edit]

The Class 2 truck gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) ranges from 6001–10000 lb

Class 3[edit]

The Class 3 truck gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) ranges from 10001–14000 lb (

It is also J2807 compliant which should statisfy all of your original questions. Ford got it done!

Ford plus C.N.G = Bigger Fire. Big Explosion. More Carnage. :-(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FS6oBuMxxU

@Christopher T. - the best way to view the F450 with pickup box is a "max tow" F350.

LOU IS A TROLL!

@ALL1
Your comment regarding where and how CNG is produced is erroneous.

It is actually LPG that is the waste product generally from the refinery of crude oil or even natural gas in some cases.

CNG is another issue. I do think you'll CNG is more or less the primary mineral coming from the wells, with some light oils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane

LPG is propane, that is the gas you are thinking of and not CNG. LPG is a much better form of gas for the transport industry than CNG.

@Big Al

Sorry Al, but I wasn't "erroneous" and you did not read what I stated.

I never stated that CNG was from the refining process. I stated it was from the drilling process which is true. Please re-read what I said and you will find I wasn't "erroneous".

The US has massive mounts of natural gas reserves and shales. More then enough to sustain us for more then 100 years by most experts accounts.

@Big Al

Since we are posting wikipedia links. Here is what is the one for CNG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas

"Compressed natural gas (CNG) (Methane stored at high pressure) can be used in place of gasoline (petrol), Diesel fuel and propane/LPG. CNG combustion produces fewer undesirable gases than the fuels mentioned above. It is safer than other fuels in the event of a spill, because natural gas is lighter than air and disperses quickly when released. CNG may be found above oil deposits, or may be collected from landfills or wastewater treatment plants where it is known as biogas."

@ALL1
Yes, but your comment was erroneous and misleading.

Natural gas is primarily drilled for as the primary mineral coming from a well.

Where I live natural gas is king in the oil industry. Australia and the US drill for natural gas.

The cost expended in using compressed natural gas is very high, especially when compressed.

It is a far better form of energy to use in a stationary situation and not for vehicles.

CNG for vehicles is costing lots of taxpayer dollars to subsidise in the US. This is wasteful.

Diesel heating oil especially in the NE is a waste of a fuel that could be used in vehicles and natural gas used for those applications.

The US could have reduced it's CO2 levels more significantly by the use of natural gas in lieu of oils in commercial/domestic applications.

I don't care whoever uses natural gas to power a vehicle, but the costs must be bourn by the person wanting that product. I have a similar view to EV, Hybrids, windmills, solar, etc.

All the money wasted in those areas of energy could have been better utilised and spent on gas infrastructure to homes and business.

The US isn't the only country squandering massive amounts of money on usless programs and projects. All modern nations do.

Please don't argue your point regarding what and where you consider natural is coming from as it is misleading the quantities you are talking.

For natural gas to be commercial it isn't a byproduct it is the primary product coming out of the well. Or it just wouldn't be viable.

None of this makes financial sense with gasoline at its current price.

None of it makes sense without the EPA pushing its concerns about greenhouse gases down everyone's throats.

In other words--it does not make sense for any practical person. It's for the guys with little propellers on their caps.

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster/Tom Wilkinson at Chevy/mark49/Tom#3/Truck Crazy/carilloskis or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.

@ Big Al

"Natural gas is primarily drilled for as the primary mineral coming from a well."

Sorry Al, but you are wrong. Please do some more research. I live this day in and day out. It is my job to know what goes on in the oilfields down here because this is where my customers are. You, as person who has probably never been in a shale oil and gas field let a lone see one with your own eyes do not get the luxury of telling me how it is here because I live it day in and day out. It is my job to now because of my customers so don't sit back in Australia and tell me how you think the cow eats the cabbage in the Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and many of the others states oilfields as if you know because you don't.

http://www.expressnews.com/business/eagleford/item/Up-in-Flames-Day-1-Flares-in-Eagle-Ford-Shale-32626.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Where I live natural gas is king in the oil industry. Australia and the US drill for natural gas."

The US is not Australia and Australia is not the US. Quit using what happens in your country as the way it happens here or the way you think it should happen here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is a far better form of energy to use in a stationary situation and not for vehicles."

This is your opinion and I know more fleet managers than you can count who would down right disagree with you. Sorry, but logic forces me go with their opinion since they deal with this day in and day out here then some plane engineer in Australia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"CNG for vehicles is costing lots of taxpayer dollars to subsidise in the US. This is wasteful."


1. You don't get a say-so in what happens here anymore so it is none of your business what we subsidies.


2. No one gives a rats @$$ what you think about subsides or what you think is wasteful. '

3. No, it is not going to cost taxpayers lots of money and to say it will is misleading since the oil and natural gas industries DO NOT get subsidies from the US. http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/taxes/~/media/Files/Policy/Taxes/Oil-Gas-Tax-Treatments-Not-Subsidies-Feb-2012.ashx

As I said before, my company and 3M are working together to bring more natural gas products to the Class 6-8 market. We are doing it WITHOUT government subsidies or government assistance. http://news.3m.com/press-release/company/3m-and-rush-enterprises-bring-quality-solutions-cng-industry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Diesel heating oil especially in the NE is a waste of a fuel that could be used in vehicles and natural gas used for those applications"

Again, OPINION.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't care whoever uses natural gas to power a vehicle, but the costs must be bourn by the person wanting that product. I have a similar view to EV, Hybrids, windmills, solar, etc."


It is which is why it costs so my for this conversion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All the money wasted in those areas of energy could have been better utilised and spent on gas infrastructure to homes and business."

It is of your opinion that you think it is being wasted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The US isn't the only country squandering massive amounts of money on usless programs and projects. All modern nations do."


Again, your opinion on whether that money is being put to good use or not, and if the programs are useless or not. This is subjective, not objective.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Please don't argue your point regarding what and where you consider natural is coming from as it is misleading the quantities you are talking."

And how do you know what I say is misleading? How does a plane engineer in Australia become an expert in the natural resources of the US? So please don't argue your point as if you know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For natural gas to be commercial it isn't a byproduct it is the primary product coming out of the well. Or it just wouldn't be viable."

FALSE. Read the article I posted above.

@ALL1
You live this day in and out???

I thought you were a lowly storeman in a gearbox and diff warehouse.

Come on mate. You are incorrect. Believe it or not part of our education is in relation to..............guess what?? The oil industry. Why do you ask?? Aircraft don't run on love.

As for you opinion of what and where your employer Ford should spend money on, I do think it's selfish for any manufacturer to exploit and waste tax dollars.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to foolishly use tax dollars on feel good programs, whilst many in the US are the working poor.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1_a.htm

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1170_nus_8a.htm

I do know with your tendency to attempt to prove yourself correct you will find some link of little relevance.

This discussion is over.

The wells you talk of are called Gas and Gas Condensate Wells.

Not oil wells.

I just want a ranger with a diesel. I don't care what you do to the F-150. It's bloated and I can't stand the looks. Give me a ranger with a diesel and you can have my money Ford.

@Big Al

"I thought you were a lowly storeman in a gearbox and diff warehouse"

This is a label you gave me when you were trying to insult me. I never stated this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Come on mate. You are incorrect. Believe it or not part of our education is in relation to..............guess what?? The oil industry. Why do you ask?? Aircraft don't run on love."

Sorry mate, but just because an aircraft runs off refined petroleum does not make you an expert in the drilling process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"As for you opinion of what and where your employer Ford should spend money on, I do think it's selfish for any manufacturer to exploit and waste tax dollars."


I am not employed by Ford. I have stated who I am employed by many times and gave you a HUGE hint in that 3M link above. Again, you are stating your opinion on what spending is or isn't wasteful spending. I don't see anything wrong with government assistance to kick-start certain technologies.

After all, it was US taxpayer money that started ARPANET which turned into the internet you freely use today. There wouldn't be a microchip in that computer your are using without US taxpayer assistance. You wouldn't have that GPS that tells you where to go with good ole US taxpayer money. Your lines at the grocery store would still be long without the US taxpayer funding that invented the bar code. There is a lot of things we have today that manufacturers have made via funds from government grants or loans. There are also many bright minds that are taxpaying citizens now because they got their start to pay for college via government loans or grants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Companies shouldn't be allowed to foolishly use tax dollars on feel good programs, whilst many in the US are the working poor."

Again, your foolish use is another persons good use. You feel good programs are another person's way to make a business. I told you before, this is subjective.

If those persons are poor, there are plenty of companies hiring in the Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and many other states oil fields. Just tell them to goo online and apply. Most companies will even supply room and board. This is a lot better then what my great great grandfather got when he first came down to Texas because of the early oil boom of the 1900s. He didn't have the internet to know if he had a job where he got here. All he had was the knowing that there was work down here, so don't tell me these people can't do it as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I do know with your tendency to attempt to prove yourself correct you will find some link of little relevance."

Are you looking in the mirror when you say that? If not then you should.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This discussion is over."

It is over when I say it is over, not you. You were the one who called my name out so don't do it if you don't like me finishing it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The wells you talk of are called Gas and Gas Condensate Wells.

Not oil wells."


No, they are oil wells.

Give it a rest Big al. We're sick of seeing you argue with people about crap that doesn't even matter.

I would have to say we are both incorrect. Condensate gases are grouped with petroleum. Natural gases are different.

Propane and LPG are the result of condensate and petroleum production.

Natural gas constitutes largely of methane (like a fart). Molecularly they are in different classes. Similar I suppose to the ketones, they are different, but yet similar.

Petroleum-associated gases and condensate gases are classified as “rich” gases, because they contain significant amounts of ethane, propane, butane and other saturated hydrocarbons. Petroleum-associated and condensate gases are separated and liquefied to produce liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by compression, adsorption, absorption and cooling at oil and gas process plants. These gas plants also produce natural gasoline and other hydrocarbon fractions.

Unlike natural gas, petroleum-associated gas and condensate gas, oil processing gases (produced as by-products of refinery processing) contain considerable amounts of hydrogen and unsaturated hydrocarbons (ethylene, propylene and so on). The composition of oil processing gases depends upon each specific process and the crude oils used. For example, gases obtained as a result of thermal cracking usually contain significant amounts of olefins, while those obtained from catalytic cracking contain more isobutanes. Pyrolysis gases contain ethylene and hydrogen.


http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-xi/oil-exploration-and-distribution/item/611-exploration-drilling-and-production-of-oil-and-natural-gas

http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/shale-gas-rd

@Beebe
Looking for a troll, as usual. You know I have yet to be critical of your commentary. Hmmm......so what gives?? A troll.

Like I've stated I do enjoy learning. Maybe if you could read and comprehend or even become involved you might expand your mind and learn a little.

If you just want some redneck sh!t talk and fanboi crap go to the Duck Dynasty site or even smAllpar.

Happy, Happy, Happy.

@Beebe
Looking for a troll, as usual. You know I have yet to be critical of your commentary. Hmmm......so what gives?? A troll.

Like I've stated I do enjoy learning. Maybe if you could read and comprehend or even become involved you might expand your mind and learn a little.

If you just want some redneck sh!t talk and fanboi crap go to the Duck Dynasty site or even smAllpar.

Happy, Happy, Happy.

@ALL1 - The F-450 pickup does have bigger brakes than the F-350 and Ram 3500 pickups. Those brakes are too big for 17" wheels so they run 19.5" with 16 ply commercial, medium duty tires. 10 lugs too. Plus Dana 60s and 80s. And beefier suspension than the F-350.

The Ram 3500 beats the F-550 because it's a completed/finished "pickup". But with F-450s and F-550s cab chassis', there's no way for the OEM to know what the completed truck will entail. So they're rated conservatively. And engine output is drastically reduced for commercial use.

However, you can have a completed commercial truck re-certified for increased towing capacity, over factory rating, depending on what truck you end up with.

@Big Al

"I would have to say we are both incorrect."

You point out exactly what I stated above that was incorrect.


All the rest of that narration I knew before you even stated it so there was not point to that whole ramble.

@ DenverMike


"The F-450 pickup does have bigger brakes than the F-350 and Ram 3500 pickups. Those brakes are too big for 17" wheels so they run 19.5" with 16 ply commercial, medium duty tires. 10 lugs too. Plus Dana 60s and 80s. And beefier suspension than the F-350."

All this has nothing to do with a trucks class. As I told you before, it's the GVWR that determines a trucks class. However, you would have to ask yourself. If you did have to tow 30,000lbs. Wouldn't you want to do it with a truck that has a beefier frame, bigger brakes, bigger axles, and more ply tires? What this says to me is that Ram says their 3500 model is good enough to pull that load while Ford prefers you to step up to their beefier 450. Although I still think neither truck should be towing that much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ram 3500 beats the F-550 because it's a completed/finished "pickup". But with F-450s and F-550s cab chassis', there's no way for the OEM to know what the completed truck will entail. So they're rated conservatively. And engine output is drastically reduced for commercial use."


NO, the 4500/5500 engine power is NOT reduced since it is going to be used for more commercial use. This is a myth based off of people assumptions. The trucks are rated the way they are because of emissions certifications, and has nothing to do with durability. If you don't believe me, then here is a Ram power-train integration spokesman saying it at 3:43 of the video.

http://youtu.be/TNRwwUIsG4Q?t=3m43s

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"However, you can have a completed commercial truck re-certified for increased towing capacity, over factory rating, depending on what truck you end up with."


NO, this is also completely false. Once that truck leaves the factory, it's payload and towing capacity cannot be increased even by a body builder. I don't know where you got this assumption.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com