akirby Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I still think that Ford is serious about a diesel in the works. I was passed along the specs (hp/tq) of the engine as well as know someone (this isn't my uncle's cousins, sister's b/f's mother type of person) who has seen it first hand and took pics of it. Pioneer already said they've tested a diesel with virtually every iteration of the F150. Doesn't necessarily mean they'll bring it to market. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The R&D budget on the F150 is huge. Pretty sure there's been no end of really cool stuff put in, on or under a test vehicle at one time or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Ford Says "No" to F-150 Diesel, but Chrysler Says Ram 1500 Diesel Makes Sense"We don't see the dynamics for an F-150 diesel right now," said Raj Nair, Ford's group vice president of global product development. "If you go through the math, your payback is much longer and consumers are smart enough to know that." http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/ford-says-no-to-f-150-diesel-but-chrysler-says-ram-1500-diesel-makes-sense.html Your payload will suck, too. At least on the Ram. Ford is betting people will be smart. Ram is betting people will be ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I still think that Ford is serious about a diesel in the works. I was passed along the specs (hp/tq) of the engine as well as know someone (this isn't my uncle's cousins, sister's b/f's mother type of person) who has seen it first hand and took pics of it.Lost in all of the pages of speculation, I pointed out that the PowerStroke 3.2L 5 cylinder turbo diesel is already certified to go in the US Transit. It could easily be installed in the F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Lost in all of the pages of speculation, I pointed out that the PowerStroke 3.2L 5 cylinder turbo diesel is already certified to go in the US Transit. It could easily be installed in the F150. I call BS on that. I searched the thread, and I couldn't find anywhere that you said that, particularly not in post 250. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) As Deanh said many pages ago, Ford is charging a $6,000 premium for 3.2 Powerstroke diesel in the Transit over the 3.7 V6 and on that basis, I doubt that we will be seeing it offered in F150, especially if 2.7 EB hits its marks. Edited February 18, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'd again note it's not an either/or proposition; the 6.2 is a $5200 and the EB3.5 is $2100 over the base F150 3.7 as-is. So having a 2,000-6,000 range of engine options is not exactly new ground for the truck, nor are many fans clamoring to have the 6.2 completely dropped as ludicrously overpriced/uncompetitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 490 lbs payload for the Ram with EcoDiesel report: http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2014/02/2014-annual-physical-braking.html chart: http://blogs.cars.com/files/final_ap_bigchart.jpg Huh? A pickup truck that CANNOT carry two 250 pound guys without being overloaded? What is the point? Ahh, it is a diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Huh? A pickup truck that CANNOT carry two 250 pound guys without being overloaded? What is the point? Ahh, it is a diesel. Technically, I think the payload already accounts for a 150 lb driver, so if the driver weighs 250, you've got 390 left for other guys and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Technically, I think the payload already accounts for a 150 lb driver I'd hope it would account for a driver who weighs more than 150lbs--according to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm), the average adult American female weighs 166lbs, and the average adult American male comes in at just under 196lbs... Edited February 18, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'd again note it's not an either/or proposition; the 6.2 is a $5200 and the EB3.5 is $2100 over the base F150 3.7 as-is. So having a 2,000-6,000 range of engine options is not exactly new ground for the truck, nor are many fans clamoring to have the 6.2 completely dropped as ludicrously overpriced/uncompetitive. The 6.2 has also (apparently) been dropped for '15... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'd hope it would account for a driver who weighs more than 150lbs--according to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm), the average adult American female weighs 166lbs, and the average adult American male comes in at just under 196lbs... I hear ya, but IIRC, the number used is 150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I hear ya, but IIRC, the number used is 150. Holy cats--that means I and the load of hay I'm carrying as ballast would very nearly overload the DodgeRam diesel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 It's the curb weight - 6460 lbs!!! That's 1100 lbs more than the Sierra and 1300 more than the Silverado. That's the difference in payload. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 nor are many fans clamoring to have the 6.2 completely dropped as ludicrously overpriced/uncompetitive. Because it already has been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 It's the curb weight - 6460 lbs!!! That's 1100 lbs more than the Sierra and 1300 more than the Silverado. That's the difference in payload. That is almost 1000 lb more than my Sierra 2500 HD 4x4 extended cab 8 foot bed pickup. And only about 3000 lb less than my F600 12 foot dump. Does it have lead lined leather seats? And on most pickups, payload is GVWR less curb weight. In an old Ford RV guide that I have they say payload includes driver, passengers, cargo, and tongue weight of any trailer towed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I'd again note it's not an either/or proposition; the 6.2 is a $5200 and the EB3.5 is $2100 over the base F150 3.7 as-is. In XLT, the 6.2 is currently up to a $7,920 option over the 3.7 V6, 3.5 Ecoboost attracts a premium of $2,395 and 5.0 V8 costs $1,000 over the 3.7. At the moment, 3.7 and 6.2 combined make up around 10% of F150 sales and I'm not seeing any evidence that the 6.2 will return in the 2015 model. Announcements have been made for the 5.0 V8, Ecoboost 3.5, Ecoboost 2.7 and the new 3.5 DI V6 but not a mention of the 6.2 continuing. Even Super Duty will be coming under pressure to improve fuel economy in the next couple of years, new regulations come into force shortly aimed at increasing fuel consumption by up to 20% over the current level. Edited February 18, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Isn't it a bit disingenuous to talk about the price premium on the 6.2 over the XLT model, seeing how you can't get a 6.2L equipped XLT? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 Once again this discussion is getting bogged down in trivialities. On the Ford site today you can option a 6.2 for $5200 more as per above. I would hazard a guess it sold more, at this option level, than the optional $6,000 3.2 diesel on the transit will over the next year. My point was that the pricing spread is not exactly "oh my goodness that's preposterous. Delete that engine option. It's not fuel efficient/powerful/ecoboost enough to warrant production." And no, this is not a hate filled emotional rant/plea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 You can get an XLT F-150 with a 6.2, but it didn't sell. Ford said at the 2015 launch only 5% of sales were the 6.2 and they were mostly Raptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Isn't it a bit disingenuous to talk about the price premium on the 6.2 over the XLT model, seeing how you can't get a 6.2L equipped XLT? You can for the '14 model (and I think you could on the '13). It is a $4220 option over the 5.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 My point was that the pricing spread is not exactly "oh my goodness that's preposterous. Delete that engine option. Ford appears to disagree with you, as they have deleted that engine option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Technically, I think the payload already accounts for a 150 lb driver, so if the driver weighs 250, you've got 390 left for other guys and stuff. Hey, leave me out of this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Hey, leave me out of this! Apparently, we'll have to, or we won't be able to haul anything else! Sorry, you opened yourself up for that one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Apparently, we'll have to, or we won't be able to haul anything else! Sorry, you opened yourself up for that one. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.