diesel

[Donna D.]

Massaging a banged piece of aluminum is different than reworking standard sheet metal. And, it uses different primer before paint. There's lots of factors that are different, that's why I was curious. Think when the time comes, I'll call my agent and ask. NOT that I'm looking to replace my new truck

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Donna D.

Massaging a banged piece of aluminum is different than reworking standard sheet metal. And, it uses different primer before paint. There's lots of factors that are different, that's why I was curious.

What some of us are thinking is that little of that massaging happens now. Yes, primers will be different, but I assume they're different for plastics, too. And of course, even though there are currently few all-aluminum bodies, there are aluminum hoods and roof panels, so this has all been handled before.

But I agree - there are lots of potentially cost-changing factors, so it's worth checking.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by C&G in FL

And I have been told that Ford will have a new EcoBoost option when the all aluminum body F series arrive at the dealers next February projected to get 30 mpg highway. That would be somewhere in the 20s towing. We'll see!

The smaller 2.7 L EcoBoost V6 (versus the current and continuing 3.5 L) will improve fuel economy when the vehicle is not heavily loaded, but I don't think it's safe to assume that it will have much - if any - advantage when towing. This could be a better engine size match... or it could be going to far.

2015 Ford F-150

[DeadEyeDan]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

I think that's an accurate statement. After alot of thought and research, we're probably going with the F150 Ecoboost V6. The Diesel Colorado would be perfect for our needs, but we simply can't wait until late 2015 for it to come out. We want to pick up in March with our new tow. Besides, the theoretical towing mpg between a gas F150 Ecoboost and a diesel Colorado would probably only be a couple mpg. Not worth the difference when you consider the cost of diesel fuel and other factors.

I drove the latest model of every manufacturer as of 2012 when I bought my Ecoboost F150. I owned a Ford at that time, and was Ford biased, but I have owned 3 Chevy Suburbans too.

The only other truck at that time that tempted me was the RAM 1500. Chevy hadn't yet gotten the memo that the new trucks are as nice as cars. Now they have a nice truck, but with all the problems GM is having, I doubt I would buy a vehicle from them.

The Tundra hadn't been upgraded yet either. The new Tundra looks tempting, but I have not driven it. Nissan seems to have abandoned its bigger pick up. The Frontier was nice, but lacked a center arm rest and was too cramped in the cab.

I decided to stick with the Ford and have not regretted it.

[rbryan4]

Good to know. Thanks!

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by DeadEyeDan

Nissan seems to have abandoned its bigger pick up.

Although the Titan hasn't seen much development over the years, it is - speaking of diesel - about to get a Cummins diesel (a 5 L, not the 6.7 L B-series that the Ram 2500 and 3500 get) in the next generation due for 2016.

[Rossue]

So, here's the thing- memories are short. Remember all the hysteria involving Toyota runaway cars? All manufacturers, especially now-are doing more recalls to avoid huge fines from NHTSA, which btw were a direct result of the Toyota hide-the-problem approach. Floor mats? Right.

Gabe from Campbell River posted how he broke down in NV towing his 17B home from AZ. He mentioned how the tranny shop guy, a Vet who did trans maintenance in Army said his best customers owned Fords, especially the crossovers, along with Expeditions. His was a Ford Escape which he claimed had been faithfully serviced. Cost him over $3K to fix his transmission.

[rbryan4]

Found this interesting. The study is from the UK so the numbers would of course be different, but there are two truisms in the UK that also prove true in the US: Diesels cost more up front, and the fuel cost is substantially higher. A UK based Consumer watchdog group known as 'which?' Reviews and expert advice from Which? found that for the majority of drivers, gasoline was a better choice than diesel. Here's the article link, Great diesel myth: They DON'T save you money and petrol models 'are more economical for most makes of car' | Mail Online and a quick reference chart of some of the cars they studied. Again, I know we're not looking at Diesel trucks here, but I'd be willing to bet it takes a number of years for you to 'break even' with the cost of a diesel vs a gasoline truck. They did mention however that if you drive a large number of miles, the diesel is more cost effective.

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by Rossue

His was a Ford Escape which he claimed had been faithfully serviced. Cost him over $3K to fix his transmission.

Not say'n, but I came very close to blowing up the torque converter in my '94 Ford Explorer.
My daughter pointed out that I had told her that the manual said not to tow in OD, which is what I had done. And, I was only towing a tent trailer.
Since then, I have made a point of reading the %&&% manual.

baglo

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Diesels cost more up front, and the fuel cost is substantially higher.

I assume that this is intended to mean the fuel price per volume; the total fuel cost should be less with diesel, but not as much less as it would be if the price per volume were the same. The article mentions 6 pence per litre; that's about 38 cents (US) per US gallon, or 11 cents (Can) per litre... so yes, the analysis seems applicable here in that respect. On the other hand, even if the two fuels were identically priced, there would still be a break-even point, and the higher the fuel price the quicker the payback. With relatively cheaper fuel here, payback will take even longer.

The article says that the break-even point is 10,000 miles per year. I think that the average use in North America is comfortably higher than that - 12,000 miles or 20,000 kilometres per year are typical assumptions. On the other hand, if we're talking about a vehicle used primarily as a trailer tug, use might be lower.

If anyone is trying to put the British models in perspective, the Fiesta is the same car sold here (but the examples use smaller engines), the Sharan is not sold in North America (it's a tall wagon, vaguely like a Dodge Journey), the BMW 5-series is again the same car sold here with different engine options, and the Astra is the current version of the car of the same name sold here by Saturn until a few years ago.

[Seef]

Hi guys,

to add some more fuel to the discussion......

Last friday we picked up our new TV, the 2014 ISUZU 2.5L (4 cyl) Diesel Twin Turbo, about 160 HP

We took it out for a ride this weekend and found it burns diesel at about 9-10 KM's per liter, that is about 36-40 Miles per Gallon at 120KmH or 74MpH which is the standard max speed in our country. The truck has about 400Nm of torque.

We did do some towing but did not pay any attention to the fuel consumption then, too busy paying attention to the road, rig etc, you know, sweaty hands and so.

When we hit the road for vacation i will pay attention to that detail and keep you posted.

I'm quite happy, since diesel is cheaper then gasoline over here i'm very happy.

Have fun!

Severinus and Yvonne

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Seef

Last friday we picked up our new TV, the 2014 ISUZU 2.5L (4 cyl) Diesel Twin Turbo, about 160 HP
... it burns diesel at about 9-10 KM's per liter, that is about 36-40 Miles per Gallon at 120KmH or 74MpH ...

In the units used in Canada, this is 10 to 11 L/100 km (at 120 km/h). I think it's interesting that this is a about the same as our Toyota Sienna van (with a 3.3 L gas engine, 230 hp).

[rbryan4]

Seef, if diesel were cheaper here than gasoline, a diesel vehicle would be much more attractive, even with the higher up front cost. Here in south Texas, diesel is currently about 50¢ higher per gallon than gasoline, and I've seen it as much as a dollar higher in some places. I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason why.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

I assume that this is intended to mean the fuel price per volume; the total fuel cost should be less with diesel, but not as much less as it would be if the price per volume were the same. The article mentions 6 pence per litre; that's about 38 cents (US) per US gallon, or 11 cents (Can) per litre... so yes, the analysis seems applicable here in that respect. On the other hand, even if the two fuels were identically priced, there would still be a break-even point, and the higher the fuel price the quicker the payback. With relatively cheaper fuel here, payback will take even longer.

The article says that the break-even point is 10,000 miles per year. I think that the average use in North America is comfortably higher than that - 12,000 miles or 20,000 kilometres per year are typical assumptions. On the other hand, if we're talking about a vehicle used primarily as a trailer tug, use might be lower.

If anyone is trying to put the British models in perspective, the Fiesta is the same car sold here (but the examples use smaller engines), the Sharan is not sold in North America (it's a tall wagon, vaguely like a Dodge Journey), the BMW 5-series is again the same car sold here with different engine options, and the Astra is the current version of the car of the same name sold here by Saturn until a few years ago.

Correct, I meant price per unit (gallon in my case). And yes, I would tend to agree that the British numbers are better than what we could expect in the US, with diesel fuel being so much higher than gas, and the even higher premium charged for diesel vehicles.

[Cypherian]

Hey,

Something to consider on the newer diesels as far as cost is the urea-based system injection systems that stuff is pricey.

CYpher

[cpaharley2008]

Yes, it is what I throw away every day from my cat litter box!! I just read the diesel supplement manual to the Ram Eco Diesel, there are several additional items one has to be aware of, water in the fuel and special filter, plug in heat for winter cold, having to let the unit run before shutting down, particularly after towing, up to 5 minutes to cool down the the turbo, and the oil changes and so on. I'm now thinking the ecoboost maybe a better option, particularly for 2015 when ford is using aluminum to shave off 700 pounds. The smaller 2.7 is projected to reach 30 mpg unhitched.

[Cypherian]

Yeah Jim most of those other items you mention eexcept the fuel filter will still let the vehicle run correctly. As I understand it if you run out of the urea the vehicle will go into limp home mode max speed of 30 mph vehicle dependent of course.

Cypher

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

Yes, it is what I throw away every day from my cat litter box!! I just read the diesel supplement manual to the Ram Eco Diesel, there are several additional items one has to be aware of, water in the fuel and special filter, plug in heat for winter cold, having to let the unit run before shutting down, particularly after towing, up to 5 minutes to cool down the the turbo, and the oil changes and so on. I'm now thinking the ecoboost maybe a better option, particularly for 2015 when ford is using aluminum to shave off 700 pounds. The smaller 2.7 is projected to reach 30 mpg unhitched.

Yeah, if the Ecoboost approaches anywhere near the mileage of the diesel, then I think the gas engine is the better choice. If we were towing a 5000lb+ trailer then no.

[dave macrae]

It's a tough one to answer . Our trailers don't need the torque that the bigger trailers do. That's IMHO one of the nice things about these trailers, you don't have to drive a 1 ton dual rear wheeled truck to work everyday just to tow your trailer in the summer.
I know that here in Alberta a synthetic oil change and fuel filter at the dealer will run close to $300.00 . That does buy a lot of gas. Especially if the mileage is
Close.

[DeadEyeDan]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Yeah, if the Ecoboost approaches anywhere near the mileage of the diesel, then I think the gas engine is the better choice. If we were towing a 5000lb+ trailer then no.

My friend pulls a 24' Lance with his and he says it does fine. Not sure how heavy it is, but it has to be up in the 4000-5000 LB range.

Reace says he tows his Toy Hauler with his and he says it hangs with the diesels.

Supposedly, with the right tow package, the Ecoboost F150 can tow 11,300. Mine is only rated at 8500.

Personally, if I had a 8,000-10,000 lb trailer, I think I'd go Super Duty and diesel.