2012 E-series Wagon

[NLPRacing]

Might see a V-6 Lion lurking about as well.

 

And under what hoods would these Lions be lurking?

[fordmantpw]

I only complain when people that don't know anything about an automotive plant, or how it's ran, point the finger at the wrong people.

 

A salaried person schedules parts deliveries. If you don't like that fact, or my comments, put me on ignore.

 

This screw-up affects everybody. Especially the bottom line. No production out of Ford's most profitable plant for a week when it should have been running? At a conservative guesstimate of $10k profit per truck, a weeks downtime cost Ford 7800 trucks, or $78 million dollars. You want to tell me that this person, whether hourly or salaried, deserves to keep their job?

 

EDIT: Also add to that $78 Million the amount of money that the unemployment and sub of every employee affected in the assembly, stamping, transmission, and other parts plants that feed DTP and AAI.

 

Just saying, that to me, it doesn't matter if it is salary or union, whatever they screwed up on, they need to see some consequences! I never said they should keep their job, I just said it didn't matter if he/she was union or salary.

 

I'm guessing Ford will take some action! GM on the other hand would promote them!

[RichardJensen]

$78M exclusive of SG&A is a pretty useless number.

[twintornados]

All this talk of modernizing the powertrains for E-series, yet not one peep about upgrading the front suspension.....

[theDuff]

All this talk of modernizing the powertrains for E-series, yet not one peep about upgrading the front suspension.....

Oh c'mon. They upgraded the front radius arm bushings a couple years ago. What else could it possibly need. :sarcasm:

[Biker16]

screw the diesel V6s and V8s if we want the "best bang for the buck" engine you have to look at the I4 and i5 truck engines used in the ROW. much less expensive than the lion v6/v8 and more economical.

 

This is the trap, we are trying to make a do everything engine that fials in it original mission of great economy.

 

Give up on the dream of v8 diesel in the f150, when an I4 will meet the needs of the market the best with least amount of sticker shock.

[RichardJensen]

You're kidding, right?

 

Okay, let's put a putative 3.2L 5 cylinder with say, 320 lb ft of torque in the F150.

 

(why 320? Because it's got to meet Tier II Bin 5 emissions, which means less power than the in the EU).

 

Okay, 320 lb ft. of torque, and the exact same aerodynamics and say, a 100lb weight savings over the 5.0L.

 

Well, with 320lb ft. torque, you're looking at the same tow & payload as the 3v 4.6L V8, or 7700 lbs (4x4)/8400 (4x2).

 

Now in terms of fuel economy, let's say you get a 10% boost combined (why? Because you're still dealing with the weight of the F150 in city testing, and the weight and aerodynamics at highway speed, also this engine is equipped with *all* the requisite smog gear).

 

Say you get a 10% boost over the 3.7L V6, and 8k pounds towing with this 3.2L 5. So you're looking at, say, 25MPG highway and 19MPG city with 8k towing.

 

Say the upcharge for this is $6k.

 

Now given that the upcharge for the 3.5L EB is $1500 (give or take), and returns essentially identical fuel economy as the 3.7L V6 and offers 11,500lbs towing........

 

Essentially, you're paying $4500 extra and giving up two tons of towing in order to save roughly $180 a year in gas.

 

Just don't see that math working.

Edited January 23, 2011 by RichardJensen

[StevenCaylor]

(why 320? Because it's got to meet Tier II Bin 5 emissions, which means less power than the in the EU).

 

Wouldn't it have to meet ULEV II emissions for California (or is that for cars only)?

[RichardJensen]

I think you're right. It'd be Tier II Bin 5 (LEV II) for the non CARB states, and Tier II Bin 3 (ULEV II) for CARB states.

 

In either case, you're looking at a significant amount of pollution management, given the tight controls on soot and NOx under the US regimes.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I think you're right. It'd be Tier II Bin 5 (LEV II) for the non CARB states, and Tier II Bin 3 (ULEV II) for CARB states.

 

In either case, you're looking at a significant amount of pollution management, given the tight controls on soot and NOx under the US regimes.

 

 

Farley referenced the cost factor for diesels in the Autoline interview as the reason they are concentrating on EcoBoost. Same torque as a diesel without the substantial added expense of emissions treatment.

[Biker16]

You're kidding, right?

 

Okay, let's put a putative 3.2L 5 cylinder with say, 320 lb ft of torque in the F150.

 

(why 320? Because it's got to meet Tier II Bin 5 emissions, which means less power than the in the EU).

 

Okay, 320 lb ft. of torque, and the exact same aerodynamics and say, a 100lb weight savings over the 5.0L.

 

Well, with 320lb ft. torque, you're looking at the same tow & payload as the 3v 4.6L V8, or 7700 lbs (4x4)/8400 (4x2).

 

Now in terms of fuel economy, let's say you get a 10% boost combined (why? Because you're still dealing with the weight of the F150 in city testing, and the weight and aerodynamics at highway speed, also this engine is equipped with *all* the requisite smog gear).

 

Say you get a 10% boost over the 3.7L V6, and 8k pounds towing with this 3.2L 5. So you're looking at, say, 25MPG highway and 19MPG city with 8k towing.

 

Say the upcharge for this is $6k.

 

Now given that the upcharge for the 3.5L EB is $1500 (give or take), and returns essentially identical fuel economy as the 3.7L V6 and offers 11,500lbs towing........

 

Essentially, you're paying $4500 extra and giving up two tons of towing in order to save roughly $180 a year in gas.

 

Just don't see that math working.

you are grasping at straws, who says it must have best in the world towing, or 0-60 times. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

simply by offering a Diesel in a half ton, gets us way ahead of the game.

 

the 3.2 makes 200hp @ 3500 rpm 320ft/lbs at 1700-2500rpm. keep it simple it is a true truck engine.

 

I do not see a problem, it will be 1/3 the cost of the jaguar engines.

 

or do your think the expensive car based uber performance engine is the way to go.

 

you are setting the bar so high that, it makes it impossible to offer this product at a cost anyone would really want to pay. offer this simple brute of a motor market its durability, economy and service interval of 25,000 miles.

 

unless people don't buy trucks anymore who actually use them as a trucks.

 

this best in class crap killed the f-100.

[fordmantpw]

The people will say the 3.2 diesel F150 has no guts and can't get out of it's own way and diesels will be doomed in anything other than HD trucks from then on! That's been done before!

[RichardJensen]

you are grasping at straws, who says it must have best in the world towing, or 0-60 times. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

simply by offering a Diesel in a half ton, gets us way ahead of the game.

 

the 3.2 makes 200hp @ 3500 rpm 320ft/lbs at 1700-2500rpm. keep it simple it is a true truck engine.

 

I do not see a problem, it will be 1/3 the cost of the jaguar engines.

 

or do your think the expensive car based uber performance engine is the way to go.

 

you are setting the bar so high that, it makes it impossible to offer this product at a cost anyone would really want to pay. offer this simple brute of a motor market its durability, economy and service interval of 25,000 miles.

 

unless people don't buy trucks anymore who actually use them as a trucks.

 

this best in class crap killed the f-100.

"simply by offering..."

 

No. This would be an expensive cul de sac (cf GM truck hybrids).

 

"it will be 1/3 the cost..."

 

You have proof? I don't think so. I'm knocking $2k off the markup for the 6.7L PowerStroke. At least I'm starting with a real number. Where are your *real* numbers?

 

"simple brute...."

 

It's not simple. It's as complex as the 3.5L EB--especially when you factor in the DPF & SCR, gets slightly better gas mileage, has significantly more expensive service costs, and less capability.

[Biker16]

The people will say the 3.2 diesel F150 has no guts and can't get out of it's own way and diesels will be doomed in anything other than HD trucks from then on! That's been done before!

I don't care, they should not have bought a diesel to begin with.

 

diesels are slower than gas motor, if they bought it for speed, they will be disappointed. or they should have purchased the more expensive super-duty.

 

how serious is this motor? it's rev limiter kicks in at 4000rpm.

 

Fleets will love this motor. they won't care about any number except MPGs and 25,000 miles between service. we still sell fleet f150s don't we?

[fordmantpw]

I don't care, they should not have bought a diesel to begin with.

 

diesels are slower than gas motor, if they bought it for speed, they will be disappointed. or they should have purchased the more expensive super-duty.

 

how serious is this motor? it's rev limiter kicks in at 4000rpm.

 

Fleets will love this motor. they won't care about any number except MPGs and 25,000 miles between service. we still sell fleet f150s don't we?

 

Maybe true, but consumers won't understand that, and diesels would have a bad name...again!

[RichardJensen]

they won't care about any number except MPGs

They'll care about TCO. And there's no TCO advantage. Even if you get a 20% MPG savings over the 3.7, you're looking at only $400 per year @ 15k & $3 gas.

 

In other words, say there's only half the up charge of the $8k Power Stroke (which I doubt). You're looking at 10 years to get that back.

 

And don't talk about how the service intervals are so great, the cost of the service visits is a lot higher.

[Biker16]

They'll care about TCO. And there's no TCO advantage. Even if you get a 20% MPG savings over the 3.7, you're looking at only $400 per year @ 15k & $3 gas.

 

In other words, say there's only half the up charge of the $8k Power Stroke (which I doubt). You're looking at 10 years to get that back.

 

And don't talk about how the service intervals are so great, the cost of the service visits is a lot higher.

 

so your argument is that it will always be too expensive to put any diesel engine in the F150.

[RichardJensen]

so your argument is that it will always be too expensive to put any diesel engine in the F150.

wrong tense, right idea.

[StevenCaylor]

They'll care about TCO. And there's no TCO advantage. Even if you get a 20% MPG savings over the 3.7, you're looking at only $400 per year @ 15k & $3 gas.

 

In other words, say there's only half the up charge of the $8k Power Stroke (which I doubt). You're looking at 10 years to get that back.

 

And don't talk about how the service intervals are so great, the cost of the service visits is a lot higher.

 

Also, don't forget, in the SD, the Power Stroke is 8k over the 6.2. In the F150, the 6.2 is 3k over the standard engine.

[fordmantpw]

Also, don't forget, in the SD, the Power Stroke is 8k over the 6.2. In the F150, the 6.2 is 3k over the standard engine.

 

...to persuade buyers to buy the EB.

 

I'm guessing the 6.2 doesn't cost much more (if any) to produce than the 5.0. The 5.0 is more complex with 4V, DOHC, TiVCT, yada, yada as opposed to the SOHC 6.2L. They don't charge 3k more because it costs 3k more.

[NLPRacing]

...to persuade buyers to buy the EB.

 

I'm guessing the 6.2 doesn't cost much more (if any) to produce than the 5.0. The 5.0 is more complex with 4V, DOHC, TiVCT, yada, yada as opposed to the SOHC 6.2L. They don't charge 3k more because it costs 3k more.

 

I'm willing to bet the $3K up-charge is to help keep the CAFE numbers in check.

[theoldwizard]

Farley referenced the cost factor for diesels in the Autoline interview as the reason they are concentrating on EcoBoost. Same torque as a diesel without the substantial added expense of emissions treatment.

It is actually worse.

 

Gas emission standards have not changed much in years. The science is well understood. Diesel standards recently have been/are still changing. The science of meeting future standards is not well understood (at least by Ford and Ford is not real happy with Bosch these days).

 

To muddy the waters, when the full size Transit does show up in the US, expect it to have at least one inline diesel engine as an option.

[fordmantpw]

I'm willing to bet the $3K up-charge is to help keep the CAFE numbers in check.

 

Zactly!

[RichardJensen]

It's not so much that diesel standards have changed as it is that emissions standards on classes 2-8 have increased significantly.

[bzcat]

 

To muddy the waters, when the full size Transit does show up in the US, expect it to have at least one inline diesel engine as an option.

 

Which would be an ideal time to introduce the new diesel engine... new van, new expectations.

 

As to the sidebar debate on F-150 diesel... my take on it is that it is a "nice to have" but if there is really such a demand from fleets, I think Ford would have done it already. I happens to think that a V8 (or even a V6) diesel for F-150 is a splendid idea... it's a perfect application of diesel motor. But I also see Richard's point that the up charge vs. 3.5 turbo makes the economic proposition rather iffy.