gregsfc |
11-11-2015 05:15 AM |
This is just purely speculation (because like was stated, the EPA doesn't fuel economy test heavy-duty vehicles), but I'd guess the turbo diesel gets far better real-world mpg in the transit than the Ecoboost 3.5 counter part in the Transit, especially when it's hauling stuff or multiple persons for the simple fact that there are just too many advantages from an efficiency standpoint of compression ignition versus spark ignition. However, this particular diesel, this 3.2 I5, is hardly one of the more modern diesel designs by Ford and cannot be compared to the more refined, quieter, better performing V6 and V8 diesel engines out there used in other vehicles (not in the U.S.), and therefore, it is not the most refined, most capable for it's displacement, most efficient, nor is it going to be the highest performing diesel as compared to comparably-sized diesels found in modern vehicles. What this diesel is, however, is one of the more affordable available in this country at only about $3500 over the price of the Ecoboost. Try building another diesel-powered truck or van online and come away only $3500 more than the 2nd level engine price; it ain't happening. It's usually going to force you into a higher-featured vehicle than what you want or need and an extra $7K or so that what you could have paid for the truck or van that you wanted; only with a diesel engine.
Conversely, the 3.5 Ecoboost engine choice in the Transit is among Ford's latest and greatest spark-ignition choices from their engine inventory, and when you consider these facts and then add in the price premium for the diesel engine (even as it is an aging design) at or about $3500, even as big of a diesel-power fan as I am, I might opt for the gas engine in this case.
But from a pure fuel economy standpoint, I'd guess that the 3.5 Ecoboost with it less-than-steller mpg in the F150, and considering the track record of most any decently-designed diesel engine, the real-world mpg of the 3.2 I5 would far exceed that of the Ecoboost and less narrowly exceed that of the standard gas V6, but from a performance and refinement standpoint, due to the antiquity of that diesel engine, the 3.2 I5 would probably come in dead last. Again, just speculation because I've not driven any of them. But even if my best guess is all true, this should not be held against diesel technology in general, because something like the Ram Ecodiesel and the GM new 4 cylinder Duramax and even Ford's V6 built in Mexico for export to Europe and Asia will pretty much blow away any spark-ignition competitors for overall refinement, efficiency, and practicality standpoint. It's just that this 3.2 I5 is older technology than what it's being compared against; both gas power and diesel power. What you will find, however, is that any on-road diesel offered in the U.S. is going to cost the consumer alot more dollars, and that's due to the unreasonable emission regulations mandated on the fuel saving technology of diesel power trains as it relates to nitrogen oxides, a harmless gas, that must meet the same standards as gas engines, which is a farce since NOx is a by-product of lean combustion and gas engines run rich by comparison and have no problem keeping that harmless gas from escaping, since they don't produce much of it to begin with.
|