I own the Dodge equivalent, a Ram 2500 with the Cummins. We "need" it to pull a 3-horse trailer that cannot be safely towed with anything smaller. Of course, we don't "need" the horse trailer, but without it we can't have horses. We also don't "need" a television, a house with multiple bedrooms, a microwave oven, etc. Most things we own (at least here in the US) are luxuries. I'm all for minimizing our harm on the environment, but without going back to the stone age. We paid $6000 more for the diesel option largely because, as others have said, the diesels return 13-15mpg towing and 18+ without towing, while the gas versions deliver 10-14 without towing and 5-8mpg towing.

Here in Michigan I see some people driving the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks just for show, but 99% of them have the gas engines. If you see someone driving one with a diesel, they probably have a "need" for it. We also have plenty of farmers in Michigan, most of whom own a 3/4 or 1 ton truck that they truly need. If they don't own such a truck it is because either (1) they are Amish or (2) they own a larger commercial-type truck.

As for the increase in displacement, Ford went down to 6.0L from 7.3L just a few years ago, and no one seems to like the 6.0. I suspect the 400cc increase is simply to offset the power loss due to the new emissions equipment.

Here in the US, people aren't going to drive microcars unless gas keeps rising way up towards $10/gallon. The more advanced diesel technology we get, the more of it will filter to the more common light duty vehicles most of us drive, and start saving real amounts of fuel.

As I remember, Ford has a diesel-hydraulic hybrid program. Perhaps they can apply it quickly to the F-series trucks. Add in cylinder deactivation and power/driving profile management equiptment, and you can see the fuel mileage go to better than 24/26 mpg highway/city (without >700lbs human+cargo loads).

Patrick:

You can make a pretty good argument that there should be limits to how much vehicles can be modified. Some of these trucks are lifted so much that I'd probably get killed being rear ended by one. When the modifications are demonstrably dangerous, we can put reasonable limits on them. But above you say that you would "regulate large trucks out of existance". And you would give the choice of who actually gets one to some government bureaucrat.

The cure you're proposing there is worse than the disease, IMO.

...and in my opinion it isn't that bad. Doesn't have any negative impact on me whatsoever...simply positive impacts.

Now I have to ask, horse trailer tower: How often do you tow your horse trailer? Every day? Once a week? Once a month? Wouldn't it be interesting if you found that it was cheaper to drive a mid-size sedan every day and only rented a F-250 whenever you needed to tow the horse trailer...and then you never have to incur all the costs of owning a vehicle. Of course then you don't get to "show off" your big bad truck.

But I would never even think of telling people they can't buy what they want

Really? So would it be OK if everyone drove M1 tanks?

Joseph:

Now you're just being rediculous.

Patrick:

Doesn't have any negative impact on me whatsoever...simply positive impacts.

I don't accept that argument. You're implying the creation of a Bureau of Vehicular Needs that has the power to decide what citizens get what kind of vehicle. That is an uwarrented and odious restriction on personal liberty.

A friend of mine bought a large truck to tow his boat with because it was too much of a hassle to rent one every time he needed it. It's not his primary vehicle, but the truck is there when he needs it. He actually rides a Suzuki Burgman 400 most days otherwise. But he was willing to pay for the truck in order to avoid the inconvenience of renting.

I get to decide what kind of vehicle I buy, even if it's one that I want rather than absolutely need. If I can afford it, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a Ford F-150 as my daily driver? It's my decision, not yours.

It is all a matter of balance between the freedom of the individual and the effect on society. This balance has been debated since before the Greeks. However this issue is all the more important now than ever because individual's feedoms collectively are having global impacts. This should be obvious to you Cervus. No longer can anyone do anything without it effecting someone some where else. The simplest way to deal with all of this is to bring in a CO2 tax. However until many more Americans realize that their individual freedoms impinge on other people's freedoms (not to mention the rest of the planet) such a tax will never be accepted.

I suspect Joe's comments are tongue in cheek otherwise what possible interest would he have in a forum like this. I'm sure there are web forums for people that are in love with driving ridiculously oversized vehicles.

Marcus:

The road Patrick and you are suggesting leads to tyranny, where the government has control over every aspect of individual energy use. Do you realize how that system could be abused? That is why I say that the cure you suggest is worse than the disease.

And that is my final word.

I remember awhile back some people were compnaining on public tv about wastes of energy and fuel... So people did something about it. They shut down the public tv station and saved a ton of energy;/

How muche energy does the typical big truck REALY consume .. now compare ot with someone else going on valactions in europe or diving in autrailia or skydiving....

One reason many of us want nuke plants and h2 is it pulls all he cost to humans instead of the planet. Because unlike what so called enviros want you to think animals realy arnt badly effected by radiation levels even a grade a cluster muff of a nuke plant accident emmit.

No this isnt about the planet its about telling people what to do and making people do what you do.. and as such always will fail.

Just as its getting interesting Cervus you are giving up? I'm not trying to offend here, just hammer out the debate.

A carbon tax = tyranny?

This is not black or white, good vs evil. There is a whole rainbow of policies/levels of government control possible. I am not advocating a dictatorship or stalinist regime. Many European countries have more tax/government without tyranny. All I am advocating is a carbon tax. If you insist you can keep your guns so you can overthrow a tyranny if it arises! How is everything going to turn out otherwise? Do you think a market that doesn't recognise externailities is going to keep GHGs at bay?

I look at these big trucks and then look at the Sprinter. Amazing what a 2.7 liter diesel can do. As for farmers needeing that power I look at what the Amish accomplish with their 1 to 4 hp vehicles. Maybe a little slower but then they don't have to finish in time to see the next Nascar race.

Well said Brian.... Does anybody know what percentage of those 'extreme' or very large pick-up trucks are realy required or used for what they are designed for? It seems to me that a mid-size pick-up would do the job and could replace 50%+ of those monsters we see too often (with no load except the driver) on the roads and down town.

I still dont get it, why do we need 6.4litres of diesel muscles in a pickup? This should be fitted into a truck.

A diesel pickup with a mere 2.5litres turbo diesel is more then enough.

Marcus--

I'm with you.

Cervus--

Buying a big pickup is accepted/encouraged in the USA. Nevertheless, buying one is more than a personal decision. When multiplied by millions, the knock-on effects impact everyone. We're not living on the wild frontier anymore, with its promise of endless resources. It's time to face up to the realities of what impact our personal choices have on the world we live in. Climate change is going to have huge impacts on our children's and grandchildren's world. Reducing GHG emissions is everyone's business. A carbon tax would be a semi-free-market way to influence individual behavior for the common good. It doesn't require you to give up your pickup, just encourages you to choose a greener vehicle. If the taxes go towards mitigation of the impacts, all the better.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't have boats or trailers or the trucks needed to tow them. I just think we need to start building the long-term costs of such things into their current prices.

Maybe trucks like this (and other full-size trucks) should have another level of tax, like a luxury tax, only for extra large highway vehicles that would push them into the unaffordable range for people buying them as commuter vehicles, but businesses, self employed farmers and others that require these vehicles would be exempt from the tax based on their need for it. It would be a bit too easy to game by starting fake businesses, and would no doubt be the final nail in the coffin for the big 2.5, but if it could be done properly it would really move us in the right direction.

Can anyone say how the most macho Ford pickup from the 1950s compared to this in terms of mileage, size and power? I'm just curious if farmers and ranchers back then had the equivalent, or made do with less. If they made do with less, and we didn't all starve back then for lack of corn or beef, then that's a pretty good argument against the "need" for them. I guess you could also try to figure in whether those farmers were any less happy back then, or felt less macho for owning something smaller or less powerful. Somehow I doubt it!

Horse trailer owner here... I'm not aware of any service in the US (anywhere) that will rent the type of pickups needed to pull a trailer. These trucks get used HARD and several different types of hitches are needed depending on the type of trailer. I am totally unaware of any way to rent these. I also can tell you that owning horses you need to have the rig available at all times in case your horse gets sick and you need to take it to a vet hospital. It is just like having any other pet but it won't fit in a car.

In general, I am saddened though not particularly surprised at how polarized this discussion has become. There are far too many who have turned environmentalism into their religion and appointed themselves as its high priests and inquisition.

For those who are actually good intentioned, a 2mpg improvement for all pickups used in the USA would make a huge difference in our national fuel consumption. This and more could easily be accomplished by making diesels more readily available and affordable.

Now you're just being rediculous.

How so? You said that you don't think people should be told what to drive. So, where's the line? Or is there no line?

It's my decision, not yours.

You live in a society, not a personal bubble.

There are far too many who have turned environmentalism into their religion and appointed themselves as its high priests and inquisition.

LOL - please. Do you want to discuss the issues or trot out the boilerplate drama? "Religions", "tyrannies", "bureaucrats", blah blah blah. We all share our societies and our planet. Anyone who thinks that they act in a vacuum and don't benefit from their own society (and all the sacrifices of those who preceded us), I just feel very sorry for such a person.

Zach I don't know why you are saddened. These divisions reflect the divisions already present in society. Why not debate them here on the web at GCC? A lot of it is to do with cars and the environment which to me sums up GCC no? Its much sadder for me if people instead simply stick to their ideologies.

I'd guess folks in Denmark see little need in maintaining a sophmoric collection of large animals and gasoline powered toys that must be toted back and forth across long expanses of highway for the benefit of one's ego, e.g., or need to live the so-called good life in the sticks. American's would buy bags of farts if they were marketed at NFL half time or on a NASCAR billboard. With the rare exception of legitimate farmers, contractors, etc., their is no real practical need for the majority of 2 ton pickup trucks, seating six, heated leather, bose sound system, television, etc. Unless, however, you head to the local resevoir every weekend to inject 2-cycle exhaust in the water supply while rippin' the waves on your shiny new jet ski. Darn, I have to go, there is that new commercial on the Fishing channel for the Ford F950 Hyperglutealmax Harley Davidson Edition.

marcus:

I generally agree with most of the stuff you've said in this post.

I don't know why farmers in Denmark don't need a large pick-up. I thought a lot about it last night, but I don't know any farmers personally, so I can't really say. However, I can point to some factors that may influence the decision:
1) Farms in Denmark are smaller, so it's more feasible to simply get around on the tractor.
2) Fuel is more than twice as expensive in Denmark, although not as much for farmers, who pay less tax (this kidda refutes point 1, since a tractor uses much more fuel than a pick-up.
3) Maybe a F-series pick-up is too expensive compared to Something like a Mercedes Sprinter
4) Public opinion generally against over-size American vehicles, although maybe not so much in the country side.
5) there's not tradition for using pick-ups and, as I stated before, I don't see the use of a vehicle where all your stuff sits 5' high. It's a major strain on your shoulders to get it down from there.
6) If you really need the pick-up function, it's common to use something like the Mercedes Sprinter with a 2.5 litre diesel, with a much larger storage area down in a more comfortable height of 3'-4'.
7) There are virtually no off-road conditions in Denmark except actually in the fields at farms, where you'd use a tractor.
8) A F-series truck is probably more comfortable than a Mercedes Sprinter, which is mostly important if you spend many hours every day in it, which nobody does in Denmark.

It may be any or all of the above reasons..?

People in Denmark use much smaller vehicles for towing horse trailers, but never more than two horses in one trailer. Btw. commercial trucks and cars with trailers have a 50 mph speed limit on highways due to their inferior handling and braking capabilities.

Let me just state for the record that it is of course much, much better to use a diesel than a gasoline engine in a F-series truck!!! Never send a gas engine to do a diesel's job! ;-) Btw, if you really need torque/pulling power, an electric motor is really the way to go. There was an earlier post on this blog about a Mercedes hybrid with a 13 kW electric motor capable of 1000 Nm at zero rpm!

Marcus, you took the words right out of my mouth with your talk about balance between personal freedom and impact on society. And you're absolutely right that there is a whole rainbow of political ways to deal with this "problem". In Denmark we have chosen a different compromise than in the USA. For instance, we do not allow guns for personal use because they are not safe in the hands of the general population and invariably lead to more killings, with USA being the prime example. I will not tell Americans how to shape their soceity, unless it concerns me, like GHG, where I'd politely ask you to consider using less fossil fuel.

In Denmark where we generally drive small(er) cars I think the safety aspect of traffic-killers like large SUVs and pick-up trucks becomes quite important.

Zach:

I think this discussion is actually much less polarized and conducted much more civily than I would have expected/feared. I found the comments/rebuttals to my comment more civil and to-the-point than I am accustomed to on blogs :-)

Anyone:
If you really need a truck like this, then you need it, and it's ok. My beef is with the people who waste rediculous amounts of fuel, just because it's cool. But hey, that has been the culture in USA for quite some time and it was fine as long as there was plenty of oil available. Now we are starting to see a different picture and American would probably be wise to start looking at smaller vehicles, even farmers and horse-trailer-drivers. Is it possible that a 300hp, four litre diesel could carry a three-horse trailer? I think so. 10,000 lbs concrete slabs, I really can't say. I guess you'd have to try it.

Message for Chris Carpenter;

Get used to clearing that hurricane debris...

Diesel engines have advanced in the last 10 years or so. For instance my 2.0 liter turbodiesel stationwagon has ~400 Nm of torque and some 170 bhp. The consumption on a hw is around 5 liters/100 km (~60 miles/gallon). So does this monster with a 6.7 liter engine have torque over 3 times that of my car, that is, over 1200 Nm of torque? That would certainly be overkill.

I'm amazed at "the bigger the better" -attitude of some Americans. Here in Europe farmers, construction workers, horse breeders etc. seem to survive with, say 2-3 liter diesel powered trucks and vans, towing heavy loads around. Wonder why that is not the case in the US...Of course there is a difference in attitude. Here you rarely see people on vacation with their motorhomes towing their SUVs around.