F-150 2018 model year diesel announced.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/01/08/ford-f-150-diesel-coming-in-2018.html

On a side note it mentions that the Ram 1500 is the only other diesel in the class. I don't know if that's true but any experience here with the Ram? I'm vey anti-car payment but if this is the kinda thing that you buy/use/hold from new for the next ten-fifteen years who knows. Obviously this would be for the occasional towing of project cars and short distance daily driver. Or should I just look for something like a gas engined 2500HD truck of about 10-15yrs vintage and save the moolah.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/01/08/ford-f-150-diesel-coming-in-2018.html

In reply to nutherjrfan:

If "occasional towing" means once or twice a year, wouldn't it make more sense to rent a U-Haul those times, and do the short-distance daily driver stuff with a vehicle that is better suited to it?

In reply to Knurled: Occasional would be 6-12 once I find somewhere to store/park/work on projects, a search that would be accelerated by having a tow rig. I've only priced U-hauls a couple of times but for sub-1k cars they make little economic sense, but then sub 1k cars also make little economic sense. It would be a daily driver most possibly also. Oops re-read your post. I suppose on the daily driver but then I'd be buying a year end clearance Versa not that there's anything wrong with that.

I remember reading a few months ago that somebody saw a diesel F150 test mule and their best guess was that it was a Land Rover engine. Not sure if that's of any significance. And no I didn't read the article.

My other thought is trying to justify this vs a used 2500 is a silly bell curve of running costs and capability.

I want a diesel raptor to happen now.

As for the eco Ram, nothing like a half ton truck that specs out to over 50k when I outfit it (after taxes) and it still has all the issues of an FCA product once you pass the turbo. The eco ram is the reason that I'd spend 40k on a diesel Colorado

I'd buy the used 3/4 ton gasser between the cost savings and the track record of diesel engines in general lately.

Specs on the F-150 diesel haven't been released that I've seen, but it is the same 3.0L diesel that Ford makes for Jaguar/Land Rover. In the Land Rover, it makes 254hp and 440 ft-lbs so something close to that seems like a reasonable expectation.

I'm not sure the math really works for the RAM EcoDiesel, at least for most people, but having more options isn't really a bad thing. Maybe the Ford will have different pricing than the RAM. Just like any diesel vs gasser debate, you'll have to do your own math based on purchase price, maintenance costs, fuel economy, etc to determine which is the better option for you.

I think you can get a diesel titan as well.

wvumtnbkr wrote: I think you can get a diesel titan as well.

You can, but it's not really a half-ton truck. They make 2 Titans now. There's a regular half ton version, and the "XD" model which is marketed as a "heavy half", and has a larger engine, heavier duty transmission, and stiffer frame than the new F-150 or the Ram EcoDiesel. You can only get the diesel in the "XD" Titan, not the half ton.

The diesel titan also is not ever going to get anything like 33mpg hwy like you can get in a 3.0 Ram.

News of the new Ford is pretty exciting to me! I'm not in the market but the existence of such trucks makes me happy.

STM317 wrote: I'm not sure the math really works for the RAM EcoDiesel, at least for most people, but having more options isn't really a bad thing. Maybe the Ford will have different pricing than the RAM. Just like any diesel vs gasser debate, you'll have to do your own math based on purchase price, maintenance costs, fuel economy, etc to determine which is the better option for you.

I've never been able to figure out why 'the math' always seems to matter more in a diesel vs gas discussion than in a gas vs gas discussion.

In reply to Driven5:

I'm guessing because there are more variables to be considered between gas/diesel than there are between gas/gas, so the math is more complex.

It's pretty easy to look at cost differences between say a 5.3L and a 6.0L LS engine. The 6.0L will cost a bit more upfront, and will use X amount more fuel, but fuel costs will be the same since they use the same fuel, have similar maintenance intervals and costs, and similar resale. All of those would be different if you were comparing the 6.0L to a Duramax though.

'The math' is no more or less important, but you hear about it's importance more in the diesel vs gas debate because there are more variables at play that must be considered. Most people can easily figure out the gas vs gas math on their own, so you never hear about it.

In reply to STM317:

I'd say that it's not the ease of comparison that is the issue. It's the ease of comparison that allows people to overlook the issue.

You seem to agree that the financial math is probably not going to work out in favor of the 6.0L over the 5.3L. Which is apparently why 'the math' is rarely questioned when somebody decides to go for the 6.0L over the 5.3L, or the V8 over the V6, as it's simply assumed that there were other justifications...But in the vast majority of discussions I have seen, for some reason that same benefit of the doubt regarding other justifications is not typically granted for the diesel engines, simply because the diesel engines are additionally capable of winning the financial justification in some situations as well.

When GM announced they were putting the 5.3L in the previous gen Colorado, I very much doubt that any of the discussion was focused on making 'the math' work.

In reply to Driven5:

I've always noticed that for many truck buyers, they are happy to put a $5000 premium for a $2000 engine.

Please, let them be.

They very much help pay for vacations.

How much weight do you have to tow? My Cayenne is rated to pull 7700lbs and easily pulls the ~4000lbs my trailer and M3 weigh.

It's a whole lot easier to live with for the other 350ish days a year that I'm not towing too. Much more fun of a DD and a way better ski car, family rig than a truck.

Plus they're cheap to buy used and shockingly reliable...

This seems like a truck I would keep for 10 years to be honest. Get it equiped the way I like it and just drive it for a decade and still probably have some value in it when I'm done or ready to upgrade.

My 06 diesel f250 CC Lariat with an 8ft bed was 49k brand new. In October USAA gave me $17,000 for it. That's $3200 a year in depreciation over the past 10 years. I see why people buy these new trucks. They do what a car can do as far as comfort and reliablity with a trade in of space for gas milage.

In reply to Driven5:

It's interesting that you brought up the 5.3 Colorados, because I've only seen 1 in my life. They're neat, and I'm sure the buyers are happy with them, but they don't seem to have sold well, so 'the math' clearly didn't work for a lot of people. There are people that simply want what they want, and are willing to pay for it. That will always be the case. Many people tend to approach things more pragmatically though.

When people choose the 6.0 over the 5.3, it tends to be less of a jump in price than going to a diesel over the gas, so it's an easier choice to make. Also, there is no argument that the larger gas engine will be more economical, where as that argument is often used to justify a diesel purchase, whether 'the math' supports that justification or not.

I think it's important to do 'the math' for any vehicle purchase, because I'm not wealthy enough for it to no longer matter. I'd encourage anybody to do the same. The decision they choose to make based on that math is totally up to them of course.