Breaking News: trucks!

[escape artist]

Hi: War Eagle... How much does that "Mpg" add to the cost of romaine lettuce on the return LAX to JFK flight? It's all part of our heavy carbon foot print!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Dave Walter]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

But just out of curiosity, follow me on this as I take this thread even further off topic (with lots of generalities, averages and loose conversions, I admit, but still):
IF: A commercial jet averages 1.5 gallons jet fuel per mile.
AND IF: You figure 2,800 miles New York City to Los Angeles.
THEN: One jet would burn 4,200 gallons of jet fuel in a single one-way trip - JFK to LAX.
FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT: Assume similar cetane efficiencies between Jet-A and Diesel #2 (ignoring respective additives in each).
AND IF: A diesel pickup would average 20 MPG on either fuel.
THEN: Said diesel pickup could travel 84,000 miles on the same volume of fuel as that single one-way plane trip from JFK to LAX. Make it a round-trip, and you're at 168,000 miles in the diesel pickup.
Just food for thought when concerned about exhaust from burning heavy distillates from fossil fuels.
Okay, I'm done now....

I think that you have to make the comparison in terms of mpg per passenger, as the jumbo jet will carry many more passengers than your diesel pickup, unless you have passengers stacked up in the truck bed.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Dave Walter

I think that you have to make the comparison in terms of mpg per passenger, as the jumbo jet will carry many more passengers than your diesel pickup, unless you have passengers stacked up in the truck bed.

Airlines always do that to make their efficiency numbers look better, but over half the energy burned is just to move the weight of the plane itself regardless of payload. But to be fair, and doing the gallons/mile to miles/gallon conversion, then I guess I get to multiply my truck's fuel efficiency by four to account for the two adult humans and two dogs being transported in my truck for the total fuel consumed in a trip. So, using airline logic, I guess my truck is getting the equivalent of 80 mpg! Yay!!

[Vermilye]

Originally Posted by escape artist

Hi: War Eagle... How much does that "Mpg" add to the cost of romaine lettuce on the return LAX to JFK flight? It's all part of our heavy carbon foot print!!! Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

Actually, your romaine was probably delivered by truck. If you ever get the chance, stop & watch the process of "field to delivery truck" at an efficient harvesting location such as the one I watched outside Yuma. Workers, one per row of produce and, I admit, probably underpaid, sat on seats that rode on arms extending 25' on either side of a large 4 wheel drive truck. They reached down, cut the produce, dropped it on a conveyor belt that sent the produce to the back of the picking truck.

Behind the picking truck a packing truck (fed by conveyor from the picking truck) had sorters cleaning up the produce, packing it in boxes, then putting the boxes on a third conveyor that fed them into a semi trailer (driving backwards).

Time from field to delivery truck was about 1 minute. I suspect they would have to skip the semi when the field was muddy, but I was impressed. Sat at the edge of the road and watched for 20 minutes!

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

...
IF: A commercial jet averages 1.5 gallons jet fuel per mile.
AND IF: You figure 2,800 miles New York City to Los Angeles.
THEN: One jet would burn 4,200 gallons of jet fuel in a single one-way trip - JFK to LAX.
...
THEN: Said diesel pickup could travel 84,000 miles on the same volume of fuel as that single one-way plane trip from JFK to LAX....

So with two people in the truck, that's 168,000 person-miles.
With 200 people in the plane, that's 280,000 person-miles.

The consumption per person-mile debate ("seat-miles" is airline discussions) can lead to some interesting conclusions. Of course, you can't tow a travel trailer with an airliner.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

Airlines always do that to make their efficiency numbers look better, but over half the energy burned is just to move the weight of the plane itself regardless of payload.

Sure, and with the usual one person and a lunch bag contents of the typical pickup truck, something like 98% of the fuel used by a pickup is burned just to move the truck itself.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Sure, and with the usual one person and a lunch bag contents of the typical pickup truck, something like 98% of the fuel used by a pickup is burned just to move the truck itself.

Justification depends in large part what's in the lunch bag. A homemade PB&J with crunchy peanut butter and strawberry preserves on white bread will help ameliorate most guilt associated with low fuel efficiency or stinky exhaust while commuting to and from work to pay for the components of said PB&J. Yumm!!
By the way, I wonder if municipal buses in California get to divide their diesel exhaust particulate matter score by number of seats on the bus in order to pass their emissions test. Just curious....

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by thiggins

https://www.porsche.com/usa/eventsan...turesandspecs/

Okay, I should have said current production roadgoing cars and trucks. There are motorcycles (both road and race), aircraft, and probably other moving things with V4's, and of course the 919 isn't either a production car or road legal.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Wait, that can't be right. 900 hp from a V-4? I'm told ad nauseum that there's 'no replacement for displacement'. Apparently Lemans didn't get the memo.

There is: it is forced induction. While this obviously works for race cars, it is also relevant for tow vehicles. Despite the necessity of turbocharging for acceptable performance from diesels, and the popularity of Ford's EcoBoost V6 engines in pickups for towing, the Jeep pickup apparently won't come with the turbocharged engined to be offered in the Wrangler - the 2.0L displacement is probably just not quite enough for the intended market, even with the turbo.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

By the way, I wonder if municipal buses in California get to divide their diesel exhaust particulate matter score by number of seats on the bus in order to pass their emissions test. Just curious....

Emission limits depend on the vehicle size. One reason for the proliferation of excessively large SUVs and pickup trucks is that if they are over a certain GVWR threshold, they are assumed to be doing more substantial work and are allowed to consume more fuel (exemption from CAFE limits) and emit more pollutants. Transit buses are in a heavy vehicle category. That makes sense for real working vehicles (buses, transport trucks, pickups doing real work), but falls apart when applied to personal vehicles... particularly those being used as commuter cars.

[stormforce]

I do hear tell there is a new ford f 150 diesel coming out in 2018 as well, just to add another tv to' breaking news trucks ', i currently have the 150 ecoboost and have been happy!!! i will however, be waiting to have a close look at the diesel version when it comes out!

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by stormforce

I do hear tell there is a new ford f 150 diesel coming out in 2018 as well, just to add another tv to' breaking news trucks ', i currently have the 150 ecoboost and have been happy!!! i will however, be waiting to have a close look at the diesel version when it comes out!

I personally don't see the need for a turbodiesel considering how Ford keeps improving their EcoBoost V6's, but to each his own. When I turn in my 2015 F150 2.7L EcoBoost in a couple months (it's lease will be up) it will be replaced with a 2018 I just ordered, also with a 2.7L V6, but with 25 ft/lbs more torque, port as well as direct injection, improved reliability with less internal friction, and paired up with an amazing 10 speed tranny. 325hp and 400 ft/lbs of torque at 2750 rpm is perfectly fine with me. If I could see a compelling reason for the diesel, I'd order it, but I don't. This engine kicks butt.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by stormforce

I do hear tell there is a new ford f 150 diesel coming out in 2018 as well...

It isn't a new truck - just a new variant of an existing engine which will be newly available in this truck - but yes... the F-150 diesel is due next spring, as a late-introduction 2018 model.

The 2018 F-150 owner's manual is available now, and it includes information for the diesel. From the tables of towing information it appears that

• the diesel is only available in a few of the variants (4x2 SuperCab 145" WB, 4x2 SuperCrew 145" WB, 4x4 SuperCrew 145" WB, 4x4 SuperCrew 157" WB), which may be tied to trim levels (meaning you need to pay many thousands for luxury stuff to get the opportunity to pay thousands more for the engine)
• the diesel with the right options gets the second-highest GCWR of any combination (17,100 lb or 7,756 kg); only one variation with the 3.5 EcoBoost is higher (so it might have a good payload, but not necessarily)
• the manual describes operation of both 6-speed and 10-speed transmissions; I couldn't tell from this which transmission comes with the diesel

Engine translation guide for the owner's manual:

• 3.3L TiVCT = non-turbo gas V6
• 2.7L GTDI = turbo (EcoBoost) gas V6
• 3.5L GTDI = turbo (EcoBoost) gas V6
• 5.0L TiVCT = non-turbo gas V8
• 3.0L = turbodiesel V6

For anyone considering the diesel, I suggest a careful reading of the fuel and emission controls sections of the owner's manual to see what I would be getting yourself into. It would help if you have some time... these sections are dozens of pages long.

[rbryan4]

The turbodiesel will be offered with the 10 speed transmission Brian, at least according to my dealer.

[stormforce]

be worth a close look for sure,, buy may just end up upgrading my 2011 eco boost to a2018 ecoboost , exiting times ahead !!!!!

[steve dunham]

The new Ford Eco Boost with the tens speed transmission basically makes the diesel obsolete before it is released.
There are even more Eco Boost improvements on the horizon.

[sclifrickson]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

There are even more Eco Boost improvements on the horizon.

I heard Ford’s working on a gas/electric F-150 hybrid.

[skyfree]

Not much love in this thread for diesel or mid-sized trucks. So people will groan when I tell them that I just picked one up that has both of those deficiencies: A 2018 Chevy Colorado ZR2 with the 2.8 Duramax. All I can say is that it's fun to drive, easy to park in my garage or any parking spot, has great off-road credentials, and looks pretty cool. Having owned every size truck from a 1980 Toyota to a 2012 F350 dually longbed supercrew, I feel like this one hits the sweet spot of size vs. function and it's a very smooth ride unloaded with those high-tech DSSV shocks.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by skyfree

Not much love in this thread for diesel or mid-sized trucks. So people will groan when I tell them that I just picked one up that has both of those deficiencies: A 2018 Chevy Colorado ZR2 with the 2.8 Duramax. All I can say is that it's fun to drive, easy to park in my garage or any parking spot, has great off-road credentials, and looks pretty cool. Having owned every size truck from a 1980 Toyota to a 2012 F350 dually longbed supercrew, I feel like this one hits the sweet spot of size vs. function and it's a very smooth ride unloaded with those high-tech DSSV shocks.

The Colorado is a capable truck. With the diesel you get decent HP and more than enough torque. Towing capacity equal to a Silverado but in a midsize truck. It's just that I prefer a half-ton, and I'm a Ford guy, that's all.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by skyfree

Not much love in this thread for diesel or mid-sized trucks. So people will groan when I tell them that I just picked one up that has both of those deficiencies: A 2018 Chevy Colorado ZR2 with the 2.8 Duramax. All I can say is that it's fun to drive, easy to park in my garage or any parking spot, has great off-road credentials, and looks pretty cool. Having owned every size truck from a 1980 Toyota to a 2012 F350 dually longbed supercrew, I feel like this one hits the sweet spot of size vs. function and it's a very smooth ride unloaded with those high-tech DSSV shocks.

Congratulations on your new truck . Hope it serves you well !!