LSFan00

Point well taken. It's also dependent on how desperate with incentives GM goes this year (since Ram will probably not want to go as incentive heavy on the diesels), and how well the new F150 launch does of course. Would be interesting to know how many cross-shop the Nissan Cummins model too. (That one still has an American built chassis too I think, so I suppose in some ways it's perhaps "more domestic" than the Ram, in the fwiw category). A lot of guesstimates are involved, imho (Note to Richard: I am not asserting Ram will definitely sell 30% diesels this year.)

I lost the link I had earlier. This says thirty per Reid bigland (what a name). http://www.autonews.com/article/20140204/OEM04/140209948/ram-ecodiesel-receives-28-mpg-highway-rating#

I very sincerely mean this when I say it: feel free to never read or comment on anything I say Richard. You have exceptionally poor reading comprehension in general: to take this statement (part of a response) as a factual assertion, and blame me for then making it unclear is a little bizarre even for you. Original statement: "If Ford did charge an extra 5k for a power stroke king ranch f150, with a target of 40k a year, would the bof brain trust endorse the idea? Isn't the king ranch really a brand/prestige up charge anyway?" Follow up now would be that ram isn't just putting it as an option at the top end trims (and of course Mercedes at the other end is using diesel in North America as their entry engines). And btw aren't most f250 king ranches diesel already?

I would certainly agree 03 ls that more than 1k a month would be needed. Not sure where the line would be, moving forward from today, from 1k to 4k.

No, I didn't. I asked would 40k a year justify it? You as usual took it to be an assertion of fact.

True. Just read fiat is predicting up to forty percent of ram half ton as diesel. I thought 40k was an outlandish number earlier.

3/4 tons are much more challenging to drive/park. (I've never owned a truck). Why does Bill Gates need a 30,000 square foot house?

No, you missed it, he's talking about the same guys I am; 40-60K trophy trucks that may or may not tow a boat/trailer 1 to 10 times a year. These guys are not going to buy a 2.7L turbo 4 to brag about mileage too often. And there are a lot of them. Thanks to the 3/4 ton models (and Audi/Merc/BMW) the diesel is perceived as a premium product. There's no point in arguing whether it's silly/wrongheaded/will actually save money over 3-5 years or not. We're talking about (a lot of) people looking at spending 50K on light duty pickups for mostly commuter/grocery duty. Their tastes/preferences matter, even if they are a little odd to many (myself included).

And who has spent the day arguing online with that person?

Well, no sh*t. Anonymous poster on the internet vs. Fortune 50 company analyzing it's most profitable product line. Brilliant insight.

I am sure the upper floors in Dearborn don't care about this stuff: http://www.leftlanenews.com/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-rated-at-28mpg.html

Why sell it in a downturn and why bring it out with only a few years left on a truck that is substantially heavier than it's replacement? The flip side to Ford having studied it in the past is that it's studies, and globalized engine/trans sourcing, models (Transit), and in fact Cafe goals have made it easier and more likely to happen in the near future now, not less. Oh, and obviously they think the motor in question (not lion) is a good light truck engine (Ranger), with commercial uses also, stateside. As usual your immature vitriol is directed to a source, not to an analysis/discussion or prospective product.

Like the 2.0 EB in the Explorer gets identical real world MPG to the 3.5 V6?

JLR may have rights to the engine Ford developed for them and builds/sells to them from Mexico? I haven't read that and the mercury diesel-hybrid link didn't really indicate that. Maybe the 4.4 would actually provide the same power:weight performance as the 5.0L cummins diesel Nissan. But I do agree overall it is implausible. From a credibility perspective the lion makes no sense at all; it is a dying product imho and absent more recent real indications I don't see it happening. Then again, if it is going to happen it will probably happen with the 3.2L that is being shipped to NA today for the Transit, from the very same facility in South Africa that is also powering, ahem, Rangers. Meanwhile, “Lion” is the internal nickname for the diesel V-6, developed a decade ago jointly by Ford and PSA Peugeot-Citroën. It’s all-but extinct. Jaguar and Land Rover still use a 3.0-liter version, as Europeans overwhelmingly buy their big European luxury cars with 3.0-liter six-cylinder engines. That and a 2.7-liter version were once used widely in Ford, Peugeot, and Citroën models, but have now been phased out in favor of diesel fours. (Ford does, by the way, still offer the 2.7 in the extraordinarily low-volume Australian-market Territory SUV). This is the engine that Ford will use as the basis for an F-150 diesel? Or even the internal code name?The reason that Ford and Peugeot-Citroën dropped the “Lion” diesel V-6 is that mainstream customers in Europe, the world’s largest and only significant market for diesel cars and SUVs, have moved on to diesel fours. What this means is that if Ford wants to develop a new six-cylinder diesel engine, it can’t look to Europeans for any meaningful number of sales. And without enough volume, there’s no profit on a brand-new engine. So, to return to our original question: Why isn’t there a diesel engine in the new F-150? And why are we skeptical that one is coming soon? We’ve got a disinterested-sounding head of product planning on the one hand, and an obsolete code name and shrunken global demand on the other. This evidence, like it or not, is pretty real.

VW did bring the diesel hybrid to the LA auto show so technically it's already been shown off here in the near term. Just for fun, since everyone here hates every auto news site, here is a MT ranking of hybrid/diesels, and note which is on top and which is not showing up. I obviously threw the 40K out as a random number; what would it take to justify if the lion's already federalized? My answer would be "not much," and probably closer to 5K annually the first year for various reasons including fuel economy/bragging rights for top end buyers, media coverage of 30mpg truck, and export potential (note below). Ford sure seems to want to own as much space as it can in the light duty pickup market (retail commuter creampuffs as I referenced and commercial markets alike). The lightened (aluminum) F-150 would seem to make it easier to drop a smaller diesel into it, as opposed to the Ram, and still perform well (compared to the ram). I'm talking about a premium model option (with the King Ranch a $50-55k half ton pickup that gets (real world) under 20 mpg 95% of the time). But there are 8-10 other trim levels already I think, and if Ford's going global with the F-150 (not sure) then this would also add flexibility/manufacturing ease for other markets.

Maybe, but it depends on the certification regimen. I think diesel hybrids are coming this way. And no one really gets the top end trim f150s to work them. They are status vehicles.

Better yet, pair it up to a mild hybrid with start stop and see the greenies go wild.

Hostility aside as to the source here, what is the take rate and sales forecast for the dodge, errr, ram? If Ford did charge an extra 5k for a power stroke king ranch f150, with a target of 40k a year, would the bof brain trust endorse the idea? Isn't the king ranch really a brand/prestige up charge anyway? Wouldn't the press salivate to review it, if only to note that a sane buyer should opt for the ecoboost as best in class at a lower price?

Lion is a relatively old engine now, but my real reason for thinking it may have some credibility is that surely some other apps for it are going away (ahem, J/LR.) Issue w/ diesel Ram is it is relatively underpowered I think, and if choosing lion between 2.7-4.4L I am not sure F would go with the larger one at all, and the smaller ones just seem doomed to a similar weak-for-fullsize-pickup-day-to-day fate.

I haven't spent much time here lately so maybe I missed this. Interesting sort of confirmation. Fair use; heh...

Good luck getting body panels/parts on the Caprice over the next 5 years.

My '12 with 49K works great. I think it's a lot more fun to drive/listen to than an auto. I would expect some tales of post-warranty repair/replacement costs to have leaked out across the interwebs if it was a huge nightmare for a car selling in the 7 figures a year globally for 3+ years.

Start up auto business makes a start up airline seem sensible. Huge capital investment required for a negligible shot at a low margin business.

A poorly done GM diesel is hardly evidence of the inappropriateness of the technology to the NA market. Chrysler will be a more interesting study.