mackinaw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Ask yourself this. If Ford did decide to offer a light-duty diesel in the F-150, few people on this forum, if anybody, would criticize them. Overnight we’d be calling Ford "bold and gutsy" and congratulating them for paying attention to the market. Edited July 9, 2014 by mackinaw 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Ask yourself this. If Ford did decide to offer a light-duty diesel in the F-150, few people on this forum, if anybody, would criticize them. Overnight we’d be calling Ford "bold and gutsy" and congratulating them for paying attention to the market. what would REALLY toot my horn, is upon the release of the Aluminum Superduties they also bought the 4.4 to the table as an alternative to the 6.7, which is overkill for some..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Ask yourself this. If Ford did decide to offer a light-duty diesel in the F-150, few people on this forum, if anybody, would criticize them. Overnight we’d be calling Ford "bold and gutsy" and congratulating them for paying attention to the market. well, we are fan-bois..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 well in that light, does the F-150 need 4 body styles, 4 wheelbases, 21( YES 21 ) trim packages, X amount of wheel and tire packaghes, X amout of axle ratio, captains chairs, bench seats etc etc etc ...it seems they think market dominance is a direct reflection of catering to EVERYONES wish lists....so why would adding a diesel be any different?....... Once people started wanting more decked-out trucks that they can work as well as relax in, Ford was prudent to include trim packages. Wheelbases and body styles haven't been a new thing for trucks as they've always been the most customizable of all segments. Wheels, tires, and axle ratios could be for show... or could be out of necessity. All that to say... if Ford decides that a diesel option is prudent -- and not just by the Internet guys that think that every car should come with a diesel engine because, well, diesel -- then we'll see one. I'm not against it, but there's no demonstrated need for it. Like fordmantpw has said, most pickup owners who actually need a diesel have had no problem stepping up to a Super Duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Once people started wanting more decked-out trucks that they can work as well as relax in, Ford was prudent to include trim packages. Wheelbases and body styles haven't been a new thing for trucks as they've always been the most customizable of all segments. Wheels, tires, and axle ratios could be for show... or could be out of necessity. All that to say... if Ford decides that a diesel option is prudent -- and not just by the Internet guys that think that every car should come with a diesel engine because, well, diesel -- then we'll see one. I'm not against it, but there's no demonstrated need for it. Like fordmantpw has said, most pickup owners who actually need a diesel have had no problem stepping up to a Super Duty. easy answer...because there was no alternative........would they still have gone the route of the SuperDuty if Ford had a 1/2 ton lighter duty diesel alternative?...........so, my 2c...ITS COMING, just a matter of time.... Edited July 9, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Ask yourself this. If Ford did decide to offer a light-duty diesel in the F-150, few people on this forum, if anybody, would criticize them. Overnight we’d be calling Ford "bold and gutsy" and congratulating them for paying attention to the market. And they would be. They have a BIG advantage--they have the actual data they're using to make their decisions. All we have is observations of what they're doing and what they've done in the past, and have to draw our conclusions based on that. Given that Ford has not really screwed the pooch (when it comes to trucks) in decades, they have earned the benefit of the doubt in their decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) easy answer...because there was no alternative........would they still have gone the route of the SuperDuty if Ford had a 1/2 ton lighter duty diesle alternative?............... Not if they're buying the big PSD for its intended purpose. IIRC, the 3.2PSD's output is more akin to the Coyote and D37, so you'd wind up with the same compromised payload and towing capacity that Ram has with its EcoDiesel. Edit: by that, I mean that the diesel's payload and towing capacities are compromised relative to the gasser, not that they'd end up with the same capacities as the Ram. Edited July 9, 2014 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Overnight we’d be calling Ford "bold and gutsy" Nah. Making the most powerful engine option a turbo V6 and building the truck out of aluminum are 'bold and gutsy'. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 easy answer...because there was no alternative........would they still have gone the route of the SuperDuty if Ford had a 1/2 ton lighter duty diesel alternative? Depends on what was more important, the diesel engine or the total package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) The AN article also says that the EcoDiesels only spend 13 days on the lot, compared to 90+ days for other Ram models. It sounds like they're having more trouble getting the mills than moving the trucks. If I read you correctly, you are saying it is a supply issue, which I agree. If you do the math, that is most likely a function of limited supply, not indicative of real significant change in demand or market dynamics. I'm definitely not arguing with you... I'm just trying to tease out the logic blind spot in the AN article. Days in inventory are affected by two things... supply and demand. You can manipulate that number by changing either lever. The industry typically views 45 to 60 days supply in inventory as optimal but on high volume products like fullsize pickup, Ford, GM, and FCA all maintain something closer to 70 or 80 days inventory because it provides more flexibility. FCA has not released the actual sales number of the diesel 1500 so we can only speculate. But we know the upper limit for 2014 model year is 10,000 units over about 7 actual months of production (March to September), so that's an average of 1,428 units per month. If you assume a slow ramp up in production (typical), it's possible that there is basically only maybe 1,000 units in dealer stock now. That sounds like limited supply to me, not unmet demand. When October or November rolls around and FCA has 5,000 units in inventory, the days sales in inventory may go up to 70 days. Edited July 9, 2014 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKNSLS Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) As someone who towed a 5,000 pound travel trailer with a half-ton pickup around the USA last year, I know a little about max towing and payload. Most half-tons (I know Ford has the Max-tow package-that's an exception) will reach their "payload" well before their max towing capability as spec'ed by the manufacturer. If you spend anytime at all over on the "RV boards" you will find out there are literally 100's of posts about guys who bought half-ton trucks with 9,000 plus tow ratings and didn't know a thing about "payload". Then all of a sudden they need to tell their wife they can't tow the big trailer she picked out. They come to the board seeking answers-which are "buy a bigger truck or a smaller trailer". The Dodge/RAMS for anybody informed knows about their traditional low payload numbers, so some who are buying the new diesel know about low payloads and just want the diesel for whatever reasons. Edited July 9, 2014 by CKNSLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 easy answer...because there was no alternative........would they still have gone the route of the SuperDuty if Ford had a 1/2 ton lighter duty diesel alternative?...........so, my 2c...ITS COMING, just a matter of time.... I agree with this... diesel F-150 is coming. Probably not in 2015 or 2016, but it will be available eventually sometime during the lifetime of the next F-150. Ford has many different avenues to raise its truck CAFE to meet 2017 standards and it would be wise to keep them all on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 what would REALLY toot my horn, is upon the release of the Aluminum Superduties they also bought the 4.4 to the table as an alternative to the 6.7, which is overkill for some..... Amen! Would love to see that! 300HP/550 ft-lbs would be perfect in an F250 IMO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Depends on what was more important, the diesel engine or the total package. I would go so far as to say the major advantage is ability to retain respectable mileage under load...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Amen! Would love to see that! 300HP/550 ft-lbs would be perfect in an F250 IMO. I thought there was a problem with the 4.4 meeting upcoming emissions regs, and that was why they were only selling it to JLR instead of using it in trucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I would go so far as to say the major advantage is ability to retain respectable mileage under load...... The problem is that you can't have much load with the Ram diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The problem is that you can't have much load with the Ram diesel. BUT Richard...it can still tow a reasonable amount and get better mileage than any other manufacturers engine and STILL accelerate up the grapevine....point is under load a gas engine SUCKS gas....and adding a turbo only compounds the issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I would go so far as to say the major advantage is ability to retain respectable mileage under load...... Capability versus fuel economy. You prefer more of one, you lose part of the other. That's the dilemma with any car, no matter what powers it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I thought there was a problem with the 4.4 meeting upcoming emissions regs, and that was why they were only selling it to JLR instead of using it in trucks? No, I think they just determined that the 4.4L wasn't going to be economical in the F150 (where it was originally planned to go). It was due to come out right when the economy took a dump, and the higher emissions regs cost too much to meet (though it could meet them). At least that's what I remember hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Capability versus fuel economy. You prefer more of one, you lose part of the other. That's the dilemma with any car, no matter what powers it. not necessarily, Dodge has just done a lousy job....I would bet the farm if Ford does release a diesel F-150 its numbers will be resoundingly better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 No, I think they just determined that the 4.4L wasn't going to be economical in the F150 (where it was originally planned to go). It was due to come out right when the economy took a dump, and the higher emissions regs cost too much to meet (though it could meet them). At least that's what I remember hearing. from what i heard the 4.4 is a VERY expensive engine AND its capabilities may have actually taken away potential Super Duty customers....OH THE SHAME! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 not necessarily, Dodge has just done a lousy job....I would bet the farm if Ford does release a diesel F-150 its numbers will be resoundingly better... You're probably right because, as Richard is rightly implying, Ford builds a more durable and capable truck, engine notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 from what i heard the 4.4 is a VERY expensive engine AND its capabilities may have actually taken away potential Super Duty customers....OH THE SHAME! Yep, I heard the same though. With the F150 having 11k+ towing capability now, don't you think that is taking some Super Duty customers away now though? I would like to see a smaller diesel in the Super Duty, but I don't think it will happen due to the number of buyers that would opt for that over the 6.7L taking profits away. I mean really, do you need 860 ft-lbs to tow 12k lbs? Seriously? Even a V6 version of the 6.7L would be more than sufficient at ~645 ft-lbs and 330 HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 not necessarily, Dodge has just done a lousy job....I would bet the farm if Ford does release a diesel F-150 its numbers will be resoundingly better... Well then they won't be putting the 3.2L I5 in it, unless they tune it up drastically from the 350 ft-lbs it churns out in the Transit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 BUT Richard...it can still tow a reasonable amount and get better mileage than any other manufacturers engine and STILL accelerate up the grapevine....point is under load a gas engine SUCKS gas....and adding a turbo only compounds the issue. You're exaggerating the difference. All other things being equal, I'd love to see a straight up comparison of a 3.5L EB running at 2/3rds its rated load vs. this diesel running at 100% of its rated load. I'm going to guess that the numbers would be a lot closer than you think. Certainly close enough to call into question the wisdom of paying a premium for the diesel engine and then a premium for the diesel fuel. 2 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.