GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And why would Ford put a diesel in the RANGER and not in the more expensive higher volume more profitable F150? Because all the development work and tooling is done and paid for. Simple drop-in. The problem with putting a diesel in the F-150 is that you have to custom-design a baby PowerStroke that will only be sold in the NA market at minimal (20k/year, maybe) volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why would you have to design a mini-powerstroke? Why wouldn't you just drop in the same engine you're putting in the Ranger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Because all the development work and tooling is done and paid for. Simple drop-in. The problem with putting a diesel in the F-150 is that you have to custom-design a baby PowerStroke that will only be sold in the NA market at minimal (20k/year, maybe) volume. Will said diesel meet US emissions standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why would you have to design a mini-powerstroke? Why wouldn't you just drop in the same engine you're putting in the Ranger? So, you think F-150 buyers are going to spring for a $10k+ diesel option that outputs 100hp less than the base V6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So, you think F-150 buyers are going to spring for a $10k+ diesel option that outputs 100hp less than the base V6? Why would Ranger buyers spring for a $10k+ diesel option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why would Ranger buyers spring for a $10k+ diesel option? Does it cost VW $10k to offer a diesel in their TDI models? No, it's a global motor with shared development costs. Does VW have trouble getting their 2.x liter diesels to pass US emissions? No. Again, diesels are not necessary if the 2.0 Ecoboost can do the job. They would be a good option if they can bump MPG's over 30 without extreme expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Does it cost VW $10k to offer a diesel in their TDI models? No, it's a global motor with shared development costs. Does VW have trouble getting their 2.x liter diesels to pass US emissions? No. Again, diesels are not necessary if the 2.0 Ecoboost can do the job. They would be a good option if they can bump MPG's over 30 without extreme expense. Why aren't people Rushing VW and its diesels? The trouble has never been passing US emissions, it's the cost of doing it and Ford with its array of Euro diesels is staying out... Ford has always maintained that it's the cost of the approved diesel that's stopping it US introduction, not technical difficulties. What does that tell you? Again, the two 2.0 Ecoboost Ranger mules were only used as attribute prototypes for developing the Ecoboost Falcon. I gather no further development was done after that as global Ranger customer base overwhelmingly wants diesels. Edited January 19, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Again, diesels are not necessary if the 2.0 Ecoboost can do the job. They would be a good option if they can bump MPG's over 30 without extreme expense. I'd like to see any pickup that can get better then 30 MPG....without making it useless for work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'd like to see any pickup that can get better then 30 MPG....without making it useless for work... Now you've done it! Get ready for the "my 4 cylinder Ranger towed a 80,000 lb semi out of the ditch and up a 12% grade in the snow in 2 wheel drive, and it would get 30 MPG all day every day, and this was 15 years ago, so why can't all trucks do that now" stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Does it cost VW $10k to offer a diesel in their TDI models? Then why would the engine cost $10k in an F150? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Now you've done it! Get ready for the "my 4 cylinder Ranger towed a 80,000 lb semi out of the ditch and up a 12% grade in the snow in 2 wheel drive, and it would get 30 MPG all day every day, and this was 15 years ago, so why can't all trucks do that now" stories. LOL How true It goes back to this...yes a pickup is great for its bed, but for the 95% of the time you don't use it...its more or less pointless to have... Hell explain bed covers on trucks ...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 LOL How true It goes back to this...yes a pickup is great for its bed, but for the 95% of the time you don't use it...its more or less pointless to have... Hell explain bed covers on trucks ...LOL I have a truck, that 95% of the time I use as a car hauling my kids to school. I have the truck because I need it to tow our fifth wheel, and other "truck" duties. I also have a tonneau cover on my truck as well. It allows me to use it as a car to haul smaller stuff and keep it dry and not have to worry about it blowing out. But it is easy to roll up and haul large items (or hook up my fifth wheel) as well. Plus, it helps fuel mileage (by what, .01%? ). Honestly, I wish I had a car for that 95% of the time I use the truck as a car. A car would be more comfortable, and much less costly to drive daily. But, with the small number of miles I drive in a year (8-10k), I really can't justify the expense and upkeep of a third vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Why aren't people Rushing VW and its diesels? The trouble has never been passing US emissions, it's the cost of doing it and Ford with its array of Euro diesels is staying out... Ford has always maintained that it's the cost of the approved diesel that's stopping it US introduction, not technical difficulties. What does that tell you? Again, the two 2.0 Ecoboost Ranger mules were only used as attribute prototypes for developing the Ecoboost Falcon. I gather no further development was done after that as global Ranger customer base overwhelmingly wants diesels. TDI's are extremely popular, sell quickly at non-discounted prices, and have a cult-like following. But if diesels are too much trouble due to emissions, the 2.0 EB bolts right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Then why would the engine cost $10k in an F150? Because you have to amortize the cost of developing a new 300hp+ diesel motor (and any tranny/suspension upgrades necessary to survive 500ft/lbs torque) for ONE product. That's why Ford scrapped the F-150's baby Powerstroke and went with 3.5 Ecoboost; shared across multiple models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Does it cost VW $10k to offer a diesel in their TDI models? No, it's a global motor with shared development costs. Does VW have trouble getting their 2.x liter diesels to pass US emissions? No. VW did have trouble passing emissions. It is why the only tdi they sold in the USA for the 2007 and 2008 model years were v10 tourags that weren't available in California emission states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 TDI's are extremely popular, sell quickly at non-discounted prices, and have a cult-like following. But if diesels are too much trouble due to emissions, the 2.0 EB bolts right in. Tdis are popular because VW doesn't offer competitive gasoline engines in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Now you've done it! Get ready for the "my 4 cylinder Ranger towed a 80,000 lb semi out of the ditch and up a 12% grade in the snow in 2 wheel drive, and it would get 30 MPG all day every day, and this was 15 years ago, so why can't all trucks do that now" stories. A lot of technical advancements in 15 years. Not sure about 30mpg, but it tows 176 tons now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifReYvzGzc :D Edited January 19, 2012 by GTwannabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 VW did have trouble passing emissions. It is why the only tdi they sold in the USA for the 2007 and 2008 model years were v10 tourags that weren't available in California emission states. Yeah, because we switched to ultra-low sulfur fuel that the rest of the world doesn't use. If a company as crappy as VW can figure out how to make their global diesels 50-state emissions legal, I think Ford can manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yeah, because we switched to ultra-low sulfur fuel that the rest of the world doesn't use. If a company as crappy as VW can figure out how to make their global diesels 50-state emissions legal, I think Ford can manage. Our emissions are/were harder on diesels than Europe...the change in diesel was necessary to meet US regs. Small ecoboost engines are Ford's cheap alternatives to diesel so there isn't a reason to bring diesels here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Our emissions are/were harder on diesels than Europe...the change in diesel was necessary to meet US regs. Small ecoboost engines are Ford's cheap alternatives to diesel so there isn't a reason to bring diesels here. Which is why I said 2.0 EB is perfectly acceptable for a T6-sized Ranger/F-100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Yeah, because we switched to ultra-low sulfur fuel that the rest of the world doesn't use. If a company as crappy as VW can figure out how to make their global diesels 50-state emissions legal, I think Ford can manage. Europe uses ultra low Sulfur and Australia and Asia are changing or have changed... It's the cost of compliance and Ford doesn't want FNA to bear the cost when FoE will do that for Euro 6 and beyond. Edited January 19, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Drop 500lb and the 2.7L Nano EcoBoost might be the ideal engine in that truck. A 3.5L EB truck gets 16/22 today, a 2.7L Nano with 500lb less to lug around might get 17/24 or better with plenty of power. Lets see. My '06 F150 weighs in at roughly 5500lbs. A new 2012 Supercrew 4x4 from all that I've read, the newer 09+ body-style is a little heavier (5700lbs), give or take. Drop 500lbs and you're down to 5200lbs. What the heck will that 2.7L EB be able to do pulling that much weight (especially if it is towing or has anything in the bed of weight), if the 2.0L EB isn't the greatest of performers in the roughly 4500lb Explorer? The added power of the 2.7L over the 2.0L isn't going to make up that much weight difference (700lbs+) Maybe it'll have the 17/24 mpgs, but it surely wouldn't have "plenty of power". It would only be adequate if the 2.7L produced 260hp/350ft-lbs the 5.4L produced in my old 2002 F150. It goes back to this...yes a pickup is great for its bed, but for the 95% of the time you don't use it...its more or less pointless to have... Hell explain bed covers on trucks ...LOL Says the man who doesn't own a truck. We've gone round and round, I don't know how many times. I use my bed a minimum of 35% or more of the time (personal truck, not work truck), depending on season, home improvements, friends/family, etc. So, if the bed of a truck is useless, then the area behind the last row of seats in a CUV/SUV must be useless too, because you don't use it 95% of the time. Heck, why even get a car with a trunk, it's empty 95% of the time. You know people do use their bed like a trunk at times, right? Just because you're in the car next to someone driving a truck and you can't see things hanging out the bed doesn't mean they don't use their bed a lot. Heck, they could have something in the bed you just can't see. And like fordman stated, he needs it to tow his fifth wheel. So exactly what CUV/SUV can do that for him? Bed covers are great, as it makes the bed a lockable trunk. But for someone who doesn't own a truck, I guess this may not have been so easy to understand. Guess I'll just stop now. Cause some people just don't or refuse to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Because you have to amortize the cost of... Why wouldn't you use the Ranger diesel in the F150? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Europe uses ultra low Sulfur and Australia and Asia are changing or have changed... It's the cost of compliance and Ford doesn't want FNA to bear the cost when FoE will do that for Euro 6 and beyond. It appears that Ford is also hedging its bets, in that the cost of a Euro 6-compliant diesel may make the 1.0 EB and later versions a valid alternative in the EU market. The point is, diesels will get more expensive, with poorer economy with Euro 6. Plus, Ford could even consider the alcohol injection system they developed to make the EB 1.0 even more efficient for less than diesel cost. Diesel tweaks could obsess over the alcohol injection system, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Cause some people just don't or refuse to understand. Here's a question for you: Why do you believe you're right? Edited January 19, 2012 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts