2017 Super Duty Specs released

[BlueThunder34]

Saw that Ford released the new Super Duty specs this week:
Gas= 385hp/435ftlbs TQ
Diesel = 440HP/925ftlbs TQ

I was somewhat in awe to read all of the people complaining that Ford went to conservative with the diesel at only 925ftlbs TQ, hoping for at least 1,000??!!?? Really people? Do you REALLY need that much TQ?? For bragging rights maybe, but I just don't believe that most people tow or haul that much that they necessitate the requirement for that kind of power. I also found it humorous that in the same breath they complained about how much the trucks cost. Being someone that has rebuilt muscle cars with very high horsepower engines, you have to pay to play. You can't build high powered engines reliably and expect cheap prices:D. I would think we are starting to get to power and tow rating levels that will soon require special license endorsements.

[hankpage]

Saw that Ford released the new Super Duty specs this week:
Gas= 385hp/435ftlbs TQ
Diesel = 440HP/925ftlbs TQ

I would think we are starting to get to power and tow rating levels that will soon require special license endorsements.

This has been a concern of mine also. When I see some of the new rigs starting to out-weigh an empty semi, I fear that "Big Brother" will soon see fit to regulate further. I can understand this to a point but just hate to see it happen, especially when it becomes a cash cow for the states. JM2¢, Hank

[Desert185]

Saw that Ford released the new Super Duty specs this week:
Gas= 385hp/435ftlbs TQ
Diesel = 440HP/925ftlbs TQ

I was somewhat in awe to read all of the people complaining that Ford went to conservative with the diesel at only 925ftlbs TQ, hoping for at least 1,000??!!?? Really people? Do you REALLY need that much TQ?? For bragging rights maybe, but I just don't believe that most people tow or haul that much that they necessitate the requirement for that kind of power. I also found it humorous that in the same breath they complained about how much the trucks cost. Being someone that has rebuilt muscle cars with very high horsepower engines, you have to pay to play. You can't build high powered engines reliably and expect cheap prices:D. I would think we are starting to get to power and tow rating levels that will soon require special license endorsements.

Special license endorsements?! Who determines the proper qualifying process? There are people driving now who shouldn't be driving. Ever drive the mountains behind the "brake light brigade"? Plus, there are folks driving hot rodded pickups with more than 1,000# of torque and there is not anymore incidence of accidents as a result. What would the licensing fee be? Sorry, but that suggestion sounds like another bureaucratic excuse for more revenue and reduced freedoms.

I hope no one in government reads this suggestion. Clean up the sedan drivers first if your going to do anything.

Sorry, we don't need more unnecessary, illogical regulations in this country.

[BlueThunder34]

Special license endorsements?! Who determines the proper qualifying process? There are people driving now who shouldn't be driving. Ever drive the mountains behind the "brake light brigade"? Plus, there are folks driving hot rodded pickups with more than 1,000# of torque and there is not anymore incidence of accidents as a result. What would the licensing fee be? Sorry, but that suggestion sounds like another bureaucratic excuse for more revenue and reduced freedoms.

I hope no one in government reads this suggestion. Clean up the sedan drivers first if your going to do anything.

Sorry, we don't need more unnecessary, illogical regulations in this country.

Wow, easy there. I didn't say "I" wanted that, I said with the continued increase in tow capabilities we are soon going to be on the radar for said regulations.

[Desert185]

Wow, easy there. I didn't say "I" wanted that, I said with the continued increase in tow capabilities we are soon going to be on the radar for said regulations.

I just read this, so I maybe "overly sensitive" to government initiatives today. :(

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160727/just-in-time-for-his-party-s-convention-obama-administration-releases-latest-executive-gun-control

[audio1der]

They're pretty impressive. The Fast Lane Truck has a good video with good detail on many of the improvements.
At times like this I'm glad I have no money so choosing is not a problem :banghead:

[JRTJH]

Wow, easy there. I didn't say "I" wanted that, I said with the continued increase in tow capabilities we are soon going to be on the radar for said regulations.

In response to your comment, I don't think any of us "want to see" increased regulations imposed on any form of RV activity. But, with that having been said, we've got some significant "loopholes" in the recreational trucking arena already. Take for instance, the ability to "special order" a Ford F350 with a GVW of 10,000 pounds. The "purpose" of that option is to allow the owner to "circumvent" the increased regulatory rules, registration, insurance costs and licensing fees imposed on a vehicle with a GVW of 11,500 pounds. IF (a big two letter word) the owner intends to never load his vehicle above 10,000 pounds, there's "no harm/no foul"....

BUT, on the other side of that coin, we've got owners of F250's (and other brand 3/4 ton trucks) who are members of this forum, who emphatically state that the F250 is the "same truck" as the F350 (right down to the axles and wheel part numbers) and can easily carry a payload equal to the "bigger truck". They maintain that there's no "foul" committed if we push the envelope with a F250 and tow well above the payload restrictions, as long as we don't "break" the F350 ratings.

I don't want to get into a "what's the difference" debate, but we've all got to realize that we can't have "both sides of the argument" benefit us. Either we've got "published payloads" and we abide by them or we have "paperwork payloads" and we abide by those rules. Currently, once a vehicle is purchased, some (not all) owners tend to "use whatever benefits their agenda" rather than "what the yellow sticker stipulates".
Currently, we've got more than a couple of members of this forum who tow fifth wheels with a pin weight greater than 3000 pounds with 3/4 ton trucks, clearly well above their payload capacity. Once the regulatory agencies realize this is a violation of "their rules", it's only a matter of time before we all become subject to "stricter interpretation and enforcement". This will probably mean we have to submit to weight monitoring by stopping at the state scales along with our "big brothers", the commercial truckers. We can possibly delay implementation of that kind of enforcement if we abide by the current rules, but as more and more of us "demand bigger rigs" or "more performance" or "just ignore the ratings", it's only a matter of time before enough of us are "breaking the barriers" and the "regulators" start watching us more closely.

This "super truck race" between GM, Ford and Chrysler to have the "best in class" ratings benefits us to a certain point, then it also has the potential to put us in a "different category" in the eyes of the "regulators"....

I just hope the RV industry and the "transportation bureaucracy" doesn't take on the same type of relationship as the "moonshiners and the revenuers" did during prohibition..... As we "push the envelope" and they find a need to "monitor closely", few, if any of us are going to benefit from the scrutiny....

[BlueThunder34]

I just read this, so I maybe "overly sensitive" to government initiatives today. :(

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160727/just-in-time-for-his-party-s-convention-obama-administration-releases-latest-executive-gun-control

I'm right there with you, every time we turn around there is some new regulation wanting to be put in place on our current rights. :eek:

[BlueThunder34]

In response to your comment, I don't think any of us "want to see" increased regulations imposed on any form of RV activity. But, with that having been said, we've got some significant "loopholes" in the recreational trucking arena already. Take for instance, the ability to "special order" a Ford F350 with a GVW of 10,000 pounds. The "purpose" of that option is to allow the owner to "circumvent" the increased regulatory rules, registration, insurance costs and licensing fees imposed on a vehicle with a GVW of 11,500 pounds. IF (a big two letter word) the owner intends to never load his vehicle above 10,000 pounds, there's "no harm/no foul"....

BUT, on the other side of that coin, we've got owners of F250's (and other brand 3/4 ton trucks) who are members of this forum, who emphatically state that the F250 is the "same truck" as the F350 (right down to the axles and wheel part numbers) and can easily carry a payload equal to the "bigger truck". They maintain that there's no "foul" committed if we push the envelope with a F250 and tow well above the payload restrictions, as long as we don't "break" the F350 ratings.

I don't want to get into a "what's the difference" debate, but we've all got to realize that we can't have "both sides of the argument" benefit us. Either we've got "published payloads" and we abide by them or we have "paperwork payloads" and we abide by those rules. Currently, once a vehicle is purchased, some (not all) owners tend to "use whatever benefits their agenda" rather than "what the yellow sticker stipulates".
Currently, we've got more than a couple of members of this forum who tow fifth wheels with a pin weight greater than 3000 pounds with 3/4 ton trucks, clearly well above their payload capacity. Once the regulatory agencies realize this is a violation of "their rules", it's only a matter of time before we all become subject to "stricter interpretation and enforcement". This will probably mean we have to submit to weight monitoring by stopping at the state scales along with our "big brothers", the commercial truckers. We can possibly delay implementation of that kind of enforcement if we abide by the current rules, but as more and more of us "demand bigger rigs" or "more performance" or "just ignore the ratings", it's only a matter of time before enough of us are "breaking the barriers" and the "regulators" start watching us more closely.

This "super truck race" between GM, Ford and Chrysler to have the "best in class" ratings benefits us to a certain point, then it also has the potential to put us in a "different category" in the eyes of the "regulators"....

I just hope the RV industry and the "transportation bureaucracy" doesn't take on the same type of relationship as the "moonshiners and the revenuers" did during prohibition..... As we "push the envelope" and they find a need to "monitor closely", few, if any of us are going to benefit from the scrutiny....

Yep, that was part of the point I was trying to make as well. The capabilities are heading to the sky on the new trucks intended for personal use and every year they are more and more powerful. I love having the capacities that my truck has and being a gear head am always for more power"bouncey:, I just wonder how long it will be before the monitors of our systems decide our choices have exceeded what they feel should be available to the "recreational owner" and make us pay for it:(

[jsmith948]

[QUOTE=JRTJH;208336]
Currently, we've got more than a couple of members of this forum who tow fifth wheels with a pin weight greater than 3000 pounds with 3/4 ton trucks, clearly well above their payload capacity. Once the regulatory agencies realize this is a violation of "their rules", it's only a matter of time before we all become subject to "stricter interpretation and enforcement". This will probably mean we have to submit to weight monitoring by stopping at the state scales along with our "big brothers", the commercial truckers. We can possibly delay implementation of that kind of enforcement if we abide by the current rules, but as more and more of us "demand bigger rigs" or "more performance" or "just ignore the ratings", it's only a matter of time before enough of us are "breaking the barriers" and the "regulators" start watching us more closely.

Just the other day, we visited my DS in Paso Robles, CA. On the way in we came upon a Commercial Enforcement CHP (the guys in coveralls that run around in the pick-up trucks) who had a toy hauler pulled over at a spot along Hwy 46 where they have room along the road to inspect big rigs. The toy hauler was hitched to a 3/4 ton diesel. I don't know why the officer stopped him, but on the way home, the toy hauler was still parked there without the truck. I would speculate that the officer would not let him continue on his way due to his being overloaded. The point of my post is to give everyone a 'heads up' that what John alluded to is already happening around here.

[kfxgreenie]

[QUOTE=JRTJH;208336]
Currently, we've got more than a couple of members of this forum who tow fifth wheels with a pin weight greater than 3000 pounds with 3/4 ton trucks, clearly well above their payload capacity. Once the regulatory agencies realize this is a violation of "their rules", it's only a matter of time before we all become subject to "stricter interpretation and enforcement". This will probably mean we have to submit to weight monitoring by stopping at the state scales along with our "big brothers", the commercial truckers. We can possibly delay implementation of that kind of enforcement if we abide by the current rules, but as more and more of us "demand bigger rigs" or "more performance" or "just ignore the ratings", it's only a matter of time before enough of us are "breaking the barriers" and the "regulators" start watching us more closely.

Just the other day, we visited my DS in Paso Robles, CA. On the way in we came upon a Commercial Enforcement CHP (the guys in coveralls that run around in the pick-up trucks) who had a toy hauler pulled over at a spot along Hwy 46 where they have room along the road to inspect big rigs. The toy hauler was hitched to a 3/4 ton diesel. I don't know why the officer stopped him, but on the way home, the toy hauler was still parked there without the truck. I would speculate that the officer would not let him continue on his way due to his being overloaded. The point of my post is to give everyone a 'heads up' that what John alluded to is already happening around here.

And I would venture a guess that he was over his rear GAWR, or GCWR and that is why he was parked not only his GVWR. I will argue this on every thread that I can on here. Call me a half nimwit inbred Wisconsinite, but I have yet to see someone actually factually prove a 3/4 ton, over "payload" under axle, Under gross combined that was stopped and ticketed, or parked. Let see it with proof, facts, not some my brothers friend from another mother knew a case where a farmer was severely overloaded taking cattle to an auction and crashed and lost the farm. Yeah he was way overloaded on all ratings and deserved what he got. I understand there are people pulling overloaded knowingly or naively and are taking a risk and putting their own and others lives at risk, I'm not arguing that, but I feel invoked in threads like these for having common sense opinion on this forum. (tx)

Now back on TOPIC, dem dare super duper duty ferds gonna be da shiznat next year kind friendly folks. :D:p

[JRTJH]

[QUOTE=jsmith948;208386]

And I would venture a guess that he was over his rear GAWR, or GCWR and that is why he was parked not only his GVWR. I will argue this on every thread that I can on here. Call me a half nimwit inbred Wisconsinite, but I have yet to see someone actually factually prove a 3/4 ton, over "payload" under axle, Under gross combined that was stopped and ticketed, or parked. Let see it with proof, facts, not some my brothers friend from another mother knew a case where a farmer was severely overloaded taking cattle to an auction and crashed and lost the farm. Yeah he was way overloaded on all ratings and deserved what he got. I understand there are people pulling overloaded knowingly or naively and are taking a risk and putting their own and others lives at risk, I'm not arguing that, but I feel invoked in threads like these for having common sense opinion on this forum. (tx)

Now back on TOPIC, dem dare super duper duty ferds gonna be da shiznat next year kind friendly folks. :D:p

I do believe it was jsmith948 that reported the toyhauler that was pulled over on Hwy 46 near Paso Robles, CA, (not me) but I do "defer argument with a "half nimwit inbred Wisconsinite"...... (Not my first choice of what to call you, but yours).....

[Larry1013]

There are also the owners of 2015/2016 trucks wanting a PCM update to boost their truck to these new levels even thought they don't have the boxed frame or 350# weight saving of the 2017. Some people need a power reduction instead of power boost.

[chuckster57]

I've been saying rigs are being weighed in Ca. For a while, nice to know someone else saw it first hand.
As far as the HP/Tq race: I'm done with those days. My PAID OFF old '94 IDI with its 240 Mules under the hood get the job done every time!!!

[BlueThunder34]

I just shake my head when my buddies go out and buy tuners for these new trucks to boost the performance:eek: To each their own I guess but I am more than happy with the power my came with from the factory

[kfxgreenie]

I just shake my head when my buddies go out and buy tuners for these new trucks to boost the performance:eek: To each their own I guess but I am more than happy with the power my came with from the factory

I am more than happy with the performance of my new truck as well, but i would bet that a lot of these tuners are bought for emissions sake. I personally believe that the manufactures have come a loooong way in a few short years with emissions, but if i were ever to have a serious emissions problem, being from a non inspected state I will delete. I will not ad much power if any that is how you drop a $5000 tranny.

[Bamacamper]

I just shake my head when my buddies go out and buy tuners for these new trucks to boost the performance:eek: To each their own I guess but I am more than happy with the power my came with from the factory

Me too BlueThunder34:)

[1jeep]

not sure how I will survive suffering with my 2016 that only make 440hp....if only I had waited 4 months to make my purchase.

I can honestly say having once owned a 94 dodge ctd, I love the new diesels being so quiet and with no odor. those improvements are welcomed, but I think I have enough power now lets focus on making them last a little longer.

[Pull Toy]

For what it's worth......

Hot Rod Magazine clear back in 1965 ( yea I know....) told me the " factory" HP and Torque ratings and factory 1/4 mile times for my '65 GTO with progressive trips, had been purposely understated to keep my insurance rates down.

Maybe it still LIVES?.........

[larry337]

For what it's worth I'd rather see better fuel economy than more power. I think we already have enough power. Ram 1500 diesel gets 29 mpg highway. Granted it can't tow 30k pounds but who really does that with a super duty anyway. Can't there be a happy medium? But power and bragging rights sell when it comes to trucks like these.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[notanlines]

Larry, I agree wholeheartedly with the "more mileage, same HP" argument, but keep in mind that about a third of the members actually LIE about their mileage. Would you believe that? Huh! Do you believe that the Dodge 1500 is going to average 29 in everyday use? I'll bet you don't.

[larry337]

Actually I do. My good friend and Co worker just bought one. He is very fuel conscious and he does not lie. He did a lot of research first and bought it for that very reason. His drive to work is 50 miles one way, mostly highway. He drives it right around 62 mph and has gotten 30 hand calculated, I said 29 because I knew someone would question 30 lol.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[larry337]

Trust me I like power as much as the next but what if we could have both, or a happy medium? We haven't seen fuel economy increases in 20 years, some would argue the pre emissions diesels got better mileage than the current ones. But our power ratings are thru the roof. Why? Because that's what sells. So I guess I'm in the minority. I should note I drive a semi for a living. I know what it's like to go slow up a hill, but eventually you do get there. I would love to see a 20-25% improvement in fuel economy even at the expense of a "little" power, just a little lol.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[JRTJH]

Larry337,

If you're in the minority, then we both are. Like you, I'd sure like to see some significant increase in economy. I towed a 34 foot, 9500 pound travel trailer with a 1993 F250 7.3L non-turbo diesel (185HP/338 Torque) with excellent results (except in the mountains). Then, when we bought our 99 SuperDuty with the 7.3L turbo diesel, we never had any issues towing anywhere. The 99 turbo was rated at 235HP/500 pounds of torque. While I like the "bragging rights" that go along with 440/860 specs, I'd gladly "settle" for 350/700 or somewhere around there and a 25% to 35% increase in fuel mileage.

I have no complaints, but when towing at 65MPH, in 6th gear at 1500 RPM and the turbo gauge shows 0 pounds of boost, all that "capability" that I'm fueling is wasted energy. I'd sure like to use that fuel for extra miles......

[larry337]

Larry337,

If you're in the minority, then we both are. Like you, I'd sure like to see some significant increase in economy. I towed a 34 foot, 9500 pound travel trailer with a 1993 F250 7.3L non-turbo diesel (185HP/338 Torque) with excellent results (except in the mountains). Then, when we bought our 99 SuperDuty with the 7.3L turbo diesel, we never had any issues towing anywhere. The 99 turbo was rated at 235HP/500 pounds of torque. While I like the "bragging rights" that go along with 440/860 specs, I'd gladly "settle" for 350/700 or somewhere around there and a 25% to 35% increase in fuel mileage.

I have no complaints, but when towing at 65MPH, in 6th gear at 1500 RPM and the turbo gauge shows 0 pounds of boost, all that "capability" that I'm fueling is wasted energy. I'd sure like to use that fuel for extra miles......
EXACTLY! [emoji1]

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[BlueThunder34]

I'm right there with you guys, would love to see a little bump in the MPG's. We can all brag about the power under the hood regardless of which manufacturer one chose, all of these diesels from the big 3 are monsters!

[JRTJH]

And the "trickle of information" continues. Car and Driver was invited to "test drive the new SuperDuty"... Here's their "tidbit": http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ford-f-series-super-duty-first-drive-review

I'd sure love to see the entire specification sheet, you know, the one like is posted for all the other Ford vehicles on their website.....

C&D did mention that with the new hitch receiver, "Super Duty’s conventional hitch to handle its maximum of 21,000 pounds without needing a fussy, weight-distributing attachment." Apparently it's a 3" receiver with two sleeves which makes it adaptable to 2", 2.5" and 3" towing ball mounts. Hmmmmm I wonder if we'll need a forklift to install the hitch ball ???