2011 Ford Superduty to get 400hp/800tq

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT


Just because there is no advantage for you is hardly a reason for others to make do with whatever you and others deem to be "adequate power."

The day Ford/Dodge/GM start producing lower powered engines with a multitude of gears is the day the internet community changes the argument to "are that many gears really necessary?" and "what are those silly owners trying to compensate for with all of those gears".

I don't own a SD or a diesel, but the fluid nature of the complaints appear obvious.


Pretty much sums it up nicely!

So the big 3 heavy duty trucks should be cut back to say, 300 hp and 600 foot pounds max, and then come equipped with un-synchronized 13 speed semi truck transmissions to make up for it.

I can see the ads now:

"The new Super Duty with the heavy duty Eaton Fuller 13 speed comes with 2 weeks of professional driver training at no cost!"

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
No sir, that's not what I'm saying at all. Look where ALL motor vehicles have gone. My wife's Avalon is absurdly overpowered at 270 hp. Much to my chagrin, she insisted on the "nice burgundy one" that didn't have traction control (they all do now, but not so in 07...). If you floor the throttle at any speed under 70 or so, the results are crazy and scary. The hp and tq together immediately break the tires free, and they start hopping and spinning all over the place.


An Avalon absurdly overpowered with 270 HP?

I'm sorry, but a low 15 second car is anything but overpowered. If Toyota managed to make ~220 HP at the wheels scary, you can blame the chassis engineers, not the power-train guys.

Quote:
Straw man. Let's wait for them to do that, if they ever do, and go from there. Quite frankly, more gears and less fuel would seem more sensible to me, but that's just me. It works fine for our 5-ton and 7-ton trucks in the military, but hey, I'm only a Colonel, what do I know...

More like an educated prediction.

I can imagine a bulk of the buying public being pretty unhappy and unsure with a 12/13-speed trans, the majority of the public couldn't wrap their heads around a CVT.

Quote:
I don't either, but I did have the opportunity to drive that old diesel, manual F-250. If you need to haul, for real, not "dude ranch trucking", that's the way to go, IMO.

There's not a single thing that old diesel F250 does better than the new one, including fuel economy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...
But once you've had the LUXURY of BEING INSIDE and DRIVING one of these vehicles, and with the EFFORTLESS way they handle massive amounts of weight... You appreciate having all that power there. It just completes the package.

I come at the problem from a different perspective. I've owned a large powerful SUV (mostly owned by my wife, but I drove it plenty too). Other than being able to carry a lot of stuff on the few occasions when we really needed to, I didn't especially see any advantage. And as soon as the roads become tight or crowded, or both, driving a large pickup or SUV is not effortless, maybe even a PITA, especially compared to a smaller vehicle.

I also note your use (and capitalization) of "luxury". Hold on now -- are we talking "luxury" or utility? Now, I'd readily agree that the two are not totally exclusive of one another, but your use of the term for this sort of vehicle highlights still the inherent conflict in this. If you're REALLY a user who's trying to make money hauling freight or towing big things, then you're probably not going to be interested in paying extra (reducing the profit that feeds your kids) for "luxury" features, including power and torque that most users can do fine without.

Now this said, as least we live in a part of the world where you have a choice. If you WANT to pay whatever to tow a boat around in speedy luxury, and can afford the freight (bad pun I suppose), well so be it. I just don't buy the argument that anyone but the rarest of users actually comes close to needing 400/800 in a pickup. Just my opinion, of course.

You took my use of the term "luxury" in the wrong context. I owned a 1988 F-250 with a straight-6. It was the "custom" model, had ZERO options, rubber floors and a vinyl bench. Upgraded suspension, trailer brake controller, C6 with a non-lockup, it would tow the arse out of the world. But it was slow, consumed MASSIVE volumes of gas and was NOT a nice vehicle to ride in.

Now, you are saying that if I can get a truck that will handle the weight much better, stop better, accelerate with the weight much better, as well as being able to do it getting far better gas mileage..... That is is unwise to choose this better-optioned vehicle for the task?

I'm not quite sure I understand.

If I'm buying a vehicle for guys who work under me to drag stuff around during the day, then yes, buying a sparse-optioned truck without many of the "better" options like the Lariat package truck would have makes sense. But if I'm buying this vehicle for PERSONAL use to haul stuff around, like a large boat, RV trailer, scrap metal and the like, I would be stupid to not get the options that are going to make that task safer and easier. Something I experienced first-hand with Jon's truck. The LUXURY of being able to do that COMFORTABLY. It wasn't a CHORE. I don't see a problem with that?

 

[87sammy]

My friend has a 2011 4x4 crew cab Lariat. Most practical vehicle I've ever seen. It's a luxury car , a muscle car ,a pickup, and a off road vehicle all in one.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

Just because there is no advantage for you is hardly a reason for others to make do with whatever you and others deem to be "adequate power."

The day Ford/Dodge/GM start producing lower powered engines with a multitude of gears is the day the internet community changes the argument to "are that many gears really necessary?" and "what are those silly owners trying to compensate for with all of those gears".

I don't own a SD or a diesel, but the fluid nature of the complaints appear obvious.


Pretty much sums it up nicely!

. . .

Oh does it now. Frankly, I don't care whether you choose to drive a Smart Car or an F-350. I really don't. But here's my challenge to you: you describe a legitimate transport mission that requires a pickup with 400 hp and 800 ft-lb to satsify. "Going fast in a big pickup" doesn't count, unless you admit that's the only reason...

[/quote]

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: 87sammy
My friend has a 2011 4x4 crew cab Lariat. Most practical vehicle I've ever seen. It's a luxury car , a muscle car ,a pickup, and a off road vehicle all in one.


If you're running a business, and you're responsible for maximizing your business's profits, I seriously doubt that you'll be buying a brand new luxury muscle car pickup to get it done. If you're a rational businessman, you'll be buying the cheapest, least equipped truck that suffices to do the job. If you're preparing for a vacation at the dude ranch, order the brand new super-powered F-350. . .

When was the last time any of you saw your power company dispatching an over-powered "luxury truck" out to your neighborhood to fix the power lines? When was the last time any of you saw a luxury truck plowing snow in Buffalo? When was the last time any of you saw a luxury truck towing a broken down car in for repairs. Really. . .

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk


I'd much prefer the engineers to have backed out about 50 hp and tuned the engine to slurp up less gas (which I'm sure they could have done, but for the hp marketing war...).

The same thing is happening with trucks. As I've said REPEATEDLY, if you want to buy this "performance" go for it. How am I "telling" anyone to make do with less if they don't want to when I'm saying this. I am also saying, however, that REALISTICALLY, almost nobody HONESTLY NEEDS this sort of output in a pickup.


What do you think the increase in economy would be from a drop in displacement? At what point do you ruin the drivability of the diesel by pulling too much displacement to chase a couple MPG. This isnt 1990 anymore when diesels were about economy and longevity, for the last decade it has become an expectation that a diesel will have more pulling ability than a gasser and those have creeped up to 400 hp now too.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
...

An Avalon absurdly overpowered with 270 HP?

I'm sorry, but a low 15 second car is anything but overpowered. If Toyota managed to make ~220 HP at the wheels scary, you can blame the chassis engineers, not the power-train guys.
Oh yeah, I'm sure you have valid track numbers for an 07 Avalon with well-worn stock tires... And even if you did, it wouldn't matter. The FACT is that when you floor this car, it simply can NOT keep it's front wheels (you know, the ones that drive the car) stuck to the pavement. Dry as a bone, it breaks them free effortlessly and completely. Where on earth did you EVER get the idea that driving an AVALON has ANYTHING to do with track numbers???? That's one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.

Go drive one. You might learn something. Like, for example, that for this car, and ITS mission, the previous ~200 hp V-6 did the job just as well as the current 270 hp engine. . . Sorry 'bout the tone, but YOU'RE the one who came at me laughing about the Avalon comparison. Do your homework first.

More to the point, in almost all segments of the market, we are seeing a run to nearly absurd levels of engine output, well beyond the point of realistic utility. What good is max output (whatever it is) in an Avalon that can't stay stuck when you try to use max output. Sorry, but no little "laugh face" can alter the truth of this. In like fashion, again, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what specific mission only a 400/800 pickup and no other can accomplish. Buy one if you wan't -- get it with gold-plated door handles if you want -- I'm not telling ANYONE how to spend their money, but don't pretend it's for real utility.

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
...
I can imagine a bulk of the buying public being pretty unhappy and unsure with a 12/13-speed trans, the majority of the public couldn't wrap their heads around a CVT.
Nice. What does a CVT have to do with this (except that I drive a car with one...)? Attacking a vehicle I drive, that has zero to do with the issue at hand, is a pretty clear indicator that you've run out of REAL things to say. . .

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Quote:
I don't either, but I did have the opportunity to drive that old diesel, manual F-250. If you need to haul, for real, not "dude ranch trucking", that's the way to go, IMO.

There's not a single thing that old diesel F250 does better than the new one, including fuel economy.

Wrong. I could buy that old diesel F-250, and do 99% of what anyone else can do with a new 400/800 Super Duty "luxury truck" and make MUCH MORE PROFIT doing so.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: ekpolk


I'd much prefer the engineers to have backed out about 50 hp and tuned the engine to slurp up less gas (which I'm sure they could have done, but for the hp marketing war...).

The same thing is happening with trucks. As I've said REPEATEDLY, if you want to buy this "performance" go for it. How am I "telling" anyone to make do with less if they don't want to when I'm saying this. I am also saying, however, that REALISTICALLY, almost nobody HONESTLY NEEDS this sort of output in a pickup.


What do you think the increase in economy would be from a drop in displacement? At what point do you ruin the drivability of the diesel by pulling too much displacement to chase a couple MPG. This isnt 1990 anymore when diesels were about economy and longevity, for the last decade it has become an expectation that a diesel will have more pulling ability than a gasser and those have creeped up to 400 hp now too.


Alrighty then, if the gassers can do as well as the diesels, then why spend about six grand extra to get the diesel? Unless you want to buy some image...

Or course, you're overlooking TORQUE where the diesel with about the same hp as the gasser will indeed spank the gasser. But of course, the diesel with plastic seats and rubber mats will do the same as a "King Ranch" luxury truck.

This new Super Duty is undeniably impressive at 400 hp and 800 ft-lb, more than double the torque available from the best F-150 gasser. But again, is it REALLY NECESSARY for Ford to have gone this far (well more tq than a military 7-ton truck)? And for customers to pay for this?

I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric here, but NOBODY has yet offered a specific justification for this much "go" in a pickup chassis. Really, someone, tell us where such output is needed (making your King Ranch go really fast doesn't count...).

 

[Duffman77]

You seem to be arguing that this is some how a bad thing. Ford is doing it because they can, why drive a model T when you can have modern technology. This power is coming from the turbocharging that we didnt have years ago, and it is not costing fuel economy to do it.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: 87sammy
...4x4 crew cab Lariat. Most practical vehicle I've ever seen. It's a luxury car , a muscle car ,a pickup, and a off road vehicle all in one.


Define "practical".

If I want a luxury car, I can have a more comfortable, better driving one that burns 1/2 the fuel.

If I want a muscle car, I'll get a Mustang or Camaro that will leave a 4x4 Lariat in its dust.

If I want a REAL pick up (not a dude ranch symbol), I'll get one maybe with AC and a CD player. If I'm going to use one to make a living, I'll get a nicely depreciated one with just enough capability to do the job (guessing that will be under 400/800...).

As for "off road", having spent a good segment of my USMC career as a Motor Transport officer, I'd look at where I had to go, and find the proper vehicle to match. That would NEVER, EVER be my luxury vehicle. . .

Your example is a classic example of "jack of all trades, master of none."

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
You seem to be arguing that this is some how a bad thing. Ford is doing it because they can, why drive a model T when you can have modern technology. This power is coming from the turbocharging that we didnt have years ago, and it is not costing fuel economy to do it.


No, what I'm really asking is how far are they going to take it? At some point, we're going to go so far that we've left the point of diminishing return way behind. So in five years, if they offer a pickup with 1000 hp and 2000 ft-lbs, what will anyone do with one of those? Seriously. Or maybe a Camry or Impala with 500 hp and 1000 ft-lbs. My point with the Avalon example is that we really are at the point where the hp-tq levels are getting unusable, unless you go to the track.

Maybe, just maybe, the car makers should give some more thought to decreasing fuel consumption instead of elevating output to levels only usable on the race track. IMO, of course.

 

[Duffman77]

Yes we are going to see ever increasing HP/CI ratios but I think we will somewhat plateau soon enough. You wont see vehicles decrease in size and power until fuel prices rise significantly and why would you expect otherwise, who wants to buy less than what was offered last year.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Yes we are going to see ever increasing HP/CI ratios but I think we will somewhat plateau soon enough. You wont see vehicles decrease in size and power until fuel prices rise significantly and why would you expect otherwise, who wants to buy less than what was offered last year.


And therein lies the trap. The marketing "gurus" at the car companies certainly think this way. So what are we going to do -- unthinkingly buy the next Avalon that instead of having 70 nearly unusable hp has 150 unusable hp next time? I'm the LAST guy who wants to see gas prices go up, but maybe that's what it will take for the car makers to get motivated to re-aim their engine tuning efforts.

 

[Duffman77]

You went slightly off topic with your last post. The rub is to pull 10,000 pounds you need a 250 or larger sized chassis regardless of the engine. In these large trucks the economy is dictated by their mass and aerodynamics. There is nothing worse than driving an underpowered slug that struggles to move your load and only get an extra 1 mpg out of it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: 87sammy
My friend has a 2011 4x4 crew cab Lariat. Most practical vehicle I've ever seen. It's a luxury car , a muscle car ,a pickup, and a off road vehicle all in one.


If you're running a business, and you're responsible for maximizing your business's profits, I seriously doubt that you'll be buying a brand new luxury muscle car pickup to get it done. If you're a rational businessman, you'll be buying the cheapest, least equipped truck that suffices to do the job. If you're preparing for a vacation at the dude ranch, order the brand new super-powered F-350. . .

When was the last time any of you saw your power company dispatching an over-powered "luxury truck" out to your neighborhood to fix the power lines? When was the last time any of you saw a luxury truck plowing snow in Buffalo? When was the last time any of you saw a luxury truck towing a broken down car in for repairs. Really. . .


The last one? All the time!!!

The "Vultures" on the 401 highway up here are all pimp-level Lariat/King Ranch Ford or whatever the super-high trim level GM has is tow trucks.

 

[rslifkin]

I'm with Ben on the overpowered Avalon thing. It's not that it's got too much power, the power is poorly controlled, allowing it to overcome the limits of FWD. It's entirely possible to have a disgustingly overpowered car that can still handle the power acceptably.

In 2wd in the rain, my Jeep can be a handful trying to pull out quickly uphill. However, being RWD when in 2wd, it handles wheelspin much more pleasantly. If you accidentally spin them up in a turn, with the limited slip rear, you can guide the rear end around smoothly and get back off a little after to get traction. The spin doesn't slow you down, and takes very little effort to control. If it were FWD, however, you'd have to let off the gas, grab traction, and try again at crawling speed.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
You seem to be arguing that this is some how a bad thing. Ford is doing it because they can, why drive a model T when you can have modern technology. This power is coming from the turbocharging that we didnt have years ago, and it is not costing fuel economy to do it.


No, what I'm really asking is how far are they going to take it? At some point, we're going to go so far that we've left the point of diminishing return way behind. So in five years, if they offer a pickup with 1000 hp and 2000 ft-lbs, what will anyone do with one of those? Seriously. Or maybe a Camry or Impala with 500 hp and 1000 ft-lbs. My point with the Avalon example is that we really are at the point where the hp-tq levels are getting unusable, unless you go to the track.

Maybe, just maybe, the car makers should give some more thought to decreasing fuel consumption instead of elevating output to levels only usable on the race track. IMO, of course.


Cars were there a long time ago......

My '87 GT T-Top would bark the tires at 75Mph bone stock. I could melt the tires through three gears if I wanted to... And this was a STOCK-engined car from 1987.

And then I modded it.

And it didn't blow the tires off itself on a 65Mph downshift. It would haul arse like a freight-train with that downshift, but there was definitely effort required to make this primitive, stick-shifted, kevlar-clutched Fox-body spin on dry pavement at any speed north of 30 or so Mph. And it had no traction control, ABS or ANY of that jazz.

The reason the Avalon has traction issues is that's it's FWD and weight-transfer in a FWD chassis is the opposite of what you want when you are seeking traction. Because you won't find it.

The current Mustang is likely lighter than the Avalon. It has more power EVERYWHERE than the Avalon and I bet you it won't blow the tires off at speed on a simple downshift in automatic trim.

I'm going to have to agree with Ben that if you have a problem with 270HP (flywheel) hooking up at highway speed, that that is a very poorly designed car from a suspension dynamics standpoint. If it was simply about power, then the 390+HP HEMI RAM trucks would be going sideways blowing the tires off just passing people. And I've yet to see that happen.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
...

An Avalon absurdly overpowered with 270 HP?

I'm sorry, but a low 15 second car is anything but overpowered. If Toyota managed to make ~220 HP at the wheels scary, you can blame the chassis engineers, not the power-train guys.
Oh yeah, I'm sure you have valid track numbers for an 07 Avalon with well-worn stock tires... And even if you did, it wouldn't matter. The FACT is that when you floor this car, it simply can NOT keep it's front wheels (you know, the ones that drive the car) stuck to the pavement. Dry as a bone, it breaks them free effortlessly and completely. Where on earth did you EVER get the idea that driving an AVALON has ANYTHING to do with track numbers???? That's one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.

Go drive one. You might learn something. Like, for example, that for this car, and ITS mission, the previous ~200 hp V-6 did the job just as well as the current 270 hp engine. . . Sorry 'bout the tone, but YOU'RE the one who came at me laughing about the Avalon comparison. Do your homework first.


You blame the HP of your Avalon for its WOT manners, and I can tell you FOR A FACT that you can go out and buy cars with nearly DOUBLE the power that have NO wheelhop, NO torque steer, NO drama! Like I already said, your complaints with the Avalon doesn't rest with the power-train department, but rather the chassis guys. Go drive a new Taurus SHO for an example of how usable and drama free MUCH more power can be.

A couple Avalon ETs:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Toyota--Avalon-Drag-Racing.html

Quote:
More to the point, in almost all segments of the market, we are seeing a run to nearly absurd levels of engine output, well beyond the point of realistic utility. What good is max output (whatever it is) in an Avalon that can't stay stuck when you try to use max output. Sorry, but no little "laugh face" can alter the truth of this.


You blame the horsepower, but ~220 whp just isn't that much. The truth is you should blame Toyota for not matching the tires, suspension and/or steering geometry (torque steer too?) to the power.

Quote:
In like fashion, again, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what specific mission only a 400/800 pickup and no other can accomplish.


Pulling 15,000 lbs up a 5% grade...at 50+ mph...without running the truck to death to keep it there.

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
...
I can imagine a bulk of the buying public being pretty unhappy and unsure with a 12/13-speed trans, the majority of the public couldn't wrap their heads around a CVT.
Quote:
Nice. What does a CVT have to do with this (except that I drive a car with one...)?


I thought it was pretty obvious, anything that departs too radically from consumer expectations is met with confusion, doubt, possible dissatisfaction, and pointless dealership trips. This happened a lot with CVTs back around 2005.

Quote:
Attacking a vehicle I drive, that has zero to do with the issue at hand, is a pretty clear indicator that you've run out of REAL things to say. . .

Attacking a vehicle you drive?

I did no such thing! I just found the idea that a 270 HP high-14 second, low 15-second car is some sort untamed overpowered beast, because of the horsepower, nearly hilarious.

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Quote:
I don't either, but I did have the opportunity to drive that old diesel, manual F-250. If you need to haul, for real, not "dude ranch trucking", that's the way to go, IMO.

There's not a single thing that old diesel F250 does better than the new one, including fuel economy.
Quote:

Wrong. I could buy that old diesel F-250, and do 99% of what anyone else can do with a new 400/800 Super Duty "luxury truck" and make MUCH MORE PROFIT doing so.

The same argument can be applied to any new vs. old vehicle debate regardless of output. Vehicles wear out, the purchase of new vehicles will happen for the foreseeable future.

The simple fact of the matter is that everything that the old manual F250 you keep bringing up will do, the new 400/800 SD will do better..and get better FE while doing it.

 

[ls1mike]

ekpolk,
We get it you don't think anyone needs that kind of power. Ok.
Of course that is you Opinion and you are entitled to it.

Now when was the last time you acutally pulled anything over the Rockies like I did this summer? I pulled a 7000 LBS loaded trailer with my 7000 lbs loaded truck. There were some spots where I had my foot to floor going up a 7% grade going 20 mph UNDER the speed limit and it is a bit nerve racking. Now imagine the Same 90 ish Diesel or Big block truck (like mine)towing a 10,000 to 15,000 lbs load over that same pass. Will it do it? Sure will. Fuel economy sucks, the brakes compared to a new unit suck, the safety features compared to a new unit suck. It is unsafe by todays standards with all the Goof balls who don't care you are towing something. For a comparo get behind a gasser motorhome of about 32 feet the next time you can find one follow it up a 7% grade at 25 mph everyone else going 60 to 80 around you and see how safe you feel. Or...
Might I suggest you go for a ride with me and see why people would like to have that kind of power? It is for keeping up with all the idiots driving cars way to fast and cutting them off. I saw a ton of that this summer.

Oh just to lay it out there, The old PSD non turbo ones had a tow capacity less than their Big Block counter parts.