Jump to content

Diesel F-150 rumor/confirm?


Recommended Posts

The Lion is not already federalized. It's probably not a good truck engine. And JLR may have the rights to that engine design.

 

Further, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Meta_One

 

Additionally, the F150 is not going global.

 

Finally, if there were a market for a diesel F150, it would be getting the 3.2L I-5 which is already federalized for that powertrain. Ford's absolute silence on F150 diesel options despite having a federalized powertrain that could easily be dropped in the engine bay should tell you all you need to know: The customers don't want it for what Ford would charge for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are going to get the Lion V6 ready for EPA and CARB emission... just as a contingency. Plus it is likely that Jaguar Land Rover is paying them to do so. There is no harm in having an EPA/CARB compliant diesel on your shelve.

That makes no sense, fiscally speaking. Why would you spend the money to Federalize an engine you might use when you already have a Federalized engine (3.2 PSD) going into production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I read somewhere that the JLR engine contract runs through to 2020. So would JLR want the Lion federalized for for US use for only 4 model years?

 

I don't see it.

 

I didn't say they would, only that if they did it would explain why Ford would do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which diesel would you federalize, the 3.0 V6 Lion or the 4.4 V8 in Ranger Rover...

 

Not forgetting that Euro 6 compliance gets the diesels a long way towards US EPA compliance, still work to do but much closer than older Euro 4 and 5..

 

I think 2.7 Ecoboost makes a nonsense of any diesel application in F150, my instinct says 20% better econoomy than 5.0 V8.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

CAFE doesn't care about real world MPG...

 

And, according to fuelly, (which, if you want to compare different engines in real-world driving, is probably about as close as you can expect without doing the tests yourself in a strictly controlled environment) shows the 2013 2.0EB getting 3 MPG (22.9 vs 19.9) better than the 3.5. That is a 15% improvement. And that's a GEN 1 EB, not GEN 2, which the 2.7 supposedly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Ecoboost 3.5 has a clear fuel economy advantage over the 6.2 V8

therefore, it follows that the 2.7 EB will have a similar advantage over the 5.0 V8

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, if it is going to happen it will probably happen with the 3.2L that is being shipped to NA today

 

Exactly. And there are *no plans* to sell the 3.2L in the F150 (contrast that with Ford's vague confirmation of the EcoSport).

 

Therefore, if there are no plans to sell a federalized diesel in the F150, it seems *incredibly* far fetched to suggest that Ford will sell a non-federalized diesel in the F150. Certainly not one which appears to have been sold to TATA along with the rest of JLR.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Part of the deal in selling JLR was that Ford would continue to supply engines for JLR for a set period of time, and it's entirely possible that it included an exclusivity period. Not being privy to the contract, I don't know that, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what we know:

 

- Ford has federalized a 3.2L diesel that is bolted to the same transmission used in the F150.

- The 3.0L & 4.4L Lion diesels have not passed US emissions testing.

 

This is what we think we know:

 

- Ford considered selling a diesel F150 in the past.

 

This is speculation:

 

- The 3.0L & 4.4L diesels are manufactured by Ford under license from JLR. Reason for the speculation? Neither engine has ever been sold in a Ford product. In short: Ford may not have the right to build these engines for Ford brand products.

 

Now you have a website that has incredibly dubious merits which is saying--without anything but the vaguest reference to sources--that not only is Ford going to sell a diesel F150 despite (probably) scouting that idea in the past, they are going to sell an engine which (1) has not been federalized and (2) may not be owned by Ford, instead of an engine that Ford owns the rights to, which they have federalized, and which will be sold in a similar configuration in the US.

 

Pardon me if I consider the notion absurd.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CAFE doesn't care about real world MPG...

 

And, according to fuelly, (which, if you want to compare different engines in real-world driving, is probably about as close as you can expect without doing the tests yourself in a strictly controlled environment) shows the 2013 2.0EB getting 3 MPG (22.9 vs 19.9) better than the 3.5. That is a 15% improvement. And that's a GEN 1 EB, not GEN 2, which the 2.7 supposedly is.

curious, what are the actual differences between the generations?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is speculation:

 

- The 3.0L & 4.4L diesels are manufactured by Ford under license from JLR. Reason for the speculation? Neither engine has ever been sold in a Ford product. In short: Ford may not have the right to build these engines for Ford brand products.

 

Now you have a website that has incredibly dubious merits which is saying--without anything but the vaguest reference to sources--that not only is Ford going to sell a diesel F150 despite (probably) scouting that idea in the past, they are going to sell an engine which (1) has not been federalized and (2) may not be owned by Ford, instead of an engine that Ford owns the rights to, which they have federalized, and which will be sold in a similar configuration in the US.

 

Pardon me if I consider the notion absurd.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I'm a little confused about your position, so you think Ford should put a diesel in F150, just not the Lion, rather the 3.2L Duratorq/PowerStroke?

 

As to Ram diesel's 28mpg rating, I think at least one trim level of 2.7EB will get that same rating, if not bettering it. On that front, I agree with JPD80.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

This is marketing.

 

A 500 mile trip @28 mpg =17.9 gallons of diesel. 17.9 x's $3.759 (todays's diesel price in VA) is $67.29

 

A 500 mile trip @22 mpg = 22.7 gallons of gas. 22.7 x's $3.059 (today's gas price at Exxon & Shell) is $69.44

 

A brand new Dod...err..Ram will save you $2.15 over a 2013 F-150 EB.

 

If the 2.7 EB gets 26 mpg then you are looking at $58.73 for the same trip...saving you $8.56 over the diesel.

 

Really....is there any real question why Ford went with EB vs diesel? Smoother running, no smelly fuel, less initial cost, less money in upkeep, better performance in cold temps (meaning short trips to work), better sound, and not having to plug it in under 10 degree temps.

 

This all comes from a truck driver who has been on the road for 28 years. I love my big trucks, but 1/2 tons need to remain gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

obviously they think the motor in question (not lion) is a good light truck engine (Ranger), with commercial uses also, stateside.

 

And yet they aren't selling the 3.2L in the F150, and have announced no plans to do so.

 

Here they have this federalized powertrain all ready to go-------------and they're not installing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if they know more about this than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...