I have been doing alot of reading and from what I see Ford should be able to make this diesel get 25 mpg and still have 250 hp with 500 ft lbs trq. Also with that they can leave the people that want HP and TRQ to buy it in the aftermarket so the rest of us get the MPG's. just my .02. Anyone have any thoughts on this I would like to hear them. Also does anyone have a link to some information on the exhaust and urea set up, I would like to read more on that.

p.s. 450 to 500 ft lbs of torque is 85-135 more than current, and the F150 is already more capable than the competition.

Thanks

 

I wouldnt expect too much more than 100 ft-lb per liter of displacement.

 

i heard 420Ilbs

 

I am ok with 420 ft lbs that is plenty. It only has 365 now and they call it the most capable. That is the very reason they should go after the economy.

 

There is no good reason you can't have MPG and HP and TQ.

 

I will never be able to afford one, but I would much rather see MPG increase if it means sacrificing power. I only need about 150 hp in a half ton. Give me 3/4 or 1 ton to do work.

 

ya thas about wat my 300 puts out but it can still pull some ***** i think 250 hp would be plenty of hp for any truck today

 

You can have torque and HP and still get good mileage, which is why the 505HP corvette can still pull off 25-28 MPG highway. The main thing that decides mileage is the aerodynamics of the truck - during highway driving. For city driving, its how much the vehicle weighs.

Theoretically, a 500HP and a 250HP engine in the same truck, assuming both engines weighed the same, should get the same mileage, as long as they are both accelerating, traveling, etc.. at the same speed

 

I highly doubt that 150hp would please anyone in a 1/2 ton.

Mike

 

im happy with my truck,but like i said earlier a truck doesnt need anymore than 250hp

 

Maybe so, but I like as much power as I can get. What I see the real problem being is excess weight. Weight will kill MPGs much faster than more power. You can always just get out of the throttle.

For example in the F150, cut the fully boxed frame. It's not needed other than for marketing. I have no idea how much weight it adds, but I'm sure it's hundreds of pounds. I have never once in any of my C-channel trucks, (from a Ranger up to an 80,000lb ladder truck) thought man this thing really needs more frame.

Mike

 

i agree with you completely.these trucks are just way too damn big.i cant count how many times ive heard people say the f150 need sto lose 1500 ilbs,but it needs to happen

 

I would love to see HP, torque and economy. But, it'll never happen. As long as the EPA has their fingers in it, you might as well forget the economy thing. My 6.4 Liter has more torque and HP than you would ever need, and prior to going into the "regen" mode, it will get about 18-20 MPG on the freeway. As soon as it senses the restriction in the particulate filter, it starts dumping diesel fuel down the exhaust, so it can "clean the filter" out. For an 8200# truck to get 18-20 MPG, especially when it has the aerodynamics of a brick, I don't think that's too bad. Then, when the Feds "make it environmentally friendly", it takes the fun factor clear out of it.
By the way, it's across the board from what I hear. Ford, Chevy & Dodge are all having the same issues with the DPF and fuel mileage.

 

i dunno, i'd be a little on the fence on that one. i had a REALLY light 95 3/4T w/ a 351 (rated at 205HP and maybe 300ft/lbs) geared with 3.55s. it did alright empty but i hooked it on the trailer a few times and it HATED pulling that thing. i wouldn't think that 200 +/- hp would be too bad with 350 to 400 ft/lbs. YMMV.

 

exactly it not hp that moves the trailer its torque