SoonerLS Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) I would venture to guess that the 2.7L will be a 'cost' option between the 5.0 and the 3.5EB. Isn't the EB $1750 or something over the 5.0? The 2.7L would slot between them nicely. You get performance equal (or nearly equal) to the 5.0, but another 3-4 MPGs. I think the new baby V6 is going to surprise a lot of people! In the FX2, Lariat, and FX4, it's $1095 to go from the 5.0 to the EB35. Slotting a mill between them is slicing it pretty finely, IMHO. Currently, that puts the spread between the the D37 and the EB35 right at $2K: D37 -> 5.0 = $1K, 5.0 -> EB35 = ~$1K. (The 6.2 is a much larger upcharge, but it's out of the lineup anyway.) Edited July 15, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Or they increase the EB35 premium to make room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Or they increase the EB35 premium to make room. With 380 hp and 460 lb ft, there's actually good reason to charge a little more for it as a premium engine. Make a bit of room in between the 5.0 and the EB 35 to stick the EB 27 at say $500 above the 5.0 V8, the extra bottom end torque of the EB 27 should sell itself on a test drive Edited July 15, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 In the FX2, Lariat, and FX4, it's $1095 to go from the 5.0 to the EB35. Slotting a mill between them is slicing it pretty finely, IMHO. Currently, that puts the spread between the the D37 and the EB35 right at $2K: D37 -> 5.0 = $1K, 5.0 -> EB35 = ~$1K. (The 6.2 is a much larger upcharge, but it's out of the lineup anyway.) OK, so the premium is a bit less than I thought. $500 increments isn't too bad. Or they increase the EB35 premium to make room. Quite possible...good point. the extra bottom end torque of the EB 27 should sell itself on a test drive I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Just for grins, here is a little video from Ford comparing the new 2.7L EB to the Ram EcoDiesel and the 5.3L Chevy. The Chevy did remarkably well, but the Ram was way behind! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1mBaEu-DVU&list=UUFTCJH8G8eGCHOd93HsyAPQ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) That test is not exactly designed to favor a diesel. That test is going to favor a higher HP engine over a lower HP engine. Increasing speed/maintaining speed against increasing drag requires power (force over distance), not just force (torque). Edited July 22, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 That test is not exactly designed to favor a diesel. That test is going to favor a higher HP engine over a lower HP engine. Increasing speed/maintaining speed against increasing drag requires power (force over distance), not just force (torque). That may have been the point... matching up with the competition's diesel to show exactly what you described. People who tow uphill need to know these things. If they used the Ram with the more powerful Hemi, I'm guessing it would have been a draw based on the Silverado race. That's saying something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) That test is not exactly designed to favor a diesel. That test is going to favor a higher HP engine over a lower HP engine. Increasing speed/maintaining speed against increasing drag requires power (force over distance), not just force (torque). Agreed, and goes to show that the diesel isn't all things to all people. Just being a diesel and having more torque doesn't mean it tows better. The smaller EB only be down 45 ft-lbs over the torquey diesel is rather impressive. But if a diesel isn't going to tow better going up a hill, then what is the point of the diesel in the first place? They will all tow perfectly fine on flat ground. That may have been the point... matching up with the competition's diesel to show exactly what you described. People who tow uphill need to know these things. Precisely! If they used the Ram with the more powerful Hemi, I'm guessing it would have been a draw based on the Silverado race. That's saying something. I think the Hemi would have pulled away from the EB somewhat as it is more powerful than the Silverado. But, it should, as the Hemi is the large engine of the bunch while the 2.7L is the mid-range engine in the lineup. Can't wait to see the MPG numbers for this beast! And dammit, give me an EB in a Super Duty for '17! Edited July 22, 2014 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Way to go Ford, get out there and beat the Ram diesel in a long grade tow test, the diesel may be fuel efficient but I think Ford just put paid to the torque difference - the intent here is to silence the calls for a diesel F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Has the 3.0L diesel been a win for Chrysler, absolutely it has, Ram is enjoying some of it's best sales ever. Ram is not F-Series and likely will never ever be any thing but a third place finisher. So any one saying the 1/2 ton Fiat diesel in Ram will make a dent in F-series sales is dreaming. But it has generated floor traffic for Chryco and is moving vehicles. Sales Chryco other wise would not likely have. So for them it is a big win. Also this is the first iteration of the Diesel in their 1/2 ton as it matures and is refined it will just get better, that is a given. The 3.0L VM in the Ram currently is not producing it's max available HP. So there is still room for improvement on that front. I imagine they did not to put the engine balls to the wall out of the gate with no historical long term reliability in a half ton application. A smart move instead of just going for the whole nine yards out of the gate. The fact that Ford even bothered to do a head to head means they are some what concerned about the Ram half ton diesel, Otherwise it would have just been ignored with nothing to prove against it. Ford does not currently have a diesel in the stable that would be suitable for the 1/2 tons either. The 3.2L is not well suited for the F150 being an older lower HP less efficient design. The MB 2.1L 4 banger oil burner generates more HP and torque than the old 3.2L oil burner with 1.1L less displacement, and is getting phenomenal fuel economy in the applications it is being used in. The 3.2 would need a comprehensive overhaul to really be suitable, and I don't think there is the flexibility in the design to do that with out a major ground up reworking. The 4.4L Diesel is now so old it is 2 generations behind the current crop of diesels and currently would have no value add for the F150. Diesel tech is still advancing with the latest units having dumped the DPF and reduced the volume of SCR fluid required per mile with more efficient designs. Losing the DPF results in increased reliability and fuel economy. No more regen cycle wasting fuel to clean the DPF. The very latest units off the drawing board are able to do away the EGR and the DPF and still meet current and future proposed emissions. It results in a drastic bump in HP and increased efficiency over EGR/DPF equipped engines. . These engines will once again have all the advantages and more we seen with the diesels in their hey day in the mid 90's in the light trucks. Although the 3.0L VM diesel is going to have a negligible (if at all) impact on F 150 Eco Boost sales what it is going to do is give Chryco/ Fiat the spare dollars and experience to R&D the next generation of lighter duty Diesels. And that is where the real advantages over the gassers including Eco Boost are going to be seen. The current 3.0L Ram posses no threat to the F-150's Eco Boost. Ford just needs to keep a close eye on the light duty diesels and stay abreast of the tech and not just ignore it and put ALL their eggs in to Eco Boost. We have pretty much hit the end of the road with gasoline engines tech wise. Diesels are still a good decade and a half behind the gassers in terms of tech advancements so their is a crap load of room for improvement. Matthew Edited July 27, 2014 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 As the 3.2 (and all the 4-cylinder diesels) is very important to European sales, it may be expected that there will be an update, to stay competitive. I wonder if Jaguar/L-R will find another, more modern diesel to replace the 4.4? Maybe the people who make the diesels for FIAT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) At the moment, using the baby 2.7 Ecoboost probably suits Ford's purposes better by appealing to more returning F150 buyers than ever a diesel ever would. You can bet the sales take on 2.7 EB will be at least three times that of Ram's 3.0 V6 Diesel, that is a smart move. Edited July 27, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) As the 3.2 (and all the 4-cylinder diesels) is very important to European sales, it may be expected that there will be an update, to stay competitive. I wonder if Jaguar/L-R will find another, more modern diesel to replace the 4.4? Maybe the people who make the diesels for FIAT? The 3.2L Diesel is a 5 pot motor. And ya never know where they may source their next Oil burner from. It seems to be a trend that manufactures are going out of house for their diesel requirements, which makes sense given the R&D costs required for new diesels. A company that is dedicated to the manufacture of new diesels can spread the R&D costs across several contracts making it cheaper to out source to them rather than doing it alone in house. Matthew Edited July 27, 2014 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) At the moment, using the baby 2.7 Ecoboost probably suits Ford's purposes better by appealing to more returning F150 buyers than ever a diesel ever would. You can bet the sales take on 2.7 EB will be at least three times that of Ram's 3.0 V6 Diesel, that is a smart move. Well I would think so since the 3.0L is only available in top trims and the F Series generally out sells the Ram at better then 2 to1, the take is more likely 5 to 1 or greater. Now if you compared equivalent trimmed 2.7's Eco's to equivalent trimmed 3.0L's I doubt the spread would be no where near as great as that. If you then adjust for sales figures likely the 3.0L is likely taking a bigger percentage of sales. So not as cut and dried as one may think. Matthew Edited July 27, 2014 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 It seems to be a trend that manufactures are going out of house for their diesel requirements Well, Ford's been bucking that trend. They replaced Navistar, and looks like it may be edging out of its partnership with PSA. The 3.2L 5 is due for replacement, and its replacement (5-cyl or 6) is likely to be better suited for the half-ton if the market has moved that direction. I really don't see that happening. I don't think that the diesel price premium is going away anytime soon either from the manufacturer, or (in the US) at the pump. Even as tech improves, the current emissions regs are still a lot harder on diesels than they are on gas--and new tech will probably close that gap, but I don't think its going to eliminate it, or even reduce it to a point where it's a 'no-brainer' to buy a diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inselaffe Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) The 4.4 is not out of date, it was designed at about the same time as the VM diesel and modern diesel base engine architectures really haven't evolved much since that time. Improvements in power, torque and fuel efficiency on Diesels have come from the Fuel Injection and Turbocharger systems, the most important aspects of the base engine are that they breath well, efficiently takes the heat away and can take cylinder pressures of 180Bar, which the 4.4l does in each case. Also, despite Oldwizard saying differently, the 4.4l is heavily based off the 3.0 Lion V6 that goes in the Jags & Land Rover. The most powerful version of the Lion V6 has 290Hp and 442ftlbs, both numbers are higher than the most powerful variant of the VM diesel. If Ford wanted they could relatively easily put the Lion V6 in. The 4.4l might be a bit harder to fit between the frame rails though. Not that I'm convinced about a diesel for the F150 anyway, not when the next generation Ecoboost's will probably have higher compression (or rather expansion) ratio's, cooled EGR and high energy ignition systems. Also CARB do like to make life very difficult for diesels, the next set of legislation is giving even the HD Truck guys night terrors. Edited July 28, 2014 by Inselaffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Well I would think so since the 3.0L is only available in top trims and the F Series generally out sells the Ram at better then 2 to1, the take is more likely 5 to 1 or greater. Now if you compared equivalent trimmed 2.7's Eco's to equivalent trimmed 3.0L's I doubt the spread would be no where near as great as that. If you then adjust for sales figures likely the 3.0L is likely taking a bigger percentage of sales. So not as cut and dried as one may think. Matthew So if we ignore all the sales that the 2.7 EB is going to have across F150's range and limit the discussion to high series trucks only, then the 2.7 EB will be no better seller than the limited availability 3.0 Diesel in Ram.. Gotcha. I thought there was a 3.0 Diesel Option for Ram Tradesman.. Edited July 28, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Well I would think so since the 3.0L is only available in top trims and the F Series generally out sells the Ram at better then 2 to1, the take is more likely 5 to 1 or greater. Now if you compared equivalent trimmed 2.7's Eco's to equivalent trimmed 3.0L's I doubt the spread would be no where near as great as that. If you then adjust for sales figures likely the 3.0L is likely taking a bigger percentage of sales. So not as cut and dried as one may think. I'm not sure what the point is of limiting it to the higher trim levels, as Ford's and Fiat's reasons for limiting access are presumably different--the EcoDiesel is severely capacity-constrained, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, which is unlikely to be a problem for the EB27. This is, IMHO, another point that helps validate Ford's strategy; by building their mill in a mainline engine production plant, they have the option of making it available across trim lines or using it to balance trim line sales. (My guess is that they will restrict it to either higher or lower trim levels, depending on how they choose to position it, to keep it from competing head-to-head with the Coyote.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I'm not sure what the point is of limiting it to the higher trim levels, as Ford's and Fiat's reasons for limiting access are presumably different--the EcoDiesel is severely capacity-constrained, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, which is unlikely to be a problem for the EB27. This is, IMHO, another point that helps validate Ford's strategy; by building their mill in a mainline engine production plant, they have the option of making it available across trim lines or using it to balance trim line sales. (My guess is that they will restrict it to either higher or lower trim levels, depending on how they choose to position it, to keep it from competing head-to-head with the Coyote.) The 2.7L EB won't be available in the King Ranch or Platinum F150s for the '15 MY. I'm sure they are wanting to push those buyers to the pricier 3.5L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The 2.7L EB won't be available in the King Ranch or Platinum F150s for the '15 MY. I'm sure they are wanting to push those buyers to the pricier 3.5L. By "it" I meant the comparison, not the EB27 itself, but the point was that Ford is using the EB27's availability to steer customers towards trim levels because they can, not because they must. Fiat is capacity-constrained on the EcoDiesel, so it makes more sense for them to restrict it to the higher trim levels--in addition to moving buyers to the more profitable trim levels, it also helps keep demand in check. If Ford is holding the EB27 back from the highest trim lines, that indicates (to me, at least) that they do not have a capacity constraint--or, at least, not much of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 By "it" I meant the comparison, not the EB27 itself, but the point was that Ford is using the EB27's availability to steer customers towards trim levels because they can, not because they must. Fiat is capacity-constrained on the EcoDiesel, so it makes more sense for them to restrict it to the higher trim levels--in addition to moving buyers to the more profitable trim levels, it also helps keep demand in check. If Ford is holding the EB27 back from the highest trim lines, that indicates (to me, at least) that they do not have a capacity constraint--or, at least, not much of one. Gotcha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Pricing information for the 2.7L EB. Sounds like an incredible buy to go with the 2.7L EB! To go from the standard 3.5-liter V-6 to the turbocharged 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 will add just $495 to the bottom line. The turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 will run you $1,995, or $100 less than it costs to go from the standard 3.7-liter V-6 in the 2014 F-150 to the EcoBoost 3.5-liter today. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/ford-releases-pricing-for-2015-f-150.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Pricing information for the 2.7L EB. Sounds like an incredible buy to go with the 2.7L EB! http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/ford-releases-pricing-for-2015-f-150.html Darn - now what are we supposed to speculate and argue about endlessly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Darn - now what are we supposed to speculate and argue about endlessly? Hmmm, how about the durability of aluminum now. Everything else has been refuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 By "it" I meant the comparison, not the EB27 itself, but the point was that Ford is using the EB27's availability to steer customers towards trim levels because they can, not because they must. Fiat is capacity-constrained on the EcoDiesel, so it makes more sense for them to restrict it to the higher trim levels--in addition to moving buyers to the more profitable trim levels, it also helps keep demand in check. If Ford is holding the EB27 back from the highest trim lines, that indicates (to me, at least) that they do not have a capacity constraint--or, at least, not much of one. Thanks Sooner, that was how I read the difference between Ford's strategy with EB 27 versus Ram's exclusive policy for the 3.0V6 diesel, considering the premium is above the Hemi, I'd say it's at least $2,000 more than EB 27. 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.