• Ford Releases Power, Torque, Towing Specs for 3.0L PowerStroke Diesel (News)

    3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel
    2018 Ford F-150 King Ranch SuperCrew. [Photo: Ford]

    Mark your calendars for Spring 2018. That’s the date you’ll be able to spec an F-150 with a new 3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel.

    For those wanting Ford’s PowerStroke diesel in your F-150, 2018 is the year your wait comes to an end. Ford has released specs for the diesel that, starting this spring, you’ll be able to order in a 2018 F-150. Built on the tried-and-true formula of the diesel Super Duty, this smaller engine, Ford says, is designed to deliver exceptional power in a hard-working package.

    Here’s what we now know about the new PowerStroke diesel option for the F-150. According to Ford’s website, this engine will be offered as part of the company’s most advanced engine lineup to date. You’d expect the diesel engine to be a torque monster, and you’d be right. The 3.0-liter diesel puts out 250 horsepower at 3,250 RPM and 440 lb-ft of torque at 1,750 RPM. As with the EcoBoost V6s and 5.0-liter V8, the diesel will also come attached to a 10-speed automatic transmission. With that much low-down, torque, Ford has pegged towing capacity at 11,400 pounds.

    To explore more of the F-150, check out Ford’s website here. Stay tuned to TFLtruck.com for more updates, and subscribe to The Fast Lane Truck on YouTube for upcoming videos.

    3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel
    Ford’s new 3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel V6. [Photo: Ford]

    Zach Butler
    Zach Butler is the Managing Editor for TFLcar.

    Similar Articles

    106 thoughts on “Ford Releases Power, Torque, Towing Specs for 3.0L PowerStroke Diesel (News)

    1. Exciting news, not a huge fan of ford but I can’t wait to see the comparison between the eco diesel the power stroke and GMs new diesel that will be released in the 2019s, exciting times to be a truck enthusiast

      1. Not confident in Ford’s reliability but happy to see that we have an option that will get over 30 MPGs in a pickup besides the ecodiesel RAM. GM already has the straight in-line 4 diesel in the midsize pickup, and should soon have it in the half ton. All good news they will be using much less fuel.

      2. The Land Rover / Range Rover 3.0L V6 and the Ford F-150 3.0L V6 will be built at a Ford engine factory in the UK. However, the two engines will not be identical. More on this topic will be published soon.

        Andre – TFLtruck.com

      3. @Tim Johnson
        It is the oldish LR engine built by Ford for Land Rover and Peugeot. It was a Peugeot design( The Lion name) that Ford Dagenham , England built and perfected. Nothing to do with new the LR Integnum Diesels

      4. The new PowerStroke HD’s are hit or miss for reliability (according to all the owners I’ve spoken to). I’ll put money down right now that this diesel is more miss than hit.

        With all the emissions garbage on new diesels a buyer would be much smarter to take a turbo gas over a turbo diesel!

        The diesel was built for three reasons 1. Branding 2. CAFE standards. 3. The engine is important for non-USA markets. End of story.

        It won’t tow as well as the 3.7 (might not even tow as well as the 2.7), it will be a bear to keep running, it will likely be the most expensive engine, and the $/gallon vs fuel economy of diesel gas is a wash.

        1. And how many owners have you actually spoken to Joe? First year maybe two there were a couple issues but other than the occasional DPF sensor going bad (just as any other brand of modern diesel) they are very reliable and problem free.

        2. I manage a large auto dealership so quite a few. A close friend is the GSM of a huge ford dealer in our area. I’d say I’m well enough informed.

          The second year may see improvements but the only Diesel engine i really trust is a Cummins (and not the 5.0 built for Nissan).

          The problem is I’m not a Dodge fan and having lived in Europe I have zero confidence in Fiat products. Ram is staying pretty independent of Fiat control so far but all interior/cabin components are slowly going the way of Fiat.

        3. The 6.7 PSD’s are definitely better than the 6.0 (AKA 6 Blow) or the 6.4. They still have plenty of problem areas but they aren’t leaving ambulances broken down and don’t need 10+ grand in bulletproofing like the previous two Powerstrokes did. CP4 failures, cracked heads, burnt or cracked valve stems, turbo failures, plugged up EGR coolers (normal on all modern diesels), etc.

    2. Competition is good. Can’t wait for FCA upgrades.
      TFL will do the real world MPG , Towing, comparison test between those 2. I am sure about that.
      One more week to wait for Detroit show.

    3. 440 ft-lbs at 1750 rpm, whereas the ecodeisel is 420 at 2000. it also looks like this is a twin turbo whereas the ED is a single turbo in the valley. ironically fords V8 is the least torquiest towing option.

    4. It doesn’t make sense anyway. I have been told several times, that ford won’t bring a diesel, because they have gasoline turbo. Sarcasm off.
      Well, I was right, that ford is working on it.

    5. More power than the EcoDiesel in a lighter truck is good. I know the Ram diesel is pretty lethargic. Hopefully GMs diesel takes it one step further. 280hp, 500ft lbs would be the ticket.

      1. @ MichaelAllan
        There will be a racing series starting for I tonne Pickups being sold in Australia. All Diesel , they are already getting 300hp and 500lbs ft of torque. It is a modified series production circuit racing series

    6. I’m happy to see a diesel option for the F150’s. I know GM will follow soon enough,(?) but I wonder what their diesel will be. Lots of talk about reviving the 4.5L that was dropped for the BK. A 4.0L IL six would be awesome.

    7. It’s funny, every time TFL has been asked, by someone whether they should buy a gas or diesel HD truck. TFL has told them if you actually need the maximum towing power of the diesel, buy one. But if your towing needs can be meet with the gas powered truck. Buy gas! Because they are cheaper to buy, and much easier and cheaper to maintain. So I’ll ask TFL this question? When would you guys recommend this new 1/2 ton diesel since 1/2 ton trucks can’t tow really heavy trailers anyway. To me a diesel 1/2 ton truck (any make), is a poor towing choice because of the truck’s other (payload, frame strength, brakes, etc.) limitations.

      1. Great question!

        People are prone to overload their vehicles in the first place when trailering.

        On a side note. Everyone can remember the 6.0 diesel fiasco. I’m sure Ford will screw this one up too with problems. Only to blame someone else. Instead of themselves! I’ll pass.

        1. Yeah thr 6.0 and 6.4 had their problems but both were built by Navistar. Since the introduction of the 6.7 it has been a very reliable platform. I hope that ford has learned it’s lesson and has the kinks worked out of this new engine

          1. If anyone has noticed that the 6.0L trucks have increased in value and are very desirable. Especially the 05 and later trucks. It doesn’t take much to bullet proof them and now you have a solid and reliable truck with out all the emissions garbage.

          2. It has I’ve had 11,12,15 and know 17 works like champ we had one motor replace 11 truck had 220,000 miles and 30,000 hrs almost million miles good engine

          3. “Yeah thr 6.0 and 6.4 had their problems but both were built by Navistar.”

            You can’t tell me Ford wasn’t aware that these engines were too cheaply built to be reliable. Between the fact that there were only 4 wimpy TTY head bolts per cylinder, to the cheaply designed heads, everything about the 6.0 and 6.4 screams cost cutting. Ford demanded a cheaper price per engine and Navistar cut the cost to meet Ford’s demands. Not to mention Ford like all manufacturers, tests these supplier parts quite heavily before they start selling them to the public. How did Ford not notice all the terrible design decisions on those engines?

            1. In the case of the 6.0L, the long block was just fine. The crank, block, rods,and the heads were robust. The downfall was the HUEI injectors. They are great on an engine that is not emmisions controlled but once you start multiple injections per fire, you run into issues. The injectors would shear the oil and degrade it rather quickly. They key is good oil and frequent oil changes. Fuel filters were key too. Many people just didn’t change them enough so they would plug and drop fuel pressure. Once that happened combustion pressure would shoot through the injector tip and blow off the coil. EGR valves were the worst. They would coke up easily and trigger a underboost code. So many mechanics would condemn the turbo. Thus why they had a bad rep for turbo issues. When in fact the EGR was the root cause. Turbos just don’t go bad that often. Especially the Garrett turbos that were used. The only real cases of bad turbos was from trucks sitting for long periods of time. Rust would build up in the VGT ring and it would stick. Thus why Ford came out with a field repair and Garrett later came out with an updated center section. Cummins had the same issue on early 6.7L”s. Most head bolt issues were due to tuning. Stock for they were fine but on the edge of fine. The 6.4L kept the same bolt design but they were just bigger. For knew of the issues and had to deal with them through Navistar. That was the supplier and it was what is was. That is why Ford cut the 6.4L program short and went in house. Navistar had major issues with engines across the board. DT466’s had major EGR cooler and Injector issues. MAXX FORCE 7’s (6.4L) had actual engine issues with 7 and 8 rod/piston failures from regen. The MAXX Force 13’s had issues and the 15’s I believe. Trucking companies across the US had lawsuits against Navistar due to their engines. That is why International needed to start buying Cummins. Plus they needed their emissions systems.

            2. The 6.0L and 6.4L is all on Navistar you can’t lay that all on Ford. I purchase school buses and no one can beat a IC bus with a Navistar V8 on price. I think Navistar was trying to corner the school bus and medium duty trucks on price no matter what. It was so bad it almost broke Navistar

            3. Ford was stuck in a contract with Navistar that they could not get out of. Without penalties, had to wait until it expired.

      2. Keep in mind modern day 1/2 tons can tow more than a 20 year old 1 ton … But moat people buy 1/2 tons for light duty hauling & using as a daily driver & the diesel should get close to 30mpg… The top towing/ most powerful engine will still be the 3.5 Ecoboost…

    8. It’s great we have diesel half ton options. I just wish we can have whatever engine in whatever trim. I think it’s crazy how small the diesels are now. The last diesel halfton before it returned in 2013 was in GM 1500’s. My friend had one, a 94 1500 Chev with what I think was a Detroit Diesel. It was 6.5L. More than twice the size of current ones and these trucks are bigger too. Ford may be lighter now but not sure. I wonder what GM will bring to the table. Maybe history will repeat itself and they bring back the 4.3 diesel that once lived back in the 80’s lol.

      1. @Anthony
        That 6.5 Diesel was a boat anchor. Modern 3 litre diesels leave it for dead.
        Local RV builder had it in it’s range. Struggled to keep up with the traffic. Detroit Diesel is now owned by Mercedes Benz

    9. I wonder if this signals the end of the 3.5 tt. The have the little 2.7 tt, the little v6 and now the diesel. Plus the 5.0l.

      Interesting that ford is running the 5.0l in their Ranger Dakar truck. Not the 3.5tt.

      In reality the 3.5tt gets a poor showing in the mileage dept. And the 5.0l has plenty of power. I am sure Ford hopes that those who tow will take the 3.0l diesel.

      We will see soon enough.

      But even though they are using the 5.0l in the Dakar ranger. I can’t imagine they would put it into the street truck. Not even the Raptor.
      But I bet it would sell.

        1. @Fourloko
          Depends in which class you run in. You have buggies with 7 Litre V8’s. 2WD and 4WD modified stock SUV’s. Outright winning combination ” Buggies” using 3 Litre turbo diesels. You had a Chinese entry using a stock Pickup chassis and a highly modified 3litre Diesel with a very experienced Dakar driver finishing 6th and beating Robby Gordon in his 7 litre ” Buggy” in the process

    10. @ Buddy
      The 3.5 Ecoboost does not do well under extreme heat. Dakar can be very hot. Both Ford and Toyota run 5 litre V8’s for their Ranger and Hilux entries respectively. Dakar winning Peugeot and the runner up BMW ” Minis” were 3 litre turbo diesrls

    11. if that 11k # for the diesel is sae j2807 certified that’s impressive since it has to be over 100 degrees outside, maintain 40mph up like 8% grade or whatever davis dam is with the AC on full blast. i bet all those NA engines with high peak torque squirm on the “launch on grade” test; 12% grade, having to move 16 feet 5 times in 5 minutes

      1. @Fourloko
        The same engine and Pickup is rated at 8,200lb towing here.. I noticed the Titan XD with a 6200lb base weight and towing 9,500lb had no porpoising or braking issues. Roughly the same proportion as what they allow here. We are now tow testing I tonne Pickups for use in Europe.

      2. That launch-on-grade shouldn’t be a problem for the NA engine- with an automatic, its more of a traction challenge. Maintaining speed on grade is the biggest reason the diesel doesn’t match the 3.5 EB for max tow. Given the rest of the hardware, it is nothing more than a horsepower matter. The 3.0 PS is just low in that department. The tow rating on the Ram Ecodiesel is limited by tongue weight, as mauch as anything else.

    12. I give ford a lot of credit for giving customers such a large choice of engines. I have said before that I think increased choices equals increased sales. Andre! How about you add a poll question to your next article on the 2018 f150. Something like: “if you were going to buy a new 2018 f150 next summer, which of the five engine choices would you buy”.

      1. What’s funny is the power rating for this engine isn’t that much less than my 02 5.9 Cummins. It was the 6spd HO setup at 245hp and 550 tq I believe in a 2500! Now half tons with a diesel almost half the displacement are making almost as much power while getting better mileage and cleaner emissions. I don’t think your giving them enough credit. Granted we all want more and it sounds anemic compared to todays HD trucks but just look back a few years and it’s pretty impressive.

        1. True true, thanks for the perspective. Now that I think about it, they probably have a 300/500 tune ready and they are just waiting for Ram to release their new numbers

        1. I think so.
          The ecoboost is not available with the Transit chassis van, this would be a step up for those, including the RV market. I generally prefer diesel to gas but could not make the financial case for the current diesel in the Transit. This might just be different(wishing)

      1. Jared – – –

        Spot on! I am happy that Ford has plunged into the 1/2-ton diesel war. As a Ram guy, I can tell you that the EcoDiesel needs some stiff competition to help iron out its peculiarities. (That’s one reason why I got a 2500 Cummins, but that’s another story altogether…) I hope Ford does well with this new engine. Thanks for the report, Andre…


        1. Absolutely, competition is good! I’ve been a Ford guy most of my life but went over to Ram last year. I agree that the EcoDiesel still needs some ironing out which is why I went with a Hemi, that and they don’t offer the Eco in the Sport. Hopefully they’ve taken care of the EcoDiesel issues with the updated engine.

          1. Good choice. Sport has AWD Auto mode in 4×4 version and HEMI even it’s long in the tooth, it’s still very good and robust engine.
            Anyhow, it’s strange ,that ford knew that updated EcoDiesel is rated at 260 Hp and 442 lb.ft and didn’t try to beat them .

            1. To be fair, I think the ED numbers came out too late for Ford to do anything about it. The F150 is a fair bit lighter than the current gen Ram, the 10 speed auto has really let them maximize their engines output and the flatter torque curve over the current EcoDiesel should all combine to have the baby Powerstroke outperforming the current EcoDiesel in all aspects. As far as outperforming the 5th Gen Ram, well all bets are off, I guess we will see when it launches.

      2. Splitting hairs here, but the metric spec of the Range Rover converts to 443lb-ft. I wonder if they just rounded the number to 440. Though I doubt there would be any noticeable difference between 440 and 450. It’s more about marketing than performance at this point.

    13. The key here is that the Ford is making 250 hp at only 3250 rpm vs the current ram ED that is making 240 at 3600 rpm. That’s pretty subastantial and it likely means that ford keeps their torque curve much flatter and isn’t relying on rpm for hp.

      1. The updated EcoDiesel is 260hp and 442lb ft, but I don’t think the torque curve has been released yet, I agree that they need to bring the peak RPM down for the Eco or else this power stroke will feel a lot stronger in normal driving. Paired to the 10 speed I think this Powerstroke is going to be a nice engine.

        1. I think the 10 speed is key. People get all worked up when I say that because everyone thinks diesel have a broad powercurve. The reality is they dont. Torque comes on around 14-1700 rpm and craps out around 3500 or less. Imagine having an on GM 4L60 behind this. A gear shift would put the truck out of its power band.

    14. One number that wasn’t published was how much it cost?

      Second number that wasn’t published is fuel mileage.

      Just little more than ram which is no surprised.

      I don’t see all the excitement over this new dsl when all the info wasn’t published?

      1. It wouldn’t be all that exciting even if they had published it. Ill take a 2.7 ecoboost with a tune $800 before I ever took this thing for $5000+. It would have to be pulling down over 30 mpg in 4×4 form to make up for the cost of diesel where I live and I just don’t see that happening.

        1. That is what I said a long time ago the real Jay s. The 2.7 is what only couple miles per gallon short of the Ed ram. Yet the that Ed ram is like 4500 $ option? I suspect that the Ford dsl will be know different. What have you gain getting a dsl? I repeated time again I don’t see whole lot more value in dsl halfton.

          1. And we keep reminding you that when you load the truck down(which is what trucks are for by the way), the, say 10 percent advantage with diesel, becomes as much as 50 percent.

            With this application (the Ford 2.7 vs 3.0), I’m educated guessing about 30 percent advantage. I say educated because the ecodisel is a general comparison.

            1. And hal do you drive around with a lded truck all the time ? Do you go to work all the time with a trailer to your hitch? You and several others on this site try to make a case buying a dsl, because it does better on fuel mileage on towing and payld.
              I’ll let you and rest of you guys on little secret. YOU DON’T TOW OR HAVE A PAY LOAD EVERYDAY!!! Now I will agree for the most part dsls do more better on fuel mileage towing and pay load, but no one does it every day and there is no justification for buying a dsl just because you tow occasionally. I know couple people that has Ed ram I don’t recall them towing a trl with it. If you bought a new dsl vs 2.7 you are still paying a lot longer with the dsl and only getting couple more miles to gallon better? What value is in that when most places gas is cheaper than dsl fuel? Maybe in the long run at 100,000 or 150,000 , but most people trade out before that time frame. What have you gained? If anything? I have nothing against buying a dsl , but when I look at the numbers they just don’t add up.

            2. Marc, the real numbers are much different than EPA for 2.7 and 3L Ecodiesel, even when driving empty. It has been proven for decades.
              I am still not buying V6 diesel, just saying.

            3. Zviera, I know that the real life numbers are different than the EPA numbers, but the cost differential still makes the gap very small or 0. Fuelly says that the weighted average(accounting for the number or rams registered in each model year) is 22.4 mpg IF you exclude the horrid 19.5 mpg for the 2017. The weighted average for the 2.7 for 2015-2018 is 18.3 mpg.

              The ram has a 22.6% advantage. When you include the US national fuel prices of $2.494 for 87 octane and $2.912 for diesel, you have a 16.8% more expensive diesel fuel. This leaves a 5.8% actual advantage for diesel which is hardly anything.

              You do the actually math to figure out the costs? Driving 20,000 miles a year, the diesel cost $2594 in fuel and the 2.7 is $2725 in fuel. A $130 difference. Thats ~$10.80 a month. WHO CARES!?

              These are hard numbers. Not some made up crap I pulled out of my butt.

    15. TFL Previously stated for those wanting the Crew Cab, Ford would only be putting in the 3.0L diesel in the short bed (5 1/2 bed) version for this cab style. If this still holds true then the HD package is not an option for this truck. The HD package required a 6.5 foot bed to increase the GVWR from 7050, to 7850. This means that there will be even less payload in the standard crew cab 4×4 with a heavier diesel option.

    16. Two tests, which TFL will no dought perform, are going to show whether this truck will be a hit or not with customers: 1. ike gauntlet pulling near its stated 11,000 lb. Tow limit. 2. 0-60 time at their mile high track. If it performs well on these tests, we have a winner! If not, all we have is another sluggish, no fun to drive motor that probably does get good mpg. I’d say the jury is still out on this one.

    17. Lets see this new diesel tested on the Ike ,but I would prefer if testing would be done in over 100 degrees..Powertrains tend to struggle some in hot weather than ideal temps,or even stop and go traffic..It would be nice if tfl would do some testing on the grapevine (North of L.A)in July weather,but traffic might be an issue..just a thought..

      1. Testing in these climate condition you are asking for is just about nearly impossible to do. tfl has stated several times it is hard to get one particular vehicle to test and to test on hot day is impossible.

        Then you have to stop ask yourself am how many people tow a trailer on 100 degree days? I don’t think very many. In my opinion most of the trucks will do fine in that extreme anyhow so what is the point? I believe the Ike is just about extreme as it gets. Pulling for 8 miles up a 7% grade is just about hard on a engine as gets.

        1. I’ve towed a couple of times here in Utah and Idaho when it was pushing 100F and it definitely was working my F150 ecoboost’s cooling system. I actually just bought an aftermarket intercooler because intake temps were getting extremely hot even on a 50F day last weekend(170F IAT).

          When it is that hot my F150 starts to reduce power. It can still hold 70mph on the big grades but it has to downshift an extra gear. Normally it will pull them in 4th at 3100 rpm but will occasionally kick down to 3rd and 4000 rpm as you start getting up the hill and it heats up.

    18. Curious how American truck lovers react to another Diesel in today’s market. Ram was rude and crude and costly, and sold quite well. F-150 is already the King and sells far more with efficient engine options. Could this be too much, too late?

    19. I think Ford will have a serious upper hand in efficiency without compromise to work capacity. This thing tows a lot and I bet we see over 30mpg. The Ram was a heavy pig with fewer gears, and managed 27. GM’s Diesel path will be more capable, but no way more efficient. Time will tell, but the 41 year King will probably come out shining like a Ford.

      1. The current ram 1500 is not THAT heavy, not as heavy as the old steel bodied F150. Ram lists the 3.6L V6 crew cab 4×4 at 5140 lbs, while the F150 with 3.3L is 4769. So only a 370 lb difference.

    20. The 2018 Ram 1500 (when it goes on sale) 3.0L ECD is rated only for 8500lbs of towing.That is a serious gap.Now we wait for the EPA to state it’s MPG for the 2018 Ford 1/2 diesel..This is a important ruling because this will determine the fuel mileage champ.FCA really needs at the auto show to deliver on hp/torque across it’s power train line up if it gonna complete.It is serious lacking in all categories against Ford. GM as well. Both could lose more market share for 2018 when they both come out with new trucks for 2018 and the first quarter of 2019.

      1. We will see completely new RAM 1500 in less than a week. The gap in payload and towing numbers will disappear,or get much smaller. I don’t really care, because there is a 3/4 ton for more to take care of safely.
        The gap with better handling by multilink suspension will stay.

        1. It needs to disappear unless you wanna buy a 2500 to tow a 5000 lb trailer and not be over payload. With 1539 lbs im close once I load my family, generator and firewood in the truck towing a 5500 lb trailer.

    21. I had the Jeep ecodiesel. I put a tune on it and it produced almost 300HP with 500ft lb torque and was amazing. The tune made any turbo lag vanish. I’m going to be looking at the ford and doing the same.

      To the guys above taking about value. A diesel is just better. I love it. I tow here and there but everything about it, especially city driving, saw a huge increase in mpg. Then when I went to sell it I enjoyed the nice premium that came with it. I’ve had two diesels and on both I basically recouped the cost on the other end. There’s many reasons to enjoy a diesel from how it drives to not having to fill up as often.

    22. Is the details of the block material out? The pic above looks like aluminum, I do not know what CGI actually looks like. It doesn’t look like iron. I like where the peak torque sit’s. I can already picture the single cab STX with a mild lift and 34-35inch tires. But this time it sounds like a truck, has the torque to turn those tires effortlessly and will get acceptable fuel economy at same time. Big tires are so hard on fuel with gas engines. I’m curious to see how this turns out.

    23. Just my opinion.
      I will never buy a belt timing belt engine.

      I will never buy a interference engine.

      I can not believe the wouldn’t use a chain or gear drive system on a diesel. That really makes no sense.

      Also I don’t think many people will purchase a second small diesel 1/2 ton.

      If they must trade one in in 3 or 4 years they would lose almost every chance of recouping their investment.

      For the repair shop. The diesel engine is pretty much a Captive market. Very few people trained in their repair.

      1/2 ton diesel is fine if that is what you want.

      But for most it will not save you money.

      1. Timing belts are superior to to timing chains in my opinion and here’s why.

        Yes, they need to be change at say 100,000 miles intervals, but once changed you have basically a tight, freshly timed engine. They also eliminate many oil leak points because there is no front case with chains and oil in it, just a removable simple belt cover.

        They also generally run with less noise than chains while running and no startup rattles when waiting for oil pressure to move the chain tensioners.

        Another benefit is the engine usually is kept in better maintenance with fresh water pumps, hoses, and drive belts when the timing belt is changed.

        If you go back in time and think of some of the longest lasting, most trouble free powertrains from the past, they’ve had timing belts. Honda 4cyl, Toyota 3.4v6 Toyota 4.7v8, Nissan 3.0v6 and many more.

        All of those above examples were long lasting trouble free engines with timing belts.
        Hell I’ve seen Toyota guys be super lazy and push the belt change interval to over 200k but of course when it breaks its a bad engine design right?

        I think in today’s modern engines were seeing much higher failure rates on timing chains.

        We are also seeing new 2nd gen single designed chains for less stretch and better durability like Ford did on the 2nd gen 3.5tt.

        I think this will be another great engine option for Ford’s F150 especially for the customer looking for a Diesel powertrain and maximum mpg.

        I think the 2.7tt, 5.0, and 3.5tt will all pull better up a steep grade with say 9000lbs.

        I also think the biggest issues with the diesels are costs and emissions reliability!

    24. I wonder how much payload this little diesel will take away? What you think 3-400lbs? Should keep payload above 1500# still..? With the added weight up front it just may provide a better towing platform.

      1. I have been hearing that its about 150 lbs more than the ecoboost, so in something like a 4×4 Lariat supercrew I would expect in the 1400 lb payload range.

        Since you can only get this in higher trims I am not expecting it to have great payload capacity

    Leave a Reply