Is the 2018 Ford F-150 Turbo-Diesel Cost-Effective?

P1030793 copy II

By Andy Mikonis

My first encounter with a 2018 Ford F-150 with the new turbo-diesel 3.0-liter V-6 and 10-speed automatic transmission came at the Midwest Automotive Media Association Spring Rally in May.

My second encounter with the same truck — a 4x4 SuperCrew in Platinum trim — came more recently, providing a longer period to drive it. I headed out of Chicago for a trip to Michigan during which I could put to good use the F-150's 250 horsepower and impressive 440 pounds-feet of torque while also testing its fuel economy.

Mileage Test Results

For this mileage test, I cruised normally, keeping up with traffic on interstates and rural highways while also driving in city traffic at both ends of the 546.8-mile trip. Ford provides a nice 10-speed gear indicator in the information cluster; it's interesting to watch multigear transmissions to see if and when they get into top gear. This one wastes little time getting up there. At 70 mph it was rolling around 1,700 rpm. With a light foot on a flat road, you can carry 10th gear down to about 1,100 rpm, or about 47 mph. Hit an easy incline and the transmission effortlessly drops down to 7th.

According to the trip computer, my fuel economy for combined city/highway driving was 24.2 mpg. Interestingly, the much shorter initial test I did earlier came in at 24.3. My calculations yielded 23.5 mpg. Trip meter mileage over different legs of the trip was consistent with a high of 24.6; the way it crept up on the longer stretches, it seemed like it could hit the EPA highway estimate of 25 mpg on an uninterrupted interstate run. When I started the trip with the gas tank full, the computer told me I had 599 miles to empty. Distance to empty was 37 miles when I filled up at the end of the trip, so the computer's estimated trip range was in the ballpark.

One concern was the diesel exhaust fluid level. When I began my trip, it showed 7,500 miles remaining. After the 546.8 miles it still showed 7,500 miles remaining. Ford spokesperson Samantha VanHoef told me in an email that the indicator ticks off in 500-mile increments until 500 miles is left. Then the low-level warning comes on and the fluid level indicator goes down by increments of 50.

P1030608 copy

"Your estimated [distance-to-empty] range will be variable based on speeds, cold start, vehicle weight and altitude where operating," she wrote. "Most will see a base vehicle with a range from 7,500-10,000 miles when operating at sea level. Aggressive drivers & loaded vehicles will see a range of 4-5K on a single DEF tank fill."

Ford targeted 30-mpg highway for EPA estimates for the 2018 F-150; only one configuration hits that mark, the two-wheel-drive SuperCab turbo-diesel. The 4x4 diesels like the one I drove get 20/25 mpg city/highway. It's kind of a wash with a 2018 Ram 1500 4x4 EcoDiesel — the mini Power Stroke's closest competitor — which officially gets 19/27 mpg city/highway.

Is Diesel Cost-Effective?

Ford's diesel doesn't exactly run away from its gasoline stablemates in EPA ratings. The diesel option on the Platinum trim is $3,000 extra. National average fuel prices during my testing were $2.85 a gallon for regular and $3.22 for diesel. When calculating overall costs and taking the combined EPA estimate of the Platinum's base 5.0-liter gas V-8 (the likely alternative for most buyers looking for more torque), the diesel offers 5 mpg higher combined ratings. For these prices, the break-even point on fuel alone is almost 200,000 miles. Then there's the cost of DEF and possibly higher maintenance costs to factor in as well.

Steering average consumers to higher trim levels to get the diesel engine doesn't help them get the full value of that engine, yet that's what Ford is doing. To get the diesel engine, consumers must choose Lariat, King Ranch or Platinum SuperCrew pickups with 5.5- or 6.5-foot beds or a SuperCab in those trims with the 6.5-foot bed. However, fleet buyers can get any trim level while facing the same cab and bed restrictions. With a 3-mpg advantage over an XL or XLT 4x4's base 3.3-liter gas V-6, you'll have the same break-even cost issues, but with an even higher price of entry for the option. For the fleet-friendly F-150s, the Power Stroke engine is almost a $5,000 upcharge. The middle ground would be the Lariat trim equipped with an entry-level 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6. This engine also gets within 3 mpg (combined) of the diesel, but the diesel option is a $4,000 premium.

Some people might look to this diesel engine as a stout tow rig and to support that, Ford put out some eye-popping payload and towing numbers. The max payload of 2,020 pounds is only for a two-wheel-drive work truck that is not available at retail dealerships. This SuperCrew 4x4 Platinum's "tire and load" sticker showed 1,260 pounds for payload capacity, which is pretty much right in line with a well-equipped Ram 1500 EcoDiesel of the same configuration. And like the Ram, according to Cars.com reviewer Aaron Bragman's observations, Ford's baby Power Stroke is probably not your best bet for towing at the limit. He found performance adequate while moderately loaded, but flat when towing at just more than half its max towing weight rating. Also, it lacks an exhaust brake and the Tow/Haul mode did not function as aggressively as expected. On the upside, it did get better fuel economy than a 3.5-liter EcoBoost, which is known to get thirsty when towing.

P1030783 copy

Unlike Ram's EcoDiesel V-6, which was first conceived for European SUVs, Ford says the 3.0-liter Power Stroke was a "commercial grade" truck engine from the start, developed by the team responsible for the 6.7-liter Power Stroke. But, unlike what you might have expected from a traditional truck diesel, this engine is quiet. And there is an across-the-pond connection to a Ford engine family — it was developed for Land Rover when the automakers were still partners. Deliberately romping on the throttle from a stop was the only time I heard a hint of diesel clatter. It probably helped that our test truck was a Platinum and had all the sound insulation that comes with a top-end truck.

As luck would have it, the following week I received a 2018 Land Rover Range Rover HSE Td6 to test. This has a variation of the new F-150 diesel engine tuned to 254 hp and 443 pounds-feet of torque. The Range Rover has an eight-speed automatic with full-time four-wheel drive and a 3.21:1 ring-and-pinion gear. Its EPA rating is 22/28/24 mpg city/highway/combined. Aside from an 80-mile round trip on urban highways, I drove mostly around town for a total of 229.4 miles and netted 20.6 mpg combined. Even though this is slightly lower than the Range Rover's city EPA numbers, I consider this impressive for my driving environment and especially for a vehicle tipping the scales right around 5,000 pounds. Land Rover charges a $2,000 premium for the diesel engine option (for most Range Rover models), which given the average cost of the vehicles is a relatively small premium. And yes, it was quieter than the F-150.

As to the real-world power output of the new Ford diesel, PickupTrucks.com Editor Mark Williams took a 4x2 XL SuperCab F-150 with the Power Stroke to a local chassis dyno shop for several pulls. The results? A 7th gear pull worked best (with its 1.00:1 gearing) and got  226.4 hp at 3,250 rpm at the rear wheels and 400 pounds-feet of torque at 2,750 rpm.

Our bottom line is that though it may be just right for diesel geeks looking for the latest technology, Ford's F-150 diesel looks like it might stay a small player. With limited production planned, the 3.0-liter Power Stroke may not amount to much more than mileage bragging rights option for the ultra-lux crowd, at least for now. Of course, PickupTrucks.com still has not done a thorough towing or hauling test of the engine, so it's possible we'll learn more later. The return of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel in 2019 and a new inline-six-cylinder Duramax from Chevrolet and GMC (with the same 10-speed transmission they're using with the 6.2-liter gas V-8) will give diesel fans plenty to look for when they hit the market. Stay tuned.

Cars.com photos by Andy Mikonis

 

F150 copy II

P1030618 copy II

P1030791 copy II

P1030790 copy II

P1030603 copy II

P1030800 copy II

IMG_3520 copy II

IMG_3526 copy

P1030818 copy


Comments

What we're seeing is a truck put on passenger-car tires (at 35psi.) What would this truck do with actual LT tires on board, typically rated at 50+psi?

There are reasons to buy a diesel:
1) You need the tow capacity
2) You just want it
3 You like the power whether towing or not
4) Save money
5) You like the sound

I think that the only one that applies to this rig is item , you just want it. And for that there is no argument.
Sound is pretty much a non-issue for the newer diesels and this engine does not offer power, towing capacity or savings. I agree with the conclusion " Power Stroke may not amount to much more than mileage bragging rights".

With the superb engines and transmissions we have today , diesel engines just don't have enough of an improvement in gas mileage to really offset the performance and cost differences .

Modern gas engines are durable and pretty thrifty while offering very good performance for the dollar.

Both Ford's small 2.7L EcoBoost and GM's upcoming (and very impressive on paper ) turbo I4 offer far better performance in most situations with lower cost and mileage that is close , combined with cheaper fuel costs , no def fluid and lower maintenance costs in the long run not to mention lower

This grill is just ugly to me.

you don't buy diesel trucks for FE. Buy a diesel if you need the extra pulling power and finesse at towing. There is a price to pay for the extra grunt but there is presently no serious alternative if much towing is on the menu.

What we're seeing is a truck put on passenger-car tires (at 35psi.) What would this truck do with actual LT tires on board, typically rated at 50+psi?...Posted by: Vulpine | Aug 30, 2018

@vulpine

I'm betting that Ford will sell a lot of F150s trimmed this way. Unless you do an awful lot of heavy loaded rough-road driving, the OEM tire is fine. I have not spent much time in the woods lately so I no longer buy AT tires. The OEMs are just right for highway driving so long as they're not overloaded or exposed to a lot of road hazards.

The GM twins with their new Duramax in-line 6 diesel will be the dominate performance player in the segment , just as the Duramax is in the HD segment.

@GMSRGREAT

Too soon to tell who will dominate the diesel wars.

I think the Big 3 missed on the whole half ton diesel thing. Same with compacts. GM offers a diesel in their midsize but the take rate is single digits I bet.

For buyers who only occasionally need the extra torque the diesel is a huge extra expense.

For most consumers, the V8 engine upgrade with a tow package is sufficient. If not, you probably need a 3/4 ton anyway.

IMO the answer is no. I think these 1/2 ton diesel trucks will be hot for a couple years and then disappear. Gas engines now have gotten to a point were there is very little advantage to diesel.

HAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

THIS ENGINE WILL BE JUNK JUST LIKE FORD'S STOCK IS!!!

HAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

It wouldn't last long because the dumba##es put a timing belt on it instead of a chain.

I get 21.5-22.5 mpg in my 2015 Ram 3.6 V6 city/Hwy combined.
Can't see the benefit of buying a diesel in my case.

Notice the big cup holder on top of the engine, come in handy when you work on it all the time, also check out that rust on the rear end

@marvin

Does your car/truck have a serpentine belt? Does that make you a dumb*ss?

It wouldn't last long because the dumba##es put a timing belt on it instead of a chain.


Posted by: Marvin | Aug 30, 2018 10:51:55 AM

with some of the issues Ford has had with timing chains that's not a bad idea

@GMSRGREAT

Too soon to tell who will dominate the diesel wars.

I think the Big 3 missed on the whole half ton diesel thing. Same with compacts. GM offers a diesel in their midsize but the take rate is single digits I bet.

For buyers who only occasionally need the extra torque the diesel is a huge extra expense.

For most consumers, the V8 engine upgrade with a tow package is sufficient. If not, you probably need a 3/4 ton anyway.


Posted by: papajim | Aug 30, 2018 10:15:08 AM

I have read as high as 15.8% on the canyon. I would still be that may supply constrained.

I would buy in a heart beat- of course TNT will see this as fact that is not worth the cost. Keep in mind, it depends on use. I have a diesel currently and also use a small car to commute, so it doeesnt get used much and is low cost to maintain-plus its a Ford. Point is, diesel is hard to justify on cost alone if you are a daily driver. But factor in resale-ease of towing hauling is huge compared to ANY gas engine, I'd still go for the diesel. This gets better mileage than TNT's gass sipping preimuim fuel too. PUTC forgot to mention if you a comparing gas to diesel, if you compare putting premium fuel in the 6.2 chevy, compared to duramax, it will be cheaper to use diesel.....

@marvin

Does your car/truck have a serpentine belt? Does that make you a dumb*ss?


Posted by: papajim | Aug 30, 2018 11:28:45 AM

The real question is,

How often does it need to be changed? If it's every 60k like some timing belts, than yes its a dumbass move. A serpentine belt and a timing belt are two different animals from a service perspective.

I would buy in a heart beat- of course TNT will see this as fact that is not worth the cost. Keep in mind, it depends on use. I have a diesel currently and also use a small car to commute, so it doeesnt get used much and is low cost to maintain-plus its a Ford. Point is, diesel is hard to justify on cost alone if you are a daily driver. But factor in resale-ease of towing hauling is huge compared to ANY gas engine, I'd still go for the diesel. This gets better mileage than TNT's gass sipping preimuim fuel too. PUTC forgot to mention if you a comparing gas to diesel, if you compare putting premium fuel in the 6.2 chevy, compared to duramax, it will be cheaper to use diesel.....


Posted by: Nitro | Aug 30, 2018 12:33:57 PM

Sure use premium.

Now you have to drive it for 150k for break even, and you still have half the horsepower of the motor your comparing it to and similar torque.

Try again.

A serpentine belt and a timing belt are two different animals from a service perspective...Posted by: andrwken | Aug 30, 2018

I'd rather change FIVE timing belts than ONE timing chain

Andw-not if you include all the maintenace and repairs on that 6.2, the Ford will keep going no issues, so its worth it, my own facts because I lived it and know.

A serpentine belt and a timing belt are two different animals from a service perspective...Posted by: andrwken | Aug 30, 2018

I'd rather change FIVE timing belts than ONE timing chain


Posted by: papajim | Aug 30, 2018 1:44:39 PM

\\\

I would rather change 5 timing chains on a SBC than any timing belt or chain on a DOHC motor.

The even better thing is, you never need to change a timing chain on a GM small block.

Cam train faulures are as common as a serpentine belt on a Ford.

I would buy in a heart beat- of course TNT will see this as fact that is not worth the cost. Keep in mind, it depends on use. I have a diesel currently and also use a small car to commute, so it doeesnt get used much and is low cost to maintain-plus its a Ford. Point is, diesel is hard to justify on cost alone if you are a daily driver. But factor in resale-ease of towing hauling is huge compared to ANY gas engine, I'd still go for the diesel. This gets better mileage than TNT's gass sipping preimuim fuel too. PUTC forgot to mention if you a comparing gas to diesel, if you compare putting premium fuel in the 6.2 chevy, compared to duramax, it will be cheaper to use diesel.....

Posted by: Nitro | Aug 30, 2018 12:33:57 PM

The resale argument has yet to be seen in the 1/2 ton market and IMO could go either way. In the 1/2 ton market you are competing with cheaper gas engines that have way more horse power and equal or better torque. The only advantage fuel mileage.

Honestly, compare the Ford and Dodge diesel numbers to the GM 5.3. The 5.3 runs on 87 octane fuel, it has 100 hp on the diesels and gives up 50 lbs/ft of torque and maybe 5 mpg.
The 5.3 is cheaper, faster, and probably more reliable.

Andw-not if you include all the maintenace and repairs on that 6.2, the Ford will keep going no issues, so its worth it, my own facts because I lived it and know.


Posted by: Nitro | Aug 30, 2018 1:50:00 PM


Thanks for channeling your inner idiot today.

I personally have 3- 6.2l GM engines in trucks in my immediate family. They are all 7-10 years old and never had a bolt loosened on the engine.

We do have family members with phaser knocks in both the 5.4 and the ecoboost. Those have been and will be opened up soon.

Reliability is not up for discussion. Ford went cheap on the cam train designs and the customer ends up paying. The 5.0 and 5.8 from the 90's were better engines. Pretty sad when you had better engine durability 20 years ago.

I would buy in a heart beat- of course TNT will see this as fact that is not worth the cost. Keep in mind, it depends on use. I have a diesel currently and also use a small car to commute, so it doeesnt get used much and is low cost to maintain-plus its a Ford. Point is, diesel is hard to justify on cost alone if you are a daily driver. But factor in resale-ease of towing hauling is huge compared to ANY gas engine, I'd still go for the diesel. This gets better mileage than TNT's gass sipping preimuim fuel too. PUTC forgot to mention if you a comparing gas to diesel, if you compare putting premium fuel in the 6.2 chevy, compared to duramax, it will be cheaper to use diesel.....

Posted by: Nitro | Aug 30, 2018 12:33:57 PM

The resale argument has yet to be seen in the 1/2 ton market and IMO could go either way. In the 1/2 ton market you are competing with cheaper gas engines that have way more horse power and equal or better torque. The only advantage fuel mileage.

Honestly, compare the Ford and Dodge diesel numbers to the GM 5.3. The 5.3 runs on 87 octane fuel, it has 100 hp on the diesels and gives up 50 lbs/ft of torque and maybe 5 mpg.
The 5.3 is cheaper, faster, and probably more reliable.


Posted by: Jack | Aug 30, 2018 1:58:52 PM


\\\

Agree.

Even though KBB rates the ecodiesel as worth 2k more than the same truck with the hemi, real world trade-ins and resale show they are not getting anywhere near that number.

HD diesels are different animals than these toy diesels in the half tons built for mileage. We will see how the half ton crowd moves on them. I'm sure ram is paying for the low resale due to emissions and some early reliability issues. We will see if Ford or GM can do better.

I can't wait for the i6 Duramax. I hope it compares to the others like the old Ford 300 vs V6s of that time. And remember the cumins i6 diesel was the man long before Duramax and powerstroke were even an idea

Andw-not if you include all the maintenace and repairs on that 6.2, the Ford will keep going no issues, so its worth it, my own facts because I lived it and know.
Posted by: Nitro | Aug 30, 2018 1:50:00 PM


Ford's engine failure rate is substantially higher than GM or FCA. Stretched timing chains by 80k miles, collapsed lash adjusters, rattling cam phasers, worn plastic timing chain guides, VVT solenoid failures, thrown rods, turbo bearing failures that puke metal into the oil pan where it eventually makes its way into the oil pump and takes out the bottom end, steel on steel valve guide design that starts out out-of-spec or rapidly wears so much the valve seals start to leak or valves start to wobble and eventually break, constant misfires since Ford hasn't really taken the issue as seriously as they could, integrated blowoff valves that force you to replace entire turbos (usually fail at around 100k miles), warped cylinders, undersized con rod bolts that can't handle the high engine speeds for long and eventually turn into the famous Coyote rod knock, etc etc.

And the new 3.0L Power Stroke has just as big of a chance at being a reliability nightmare. Just the cost of the oil Ford-formulated engine oil, oil filters, and fuel filters will drive the cost of owning the engine well beyond any gas engine used in a half-ton. All while being less capable than most of them.

Not a lot of enthusiasm by the author it seems. So if its not cost effective it's either a novelty or because you tow, although not very many buyers tow and many who want a stout towing rig would move up to the F250.

The only reason this engine exists is to help boost Ford's CAFE average. It's the same reason Ram still bothers with the 3.0ED even though the engine is plagued with engine failures. I know guys that have had the engine replaced twice under warranty. Ram does it because it's cheaper than the fine.

Most of you have clearly never owned a modern direct-injected diesel engine. The number ONE complaint and problem with modern diesels from Mercedes, to Cummins, Duramax, and Ford is the darn injectors! They tend crap out at anywhere from 90,000-150,000 miles and can cost anywhere from $5000-$7000 to replace. The injector pump if it fails is another $2000-$4000.

No one, Bosch or likewise as been able to figure out the diesel injector issue. I put 300,000 mi on my Duramax but went through 3 sets of injectors over those miles.

Injector replacement MUST be figured into any cost-bennefit analysis or discussion involving diesels....until the manufacturers solve the problem.

@NLP
You would own a duramax if you are complaining about injectors. It was a major weak point of the duramax for a long time. I thought they had it figured out on the newer dmax though?

The fords have had their issues but I believe injectors on the 6.7 are not really a common issue.

Ecodiesel I have heard of a number of cases of the fuel system failing at low miles resulting in a $10,000 repair. That alone is enough to convince me to NEVER buy an ecodiesel.

Cummins engines in the ram seem to have a reliable fuel system.

I have 120,000 miles on my 2016 Canyon Duramax with inline 4 diesel, have had zero issues, lifetime average 28 mpg,this includes 21,600 miles of towing 6100 lb travel trailer. With the built in exhaust brake it does a fantastic job descending steep grades with very few service brake applications. Funny my 4x4 crew cab fully loaded mid size Canyon has a higher payload (1480 lbs) than the Crew cab 1/2 ton Ford.
As far as popularity, the diesel mid size GM is really gaining popularity and dealers are stocking 35% diesel here in the rural towns.

You would own a duramax if you are complaining about injectors. It was a major weak point of the duramax for a long time. I thought they had it figured out on the newer dmax though?

The fords have had their issues but I believe injectors on the 6.7 are not really a common issue.

Posted by: beebe | Aug 30, 2018 10:54:07 PM

Injectors were a major issue for all 3. The 7.3 PSD injectors had o-rings that would allow engine oil to push into the fuel system, eventually draining the engine into the fuel tank. The 6.0 PS had just as many injector issues as the LLY/LBZ. Honestly, the 6.0 is such a terrible engine, I'd take an LB7 with all its issues in a heartbeat over a 6.0. The 6.4 had plenty of injector issues too. In the last 10 years, the rate of injector issues is related more to fuel quality and whether the owner stayed on top of the fuel system. You can run bad fuel or fuel with water in any modern diesel and those injectors are going to live a short life. Adding a lift pump makes a huge difference. The CP4 is a big danger these days. It was a smart move by GM to dump the Bosch pump for a Denso setup.

What I'd ask here I don't see brought up is gas vs diesel engine longevity.
I know in the past a diesel engine well maintained would last year few hundred thousand miles,

But in many cases across ALL truck mfg's the trucks rusted out in many areas of country.

So what's to be said about today's truck's, (longer lasting bodies), a gas vs diesel longevity?

Yet another Ford lie...

"Unlike Ram's EcoDiesel V-6, which was first conceived for European SUVs, Ford says the 3.0-liter Power Stroke was a "commercial grade" truck engine from the start, developed by the team responsible for the 6.7-liter Power Stroke. "

This 3.0 liter diesel is n old 1999 Peugeot engine that Ford cobbled together to "feel" like they were not behind the other brands of pickups.

And the starting price of an F-150 is $27,00, but you can't buy the diesel diesel unless you pay for the upscale $50,000 version of the F-150.

So...

"Is the 2018 Ford F-150 Turbo-Diesel Cost-Effective?"

FOR $23,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE INSANE FOR EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION!

7.3 injectors were a fraction of the cost of the duramax and a relatively simple job from what I heard compared to a huge headache and major cost on the dmax. Never replaced the injectors on my 7.3. the 6.0 and 6.4 had a lot of issues, but the 6.7 has been out now for 8 years and like I said, does not seem to be a common problem with injectors. I know many people with the 6.7 and never heard of injectors being replaced. Also haven't heard of any injector issues with the newer dmax.

@beebe

Ditto. I believe that a lot of injector problems are due to (dirty fuel or) careless neglect of proper maintenance.

AANDW- We can all play your game, I owned several Gm's had problems with each, first Ford- no issues at all, I am good where I am....

I personally don't see the need for a diesel in the 1/2 ton market, but choice is great so I'm happy for those who want or need one. I was surprised at the quickness of the truck however in recent test.

"Ford says the 3.0-liter Power Stroke was a "commercial grade" truck engine from the start, developed by the team responsible for the 6.7-liter Power Stroke. "

Wait, so is Ford saying that a team at the Austrian engineering firm AVL developed the 3.0-liter Power Stroke too? Because the 6.7 Power Stroke was designed by AVL.

@Bert

And your point is...

Diesel in a half ton pickup:
Empty, pointless logic.

Posted by: FXDX1450 | Aug 30, 2018 4:35:09 PM
The post bashing Ford with above time stamp attributed to me is a fraudulent post.

So paying $3K up front now... to save 37 cents per gallon at a rate of about 6 to 8 mpg... takes about 200K miles to make up the difference.

Wonder what that 3K would deliver in the roughly 15ish years it would take me to put 200K on that truck IF I foolishly decided to adopt it as a daily driver and ditch my 34MPG daily driver car? ANY growth at all on that 3K in that time span would still be better than taking 15+ years to "break even".

So what else could 3K be... well its a pretty major repair or 2 significant ones... If you're keeping a vehicle 200+K those are probably gonna be. Its 3.5ish sets of tires... (roughly 120 to 170K miles of tires). For me its more than a single nice family vacation. A decent home improvement project.

I can only really see this making sense for people who drive ALOT with small to medium sized loads/irregular cargo and or constant light towing and occasional medium towing. It kinda eats into the Titan XD territory. I realize the Fiat has beaten the Ford to this realm and suffers from the same liabilities in price and capability compared to real 3/4 tons. Its a very niche market.

Well, so much for the complaints about GM's "baby" Duramax being a $3k option in the Colorado/Canyon. $4-5k on some trims for the diesel engine is still not the $8-9k that the 6.7 PS is for F250+ trucks is, but still, $5k is a very significant cost add for a truck that can already be optioned up to $70k without effort.

I think the engine makes sense at the lower end, but Ford doesn't seem to want to do that out of the gate. Maybe there are enough small businesses that run mi-high to high-trim company pickups to warrant reserving the engine for units in the $45k+ range, but it seems like they'd be missing out.

@Vulpine: these are the same tires on the truck as when it weighed 500 to 600 more pounds in 2009.

Would you expect better mileage from an LT tire? Why? They tend to weigh more. At 50 psi they will beat you up too.

LOL...only a 1,200 payload on this truck? what a joke.

Thank You! This is a helpful article. The only thing I didn't see calculated, which I wouldn't rely on personally, is any possible reduction in depreciation.

For me, it's all about the range/MPGs and I do very little towing. So Ford isn't going to lure me away from Toyota with this offering although they definitely had (still have) the chance to. Although one thing that Ford has that Toyota doesn't have, is the option for a 36 gallon fuel tank and to me, that is absolute gold.
With that, I can sort of stockpile regular gasoline when it dips in price when I'm not doing a lot of driving and it also lets me get to destination on long trips without annoying and time wasting fillups.

And the diesel noise is cool but since this one doesn't make noise, if you really want noise, add an aftermarket noisemaker system.



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 | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us