• Torque Wars! 2018 Ford Super Duty Comes Out with Most Power, Torque, and Towing (News)


    2018 ford f350 f250 f450 super duty power specs
    2018 Ford Super Duty: power specs

    The torque wars continue with the recent announcement from Ford. The 2018 Super Duty 6.7L Power Stroke V8 turbo-diesel is now rated at 450 hp and 935 lb-ft of torque, which happens to be the most among competition from GM and Ram.

    How does it compare? The Ram HD held the most torque crown for several months with 930 lb-ft of torque from their high-output 6.7L I6 Cummins engine. Chevy and GMC heavy duty trucks were kings of diesel pickup truck horsepower until this announcement with the 6.6L Duramax V8 diesel pushing out 445 horsepower.

    2018 Ford Super Duty

    Ford boosted the Power Stroke output by 10 horsepower and 10 lb-ft of torque by redesigning the cylinder heads and tweaking the fuel delivery and turbo boost control systems. How will do on the Ike Gauntlet – the world’s toughest towing test? We will have to wait to find out.

    That’s not all. Ford is also claiming a maximum towing rating of 34,000 lbs for a gooseneck trailer with their new 2WD 2018 Ford F450 crew cab model. If maximum towing matters to you, then this 2WD F450 will be the ticket if you can find a gooseneck hitch and trailer that are properly sized and configured to handle this. Most current gooseneck trailer hitches are rated at up to 30,000 lbs.

    Ford reminds us that the 2018 Super Duty is rated at a maximum of 21,000 lbs of conventional trailer towing, as well as 7.360 lbs of maximum payload capacity when properly equipped and configured.


    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    302 thoughts on “Torque Wars! 2018 Ford Super Duty Comes Out with Most Power, Torque, and Towing (News)

      1. I don’t believe Fords numbers, they have been caught to many times in the past lying about the power of their engines and even MPG of they vehicles.

        There is no way to even check the numbers because of the torque limiting built into the ECM/TCM’s, you would have to remove the Engines from the truck and install it on an engine dyno and that is not going to happen.

        1. Well considering all of their engine ratings are SAE verified, your claims of lying are simply false.

          And with MPG ratings, those come from the EPA, not the manufacturer.

          1. Doesn’t the manufacturer do the testing? Is this not the reason some manufacturers had to “revise” their EPA mileage numbers?

            1. Official MPG ratings are all straight from the EPA. Otherwise you’d get manufacturers hyper-miling during testing to publish a bogus number.

            2. One thing we do know is that TFL has proven the Ford Powerstroke has inconsistent performance, and thus us flawed.

              What’s new about Ford.

            3. But how could Ford have placed the 47 MPG rating on sticker windows in the first place? First off, the numbers don’t come from tests performed by the EPA, but by the automakers themselves. That’s standard practice. The EPA runs audits on about 15% of vehicles as a way of keeping automakers on their toes. But inflated MPG ratings can and do make their way onto new-car stickers, and it’s generally only after much complaining that an EPA investigation takes place and corrections are made.

            4. If my statement is incorrect, then your side’s statements are incorrect, since you all just stated on this page that the Ford HD tests done on TFL showed inconsistent performance.

              The fist test on TFl showed the Ford way behind the other two. Then the 30,000 test showed the Ford beat out the RAM.

              So, it is proven the Ford has inconsistent performance.

              If you can’t debate that , you are not debating yourself.

              Always running circles around you guys.

              Not only are you guys too dumb to understand this stuff, you are to stupid to ever be shown you are too dumb.

            5. Or the ram just can’t cut the mustard when really worked. This shows that the ram with the Cummins is the least consistent. The Ford times were closer than the ram numbers between the 2 hauls. So based on logic which I know Hal and his 15 identities don’t have, the Superduty is more consistent than the ram.

            6. I can’t believe ford can afford to redesign the heads and fuel delivery for 10 hp 10 tq seems crazy to me. Gm rarely ever bumps hp and tq unless model change , winch I believe translates to reliability . Also harder on mechanics and parts department.

            7. They fixed some issue, only ford knows about yet. I smell a recall for the older model , or in the ford’s case, denying any problems.

          2. Go watch the Ike gauntlet videos how come they are always loosing to gm going up the hill with less then this so called 30,000+ thousand pounds it’s because those numbers are jokes or else the action would speak louder then the words and it obviously doesn’t going up the hill.

      2. I wish they would focus on their rampant oil leaks before adding a few ft-lbs and hps.

        Reliability would make a much larger impact than an indistinguishable increase in power.

        Anyone towing 30k+ pounds should be in something much larger than a f450. I don’t care if the truck can do it, it shouldn’t do it. It would be so easy for that trailer to control the truck instead of the other way around.

        1. Rampant oil leaks? Ive seen many 6.7’s and have seen maybe two with lower oil pan seeps. Sure your not talking about Cumminns?

            1. did you make sure the dipstick was in all the way? Shop ram 4500 was dripping oil, pop hood and dipstick wasn’t in all the way after oil change. 120k like it was nothing.

            2. Cool story bro.
              Cummins has a block heater heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan .

            3. Then it looks like you don’t have a single clue on what your talking about. Which is normal for you. I will continue to believe my build spec sheet from Cummins and the dealer. Not a retarded fanboi

            4. Zviera
              December 7, 2017 at 5:33 Cummins has a engine oil heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

              So now you cant get your story straight. First it has a block heater in the block and now it has an oil heater in the block. Please explain how a block oil heater works please.

            5. I never said ram ISB retardo. Bahahaha, your so dumb and ready to start an argument you just assume stuff now. Do you know that show “are you smarter than a 5th grader”. Well we all know you wouldn’t make it past the first round. Hahaha

    1. A measly 19 HP and 10 ft-lb torque? I don’t think that’s going to make up for the poor showing the 2017 SD put on over at PUT.C. They dyno numbers were set one disappointing, the engine braking lagged, the towing performance didn’t deliver, the Lariat trim I drove was filled with cheap plastic and bad seats. I wish Ford would put the same amount of effort they put into the F-150. I was really ex9ecting Ford to address the major problems they’re having with the CP4’s at the very least. I guess they plan on continuing to blame owners when the fuel pump fails again and again.

        1. Daniel, that is not unexpected from a troll. Rammins is a baby. So not only does he act like one, he also writes like one. Maybe he will get on his recall conspiracy soapbox next.

            1. If the Ford was so poor on that Dyno, would you care to share what the Ram results were? Hint- it was pathetic. Another hint- dyno results vary so much it is useless to compare them as hard data.

            2. Yes, I can share this TFL test with you.
              On 2017 Ike test, Ford was the slowest and with worst fuel economy pulling 22,800 lbs.

              2017Ram3500Crew 4×4 10:28.86 2.9Mpg
              2017FordF-350Crew4×4 10:31.88 2.6Mpg

              You called the RAM pathetic, so how would you call Ford’s results, ultra pathetic ?
              Fudging numbers company.

            3. Ah, a classic changing of the story here. We were talking about PUTC results, where the Ram numbers were pathetic on the Dyno, so you decide to switch gears and talk about a TFL test. For the record, I think all dyno results are pretty useless, including the PUTC test where the Ram put out 290 HP and 575 torque. It is obvious the Cummins has much more output than that, which is why dyno runs are useless. We know that data is wrong.

              Now, if you want to talk about TFL tests, how did the comparison work out with 30,000 lbs Zviera? Care to share that info?

            4. I don’t care about PUTC dyno test. Especially at TFL site. You said it’s useless by yourself.
              The real life TFL test we only trust in here.
              Ford results were ultra pathetic.

            5. Ok, so if you only trust TFL results, what were the results of the 30,000 lb tests? I’ll help you. Ford was over a minute faster than Ram.

            6. Go look at Trucktrends latest one ton battle then. The new Super duty dominated the competition with their tests. Just saying it depends on the tests and the day they’re being tested.

            7. So…the inconsistency is that Ford finished 3 seconds (less than .5 miles per hour slower on average over 8 miles) behind Ram towing 22k pounds, yet was over a minute faster towing 30k pounds? And this makes Ram better? More fine logic.

            8. Hey zombiera, speaking of pathetic. That is you bragging about a 3 sec difference in up hill performance and somehow forgetting that the 2500 was 7 MINUTES slower than the F250 up the IKE. Ultra pathetic.

            9. They all have inconsistent performance at currently advertised power levels. The 6.6/6.7 medium duty diesels they employ, all rate about 350hp, 650ft/lbs in more consistency demanding truck applications. They’ve been doing that for eons. Largely because their performance is determined, more than anything, by cooling capacity. And radiator area hasn’t, and realistically can’t in a pickup, go much higher. And won’t in the non pickup medium duty trucks the engines also go in, simply because that standard is ingrained across everything from trannies to drivelines to workloads.

              Virtually all the advertised “gains” above that, are due to relaxing consistence requirements, and reporting performance attainable only very intermittently. Too intermittently to be acceptable for commercial buyers of this class engine in a truck.

              Since pickup truck users statistically don’t use these medium duty engines’ max capability most of the time, but could benefit from; an extra burst of acceleration (HP) to merge onto the freeway with a big RV in tow; or being able to dig out the occasional traffic related slowdown uphill without a harsh downshift (TQ); it’s perfectly safe to “overrate” engines a bit for the pickup market. And let the engine management systems allow a bit of short term “overboost.” Which is just another way of saying “introducing inconsistency.”

              Exactly how engine management deals with this or that, varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. With the result that Ram may turn off the tap before Ford when towing 30K at a certain temprature, altitude and moonphase, with the opposite occurring when towing 24K. And GM keeping the tap open longer than either of the other two, despite a much lower max tow rating, and a less favorable final drive ratio….

              But regardless how the engine management games differ, all the engines are really 350hp/650tq or thereabouts, if you want sufficient consistency out of them to be relied upon for traditional medium duty use.

              And, because everything from medium duty transmissions to workloads are built around this, there is no incentive for this to change. So it won’t. And all the higher and higher advertised numbers for pickups, will just be attained by making the scenarios where the higher ratings apply, narrower and narrower, and more and more specific. Which doesn’t have to be bad per se, as long as those narrow, specific cases overlap with where pickup buyers want/need the extra oomph. But it does open up for ever more inconsistencies.

              Anyway, sorry this became long. The real moral of the story is: Don’t think you’re getting anything meaningfully, or at least consistently, derated; by getting the manual tranny you deep down know you always wanted in your truck 🙂

            10. I don’t consider the dash mpg calculation at max load in an extreme towing environment to be particularly accurate. That’s why I don’t care what that result is.

            11. Well we all know the power wagon can’t beat a Raptor on a trail the power wagon was designed for. Ouch!

            12. The video that the world can see is the power wagon getting hung up on rocks and couldn’t get out. The video the world can see is the Raptor and ZR2 making child’s play out of the trail. In fact, the power wagon had the most experienced driver and the Raptor the least experienced driver. Haha

            13. They see Nathan in it. Who cares ? What Power Wagon has anything remotely to do with a fact , that MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has a block heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

            14. So, what your saying is the power wagon needs a professional driver with proper training to actually go up a hill. While the Raptor has no issues no matter whose behind the wheel. Good to know.

            15. I am saying that MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has a block heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

            16. Haha, zombiera not only can you not read because nobody said anything g about a block heater, the power wagon needs a professional driver to go off road while a hone can dominate off road in a Raptor.

            17. I never said ram ISB dumb dumb. Bahahaha, your so dumb and ready to start an argument you just assume stuff now. Do you know that show “are you smarter than a 5th grader”. Well we all know you wouldn’t make it past the first round. Hahaha

      1. It’s actually 10HP and 10lb-ft over the current version.

        Your comments are not on target. The F-150 and Super Duty share an interior. If you think the Super Duty has cheap plastics and bad seats, so does the F-150. They are the same.

        Ford is also not “having problems with the CP4 pump.” Totally false. The CP4.2 Bosch pump is identical to the one GM used all the way up to 2017 before they switched to Denso. Early CP4 pump proved quite susceptible to water damage since they operate at very high pressure. Ford rectified the issue by working with Bosch to install a special coating to the pump pistons and bores. GM soldiered on with the original until 2017. Ford further added additional water contamination prevention measures in the 2017 trucks.

          1. I’ve seen the opposite. It doesn’t help that the WIF sensor on a 6.7 PSD is much higher in the fuel bowl compared to the LML design, where the WIF sensor is at the very bottom. If you rely on the 6.7’s WIF sensor, you’re going to be way too late.

            1. Actually it depends on where the fuel outlet is located. So it sounds like your not very educated on the subject.

            2. I agree on the WIF light. Part of the problem here was earlier build 6.7l trucks but mainly the lack of dealerships educating owners on proper maintenance. And yes this includes opening your fuel filter drain valve every fillup

            3. The WIF sensor has a direct connection to the PCM. If water was detected, the engine was derated with a warning light. Also many aftermarket fuel filters are not like the Ford filters. They have the ability to keep the water from passing through it. So if you used aftermarket filters and the water did not separate in the separator, it can pass through into the fuel system. Another issue is people using products like seafoam. It has alcohol in it and it breaks up the water and allows it to pass through the fuel system. That is what also kills a fuel system. The CP4 pumps did have failures and that is nothing new. GM and VW had the same issues. Some of it was a defect in the pump and some was allowing water to pass through the fuel system.

            4. All diesel has a small amount of water in it. It might be a minute amount that you never worry about. The 2011-2016 Powerstroke had what they called a Diesel Fuel Conditioner Module mounted on the frame rail. It contained the electric low-pressure lift pump, the primary fuel filter, the water separator centrifuge, and the WIF sensor. Ford designed the separator to where a small amount of normal water could be separated without tripping the light; the water would be removed so long as the owner occasionally drained the separator (Ford recommends monthly, not at every fillup). If water did reach the WIF sensor and trigger it, Ford theoretically had a small amount more capacity in the separator before high pressure pump damage occurred, but more often than not if the light came on, your pump probably ingested some water. Overall, the capacity is fairly small. Monthly draining and buying fuel from high-volume stations would keep the owner completely out of trouble.

              For 2017, Ford has changed the arrangement completely. The low-pressure pump is now in the fuel tank, and the primary filter is a larger, rectangular cartridge (as opposed to round). There is significantly more capacity for water in the separator both before the WIF triggers and more importantly *after* it triggers. Unless you are pouring a lot of watery diesel into your tank, water problems should be a thing of the past.

              I’ve owned a 2017 diesel Super Duty for 14 months and 17k miles now; I’ve yet to drain the water separator…nor have I seen a WIF light, ever.

        1. Honestly Troverman I’m just talking drivetrains not interiors or how much they can tow. Who has better drivetrain duramax with allison or powerstroke and there transmission. Just curious what u think.

          1. My opinion is that both are great choices. I prefer Ford for the overall package, but I don’t think you’d go wrong with a Duramax. You might be wise to avoid the first year L5P Duramax since it really is all new, but that would go for any all new engine.

      2. i would take tq dyno numbers with a grain of salt. torque converter slip/lockup probably has an effect on torque numbers, which is why all the diesel power guys have a lock up switch

          1. The Ford dually tested on the dyno would only limit it’s torque in first gear, which is obviously not the gear used for the dyno pull. I think dynos give inconsistent results, but seeing all three trucks run on the same dyno on the same day should at least offer a valid ‘comparison.’ In this case, the Ford seemed to be a little off. Oddly, this same truck won the drag race, despite not being the lightest truck. Perhaps the Ford was down on the power from the factory and the others were ringers, I dunno. I do believe in “real life” a 2017 Powerstroke outpulls just about anything out there…

    2. More interesting that some 4%hp and 1%tq increase is when the 10speed is coming. Ford hasn’t announced it on the consumer side, but Ford documents laying out production of the 10R140 transmission have circulated for a while.

      1. I guess the people in the 70’s and 80’s were too dumb to make a 10 speed transmission. Maybe there is a way to improve on the wheel too, make it rounder somehow. Lets fight against mpg for decades all while the 10 speed alluded everyone for 50 years. Auto makers are subsidized by the fuel industry, burn fuel and get paid, this is why the CAFE laws were enacted, otherwise we would be driving horse and carriages, with hybrid horses that could actually drink petrol fuel like Bernie. Why do you think the cry for a 3% market share to build new diesel’s in the light truck industry is a complete failure (ie Colorado, Canyon, Titan, Ram) = poor sales but to meet CAFE standards, companies are desperate and they cheat and get caught and then are forced to convert to electric or pay dearly.

    3. I was reading that Ford was going to start producing the 10R140 at the Sharonville, Ohio transmission plant sometime in the future. I can’t wait to see how it performs.

    4. It is about time Ford offered a 4X2 version of the F450. Not everyone needs a 4X4 truck. The boost in power is not unexpected too. I would be interested in what changes they made to the cylinder heads too. Goes to show that there is more into boosting power than just boost it harder.

    5. I am also starting to find articles that Ford is retooling a plant in Canada that will be making a 7.0L V8 Gas engine to replace the V-10 in the Superduty lineup. I hope if this is true it is put in the F-250. Source: Autonews

      1. I’m pretty sure if ford does release this 7.0 engine, which could be great news, it will only be available in the f450 and f550 chassis cabs rather than the whole superduty line. Not great!

        1. Speculation on the 7.0L V8 has run rampant for quite some time. My theory is that the current 6.2L engine is capable of being expanded to 7.5L and if a 7.0L engine does come out, it will be based upon the 6.2L design. Not a bad thing, I don’t think. I see no reason why it couldn’t be offered across the board as before.

        2. @Dan Bush – I have heard that line of thought too, because the reports were that it would replace the 6.8 V10, which is currently only available in the chassis cab trucks and the 650 and 750. Who knows what will end up happening.
          There is nothing wrong with the 6.2, but the 7.0 / 10 speed combo in a 250 or 350 truck would be pretty awesome.

    6. When is enough enough? I love power but at some point, the manufacturers need to focus on somthing other than diesel power and torque numbers. Maybe they could forcus on the gas V8 engines a bit more. Most of us don’t need a truck that can tow 30,000# plus anyway.

      1. Since Ford starting building their own diesel engine in 2011, look at the power and torque jumps:
        Early 2011 trucks – 390HP / 735lb-ft
        Mid 2011 – 2014 trucks – 400HP / 800lb-ft (+10HP and +65lb-ft)
        2015-2016 trucks – 440HP / 860lb-ft (+40HP and +60lb-ft)
        2017 trucks – 440HP / 925lb-ft (+65lb-ft)
        2018+ trucks – 450HP / 935lb-ft (+10HP / +10lb-ft)

        This latest move is clearly for marketing / bragging rights only and will have virtually zero affect on actual performance.

          1. Your right ram king. Ram is ranked lowest in reliability. And what is funny is the Cummins powered rams are the least reliable.

            1. Awe that’s cute. JD powers. A magazine that has the sample rate for all vehicles for just one vehicle model of another more credible source.

            2. “Your right ram king. Ram is ranked lowest in reliability. And what is funny is the Cummins powered rams are the least reliable.”

              Source? You think JD Power is not reputable, but Consumer Reports is? Please explain that logic.

            3. Simple.both use sampling from actual customers. However the JD power samples for all vehicles is just about the sample rate for just one vehicle line in CR. The sampling is considerably higher with CR over JD Powers.

        1. Ford isn’t “compensating” for anything. Each of the big three diesel pickup manufacturers clearly want “best in class” bragging rights because having the most helps sell your product in this market.

          No different than the L5P Duramax upping Ford by *5* horsepower and the latest RAM initially upping Ford by *5* lb-ft of torque.

          The 6.7L Ford has developed a very positive reputation for reliability and longevity. It looks like a cluster under the hood, but many repairs can be done pretty easily. Yes, major repairs will still be done with the cab off, same as GM, and increasingly…RAM.

      2. When we go full electric, we will see 2-3 X the current torque outputs at least. 1000lb-ft will seem like nothing. The Ike Gauntlet timing will become pointless, even for 30,000 lbs of trailer weight. With that perspective, no I don’t think we have too much right now.
        I agree that each incremental power boost won’t mean much in the real world over the previous generation. But when you compare trucks over a 10 year period, the results are more substantial. It’s like working out at the gym, each day has little effect, but the consistency of self improvement does have a measurable result in the long run.

          1. Hey Joe smart ass, I was responding to Dave H, who was rhetorically asking when should we stop making improvements? If we stopped improving power and torque, then in 30 years, we would have the same power and torque as we do today. Try to follow along.

        1. You don’t have to go full electric to see the much higher torque.

          Just electric drive(electric motors pushing the wheels rather than a linkage between the diesel engine and wheels).

          And just continue to produce the electricity from the current diesel engines instead of a huge battery.

          1. If you want that much torque just use a lower gear.
            There seems to be a few people here who do not understand the significance of torque. Torque is a very small part of the whole picture.

            1. You can always use a lower gear if you give up speed. But I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about multiple thousands of real lb-ft that can be used at any speed.

    7. It sounds like ford may have down their homework on this year’s powerstroke! I think most of us were surprised at how the 2017 f350 under performed on the ike. It will be interesting to see what gm and ram’s response will be to this report from ford. I’m pretty sure their will be one!

      1. The particular 2017 F-350 dually TFL tested on the IKE against the 2017 RAM and GM duallys did underperform. But so many people are taking the result of one test with one truck and generalizing that result across the board. (Keep in mind even that particular truck was the “quickest” of the three in the drag racing.)

        How come nobody remembers the “Midnight IKE” test where Mr. Truck drove a 2017 F-450 loaded with 30k lbs up the IKE and the truck recorded an excellent time. A subsequent test of the top RAM 3500 with the same trailer weight recorded a time of a full minute slower?

        The Ford 6.7L is every bit on par with GM and RAM diesels. For some reason, that particular truck in that particular test did not perform as well. I don’t know why. But this latest update of +10/+10 is not going to change performance much. The 2WD F-450 just saves enough weight to provide a little more payload to allow the 34k number.

        1. My guess it was due to transmission mapping. It was at the limit of an upshift however the mapping and load calculations just kept it in that gear and held it there.

        2. The 6.7 Powerstroke is no doubt an excellent engine. I think the new L5P Duramax generally is too, but it sounds like there are some of the typical first year bugs that will need to be worked out. Nothing major. And while the Cummins is a good engine, it has a significant disadvantage in horsepower, which was really on display in the 30k Ike Gauntlet runs.

        3. I would like to see a few other tests, different loads, different days maybe even different trucks (same configuration, different sample). I do find it a little odd-as you said-that so much is put on one test. I suppose it is all that we really have to go on.
          I’m not complaining in any way about what TFLT is doing, I just wish we had more information as to how these trucks really compare-one test does not really give a true picture. One thing that is clear to me however is that any of the three trucks will more than handle any load or task I would ask of them. They all perform very well.

          1. Agreed. It’s easy to start nit-picking over how they all pull 25-30k pounds, but the reality is that any of these diesels would be overkill for the vast majority of people who buy them.

            1. They are complete and utter overkill for the vast majority of diesel pickup buyers, simply because most pickup buyers don’t buy duallies.

              SRW buyers would arguably be better served with slightly smaller engines with better light load driveability and fuel economy. But those mostly don’t exist. So they use what is readily available, which are engines designed to cover class 4 to 6 (or 7) trucks.

              The 5.0 Cummins in the Titan XD is, or is well on the way to be, a more obviously suitable engine for a 3/4 ton SRW truck than the 6.7s. Nissan’s execution may not (yet) be as well honed as that of the big boys, but the quicker turbo spoolup, lighter weight, and higher rev celing of the 5.0, are all features that make sense in typical 3/4 ton usages; which are only very rarely the kind of continuous highway maxtow scenarios that the 6.7s are optimized for, courtesy of their fitment in duallies and class 4+ trucks.

            2. I like the concept of the titan xd, but from what I’ve read it’s a very laggy diesel with less power and similar mpg’s as the big 3 diesels. What’s the appeal in that?

            3. The 5.0 Cummins Titan XD is missing 3 things to make it a great alternative. 1.) Payload! It’s payload is a measly 1500 lbs. I’ve looked at door stickers. 2.) It needs a fully floating axle. 3.) No exhaust brake. If you add 500 lbs. to the payload and do the other 2, I’d buy it over a Ford for my needs towing an 8K trailer with family and gear on the weekends.

            4. Stuki-
              I would agree that a smaller diesel would be better suited for the 3/4 ton market-which most diesels trucks seem to fall into. I’m not sure that the performance of the current Cummins 5.0 meets the mark but the think the size is about right. With some updates I think it would really be a good engine for most diesel truck owners.
              Something like a modular engine design where the 6 cylinder (say 3.6L) would be used in the 1/2 tons and the incrementally larger 8 cylinder (say 4.8L) an option in the 3/4 tons I think could be a good fit. I suspect however that that would reduce the number of “large” diesels engines, such as we have now, to to low a number to make sense for the manufactures.

          2. They all perform pretty good. Even the 15 second spread between the 3 truck over a 8 mile hill climb is not bad. What should be looked at is how they handle the load and how comfortable the cabin is, i.e. Quiet interior

        4. I know ford even won drag race , but on pickup trucks dot com gmc won every race and had great dyno numbers . I thought gmc really dominated on those tests

    8. Another small bump in performance, never a leap and a bound, next year they might release a 1 mpg increase in fuel economy just to sell the new model. What a stagnated industry, so boring.

      1. Do we really need a leap and bound? All three already produce an enormous amounts of power. Is there anyone who could really use more (sure, it would be fun…).

      2. Rhw difference Rambro is that this truck will ACTUALLY be released on a scale way bigger than a prototype or at most a small niche run of production. It’s easy to build one prototype and make all kinds of capability claims but when it comes down to actual production and price you know the rest

        1. Like I said, the automotive industry has all the power, we would still be driving horses and carriages if hybrid horses could drink petrol. This is why the Café laws were enacted, to force change for the better. Otherwise diesel it is, forever and ever.

          1. The primary reason that manufactures doe not increase FE w/o CAFE is that it raises the price to produce a vehicle (with the same level of performance), which in turn raises the price the consumer pays to purchase the vehicle. If the consumer was willing to pay a higher price for a vehicle that gets better FE without being forced to do so by the government I can guarantee that the manufactures would produce them.

            1. So Troverman is this why Tesla built a model S that is cheaper than a Civic over a 5 year term and only gets cheaper the longer you keep it. Because it is so simple and does 0-60 in 5 seconds. Has more tech than a Civic with unique features never before realized with the auto industry. Is this why their P100D is faster than supercars and all can be charged from your house with 0 emissions and 0 noise pollution. If you dont see the benefits of that then you are truly ignorant.

            2. You forget about having things repaired Rambro. Last time I checked Teslas aren’t that great reliability wise

            3. Rambro-if all that works out to be true and the Model S truly does have a lower cost of ownership than say, a Civic, then yes, it will be a great thing and people will line up to buy them-more so than even now. We don’t have the real world data to support that just yet however. Time will tell.

          2. Rambro, CAFE laws were enacted to help protect US citizens during the 1970’s gas crisis. The Obama administration attempted to use CAFE as a way to force automakers into changing to electric by setting unreasonable mpg targets in the short term. The reasoning for forcing a change to electric has neither to do with saving the planet or giving consumers a better option (electric does neither) but rather to provide an opportunity for for elites to make further millions and billions…and form a new oligarchy.

            1. See above. The reason they force change is because we demanded it and nobody will build a better car so long as the oil industry lines their pockets. Its a monopoly that will never change unless we the people demand it and the government is acting appropriately.

            2. And people actually slept on the ground overnight so they could put a down payment on a Model S from Tesla. Nobody did that for the Raptor

            3. People also sleep on the ground prior ti a bew star wars movie or black friday sale. Stupid people, what’s your point?

    9. So to get +10hp and +10tq, they had to design new heads? I would hope the previous heads were released with a little more safety factor/room for growth. Why design things to just barely meet requirements?

        1. That’s some pretty powerful heated and cooled seats you have there. In my book, a 10HP snowblower can throw a lot of snow 50 feet in the air.

            1. Zombiera, don’t you have to come up with more excuses on why the power wagon didn’t make up a trail it was specifically designed to go up. The Raptor has been waiting for it up there for weeks now to meet it up there. Man that’s got to hurt. Big bad power wagon could make it up a trail the Raptor and ZR2 made child’s play out of.

            2. Oh! More on topic. A ram that has higher HP ratings taking 7 more minutes to climb the IKE with 12,000lbs. Haha. That is on topic right?

            3. MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has a block heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

            4. Hmmmm, zombiera not only are you a complete idiot, you cannot read. No one said anything about a block heater.

            5. MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has a engine oil heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

            6. Hmmmm, zombiera not only are you a complete idiot, you cannot read. No one said anything about a block heater!

            7. Zviera
              December 7, 2017 at 5:33 pm
              MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has a engine oil heater installed at the engine block, passenger side. Not in the oil pan, like you lie about .

              I just had to point this out. Zombiera is soooooo dumb and ignorant that he believes an oil heater is mounted in the engine block. Please explain dumb dumb how a block mounted engine oil heater would heat up oil sitting in the OIL PAN!

            8. Dumb dumb, I never said ram ISB retardo. Bahahaha, your so dumb and ready to start an argument you just assume stuff now. Do you know that show “are you smarter than a 5th grader”. Well we all know you wouldn’t make it past the first round. Hahaha

      1. i heard from a ford rep at a sportscar race that the 925 tq spec was having problems with consuming coolant with like 20k miles. maybe this is a sly way of fixing that.

        1. I have trouble believing that Fourloko, ive seen quite a few tuned 6.7’s putting out 100-200 extra hp over stock without any issue

            1. I work on everything, Fotd, GM, Ram, Toyota, (Nissans if I have to). Newsflash, they all have problems. Hate to burst your bubble Zviera but I work on more 2011 and newer Cummins/Rams than Powerstrokes.

        2. I heard from a friend who heard from a RAM rep that heard from a tech that the Cummins 6.7L has a tendency to crack the block at 50k miles. #FakeNews.

          I’ve had four 6.7L Powerstrokes and none are using any coolant. Which cooling system is using the coolant, anyway…the 6.7L Ford has two completely separate cooling systems.

        3. I have 31,000 miles on my 2017 Superduty and it has consumed zero coolant. Now I’m just one person, so admittedly not the best test sample.

      2. If this truck was so great then how come they didn’t get it right the first time. Why would I pay 90 grand knowing next year they will improve the model again because the one I bought had a flaw that was improved upon. We know electric is superior so lets see a generator running electric drive with 2000ft-lbs of torque. Eliminate the diesel, transmission and gearing and the need for limited suspension travel due to angle on the yokes connected to the axle which would also be eliminated. And the complications with picking a gear to match the motors rpm is archaic, absolutely barbaric.

        Check out the latest Handelsblatt Interview stating how archaic diesel is by todays standard’s, yester years, yes it was great but by today’s standards even cities in Europe have banned all diesel cars, so if you want to buy a diesel in the city you live in, it is banned.

          1. No one needs ore will really need 2000 lb feet of torque soon in a pickup.
            Because a 1000 lb ft of torque diesel connected to a generator/alternator will produce all the electricity you will want and need for a HD pickup with electric motors pushing the wheels.

            The electric motors will put out full torque from 0 rpm, and that will feel much more powerful than a 1000 lb ft of torque ICE truck using a transmission and rear end. Its all bout power bands and keeping the engine at its max power for the instant you want the power,, and electric drive will always give you that power anytime you want it and all the time.

        1. How many products that you can think of were perfect with the first iteration?
          Making something better the next year is how they (anyone who makes things) moves product-be it trucks, cars, consumer electronics, software, etc.

          1. Ford just has more difficulty than the others in not getting it right the first time even worse than their competitors.

            Yet again, I wouldn’t even touch with a 10 foot pole this 2018 Ford.

            1. Amazing how stupid people must be. The sales reports are in, Ford is outselling everyone by a large margin. Electrics don’t register at all (despite many claims they are ‘superior.’) Oh, I know…Ford sales are all “fleet” sales, like that is somehow a bad thing? Companies hire fleet managers and fleet mechanics. Do you think they are buying the truck that breaks down the most?

              You guys make so many false statements, it’s incredible.

            2. Wow . Ford sells the most, makes most money and doesn’t break down. You really think, that GM, RAM, Toyota, Nissan customers are stupid, because they don’t buy a ford ? Think about it. 4 times more people buys something else than ford truck.

        2. Um, Rambro…what’s wrong with the truck? Ford added 10/10 to re-gain bragging rights. There’s nothing wrong with the 2017 Super Duty. And you don’t need $90k to buy one.

          Ever seen a dedicated rock crawler? They are still using drive shafts with u-joints…and they have more suspension flex than anything on the planet. You’re inventing a problem that doesn’t exist to try and support electric. Manufacturers will always compromise on suspension travel for the application. Shorter suspension travel is going to always provide better handling, since the easier it is to control. Longer travel will potentially provide a better ride and likely superior off-road capability but come with weak body control and limited payload (see Ford Raptor). If you think suspension travel is being limited on trucks because they’re worried about driveshaft angles, think again.

          Electric is hardly superior. It is the answer to a question nobody asked…except for the new generation of liberals who want to be billionaires. People who buy into the electric car hype are sheep who cannot see the bigger picture. Converting the fleet to electric will cost billions of dollars, centralize pollution, raise household electricity costs, and likely create new unforeseen problems such as cancers (see studies of people living near high tension power lines) and reliability of electric delivery during extreme weather, terrorist attack, etc. It will also cost thousands of people employment, and limit the ultimate freedom of people to travel.

          Electric motors do frequently use transmissions. Cheaper EV’s will almost certainly use them to keep costs down. Electric motors produce peak torque at zero RPM, but torque falls from that point on. To keep an electric motor in its peak torque curve, it would be advantageous to have at least a two-speed transmission…just like the original Tesla Roadster did.

        3. So kinda like a Tesla where they are constantly updating things that cannot be addressed through software updates? Everything can be improved, the “I’m not going to buy something because they may improve it mentality” is honestly really dumb. You will go through life pretty much never buying anything except simple items.

      3. It’s not only about peak numbers. What if the peak numbers are produced at lower RPM now? What if the torque curve is getting flatter? I’ll be the first to admit that bumping them each up by 10 is just a marketing game, but there could also be some real world benefit with the design changes.

        1. Very true-I’d very much like to see the torque curve. They could even lower their peak numbers and still do better if the curve was shaped a little better.

      4. Rusty, an engine is a simple air pump device. Air in, air out. To make more HP and torque you need to compress more air in the chamber. The easy way to do this is by cranking up the boost. But in reality boost is back pressure in the intake. More boost also equates to more heat. So, you allow for more air flow in the heads you can lower boost levels because now you have air flow volume. Now with this increase of air flow volume at higher RPMs’s you can increase HP more efficiently. So yes, changing the heads is a good thing. Especially for future use.

        1. I understand how engines work. My point is still valid. How exactly does the business case for redesigning the heads justify after the previous version has be out for barely 1 year? Why design the previous heads to be the limiting factor when, obviously, Ford knows they want to be able to increase power within a few short years? My bet is there was something else going on with the current head design that helped justify new heads anyway. So can 2017 powerstroke owners upgrade heads and see improvements? 10 hp and 10 tq should be able to come from the fuel delivery and boost changes by themselves, without the need for new heads.

          1. Anyone know if the heads have been the same since 2011? If so, then it makes more sense, as the heads are probably starting to be the limiting factor, since the original output was 390hp/735tq. I assumed the 2017 had new heads along with the new truck.

            1. I believe they are the same but can’t say for 100% sure. 15 model year was bigger turbo, injectors and tuning i believe

            2. The Ford heads have absolutely changed since 2011. It was even detailed here on TFL, showing the internals.

              And this is another change. They evidently can’t get it right.

            3. Yet the only “evidence” that something was “wrong” is that they were updated. Seems to me that if there was a problem with the 2017 heads, there would be consumers complaining about an actual problem.

            4. Rusty, from what I could find the heads are pretty much the same since 2011. In 2015 they changed the head gasket to a thicker one and added some more meat to the heads in the clamping areas for the added power. I could not find anything about airflow changes.

          2. These “redesigned” cylinder heads likely have a very small change that allows Ford to claim they are “redesigned.” Frankly, if you are familiar with a 6.7L Ford, not much could change without warranting major changes elsewhere. The valves and rocker arms would need to be in the exact same locations because they are each actuated by 32 individual pushrods, instead of the 16-pushrod “bridge” design GM and RAM use on their diesels. If the pushrods changed, the awesome big-roller double lifter assemblies operating on the cam would need to as well. We heard nothing about this. Perhaps they changed the shape of the cylinder dome, or perhaps they figured out a way to make the valves slightly larger? Ford changed the cylinder help design slightly in 2015 as well as 2017, but if you look at a 2011 cylinder head compared to a 2015 compared to a 2017 they all pretty much look identical.

            For some reason you guys think an updated cylinder head means the previous version was junk? If that’s the case, the entire LML Duramax diesel was junk too, because the L5P is almost 100% new and different.

            1. The report just says they did a change to improve air flow. The only thing Ford needs to do for that is open up or smooth out or whatever to allow for more CFM at a predermined amount of lift. If anyone remember the old SVT Contour had improved air flow via extrune honing. The parts were the same but air flow was increased.

            2. Thanks for the detail Troverman. I agree from what i know the 6.7 PS has been pretty good from day 1 (miles better than the 6.0 or 6.4) so i have no beef with it. Good friend has one in his F250. Ford does seem to make engine revisions or complete revamps within 3 years (original 3.5 ecoboost didn’t live that long). No different then updates other manufacturers make though (duramax, more recently cummins). I think that can be good or bad, depending on way the change needs to be made. I have no reason to believe 2017 heads are suspect, other than the fact they were redesigned. Could very well be for only minor tweaks to improve air flow.

      5. Obviously it does, since there have been modified 6.7L diesels with massive power and torque. It is easy to add power and torque to an engine…just add more fuel and boost…but perhaps Ford figured out a way to change the shape of the cylinder head in such a way to eek out a little bit more power without losing any efficiency?

        1. That is only partially true. It really depends on your stroke. You can make a short stroked I6 and get low torque with higher HP. It just comes down to engine design.

    10. I have the same questions as above ^. Why have to redesign the heads only after 1 year of this big new release? There are no 2018 SD 6.7’s on dealer lots and these trucks would have gotten there usually in September. Seems to me the little 10/10 bump in power has more to do with glazing over an issue they had with the cylinder heads rather than marketing. Damn, how the hell does the average consumer keep up with all the changes Ford does every year or two with these diesels.

      1. I’d be willing to bet that the cylinder head changes have nothing to do with the power increase-as you said, a power increase tends to take the focus off the need to make an engineering change to correct a deficiency. That being said, I’m glad they made an improvement to the heads if one was needed.

      2. They base engine has not been changed in a long time. In fact I don’t know if the heads have ever been through a change. Heck, the duramax has been through a lot of changes through the years. Not only for power, but for emissions. Ford could have made a change to the heads for emissions compliance.

        1. Once again, Jimmy Johns is wrong.

          The heads have been changed vastly since 2011 on the Ford powerstroke.

          And this is another change. The valving and intakes especially are badly designed and Ford just can’t get it right.

          1. Hey Hal, I mean tango, I mean john p, I mean George, I mean whatever. I see your back at your pathetic game again. Don’t you have a tail to tuck between your legs again?

            1. Second that, makes a bunch of unsubstantiated comments. Apparantly having split personalities isn’t enough, he’s also full of shit

            2. I am not John P.. You got that wrong.

              But having a different screen name is very good for getting you men that think emotionally like women to focus on the truth about the issues rather than the person saying it.

              Getting you all to SEE the truth is not easy.

            3. What is wrong with the bad head design? We have been talking about it on this page.

              The inconsistency of performance experienced in the first test here on TFl and the second test here on TFL.
              Where have you been on this discussion?

            4. Awe, look at pathetic Hal. He is out of ideas. Well that is obvious though. He wants to talk about inconsistency, look at the ram. The time spread is much larger than the the Superduty. So your complete ignorance is once again rising to the top as a pile of crap.

            5. You want to talk about inconsistencies? Ok here goes. How about using 13 different posting names on the same forum? Is it because your comments are completely useless and the only way to make youself feel substantiated is by agreeing with yourself? Or is it because your first, no second, no twelfth username/alias/personalities are flawed and should be eradicated?
              Most people on here enjoy a good debate so if tou wsnt to actually participate than great if not STFU!

          2. You’ve probably never seen a Ford 6.7L cylinder head in your life and wouldn’t recognize one if it hit you over the head.

            This comments section has the potential for good discussion, even lively debate, and opportunity to learn from others. But you are flat out lying, like you have done in many of your posts, and speaking from a position of little to no knowledge.

    11. Hey, Andre – – –

      There still is no complete sales data table on TFLT for full-size trucks!
      The Nissan line still reads:
      Nissan Titan n/a n/a

      And I have not seen the sales plots with RMS lines for two months now. What has happened? (^_^)..

      ===============

    12. Rambro,

      In an effort to increase range engineer’s are trying out transmissions in electric vehicles.

      Electric motors tend to lose torque as RPM increases. So try a transmission.

      In my personal experience putting a load on an electric motor causes a huge increase in current draw.

      For instance, i could run my cieling fan for days on the electricity used by my air conditioner in just a few minute cooling cycle.

      I am not complaining about the electric motor. Just the way power is supplied to it.

      A hybrid using a ICE engine is only a stop gap measure. You still need gas stations. You still need smog control ECT. You still have pollution.

      A hydrogen car is another form of hybrid.
      The power of the electric motor and the only pollution problem would be the very small bank of batteries when they need to be replaced.

      1. Buddy, Tesla already proved what the Sedan does in the 1/4 mile to supercars with two seats. You don’t need a transmission. Yes in theory it would help with top end but you don’t need it. It adds weight and a lot of complications and a lot of parasitic loss which kills the mpge

        Hydrogen is a joke, you have to separate molecules store the hydrogen and use energy to compress it and store it in a tank and then burn it and expel the water safely. Its a convoluted mess.

        With hydro and batteries people can primarily charge from home which reduces the amount of fuel stations to a very small fraction of the stations required for gas and hydrogen. This can be done by updating current infrastructure and incorporating into new subdivisions that are consistently being built every year anyways, building hydro dams under the new regulations ensures a green build and hydro can be produced from water dams, wind and sun energy and we may need to feed from coal for awhile. One house with a roof of solar panels typically feeds into the grid and support the house, so adding a charge to your car with solar power is very feasible with sun energy. Batteries are 100% recyclable now, nothing goes to waste, as lithium is 100% recyclable. We also have new battery technology that may take us 3 times the distance at the 1/3 the weight of lithium batteries and these too will be solid state and I believe they are recyclable but time will tell.

        Check out the new battery tech in the link below.

        https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

        1. You should calculate how much hydro it would take to power all of the vehicles, then compare that to how much hydro we currently have installed. Then, try permitting a hydro project.
          Solar makes more sense, but to really be effective you would need to have your car plugged into the panels while the sun is shiniing. It might be a worthwhile exercise to determine how many solar panels one would need to power a car-you might be surprised. Consider that trucks use a good deal more energy to go a given distance than cars-what will your solar panel numbers be now? What do you do when your driving goes up but the amount of sunshine goes down?
          It’s all doable but when you start doing the numbers (ie-costs) that’s where it all comes undone.

          1. Sparky solar panels on houses already give back to the grid so adding a car to a house with solar panels will not be a big deal. 100KW in the Bollinger B1 fills it up and it is good for 200 miles, realistically I will only get 120 miles out of it with a heavy foot on average worst case. I do less than 10,000miles a year, average person maybe double that at best.

            So now I pay about 6 cents/KW so that is 6 dollars to fill up x 7 fill ups a month, so I will be adding 42 dollars a month to my 200 dollar electric bill. Solar panels on a house can easily keep up with that in Northern Ontario based on the feedback I get from solar owners, better yet in sunshine states. Now I don’t even need a fuel station if I stay within my limits. for the odd trip I do take away from home than yes we will need a few supercharge stations that likely wont be very busy.

            1. And Sparky I should add that that is my monthly bill for the 3 bedroom lower apartment that I am renovating. The tenants upstairs have a 4 bedroom and the house is heated with an electric boiler and that bill on average is 500/month, more comes from the grid in the winter. So my actual house bill for a 7 bedroom house is 700/month average. Adding 42 dollars won’t hurt it and I have no solar panels, adding solar to everyone’s house would more than power all the vehicles it needs to power just from a common sense perspective.

            2. Right now the average solar panel produces 1KWh if you average 4 hours of sunlight in a day. The average solar panel size to this takes 17.6 square feet. If you use only the Southside of the average house say 800 square feet you can fit 45 solar panels to produce 45KWh per day or 16,425KWh per year. If the B1 Bollinger gets 200 miles per 100KWh that means I can travel 32,850 miles every year in my B1 Bollinger truck and not so much as even touch the current grid and therefore the grid need not be updated. The savings in one year would pay for the hookups with likely a 5-7 year return on the Solar panel which will reduce my electricity bill at the same time because I only do 10,000 miles a year not 32,850, so I would actually be using less electricity from the grid than I currently use thus reducing the impact on the grid because I bought an electric car and switched to solar panels on my house.

            3. How is that for spark sparky, is that enough of a solar panel study for you that didn’t come undone obviously, will I hear back from you now or listen to the crickets or will you be a man and agree that a house with solar is more than enough to feed EV cars and reduce impact on the grid. Where will you go now Sparky, what will you think of next?

            4. Bullshit Rambro. I have a 40 solar panel grid on my house and I don’t generate enough electricity to power my house all year let alone a plug in electric vehicle

            5. Current panels on the market get about ten watts for a panel the size of a piece of paper.
              Of course, that is for the times of the clock the sunlight can shine directly on it.
              Multiply that out.

            6. Its not bullshit Brewhaha, look it up. And thats the current average, there are better panels out there yet and if you have small panels vs large panels they are less efficient and if you have older style then they are not that good. The new larger panels are way more efficient. You must live in the North east with small old panels if you can meet demand of your house yet alone a car.

            7. Oh and Brewhaha, where do you get the idea that an electric vehicle draws more KWh than a house. Read my post. The average house burns 11,000KWh. The B1 Bollinger truck would use 10,000/200×100= 5000KWh. My house can generate over 16,000KWh conservatively based on 4 hours of avg sunlight a day. Look up what a current 17.6 square foot solar panel generates per day on just 4 hours of sunlight. Not hard to look up. You are already on the internet.

            8. Canoepaddler the solar feeds into the grid and reverses your meter, there is no issues with charging at night. Paying for solar panels is not that bad when the return is 5-7 years and they pay for themselves after that you are making money or saving money because you installed them. the initial price will scare people, that could be an issue but the money you save can be the payment. If you are on equal billing then the installer takes the money you save from the equal payments you were on before to pay down the panels and install, so in reality the install costs you nothing and in 5-7 years you see a big savings on your equal payment plan, some people actually get paid because they feed more to the grid then they used. Especially true for Arizona states and farms with lots of land.

            9. Rambro I live in MT so I do not have the capability of generating as much electricity as someone in say Arizona. I bought a house 4 months ago with a 10kw solar array that was installed in 2014. Not sure if 3 years males a lot of difference or not. I have a 3200 sq foot house and looking at my homes energy usage history I’ll run iut of credits by end of next month. My contract with the energy company starts in April so i will br paying for electric one or two months this year. Now I did not buy a house with solar to save money on electricity to go buy a plug in vehicle to negate those savings. Not tomention the astronimical prices of EV’s compared to ICE vehicles. Ehy would someone pay 12-20k fir a solar system and then another 10-20k extra or more for an EV. You complain about the added cost of a diesel engine and how it’s not worth it…. this looks WAY worse to me.

            10. Brewhaha there is a couple of comparisons on the internet by independant studies that say the new model s Tesla is cheaper to own than a Civic after 5 years and destroys the base line BMW for capital losses. If EV becomes mainstream they will be incredibly cheap simplistic and cheap on electricity with 0 emissions and 0 sound pollution.

            11. Apparantly you’ve never done any troubleshooting on electrical systems Rambro. There is nothing Simplistic about most systems in vehicles now and its going to get worse EV’s or not

            12. Brewhaha, being a mechanic on a engine full of oil diesel and gas is far worse. Then you have a myriad of other oils for transmissions and engine coolant diff oils. All of it is a liquid not required for EVs, that get on you skin and absorbed. Transmissions are barbaric driveshafts and axles limit your suspension travel on the old dinasours, then there is the engine that has to match the tranny to get reasonable power and fuel economy along with torque converters mixed with differentials, its a convuluted mess, people dont even know what to buy anymore, performance is a mess. And the engine is full of electrical sensors that likely exceed the simplicity of an electric motor and you still need a battery to make your car function or you cant start it or use remote door locks. Your center of gravity is worse and the vehicle is terribly inbalanced front to back with the weight of the engine usually up front. Then when you accelerate hard you breath in onions and rotten eggs and create a lot of noise for someone trying to sleep nearby. The independant reviews are saying the Tesla car is so simple that your maintenance bill after the warranty runs out is a lower expected cost than that of a Civic. Electrical today is very easy to fix as the computer itself tells you where the problem is.

            13. That last comment shows how naive you are Rambro. In a perfect world the computer tells you where the problem is and maybe in a lab. Real world there are so many factors that you cant account for. You start getting high resistance in one little wire ir have one or a sensor start shorting out and backfeeding through the system theres no telling what kind of symptoms or codes your gonna get…. completely unrelated to actual problem

            14. Rambro-assuming the mileage you state, 700 kWhs a month is a lot of power! And that is for one driver (I assume). Most home solar setups don’t produce that much . My father’s 6 kW setup in Utah barely produces that in it’s best month, much less in other months. That setup was about $10,000 in equipment alone. Utah being one of the better states for solar, how are people in other states going to fare?

            15. Rambro-in the US the average household power usage is about 35 kWh’s a day, or about 1,000 kWh’s per month. Your yet to be built Bollinger will nearly double that average!
              Last I checked the Tesla’s are using around 500 Watt hours/mile. The Bollinger (a truck(?)), if/when produced, with its much larger, boxy profile, bigger, more aggressive tires, hydrodynamic suspension and undoubtedly less refined nature will be using much more electricity than a much refined Tesla (a car)-probably closer to 1,000 wh’s/mile. That would mean you’d be running through 1,400 kWh’s/month – considerably more than what the average US household uses. Twice as much as a $10,000 solar PV setup in Utah can produce in its best month.
              Part of the problem is your calculations are built on assumptions which do not correlate with real world performance. That leads to unrealistic optimism.

            16. Sparky my calculations were very conservative. A 10KW system is very small. An average house can hold a much larger solar system. As I said 1kWh takes up 17.6 square feet. Based on only 4 hours of average sunlight a day. your comment is completely bogus. You did not stick to my facts and rather deflected to BS. As I said be a man and admit you are wrong, you are no better than a politician at this point. Deflection is their bread and butter. Good luck to you and the shit you bring to this world.

            17. Here we go again, spouting on about Bollinger when I’m pretty sure they have shipped zero vehicles to costumers and have not backed up any of their claims with 3rd party tests.

            18. Rambro-my numbers are hard facts taken from real systems functioning in the real world. Can you point out anything in particular that I have stated that is not correct? You have misread or misunderstood the information that you are stating.
              You argument does not address the cost of the solar or the significant or drop-off in production through the winter months.
              Your argument does not address the radically over optimistic MPGe of your future Bollinger.
              Your values for home power use are 11x’s higher than the published averages!
              Your calculations are over simplified and ignore that at best half the roof on most houses is facing south (as needed to maximize collection), the actual usable area is going to be much less (fire codes, vents, valleys, etc).
              A 10 KW array may be small (it’s not actually, most homes roof tops cannot fit that many panels in an efficient manner) it still cost $15,000+, in PV equipment alone. That does not include wiring changes to your home, installation, etc. Installation costs could easily double that number. Panels and inverters do not last forever either.
              A 10kW system will require 1000 ft^2 of panels. To be able to get anywhere near the calculated values these need to be facing due south and at the appropriate angle off of the horizontal for your latitude. Output falls off rapidly as you depart from this orientation. How many homes have 1000ft^2 of free, unshaded roof area facing due south? Don’t forget the fire access pathways and other interferences that reduce the amount of available space.
              Go to a website like http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php. Let them do the calculations for you. It will give a much better approximation of what you can expect than your napkin back scratching will yield.
              For instance, a 10kW array in northern Utah (a decent place to produce solar power) can produce 1645 kWh in July-the best month. That will likely be enough to power your Bollinger (and little else)-if you can get the power into its batteries. What happens in December? The array can only produce 667 kWhs, less than half of what you need to motor around. Do you just drive a lot less that month? If you continue driving the same amount where does the extra power come from?

              Solar works but you’re kidding yourself if you think it is an easy or affordable solution.

            19. I’m curious as to where you get your “4 hours of sunlight a day”. It is incredible generic. Available solar power varies greatly based on weather and latitude and, of course, time of year.
              Your assumption might be accurate in the desserts of the south but it does not fit most of the world in which most vehicle are driven.
              The calculator I referenced is quite accurate and takes into account many different variables. It reported about 1600 kWHs/month from a 10kW array the highest output month. That works out to about just over 5 full sun hours-but that is the highest output month. In December it is just over 2 hours. The average is somewhere around 3.5 hours. This is for an area of the world that has clear skies and a fair amount of sun. All of Canada will be a fair bit lower than this.

            20. Sparky I googled avg sunshine per year for North America based on cloudiness and climate per city and you can see a pattern that the avg is around 2500 hours per year. 1700 is the lowest 4000 on the high end, many at 3000 and 2000 hours. Divide that by 365 and you have well over 4 hours of sunshine on average per year.

            21. Sparky I used your fancy calculator for Toronto Ontario. On a 10KWh system I produce 11,800KWh in a year. Just half of my roof can support 45KWh of panels so I am being more than conservative. I used a standard panel and not a premium one on a 18 drgree slope. The B1 has 100KWh batterry that does 200 miles. So 11,800KWh can power the B1 double the KWh 23,600 miles. If you want to factor less than 200 miles per 100KWh than be my guest. I already downsized my roof from 100% capacity to 30%. Do vents take up 70% of my roofs capacity. I was being real with my napkin Sparky. Where else do you want me to cut back? Honestly you are so wrong here. How much purposefully ignorant are you going to get?

            22. The numbers of hours you are pulling do not represent the equivalent full sun hours where one can expect to produce full output from solar panels. The numbers you quote are much higher-that’s where the fancy power calculator comes in. For instance, a website lists SLC, Ut has having 3029 hours of sunshine, yet the numbers from the solar calculator put that at 1525-half as much. Ontario is listed as 2066, by the calculations you give (from the solar calculator) it would be more like 1180. There is a difference in full sunshine and full output level sunshine.
              You completely avoid to topic of:
              (1) The cost of the solar setups
              (2) The inconsistent output over the course of the year
              (3) The near doubling of average household power consumption (consider the impact this would have on the power grid when the sun is not shinning, winter, etc.)
              (4) The fact that the average house could not fit enough panels on their roof to power 1 vehicle, much less more than 1.
              (5) The grossly over-optimistic MPGe of the Bollinger-a vehicle that we don’t have any real numbers for and cannot reasonable expect the claimed MPGe based on existing, cutting edge, much more efficient vehicles.
              You may have 4500 ft^2 of unobstructed, southern facing roof; the reality is that most people have far less than that.
              Depending on where you look the average household drives 2000 miles a month. Assuming all this driving is done in A Tesla Model S, a vehicle for which we have real numbers; they would be using 600 kWhs/month (~300 whs/mile). Average us electrical consumption is 897 kWhs/month. That’s a 67% increase-assuming they are driving efficient sedans-not typical of American (or Canadian) drivers.
              Sure, this may work for you and your fat wallet (and huge roof) but it won’t for most folks.

            23. Sparky I used your fancy calculator and based on only 176 square feet, 10 panels is 10KWh and yes your calculator gives me 4 usuable hours not peak hours and I still get 11,800KWh. I have an available 2000 square feet of roof, how much more do I need to comprimise to suit your belligerance. This is based on your own calculator, stop being a skid, are you that ignorant?

              I ignore the costs? Really? I already stated it pays for itself. A 10KWh system costs the avgerage owner about 34 grand minus the federal rebate is 22 grand. The money you save on the hydro bill goes towards the payment. Then it is paid of in 10 years and a lot less with rising costs of hydro, said to be payed off in 7 years on average is expected. Now it doesnt matter how big you go because the more you save. This is without the provincial rebates.

              But really you do have a point on demand but you fail to understand that Supercapacitors will be available and new neighborhoods can be made self sufficient. You also fail to understand that battery technolgy is advancing and already proven at Universities worldwide. There is at least 15 different types out there that will support electric drive better than lithium and consumers and their sponsors can see it, the government sees it and is pushing it and the people by majority are backing them. Yes a few pessimistic individuals such as you build on your prevalent diahrea in hopes to spread propaganda in order to burn your precious fuel. Ignorance is bliss, you can enjoy that I guess.

            24. And Sparky take note that your avg house with solar panels based on government websites will increase the value of your house by 3%. Someone buying your house realizes they have no electric bill to pay well hey you ask more for your house. 3% is the average. So when it is paid off with no added cost to the home owner, their house is worth more.

            25. I believe you have made an error in your inputs to the calculator.
              When they ask for the size of system they are asking for the name plate rating of the panels-not what you expect to get on an average day. That is why it is in kW, not kWh. An average panel is about 260 watts. It would take 39 panels to make up a 10kW system. Each of those panels will be around 17 ft^2. Your 10kW solar array will require 663ft^2 of roof (that is a bit less than the 1000 ft^2 I stated earlier).
              Your right-rebates, when available, can offset the cost a lot. Those have largely dried up in the states. It’s good to be Canadian I guess (I hear that a lot). In most regions you do not get a 1 for 1 exchange in power and there is often a surcharge to add solar back to the grid. For most in the US the payback is considerable longer than 7 years.
              In 7 years your 10 kW system will produce 82,600 kWhrs (actually less-the output of panels degrades over time, much as does the capacity of batteries). I don’t know what you pay for electricity but where I live power is $0.11/kWh. That works out to a reduction of $9086 on my bill over 7 years, ignoring the other fees and less than 1 to 1 buy back that most areas face.
              When and if super capacitors and cheaper, better preforming batteries become available things may change. There is no reason to hold your breath. I’ve been watching these things for 30 years now and reading back even farther than that-I can’t keep track of how many times over those 30+ years there have been promises of batteries and super capacitors that will revolutionize the world, being right around the corner- showing promising results at universities and other research centers. None have made it to the market yet. These reports your hear of promising technologies generally omit all the drawbacks of the technology-it scares away investment/research money. If history is any indication, a far more likely scenario is that there will be small, incremental improvements-as we have seen the past 100 years or so.
              As to resale value, keep in mind that panels are expected to last about 25 years. It is doubtful that inverters will last that long. In reality, the panels will need to be replaced about the time they have paid for themselves. Solar is fairly “new”, in that it has only recently been installed in large numbers on homes. Optimism for the payback of solar will likely cool as real savings numbers and maintenance realties come to light.
              I am excited about solar, batteries and electric vehicles. I know what I know about them because I am very interested in them. I mentioned my father’s PV installation-it is fascinating. In 30 years I have been bombarded with optimistic “promises” that have not come to be. This optimism drives people to make bad decisions and to misunderstand the costs and other considerations involved in these technologies. You’ve got to take the rose colored glasses off to see clearly. The past 10 years or so we have seen an incredible improvement in these technologies. They are far more viable now than then. We’ll continue to see improvements but not at the rate that will bring your dreams to reality any time soon.

            26. I think this is pretty funny. I HAVE a 10KW solar array anf it’s NOT enough to power my home all year let alone plugging in an ev. And for the record there is absolutely NO WAY a 10kW array would fit on my roof and i have a large house. You need to start looking at the real world Rambro and not specs in a magazine.

            27. Sparky your calculations are about right but electricity will likely not be 11 cents per KWh 7 years from now, it might be double which means your solar panels get paid off that much faster. You also get a 30% federal rebate in the states plus a state rebate for installing solar.

              What I am saying is that if new neighborhoods are built with solar in mind we can run our vehicles from the solar alone, even if solar only gives us 80% capacity or 50% capacity to run our vehicles than that is 50% less electric stations required for charging. In my case I would easily be giving back energy into the grid vs what my B1 will use and I will save on fuel costs. So for me if I buy a B1 and get solar I will be adding to the grid and charging at night when demand is low and when I am paying on 6.5 cents per KWh but after delivery fees and taxes it is about 8 cents per KWh. To fill my B1 would cost me 8 dollars. A pick up truck right now best case, 24mpg and only 15mpg for my Tundra, and because I live in Canada right and its great to be Canadian?, how would you like to pay 4.80/gallon for regular fuel because that is what I pay in Canada….currently and that will go up as well I bet. Solar panels don’t cost you more over 25 years they just produce the same amount of energy regardless. So at 24 mpg to go 200 miles will cost me 40 dollars instead of 8 dollars, so I save 32 dollars every 200 miles. So if I travel 10,000 miles a year that is another 1600 dollars and I did not affect the grid for me personally. More realistically my Tundra at 15mpg costs me 64 dollars every 200 miles, so now I save 2800/year. That is an extra 233/month I can put towards a B1 payment and stay in equilibrium and in 7 years make a return on my electric bill.

              And the value of my house increases. I may however endure an added expense should my roof develop a leak as removing panels is labor and costs money but the panels do protect the roof, but then what if hail damages the solar panels or a hurricane hits them? Does my insurance go up, trying to stay fair, but for me the savings are there that it makes sense. The initial cost is a scare and getting people to actually do it just because they are too busy to be bothered is another lump or hurdle to get over.

              My initial napkin thought was that solar panel can power a vehicle year round from a house and from what I can see it can do that and more. I have 2000 square feet available and I only need about 500 square feet to run a B1 year round charging at night when the grid is in low demand.

          1. I can answer your question but I doubt you will read the novel I would have to write, as to what is wrong with diesels and ICE powering through a transmission.

    13. Tfl
      This year if ford offers you a f450 to test on the ike.I hope you tell them only if you can use your trailer loaded by you and independently weighed like you do with every other truck you have ever tested. That last test was completely bogus. Where you just have to believe the weight they say and you can only test it around midnight and then they take it away again.

      1. Dan, nobody was in the F-450 tested at midnight. Let’s say TFL had a mobile scale (completely plausible, just like the ones DMV Police use to weigh 18-wheelers on the roadside) and weighed the trailer Ford certified was 30k lbs. Do you realize how bad Ford would look if it turned out the trailer only weighed 22klbs, or 18k lbs, or 28k lbs? “Ford cheats towing test” would be the headline on all the sites.

        Nice try, but neither Ford nor any of the other manufacturers would attempt something like this.

        1. Very much agree Troverman. I for one cannot believe Mr Truck does not have a set of portable scales. A few years ago I bought 8 CASS scales for weighing my equipment. Ford had no way of knowing if anyone at TFL had access to a scale or not. It just comes down to if certain people don’t like something, it is a conspiracy.

    14. Glad to see Ford make the constant improvements…..they are really working to hold off the competition.

      The new Duramax has been SUPERB, outclassing this all new SuperDuty in nearly every performance handling and braking realm on its now nealy 4 year old currently platform (with newly updated engine).

      Amazing that the all alum. Ford weighs the same as the Chevy and Ram.

      As mentioned , seems like a LOT of changes for such minimal hp and torque increases….maybe they are sandbagging OR maybe they didnt quite do that much …..who knows.

      Fords towing and load capacity numbers are starting to get a bit silly now eclipsing what SHOULD be reasonable…..do you REALLY want to tow 34K with a F450? When you can hardly get a HITCH that is even rated that high? Um , probably not…..

      1. “Amazing that the all alum. Ford weighs the same as the Chevy and Ram.”

        That tells me that what is under the skin is much heavier on the Ford. Heavier frame, axles, etc. That’s a good thing in this class of truck.

        I agree the new Duramax is a great performer, but in reality it’s basically neck and neck with the Powerstroke. Duramax was faster on Ike with 22k pounds. Slightly faster in PUTC acceleration testing. Ford was faster in Truck Trend testing. They are basically even.

        1. You are saying that because it weighs more it is more quality and better?

          Wow, you are certainly not an engineer.

          When something is heavier, it is engineered worse.

          And Ford has a long history of sloppy engineering, where their engineers used too much metal to make up for the fact that they didn’t want to or didn’t know hoe to engineer a frame and platform well enough.

          Just look at the 1996 Ford F150–Classic “too heavy” sloppy engineering.

          And Ford has admitted that.

          Go look under a Ford HD. Look at the frame (which is not hard to do with it sticking out like it does–how embarrassing looking).

          It has very little intelligence in the engineering compared to the GM frame with all its grooves and carefully placed cut outs for stiffening purposes. If you don’t know, metal folds on itself, and cutting out “holes”, actually stiffens it.

          Well, its hard to teach a course on engineering to people who just don’t get it.

          1. George Hal, John p aka moron of the month. So are you saying larger axles are weaker than smaller axles? Are you saying a larger frame is weaker than a smaller frame? I look forward to your moronic post coming because I know of a ton of medium duty trucks that say differently. Some in fact have the same axle as the Superduty.

            And your GM frame comment is just dumb. Sounds like you never even seen a GM frame because your post on holes and cut out is by far the dumbest comment I have read today. And zombiera has been posting today. So you have accomplished something really great.

            1. Absolutely a smaller axle is stronger than a bigger axle, when one is better engineered than th other.

              But isn’t it interesting that you changed the subject away from frames which we were talking about.

              But if you want, we will change the subject once again.

              Let’s say an axle was made of titanium rather than steel. You can make a much smaller and lighter axle that is much better.

              Or even a better grade of steel will work.

              I know it is complicated for you, but maybe one day on your death bed you will come to the truth.

            2. We all know the few people here who are just hacks for the trucks they own and get paid to work on like you.

            3. Interesting. Moron Hal could not refute his completely ignorant frame comment. And the last I have ever seen no axles in the automotive industry is made out of titanium. So there you go trying to be smart but it back fired on you. GM axles are steel. Ford axles are steel. Medium duty truck axles are steel. Maybe you should stick to playing video games baby Hal.

            4. I’m curious moron Hal, if the GM axles and frame are engineered to complete excellence, why does Ford dominate by 5 tons of Towing over the superior Silverado?

            5. Hmmm, so all half ton axles (which are smaller than HD counterparts) could be stronger than the HD ones if they were better engineered? Engineering has nothing to do with it you ignorant twat Hal. It’s called price. People sre already complaining about the prices of trucks. Ive got a great idea. Lets start putting titanium axles in all the new trucks….. it’ll only raise the price 10k or so. What a moronic comment.

            6. I would take Hal at his engineering word any day. He has demonstrated an engineering prowess above that of mortal men. Why has no one else thought of using titanium axles-duh!
              He is right in that better engineering can reduce weight. He errs however in demonstrating that the Ford uses less superior engineering than that of their competition-in reality there is very little difference between the three. Also, there is a limit as to how much weight can be reduced with good engineering-and then there is the cost and maintenance considerations… All things being equal, more material (greater weigh) = greater strength.

            7. As to a titanium axle-it would need to be a similar size as its steel counter part to have similar or superior strength and stiffness but it would be lighter. The tensile strength of titanium is comparable to that of steel-so your titanium axle could not be smaller.

          2. @ “George,”

            IowaFord is right. It has nothing to do with your point about engineering. It has to do with the physical weight needed by the towing vehicle to safely control a trailer as heavy as what the vehicle claims it can tow.

            Lighter is great for fuel economy and acceleration and payload. But not for towing. So there is a fine line there that every manufacturer needs to meet.

            1. Funny, the opposite argument is made by many folks about F150 – that lighter is always better. Not trying to poke the Ford fans on here…

              I agree, heavy can be a great quality for a tow vehicle (within reason). Many scenarios for farmer’s where we pull things on running gears with 0 tongue weight. No fun to have to drive in 4-high just to get enough traction to move or drive down hilly gravel roads.

            2. 5th wheels/Goosenecks would be an exception. The weight is transferred to the wheels controlling the load (the truck). Look at a semi. It is not unusually for a 18K lb truck to have a GCVW of 129,000 lbs and with a 2nd trailer that puts no weight on the tractor. Granted, it’s not moving nearly as fast but the point is made.
              The width of the truck most certainly makes a difference and for bumper pulling (where the weight of the trailer removes weight from the steering axle) a large trailer with a light truck does not make much sense.

    15. These comments are nuts. All I know is that I drive a f450 6.7 for work. But am looking to buy a GMC as soon as I repair my house after Harvey. I will say that diesel is better than gas cause buddy has a gas f450 and mine seems more effecient.

      1. A gas 450 could only be a cab and chassis truck, not a pickup…and it would have the 6.7L V10. Of course it would use more fuel.

          1. Gas is the way to go for bucket trucks. With modern diesels, it is just to hard on the emissions systems idling so much.

            1. Well they actually run on batteries, truck only idles high. when system is first engaged Or when batteries need to be topped off.

    16. We race and we dyno a lot of engines. Horsepower can be off by 15% depending on air density and humidity and the real killer is summer heat. You can make one dyno pull at 10 am and another at 11 am with no adjustments and lose or gain hp and torque. A dyno is a good base line to start from but again the time of day and the man running the dyno means more then most people realize.

          1. Once again, you guys don’t have enough knowledge to validate your comments. The Ford 6.7L will perform the same in cold or hot weather. RAM and Duramax will perform worse in hot weather and better in cold weather. The reason is that Ford uses an air to liquid intercooler; RAM and GM use the conventional air-to-air intercooler. Ford’s intercooler runs off from Ford’s secondary cooling system, and it operates on the low-temp thermostat of the secondary system. It keeps a very consistent performance throughout temp ranges. It’s performance would not have been appreciably different at midnight than during the day.

            1. What cools the radiator? Your telling us that a difference of, say 50 degrees in not going to make a difference?
              Be it air-to-air, air-to-water to what have you, a change in temperature of the heat sink is going to make a difference. A heat exchanger, any heat exchanger, can only transfer so much heat. The amount of heat always increases with a greater delta T.

            2. Also, water-to-air heat exchangers are generally not able to cool the air as much as they require to exchnages of heat; the air-to-water to cool the water and then the water-to-air to cool the charge air. A conventional air-to-air exchanger is simpler and only requires one heat exchange. Water-to-air Hx’s are typically used in these situations due to packaging constraints, not because they work better.

            3. That’s one thing about Troverman he knows his trucks period . I thought I knew something about trucks till I read Troverman comments

            4. Sparky, packaging is part the water the air intercooler. You can have a much shorter pipe from the turbo to the intake on the engine. You don’t have to try and route to the front of the truck and then back to the engine. Plus the secondary cooling system is used for the intercooler as mentioned but it is also used for the trans cooler that is mounted on the frame and the fuel cooler. The EGR cooler is also connected to the secondary system. Plus there is a thermostat to keep temps at a predetermined temp. It is possible to cool the CAC more with an air to air system but you can also cool a water to air system better in hotter temps. It is a trade off either way. But in this case you can have less coolers in from of the radiator

            5. Understood Jimmy. It’s the claim that a water-to-air inter cooler is not effected by ambient air temperatures that is bogus. In reality an air-to-air inter-cooler is likely to perform better. It will certainly be simpler.

            6. I think if there was no thermostat it would have a larger swing to ambient temps. But since there is one, the affects should be minimal. I will reference my F150 lightning that had a water to air intercooler. No matter what the IAT was always just a few degrees above ambient. But it was only 15 PSI of boost and no Tstat in the system. But the pump was PCM controlled.

        1. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the truck was also being used all day long media event. No way that could have played a part in the time it was available for a 2+ hour round trip drive from Denver to Silverthorne and back. Nah, it just had to be Ford up to no-good shenanigans again. What a moron.

    17. Well then maybe you can explain why ford never supplied TFL with an f350 diesel dually for the 2016 ike gauntlet runs. Only gm and ram trucks showed up for the runs. Now whose the gullible moron. They should play by the rules or stay home. Oh, I forgot that’s exactly what they did!

      1. Why would they provide an outgoing truck? Everyone knew the new 2017 was on the verge of being released. It makes no sense to provide an outgoing truck at all. Ram has not provided 1500’s for several comparisons. So your point is mute.

      2. Or 1000 other reasons why Ford couldnt get them a truck, but it must be the only one that supports your dumb comment.

      3. FYI – I was referring to Zviera as the moron, not you. He’s just a Ram fanboy who never posts anything intelligent. As far as 2016 Ike Gauntlet goes, I believe Ford held out because the 2017 models were on the horizon. I thought it was a pretty lame excuse and agree they should have sent a truck to be tested.

    18. For better or worse only a Ford article gets this many comments virtually every time, whether it if from fans or trolls. Either way, this seems like a nice update. If another manufacturer had done this their fans would be applauding the continuous improvement. I’d take a few more hp for my Taco….;)

      1. Dont always agree with you, but you are right on with this comment. If this was Tesla/Bollinger saying a update came out increasing HP, the resident “electrics rule, gas/diesel suck” commenters would be out spouting off about how great electric is (which honestly now is every article no matter the subject). And if Toyota increased HP on the Tacoma the resident Tacoma fans would come out of the woodwork as well, it’s all about the brand. All in all, improvements are good, engineers are doing their jobs, and the automotive world is a better place because of it.

        1. If you compare the comments, I think you will find that in a Ram or GM article, you generally dont get a lot of ford fans making dumb comments about how terrible those brands are or how the cheat or design crappy frames. Generally people are positive in those posts but may point out a few flaws or why they chose one brand over another.

          When its a Ford post, its all about how ford lies, cheats, steals, cant design to save their lives, etc. Then the people who like ford feel the need to defend and it all goes to hell.

          It seems to be that there are people who like fords, but recognize that other brands do somethings better. And then there are the resident Ford haters who just hate ford no matter what and continue to pollute every article about Ford, and even ones that arnt, with Anti-Ford comments.

          1. Just for your information even though I am calling the “midnight edition” test of the f450 bogus. It’s not that I’m a ford hater. On the contrary, my present truck is a 2013 f350 dually which I love. It has not had one single problem since New. And if I was going to buy another new dually today, it would be another f350 because I think they are the best trucks out there. So don’t say I’m a troll or worse, when it’s just you being a dumb ass. I love the truck, but the test did not follow tfl rules so I call foul. Now do you “get it”.

          2. Ford fans commenters lie exactly like ford. Just read this comment section.

            MPG ratings doesn’t come from EPA like lowaford lie about, manufacturers test their own vehicles and Cummins has engine block heater installed at the passenger side, doesn’t come with factory installed oil pan oil heater, like they Jimmy lie about .
            That’s the main problem for the Ford fans. You made the stories up.

            1. The EPA ratings are very strict. The manufacturers can and do perform the fuel economy test but according to how the EPA requires. Each company has to submit all the data on how the vehicle was tested. With the C Max, Ford followed the rules per the EPA. And because of the EPA issue, the regulation changed.
              https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2660371

              Per the article:
              Both Ford and the Environmental Protection Agency, which polices gas mileage ratings, agree that the automaker followed the rules

              Something we can easily say fiat didn’t do with their emissions cheating diesel.

    19. This comment section is like a trip to the state fair. Part of the fun is observing other people act like a fool.

      And the lines are long.

          1. Agreed, without bad comments there would be no good ones, without cloud or rain no one appreciates the sun. lets set the bar low so we have good comments as well. Nobody watches Nascar to watch cars drive around on pavement, we want the crashes and just hope everyone is still safe.

    20. Wow ! Over 300 comments! No other manufacturer has come close to Ford’s surprised announcement of hp and tq increase. Even though it is motest at best.
      10 hp and 10 tq isn’t really that impressive to generate over 300 comments, but Ford did it.

      How about the manufacturers start making more hp and tq to the gas engines, now that is something to talk about.

      I don’t know why you guys are fussing over the fuel mileage on these heavy duty trucks? After 8500 lbs there is NO gas mileage mandates for that weight or higher. It pointless to talk about.

    Leave a Reply

    Top