while it doesn't scream green... it is more efficient than what it replaces thats why.

↓↑report

forgot to mention the fact it can use B-20 (Biodiesel) which again the other did not.

↓↑report

Answer:
There isn't much green about it.

And although BioDiesel is alternative, right now we don't have any way to make it that is actually both widely deployable and is resource-effective. Basically, it's in the same hole as ethanol.

Yeah, yeah, fryer grease. But there isn't nearly enough of it to make a dent.

↓↑report

Hey greenheads, you all seem to be complaining about it not being green enough news. Pickups believe it or not, are used for moving items for the industry which is needed to keep the world rolling. If they're going to be bought and used regardless then its much better when they get something that stuggles less with the load(using much less then when struggling) and is more fuel efficient and adaptive. Another 50 hp and less fuel burned is more of a good thing for the environment then another new green car with a hint less fuel used then the last model. Say it saves 5 mpg, in a 15mpg truck to make it 20mpg thats a 1/3rd less gas used, now say you upgrade a green car, from 36 to 39 mpg, thats just 1/12th less fuel used. Get the picture?, the inefficient being upgraded outweighs the pollution saving increase of a already efficient made more so by far. Say you go 60 miles with both, you save a whole gallon with the pickup, and you only save .13 gallons on the 36-39 upgrade(which is burned cleaner anyways). So there ya go greenheads.

↓↑report

This comes down to Marketing. Ford markets to people who have No Idea what horsepower is. This huge engine is just another gas hog, with a green wash label.

As another poster submitted on this blog, the US Army rolled ammo, munitions, artillery and food, with 170 hp Six Cylinder Engines in WWII. You might need a 7 speed transmission, but only a sucker buys 400 hp.

↓↑report

You being stumped is not surprising, what kind of reesponse is that. Some people actually pull something behind these tyes of pickups, i am one of them. Sorry, we cannot do that with a Prius. Everything is not all green all the time, get over the brainwashing. We also do not all live within 10 or so miles of work and intend to run the gambit of just how dependable these fancy green rides will be. I am thinking great under certain conditions, until the hi dollar stuff starts to break. Or there traded in and not maintained and the super dupeer extra special (Green Stuff) in the battereis and such used in these vehicles, hits a landfill. The big boys won't even grt off enough cash to do the right thing with a mercury hood light switch. Not a good sing, but hey, it blends rigiht in with the rest of the green tv spots i see now days.

JAKE,,,,,,,,,,

↓↑report

Cheers,I'm working in a mine in northern Alberta and our service trucks,which are Ford f450 4*4, have the life range of up to 3000kms and not more than 4500kms.Than the 6.4l,which doesnt start below -10c, goes BANG and then I get a new service truck.YeeHaw.....
The exhaust reburners are so brutal that on some mine sites I need a HOT permit
just to show up and work..So here is wishing the "new" Ford 6.7l lasts more than 6 months.But one good thing is, the slow switch to the v10 6.8l. A rock solid engine,crap load of power with the new 3v heads and no bsing around when the mercury drops.Starts every time, then I can boost the 6.4l

↓↑report

This thing isn't going to increase mpg 33% on these trucks. You might as well say the green car went from 36mpg to 48mpg. Get the picture?

↓↑report

Look up "transmission" in wikipedia.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_(mechanics)

This is "Marketing" to pull dollars out of your wallet. It's got nothing to do with "green".

↓↑report

You're not getting me, with the right size load, where a pickup with 50 less hp struggles this one wouldn't. That can make a 5 mpg diff ez, when an engine is over its compacity, I drive loads, I know. Anyways, if it we're just 3 mpg, then thats 1/5th decrease, being .7 gallon difference over a 60 miles drive, whereas the cars 3mpg upg saves .13 gallons. The point is greater efficiency on the inefficient is more important environmentally then improvement on the already efficient. I didn't see you complain on the board of any car where the improvement is marginal. These kinds of things use way more gas and run about 4-6 hours a day on average, a work pickup. How many cars run 4 hours a day, nearly none, there used more, and put out more particles, this is where the correction is needed most, in larger vehicles, ya the ones that push out black smoke sometimes, Ya THink? Regardless of the statistic on efficiency of both, trucks and suvs probly use double-triple the fuel of cars on the road, and trucks*work trucks* are much more frequent on the road. Another 50hp and 75lbs-ft with only another .3 liters, is a good thing, if the truck is carrying a decent load, it can make a 3-5mpg difference ez. Think of it like this, if a trucks near max, it struggles, the max is that much higher for this, it struggle that much less, with any load, so unless the load is under 1500lbs this will get it done more efficiently, and the engine will struggle less, last longer*so less replacement manufacturing*cough carbon*, if .3L can help ease its load by that much, its a much more green thing then if you even add 5mpg to a car.

↓↑report

Or people towing large trailers could just slow down and not overtax their 6.4L motors. If you move to a lower gear, the load on the engine drops with the change in gearing.

You don't need 400HP to tow big trailers, you just need 400HP to do so if you don't want to slow down on up grades.

↓↑report

Also:
Where are the light duty Diesels GM?

Ford and GM should go halvsies on the already almost ready GM light duty Diesel, finish it up and deploy it.

↓↑report