Diesel F-150 rumor/confirm?

[matthewq4b]

Ford has no diesel engine in the stable currently that is suitable for the F150. The JLR 3.0L is not suited for this application as it is big dollar unit and would be cost prohibitive. The 4.4 is archaic and out dated and will be almost impossible to meet current emissions efficiently and cost effectively.

The 3.2 Transit engine is under sized (only 5cyl) and under powered and another older engine. It will require a whole new 6cyl engine in the 3.0 to 3.7L range. We are 4 to 5 years min before ford gets a diesel in the F series unless they mange to scrounge one up from somewhere else. What ever they get it will have to do double duty in the transit and the F 150. The current 3.2 is not suited for the F 150. When the transit gets a new diesel we may then see it cross used in to the F 150.

 

Is their a case for the F 150 diesel, Yes there is . We will see it rob some sales from the super duties as a lot of contractors and the like buy diesels for the sake of fuel simplicity, when your running multiple pieces of diesel equipment it is a pain to have a fleet of gasoline trucks, the diesels can use the same fuel as in the heavy equipment this is especially handy at remote locations like mine sites . A lot of diesel P/U's are bought for only this reason.

There will be a gain in fuel mileage for towing too do not under estimate that, more contractors are moving away from vans and step vans to a 4 door 1/2 ton and enclosed trailer. This allows them one vehicle purchase than can be used off duty and not having to have a service van, plus these vehicles are written off as a business expense so the additional cost of a diesel option is almost a non issue as it saved on the back end with increased fuel efficiency. Also here at least here the Gov't does not look as hard at Diesel fuel write offs come tax time.

 

Most of these set ups top out at less than 8K loaded for the trailer. This seems to be the trend for most smaller contractors and for every large contractor there are 75 small ones. So for this purpose the Diesel 1/2 ton is exactly what the doctor ordered. Is there a market for Hybrid 1/2 tons yes, but not likely in the commercial market. Remember hybrid's only excel around town stuff 8k worth of trailer on the back and even that advantage will quickly evaporate. In these instances Diesel power in a 1/2 ton makes perfect sense.

 

Dodge has the advantage of brand new emission designed Diesel engine that is already certified in NA. It is an absolute no brainer to put it in the Ram and quite frankly if they did not , someone would have to question their business acumen.

 

The Mercedes OM642 previously used in the Jeep GC was not suited to use in the Ram as this engine was not designed to see the abuse it would in a P/U, It was designed as a lighter automotive engine and is down rated in the Sprinter by 81HP and 160FTLbs torque over the European auto variant for longevity and the sprinter is no pick up truck. the 3.0L VM diesel is a more robust less watch like engine compared to the OM642.

 

The New 3.0L VM Diesel Fiat has is capable of 271HP and 440 torque in some applications, but is de-rated for Jeep and Ram. I'm sure it will not be long till the tuners get it boosted back up to that or more in the Ram.

 

And don't think that they wont discount that diesel option in time, right now it is new and they'll charge a premium for it while they can, that will change in time though. Mercedes has little to no premium for diesel power plants, in the E class and GL SUV the diesels are actually lower priced than the base gasoline units The diesel is just a $1500 option in the GLK SUV. So don't kid yourselves in to thinking that Fiat is not milking it on the first diesel optioned vehicles in the Chryco products. Give it a few years and the diesel option will fall in cost.

 

The price of diesel fuel will stabilize we are still seeing seasonal swings high in winter,lower in summer (lower than reg gasoline here) as the demand for heating fuel falls when the temp warms, fuel oil heating is going the way of the dodo, also as more USLD production comes on line the price will also continue to get to par of gasoline in the winter season.

 

Ford currently is not positioned or prepared to offer up a diesel in the F150 anytime soon. Only time will tell if that was an error.

 

I'm a big proponent for diesel power it offers a lot of advantages in some applications even over eco boost engines. And diesel tech is advancing way fast, Power is going up , emissions down, fuel efficiency up, and the tech is getting better and better, even the engine oils are being radically changed with lighter and lighter weights being used all the time. 0-W40 is now starting to be the standard for light auto diesels with 20K + KM oil changes as the engines are burning cleaner and cleaner. It is also one of the best alternatives for the practical use of bio fuels, as the base feed stock can come from so many varied renewable sources, many post consumer.

 

The new aluminium boxed F150 is long long over due. Ford has been using aluminium body panels in some applications since the early 80's so not like they don't have experience with it, this is way way over due, .

Given the option of aluminium over steel for a body I'll take the aluminium any day. Better corrosion resistance, better memory (less chance of small dings and dents), lighter and generally stiffer structures. Paint adhesion is a non issue Hell they can get it to stick to supersonic aircraft auto bodies should not be an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew

Edited February 19, 2014 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

From Autonews,

Chuck Eddy, chairman of the Chrysler National Dealer Council, said he ordered three times his monthly allocation of diesel-powered Ram 1500s, just to make sure he didn't run out.

 

"Everybody's gung-ho about it," said Eddy, owner of Bob & Chuck Eddy Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram near Youngstown, Ohio. "The factory's just not going to have enough to go around, at least for a while."

 

 

8,000 dealer orders with just over 400 actual customer orders.......

[lfeg]

Ok, this pot needs more stirring.

 

"According to a WardsAuto forecast, the Tundra will get a 5.0L turbodiesel V-8 from engine-maker Cummins, likely when the next-generation Tundra debuts in 2016."

 

"A source tells WardsAuto the Cummins diesel possibly is a placeholder for Toyota, as the automaker had been working on an in-house Tundra diesel engine in 2007 and 2008.

However, the global economic downturn shelved the project, believed to be the result of a collaboration with Toyota’s Hino heavy-truck subsidiary. An in-house diesel likely would have relatively low sales numbers compared with less-expensive gasoline engines, but high development and certification costs.

However, with future, more-stringent CAFE regulations in the U.S., calling for all automakers to meet a fleet target of 54.5 mpg (4.3 L/100 km) in 2025, a diesel now is seen as a necessity for the Tundra."

[lfeg]

Info. http://social.cummins.com/cummins-announces-5-0l-v8-diesel-north-american-on-highway-markets/

[sullynd]

Ok, this pot needs more stirring.

The multi-page thread on that topic want enough stirring?

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/55824-next-tundra-to-get-50-cummins/?fromsearch=1

Edited February 19, 2014 by sullynd

[LSFan00]

Excellent post Mathew. I'd note that Mercedes strategy of offering the lower HP diesel as their base engine is pretty unique. I don't understand Mercedes or their customers very much, but then again some folks obviously enjoy visiting their mechanics monthly.

 

I am a little surprised as to your conclusions on the South African built Ford 3.0, but not the Fiat 3.0. Once again the market is showing that there is not "one diesel" strategy (mercedes is very unique vs. Audi/VW/BMW for instance). The cummins 5.0 for Nissan/Toyota seem grossly too big to help much in mileage but then again both have only offered one gas option, itself near that displacement and enormously inefficient as far as mileage goes I guess. I do think/hope the Ram 'ecodiesel' will prove less reliable than some fleet buyers/contractors hope.

 

We will continue to see a diversification of engine strategies/options as the cafe numbers ramp up (in addition to materials/frame construction), from hybrids, diesel, plug ins and various combinations thereof. Every mfg decision is related to resources/partners they have on hand short term right now (including Ford), but will inevitably diversify (particularly on products with huge R&D budgets) over the next 5-10 years as competitive sales are analyzed.

 

An all-new aluminum F-150 certainly would have been unduly complicated by a simultaneous diesel option launch. Despite some of the vitriol here at the suggestion/link/idea, I don't think it would have made sense in 2015 anyway, but would be surprised if this is the case toward 2017-2018. And by that point, I also doubt it will be a $5,000 option, either....

[akirby]

I can't see a contractor who works and tows heavy diesel powered vehicles opting for a 3.0L V6 diesel F150 over a F250 diesel 6.7L. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Any fuel economy advantage for a V6 diesel half-ton in the real world is wiped out by higher diesel fuel prices. If you're looking to save on fuel the F150 2.7L EB makes more sense.

 

There are certainly folks who simply love diesels who would buy a V6 diesel half-ton regardless - but that has to be a relatively small group compared to the mainstream buyers.

 

 

Yet another case of "I want it therefore everybody wants it and Ford is stupid not to build it".

[akirby]

 

 

Just another one of them Missouri guys..........

 

 

[fordmantpw]

 

Just another one of them Missouri guys..........

 

 

 

That must have been before Mizzou won the division in only the second year in the SEC....

[akirby]

 

That must have been before Mizzou won the division in only the second year in the SEC....

 

I was afraid you'd bring that up. I thought you didn't follow college football...........

[fordmantpw]

 

I was afraid you'd bring that up. I thought you didn't follow college football...........

 

Well, I normally don't, but when your team is going for the championship in the best conference in college football, it's hard not to pay attention. I actually watched more CFB this year than I have the entire rest of my life. I may be a convert.

[akirby]

 

Well, I normally don't, but when your team is going for the championship in the best conference in college football, it's hard not to pay attention. I actually watched more CFB this year than I have the entire rest of my life. I may be a convert.

 

Now that you're in the SEC East, there is one important thing you need to know and remember.......

 

 

Florida sucks!!!

[fordmantpw]

 

Now that you're in the SEC East, there is one important thing you need to know and remember.......

 

 

Florida sucks!!!

 

Florida? I thought it was Georgia?

 

Seriously, though, why on earth did we get put in the East? We are what, the 2nd most Western team? We should have at least been in the same division as Arkansas...

 

On a side note, the MU basketball team is really stinking things up this year...

[akirby]

 

Florida? I thought it was Georgia?

 

Seriously, though, why on earth did we get put in the East? We are what, the 2nd most Western team? We should have at least been in the same division as Arkansas...

 

On a side note, the MU basketball team is really stinking things up this year...

 

They probably should have put both Texas A&M and Missouri in the West but then they would have had to move either Auburn or Alabama to the East and I guess they didn't want to change the existing in division rivalries there.

 

Don't try to apply logic to anything the SEC or NCAA does.

[fordmantpw]

 

They probably should have put both Texas A&M and Missouri in the West but then they would have had to move either Auburn or Alabama to the East and I guess they didn't want to change the existing in division rivalries there.

 

Don't try to apply logic to anything the SEC or NCAA does.

 

True, on all points!

[ironhorse]

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-orders-140000952.html

 

 

Granted this is a public relations article,but there is demand.

 

"More than 8,000 trucks equipped with the fuel-sipping engine that packs 420 lb.-ft. of torque have been placed—just over 50 percent of the total mix. Even more surprising is the amount of orders already paid for by customers— twice the corporate average of sold customer orders on a truck that customers have yet to test drive."

[SoonerLS]

I hear ya, but IIRC, the number used is 150.

FWIW, if you go through the Dodge towing page, you can find a payload slider, and one of the options is passengers. They are, indeed, figured at 150 lbs.

[SoonerLS]

Is their a case for the F 150 diesel, Yes there is .

Raj Nair appears to disagree with you:

 

"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."

[jpd80]

It's down to opportunity cost for Ford, do they spend hundreds of millions on a diesel F150

or use that cash on an Ecoboost 2.7 that is much easier sell to the half ton truck market

and to diversify to a wider range of products both as Ecoboost and NA versions.

 

This is simply a no brainer for Ford now, there is so much fertile ground in gasoline sales that there is no need to look at diesel just yet

let Ram lead the way and gauge the true depth of diesel half ton sales, Ram dealers have ordered diesel 1500 in strong numbers

so let's see how sales actually go in the coming months, most observers expect a massive response but I'm not so sure,

for a "slam dunk", Ram seems to be pushing this very aggressively

Edited February 19, 2014 by jpd80

[LSFan00]

Well put.

[matthewq4b]

Excellent post Mathew. I'd note that Mercedes strategy of offering the lower HP diesel as their base engine is pretty unique. I don't understand Mercedes or their customers very much, but then again some folks obviously enjoy visiting their mechanics monthly.

 

I am a little surprised as to your conclusions on the South African built Ford 3.0, but not the Fiat 3.0. Once again the market is showing that there is not "one diesel" strategy (mercedes is very unique vs. Audi/VW/BMW for instance). The cummins 5.0 for Nissan/Toyota seem grossly too big to help much in mileage but then again both have only offered one gas option, itself near that displacement and enormously inefficient as far as mileage goes I guess. I do think/hope the Ram 'ecodiesel' will prove less reliable than some fleet buyers/contractors hope.

 

We will continue to see a diversification of engine strategies/options as the cafe numbers ramp up (in addition to materials/frame construction), from hybrids, diesel, plug ins and various combinations thereof. Every mfg decision is related to resources/partners they have on hand short term right now (including Ford), but will inevitably diversify (particularly on products with huge R&D budgets) over the next 5-10 years as competitive sales are analyzed.

 

An all-new aluminum F-150 certainly would have been unduly complicated by a simultaneous diesel option launch. Despite some of the vitriol here at the suggestion/link/idea, I don't think it would have made sense in 2015 anyway, but would be surprised if this is the case toward 2017-2018. And by that point, I also doubt it will be a $5,000 option, either....

 

 

Mercedes has come along way in the last 5 or so years in terms of reliability it is nothing like it was at the turn of the century, I have a couple Mercedes in the household a diesel E class and a diesel R class both vehicles are not new by any stretch have been dead nuts reliable with no issues other than typical wear out items. And the lower HP figures in diesels are a bit betraying , look at the torque figures, that is what gets ya moving, and by the seat of the pants the lower HP is irrelevant behind the wheel.

Mercedes does an excellent job with tranny's behind diesels and they take full advantage of that torque. They are purpose tuned drivelines and not just a diesel tossed in place of a gasser. The R class is a 5000 LBS curb weight vehicle and it is not a dog by any means it has no trouble keeping up with higher HP lighter vehicles from the stop light. If you get the chance to get some seat time behind a newer Mercedes diesel you will be quite surprised.

 

I personally love that sink your ass in the seat light up the tires (as much as the nanny ESP will let ya) that the diesel torque gives ya.

 

The JLR 3.0L was purpose built for it's applications just as the 3.0L VM was. The 3.0L VM I believe is the first lighter auto diesel designed specially for the lower NA emissions and not just modified to meet them. 3.0L VM is a more robust engine than the JLR, and is designed for more severe applications than the 3.0L JLR. the JLR would have to be seriously de-rated to handle F150 applications and by the time that was done it would be near useless. It would be similar to what Mercedes had to do to the OM642 3.0L in the Sprinter.

 

Ford is playing it smart really they are not just jumping on the diesel bandwagon in their F150 for a short term fix to solve the CAFE issue. The diesel will be the last piece of the puzzle so to speak for Ford. They are moving gasoline tech as far as they can and moving to aluminium. Diesel tech is expensive and it is not just dropping in a diesel, the driveline needs to be tuned to it for maximum returns.

 

By the time Ford is ready for diesel all the others will paved the way in the tech dept and the transit will be in need of a diesel new motor. By that time the F 150 will be all lightened up and then the advantages of a diesel will be even more pronounced. The rest will then will be in the position of following Ford to get the body's to same level of sophistication, which will take longer than developing a new diesel power plant.

 

Yes it would be nice to have a diesel F150 but I would rather see them get the body upgrades sorted and gasoline tech wrapped up (bulk of the sales will always be there) then concentrate on a diesel power plant.

Ford is planning for the long run and not just short term flash in the pan gains.

 

Fiat was in a good position with having the new 3.0L diesel but their market users are a bit different and it suited their needs for those applications. They just planned ahead and made sure it was suitable for the Ram also.

 

Ram has a rabid diesel following and Jeep has a pretty strong diesel following in most markets and I'm pretty sure it will find it's way in to other markets Fiat sells vehicles in. So for Fiat the need for a new mid sized diesel was considerably higher than it was for Ford.

Their market segments dictated that the need was there so it was done. The ability of being able to stuff in the Ram was a nice bonus and was not necessarily the main goal.

 

Matthew

Edited February 20, 2014 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

I can't see a contractor who works and tows heavy diesel powered vehicles opting for a 3.0L V6 diesel F150 over a F250 diesel 6.7L. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Any fuel economy advantage for a V6 diesel half-ton in the real world is wiped out by higher diesel fuel prices. If you're looking to save on fuel the F150 2.7L EB makes more sense.

 

There are certainly folks who simply love diesels who would buy a V6 diesel half-ton regardless - but that has to be a relatively small group compared to the mainstream buyers.

 

 

Yet another case of "I want it therefore everybody wants it and Ford is stupid not to build it".

 

 

 

 

Remember not all contractors are dragging bob cats around. Lots times diesel trucks are used in mine sites to go from point A to B and diesels are used simply for fueling logistics as all the heavy equipment is diesel powered.

 

And I'm taking big diesel equipment not a bobcat but Haul trucks track hoes etc. Stuff that needs Class 1 trucks to move it. Excavation company's use diesels again for logistics and to cheat the system don't think they do not use the occasional (or not so occasional) tank of off hyway diesel in them.

 

The guy hauling his bobcat to clear driveways, landscape, or what is going to have a 1 ton

 

Small independent trades people such as Finish carpenters, framers, Electricians, Plumbers, Drywallers, Roofers etc etc.. Mostly drive half ton trucks pulling an enclosed trailer that usually tops out around 6 to 7K lbs loaded. That is getting to be the norm instead of having a dedicated cargo van or step van.

This where the 1/2 ton diesel makes perfect sense. There is no need for the added cost in either purchase price or operation for a 3/4 or 1 ton in these applications and the fuel savings in a diesel half ton is going to really shine.

 

I have a close friend who owns a 3.0L Mercedes Diesel GC and regularly pulls a 27ft travel trailer with it in the summer, and that trailer is pretty much at the max towing capacity (if not a bit over). The fuel economy in the diesel pulling is near what the V8 GC's got unloaded

 

Mind you she is not slugging the mountains or lots of large hills either. It is not a dog and does the job quite nicely she can easily keep up with traffic and can bomb along at 120 KPH with no issues.

The OM642 in that thing is no where near well tuned to the vehicle chassis as it is in the Mercedes R class either.

 

Do not under estimate newer mid displacement diesels. It makes no sense to most of us but for so many years it always been the HP that has been hyped up, when it fact it is the torque that gets you moving and keeps you moving. The OM642 makes 400FT lbs + of torque at a ridiculously low 1600rpm from a modest 208 HP that is the same or more torque than the mid late 90's 460 in the f-series

 

The 3.0LVM diesel at 440 ft lbs and 240 hp in the Ram is close to what the old Ford EFI 7.5L (460) in the F250 and up used to be. Would any one question the towing abilities of the F350 with the EFI 460 to haul around a 6 to 8K lbs trailer ?, So there is any logical reason to question if the 3.0LVM in the Ram is up to the task of towing 6 to 8K with 20FT lbs more torque lower in the rpm range and 5 more or or 25 fewer HP than old EFI 7.5L ? (The 7.5 EFI was rated at 335 or 365HP the torque was 390 ft lbs or 400 ft lbs depending on application,) I really don't think there is any reason to question it.

 

 

I'll take higher torque and lower HP over higher HP lower torque any day on the street. My 300lbs heavier Diesel E class with 2 fewer cylinders and a 1.4L reduction of displacement would run circles around the old Marquis and gets 33% better fuel mileage. The marquis was making about 35 more hp than the Merc but a crap load less torque and what torque it did make was high in the rpm range where it was basically useless. Having the max torque close to cruising rpm is what gives you the best fuel efficiency. And it is far more usable than having up around 4000 rpm.

 

 

 

Matthew

Edited February 20, 2014 by matthewq4b

[theoldwizard]

There will be a gain in fuel mileage for towing too do not under estimate that, more contractors are moving away from vans and step vans to a 4 door 1/2 ton and enclosed trailer.

Got any data to support that statement because I don't believe it. If you would have said 3/4 ton, I might accept that.

 

.. also as more USLD production comes on line the price will also continue to get to par of gasoline in the winter season.

That is a very speculative statement. Petroleum companies have been dragging their feet to add capacity. In doing so, they are creating somewaht of a shortage and are enjoying the higher profit margins. Why would they make capital investment that would reduce profit, especially if the just announced mandate on improved HD truck fuel economy ?

 

And diesel tech is advancing way fast, Power is going up , emissions down, fuel efficiency up,

Data on increase LD diesel fuel economy improvements please.

 

... is also one of the best alternatives for the practical use of bio fuels, as the base feed stock can come from so many varied renewable sources, many post consumer.

I do not believe that any manufacturer is actively pursuing anything more than B20.

[fordmantpw]

Data on increase LD diesel fuel economy improvements please.

 

Well, the Ford 6.7L gets 20% better fuel economy than the 6.4L.

[twmalonehunter]

 

Talked to a guy the other day who tows a lot and runs a plow and has the 6.7 in a F350 crewcab. He gets 9.5 mpg... that's his average. My V10 gets 8.5 in a service body truck that weighs 11,500 pounds with a box that creates a lot of drag. Point being I don't think the mileage of the 6.7 is that impressive.

 

Well, the Ford 6.7L gets 20% better fuel economy than the 6.4L.

Edited February 20, 2014 by twmalonehunter